Taking "area-51" to court

Did anyone see the show on area 51 (TLC?) that mentioned how area 51 had underground motion detectors planted OFF of the government property AKA on someones private land near the base?

Could the person who owned this land not fight that in court ?

Any ideas ?

he could try but i fear all that would happen would be that the government would force him to sell them his land. for natinal security of course. they do it for roads as it is.

The sensors were on BLM land, and have since been removed.

the land surronding the base must be some hot property

Highly unlikely! Remember the Constitution contains an Elastic Clause. The Elastic Clause is a provision that allows the government to extend it powers as needed to protect the country. One example of this is when the Defense Department closed all US airspace to nonmilitary air traffic on September 11. If you (or anyone) takes them to court over these sensors, they will argue that they are there to keep spies away from the base because of the sensitive nature of what goes on at the base. They will also argue that the US is at war (which is true). The fact that we are at war, make us inherantly more likely to become the target of Scientific and Technological Espionage. Once they bring up this point, they have won the case, because No reasonable Judge will agree that one individual's right to privacy, is important enough to compromise the security of the Entire Nation over! The bottom line is this National Security is always going to win out over right to Personal Privacy!

Tim
ATS Director of Counter-Ignorance

The Elastic Clause

Originally posted by ghost
Highly unlikely! Remember the Constitution contains an Elastic Clause. The Elastic Clause is a provision that allows the government to extend it powers as needed to protect the country.

I am familiar with the Constitution, but not with the clause you cite.

The United States Constitution is organized into Articles, Sections and Clauses, all of which are numbered.

Can you provided the Article, Section and Clause number for this so-called "Elastic Clause"?

I can't find it.

Originally posted by Majic
The Elastic Clause

Originally posted by ghost
Highly unlikely! Remember the Constitution contains an Elastic Clause. The Elastic Clause is a provision that allows the government to extend it powers as needed to protect the country.

I am familiar with the Constitution, but not with the clause you cite.

The United States Constitution is organized into Articles, Sections and Clauses, all of which are numbered.

Can you provided the Article, Section and Clause number for this so-called "Elastic Clause"?

I can't find it.

We're each 1/2 right! The Clause I was sighting does exist, but it's not officially called the Elastic Clause! It's Clause 2 of Section 3, in Artical 4 of the constitution.

Clause 2: The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

Notice, it states that they can make any Rule or Regulation that they feel is needed! It got the nickname "Exastic Clause" because, it clearly doesn't set any limits on the rules that can be made!

Tim
ATS Director of Counter-Ignorance

What's In A Name?

Originally posted by ghost
Notice, it states that they can make any Rule or Regulation that they feel is needed! It got the nickname "Exastic Clause" because, it clearly doesn't set any limits on the rules that can be made!

Can you give me an example of someone other than yourself using that term to describe that clause?

I have heard of the “Elastic Commerce Clause”, but this is the first time I have ever seen Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 given the name “Elastic Clause” or an interpretation which would in effect nullify the rest of the entire text of the Constitution.

As the clause states, it applies to the “Territory or other Property belonging to the United States”.

That is actually a very narrow definition which does not supersede or nullify the limitations established in the rest of the Constitution, and I am aware of no legitimate interpretation claiming otherwise. It basically allows Congress to make rules with respect to federal government property.

Thanks in advance for any authoritative references you can give which would substantiate a different interpretation.

I wrote a paper for law class concerning the Groom Lake employees suit against the government where I touch on this issue of the government's need to disclose (or lack thereof) concerning issues of national security. If I can find it I'll post the paper if anybody's interested. There's quite a bit of legal precedence and even a Presidential order (first signed by Clinton and resigned yearly by Bush) that allows Area 51 to do whatever it wants basically.

[edit on 4/15/05 by crazeinc]

Originally posted by crazeinc
I wrote a paper for law class concerning the Groom Lake employees suit against the government where I touch on this issue of the government's need to disclose (or lack thereof) concerning issues of national security. If I can find it I'll post the paper if anybody's interested. There's quite a bit of legal precedence and even a Presidential order (first signed by Clinton and resigned yearly by Bush) that allows Area 51 to do whatever it wants basically.

[edit on 4/15/05 by crazeinc]

Wasnt that essentialy, Clinton, signed something that, pretty much said the groom lake facility doesnt officialy exist, And seeing as is does not exist, Something that just isnt there cant be sued.

[edit on 16-4-2005 by C0le]

i thought they now say that it does exist.