apologies for the inadvertent double post
& i thought you made yourself misunderstood very well
in any case we do appear to already agree to within 20 or 100 meters
--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G. McManus" <
mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> I feel that I am somewhat badly misunderstood, but we'll just have to agr=
ee to
> disagree.
>
> Lowell G. McManus
> Leesville, Louisiana, USA
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "m06079" <barbaria_longa@h...>
> To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 9:18 PM
> Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Mexican internal maritime allocation
>
>
> --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G. McManus" <
> mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> > Mike wrote:
> >
> > > you bet
> > > & which means it is the law of the land in mexico
> > > under the mexican constitution
> > >
> > > a law doesnt have to be in the constitution to be legal
> >
> > Of course.
>
> haha
> well now you say of course
> but in your previous message you were only interested in the
> constitutional boundary between state & federal territory
> rather than the legally operative one
> which
> of course
> combines constitutional & statute law
>
>
> & then on top of that
> you proceeded to conclude that just because the constitution refers to
> the maritime territory as federal that federal territory must end at
> dry land regardless of whether it is extended by law
> even by a law which names this extension
> the terrestrial federal maritime territory
>
> so of course you have to speculate about whether your invented wet dry
> line occurs at high tide or low tide
>
> for that detail was never contemplated in 1917
> nor ever pinned down subsequently
> other than by the 20 or 100 meters above high tide provision
>
> I think his point was that, since it's only a statute and not in the
> > constitution, the change for which he agitates can and should be accomp=
li=
> shed.
>
> yes but that means it would need to be changed from its present status
> which is of legal federal territory & jurisdiction
> & which he finds so deplorable
> or he wouldnt have written the article
>
> he wants it to be restored to its original constitutional condition
>
> > Perhaps his point is also that the constitution does not make mention o=
f =
> any
> > such 20 meters of dry land as part of the federal dependency, so theref=
or=
> e the
> > states and locals should have more authority over it.
> >
> > > as i understand all the above & below
> > > as well as other things i have seen
> > > tho i still havent yet read the full law yet
> > > yes indeed
> > > the 20 meter strip is outside the territory of the states
> > > as well as excluded from their jurisdiction
> > > basically because it is just part of the much larger & continuous
> > > federal maritime territorial zone
> > > which includes not just this dry terrestrial margin
> > > but all the tidelands as well
> > > & moreover continues at least 12nm out to sea beyond the low tide lin=
e
> >
> > But, by the definition of the ZoFeMaT in the Ley General de Bienes Naci=
on=
> ales,
> > it is ONLY the 20-meter strip coastal strip plus the surfaces of the od=
d =
> keys
> > and reefs. It does NOT include the sea bed.
>
> of course it doesnt
> because it doesnt have to
>
> the sea bed is already federal
> as i think you are also saying below
>
> It's the Zona Federal Marítima
> > Terrestre (Federal Maritime LAND Zone), not the Zona Federal Marítima
> > Territorial (Federal Maritime Territorial Zone). Indeed, no statute wo=
ul=
> d be
> > needed to put the tidelands and territorial sea into the federal public=
d=
> omain.
> > That's already in the constitution.
> >
> > For the reasons that I derived from my earlier recitation of the consti=
tu=
> tional
> > articles, I believe that the feds can hold the ZoFeMaT in the public do=
ma=
> in
> > under statute, and they can probably manage and control it as much as t=
he=
> y can
> > any federal property, but they cannot deny it as part of the territorie=
s =
> of the
> > respective coastal states.
>
> & i think they not only can but would & probably even do deny this
> or that poor guy wouldnt have been whining so pathetically about it
>
> & that is another reason why i continue to believe the punctological
> trijunctions fall at the stipulated distances inland of the high tide
> line
> rather than at either the high or low water lines you cant decide which
> you would rather speculate about
>
> >
> > Lowell G. McManus
> > Leesville, Louisiana, USA
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/
terms/