Subject: Re: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Boundaries through urban areas
Date: Nov 08, 2003 @ 00:33
Author: Lowell G. McManus ("Lowell G. McManus" <mcmanus71496@...>)
Prev Post in Topic Next [All Posts]
Prev Post in Time Next
----- Original Message -----
From: "acroorca2002" <orc@...>
To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003 3:53 PM
Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Boundaries through urban areas
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>