U.S. District Court Judge H. Russel Holland recognized the state’s interest in a lawsuit by plaintiff John Sturgeon on Tuesday, according to a news release issued this week by Gov. Sean Parnell’s office.
Sturgeon is suing the park service for not allowing him to use a hovercraft to hunt moose on the Yukon and Nation rivers in the Yukon-Charley Rivers National Preserve east of Fairbanks.
Sturgeon claims the federal Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 denies the park service the authority to enforce its regulations on those rivers, the same argument the state has been making for years but has never been upheld in court.
The Yukon and Nation Rivers are navigable, state-owned waterways, and hovercraft are legal under state law.
The state asked to be a party to the suit in early December in hopes of winning a ruling that would apply to all state-owned waters in areas managed by the park service.
“My administration will continue to aggressively push back on federal overreach, and efforts to control Alaskans’ ability to travel on rivers and waterways,” Parnell said in the news release Tuesday. “I am pleased the court recognized Alaska’s strong interest in this issue over the objections of the federal government to our participation in the case.”
The federal government will be required to file a response to the state’s complaint.
Contact the newsroom at 459-7572.
The judicial power of federal courts extends “to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction.” Art. III, §2, cl. 1. The federal courts have had a unique role in admiralty cases since the birth of this Nation, because “[m]aritime commerce was . . . the jugular vein of the Thirteen States.” F. Frankfurter & J. Landis, The Business of the Supreme Court 7 (1927). Accordingly, “[t]he need for a body of law applicable throughout the nation was recognized by every shade of opinion in the Constitutional Convention.” Ibid. The constitutional provision was incorporated into the first Judiciary Act in 1789, and federal courts have retained “admiralty or maritime jurisdiction” since then. See 28 U.S.C. § 1333(1). That jurisdiction encompasses “maritime causes of action begun and carried on as proceedings in rem, that is, where a vessel or thing is itself treated as the offender and made the defendant by name or description in order to enforce a lien.”
SEC. 9. And be it further enacted, That the district courts shall have, exclusively of the courts of the several States, cognizance of all crimes and offences that shall be cognizable under the authority of the United States, committed within their respective districts, or upon the high seas; where no other punishment than whipping, not exceeding thirty stripes, a fine not exceeding one hundred dollars, or a term of imprisonment not exceeding six months, is to be inflicted; and shall also have exclusive original cognizance of all civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, including all seizures under laws of impost, navigation or trade of the United States, where the seizures are made, on waters which are navigable from the sea by vessels of ten or more tons burthen, within their respective districts as well as upon the high seas; saving to suitors, in all cases, the right of a common law remedy,
As far as I'm concerned , both flyer5000 and FishinforTuition are wrong in this matter - quite wrong ( although I concede that I may not be fully understanding FishinforTuition's stance as his/her literary prowess or effort is at least lacking as mine ).
And as far as Jefferson goes, I'm not sure if you are making a case that the issue of slavery was addressed ( which there is no argument by me there, just that it was not resolved without unnecessary death, destruction and prolonged slavery in more than one way , one aspect that persists ) or that the South had some earlier debt of indentured servitude owed or owed the forfeiture of a right as payment.
So I have to ask, what liberty is there for one who has the inheritance forced upon him , left without his identity held intact, in which he has no escape without meeting the end of a bayonet ?
How is not slavery ?
No , FishinforTuition , I wouldn't be foolish enough to say that secession was legal, but would be wise enough to know that grand error in Salmon Chase's claim that the rights of the state and of its citizens ( of Texas and of the U.S. ) " remained unimpaired " as the claim that the right of secession of a state , on merit of it being a state , being " null and void " promotes the slavery of not having that natural right to remove oneself intact ( whether state, territory, etc. ) from an abusive and " usurpative " government.
CONT :
I, for one, will not mind in the least if hovercraft disappear entirely from our waterways. Sorry power-sports and mechanized hunting fans, but those things are nasty!
You might observe that 1953 was prior to statehood. Not that your argument held water even if it wasn't.
§ 1314. Rights and powers retained by the United States; purchase of natural resources; condemnation of lands
(a) The United States retains all its navigational servitude and rights in and powers of regulation and control of said lands and navigable waters for the constitutional purposes of commerce, navigation, national defense, and international affairs, all of which shall be paramount to, but shall not be deemed to include, proprietary rights of ownership, or the rights of management, administration, leasing, use, and development of the subsurface lands and natural resources which are specifically recognized, confirmed, established, and vested in and assigned to the respective States and others by section 3.
Holding Water? Now theres a concept, from the Corrupt Bastards Club?
Can we get another study, of why the rejects always get a government job too?
Who gives out the Tickets for fun, joyriding on the Federal Dime?
http://www.gloucestertimes.com/local/x638263511/Report-details-abuses-of-NOAA-pleasure-boat-bought-with-fines
And in this instance like a few others the findings of the court will not matter for the sale experts will continue to only view their knowledge as superior to that of the court.
Wilde already lose his case yet the issue is still brought back so some can tell us how they would have won the case.
I am happy NPS is in Alaska to keep this from becoming the overdeveloped state like Parnell comes from.
16USC1a-2h: authorizes NPS to promulgate and enforce regulations concerning boating and other activities on or relating to water located within areas of the National Park System."
16USC1B(1): NPS authorized to use appropriated funds for "rendering of emergency, rescue, fire fighting and cooperative assistance to nearby law enforcement and fire prevention agencies for related purposes outside the National Park System."
ANILCA, Title XIII, paragraph 139: ""Nothing in this Act shall be construed as limiting or restricting the power and authority of the United Stateor...
1)as affecting in any way any law governing appropriation or use of or Federal right to , water on lands within the state of Alaska..."
A district court case in 1999 decided in favor of NPS on "whether the National Park Service may regulate commercial tour boat operations on Rainy Lake within Voyageurs National Park." The Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal in 2000.
So Jefferson buys the real estate, and you believe secession is legal?
Texas v White, Salmon P. Chase for the confused...
"And thus was borne the rebel state of Texas..."
Why exactly did the Terror Of the Union Army get sent to Texas to Enforce the 14th Amendment of 1868, in 1865?
Why did Jefferson have a Republican Lawyer named Granger, and Lincoln on his Presidential Cabinet?
My God the Ignorance in this State is unbelievable.
Real Americans, ran North just like General Washington did 1776.
Those Virginians, who understood what America "IS" also ran North in 1861.
The Traitors, our Democratic Party, yours truly all stayed South, looser's forever...
"Like a Fire Bell in the Night....
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/jefferson/159.html