well this keeps sliding downhill in a way
because there actually is also a port of njny authority condo
& many similarly functional condos by other names
jurisdictional & otherwise
so on reflection i dont think this situation is really up to our
highest standards
tho your research certainly is top flite
& i appreciate the clarity
also i think there may be another constitutional provision that says
any dispute resolved by the supreme court is not subject the
congressional approval
--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G. McManus"
<mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> This situation comes down to what exactly does and does not
constitute a
> condominium. In the beginning of this discussion, I said that it
is "something
> of a condominium."
>
> First: The Bi-state Criminal Justice Center Compact creates what
can be
> described as a condominium of non-exclusive concurrent
jurisdictions, but it
> also speaks of the "geographical boundary" and "geographical areas"
of the
> states within the center--even as it negates all practical effects
of the same.
> To quote the compact, each state "hereby relinquishes exclusive
jurisdiction
> over the portion of the plant and facility of the Bi-State Criminal
Justice
> Center which is located within the geographical boundary of the
said state, [and
> they] hereby recognize the existence of concurrent jurisdiction
over the
> geographical areas of both states which are within the Bi-State
Criminal Justice
> Center."
>
> Second: I was under the impression (from the clear wording of the
US
> Constitution in the last clause of Article 1, section 10) that all
interstate
> compacts required the consent of the Congress. I had not figured
on the Supreme
> Court's 1893 decision otherwise in Virginia v. Tennessee (148 U.S.
503), that
> only some interstate compacts require the consent of Congress.
Section 10 of
> the BCJC Compact says that it is effective when enacted into law by
both states.
> No mention is made of the Congress.
>
> Third: In the case of Wyatt v. State ( http://tinyurl.com/u3za ),
the Court of
> Criminal Appeals of Texas dealt with some of these questions.
Wyatt was a
> corrections officer for Bowie County, Texas, who raped and killed a
little boy
> in Texas in 1997. While voluntarily within the BCJC, he was
questioned by Texas
> authorities in the Arkansas portion of the building, where he
confessed and was
> arrested. On appeal, his lawyer sought to have the confession and
arrest
> suppressed because they had occurred in Arkansas and to have the
statutes
> authorizing Texas jurisdiction throughout the building declared
unconstitutional
> for lack of Congressional consent to change the state boundary.
The court
> upheld Wyatt's conviction and sentence to death by lethal
injection, stating
> that the laws clearly authorized Texas jurisdiction throughout the
building, but
> that "The language of the statute does not attempt to alter the
state borders."
>
> So, the BCJC might properly be called a jurisdictional condominium,
but not a
> geographical condominium--if such a distinction could be admitted.
While this
> might leave us without any new tripoints in the strictest sense,
there are still
> tripoints at the junctions of exclusive Arkansas jurisdiction,
exclusive Texas
> jurisdiction, and the concurrent jurisdiction of both. However
imperfect the
> BCJC might be as a condominium, it is still unique in this country.
>
> Lowell G. McManus
> Leesville, Louisiana, USA
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "acroorca2002" <orc@o...>
> To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003 9:44 AM
> Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Boundaries through urban areas
>
>
> > many thanxxx
> > & comments intertwingled
> >
> > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G. McManus"
> > <mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> > > Attached (and also at www.mexlist.com/bp/bcjc.jpg ) is an aerial
> > photo map that
> > > I have made to show the Bi-state Criminal Justice Center
> > condominium.
> > >
> > > The placement of the boundary around the condominium is
predicated
> > upon the
> > > statement in the compact that it embodies "the plant and
> > facilities" of the
> > > BCJC. My interpretation is that this includes the property on
> > which the
> > > building is situated.
> >
> > good
> > i agree
> > & this means the tripoints can be made without having to even
visit
> > the er plant
> >
> > From my on-site observations, that property appears to be
> > > three-quarters of the city block, the remaining quarter being
> > occupied by a
> > > tall, slim, boarded-up old hotel building. The divided building
> > across Front
> > > Street south of the BCJC is the railroad station. North of the
> > BCJC, the
> > > boundary is shown correctly as it crosses the corner of the
> > sidewalks at the
> > > corner of Pine and Broad Streets.
> > >
> > > Before the BCJC was built, State Line Avenue continued through
the
> > block on
> > > which it sits--even with the corner of the block to the north
> > jutting into it as
> > > it does. State Line Avenue ended into Front Street in front of
the
> > railroad
> > > station by the east corner of the tall old hotel. The main
> > uncertainty in my
> > > mind is whether the right-of-way of the former State Line Avenue
> > might have been
> > > included in the BCJC property. If that is the case, then the
> > boundary between
> > > Arkansas and the condominium along the edge of Front Street
would
> > extend all the
> > > way to the ARTX boundary near the corner of the tall old hotel
> > instead of
> > > jutting northwestward to an acute angle. It would probably
take a
> > search of
> > > local cadastral records to answer this question and definitively
> > place the
> > > tripoint.
> >
> > both tripoints might however be probed for in the street first
> > just to see what factors might be at issue
> >
> > but before that
> > i would like to find out whether the federal congress has ever
> > ratified this agreement
> >
> > because if not
> > & insofar as the compact alters the character & location of the
state
> > line
> > then it is not yet constitutionally legal
> >
> > in which case the artx state line has never really legally moved
an
> > inch
> > nor opened up to admit this common territory in its midst
> > nor produced in fact these arartxtxn & arartxtxs condo tripoints
> >
> >
> > Therefore, my map is an approximation.
> > >
> > > Lowell G. McManus
> > > Leesville, Louisiana, USA