--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G. McManus"
<mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> Yes, I have read in the past about the jurisdictions in the NJNY
port area, and
> I seem to remember that it says that NY has jurisdiction over ships
in certain
> NJ waters and vice versa. Is there any actual concurrent
jurisdiction, whereby
> a person is subject to obey the laws of BOTH states?
>
> There are a number of interstate agreements, almost always
involving boundary
> waters, where officers of both states are empowered to enforce the
laws of
> either state depending on location in relation to the boundary, but
this still
> isn't non-exclusive concurrent jurisdiction of the laws (à la
Texarkana). Are
> there any other direct analogies?
i think the menh piscataqua harbor area deal is the only other really
special case in this way
but only because it involves concurrent enforcement in an area that
is in addition under dispute
probably headed for the supreme court as we speak
til then it is a sort of de facto condo
but even this most actual example still pales beside the real condos
we have seen like delu esfr omae etc
>
> Oh, congrats on your fine work all down through the mid-Atlantic
states. I have
> followed with rapt attention.
thanx & i know you are all here at play with me too
indeed i wouldnt be nearly so bright without you
>
> Lowell G. McManus
> Leesville, Louisiana, USA
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "acroorca2002" <orc@o...>
> 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/
> >
> >
> >