A unique website dedicated to fishing information from Florida's Northern Big Bend. This includes the area from the Econfina River west to the Apalachicola River
StMarksAngler wrote:Some of the ramblings on here about the "illegal" actions of closing boat ramps are just insane. It sucks, but it's well within the purview of whichever controlling jurisdiction is at play to shut down public access facilities for any number of reasons. Renovations, cleaning, public safety and well-being... The self-entitlement of some people, my lord.
The problem lies with the counties that leave it open to their residents. It's discrimination plain and simple. It goes against the rules set in place when they accepted state funding, which is collected from people outside of the county as well as within.
They can close them, but they can't play favorites.
StMarksAngler wrote:Some of the ramblings on here about the "illegal" actions of closing boat ramps are just insane. It sucks, but it's well within the purview of whichever controlling jurisdiction is at play to shut down public access facilities for any number of reasons. Renovations, cleaning, public safety and well-being... The self-entitlement of some people, my lord.
It's been explained why most boat ramps are different than what you described. They are federally funded with specific wording about how they are to be used and controlled. Sounded a bit out there to me until I looked it up.
Just for reference, Supreme Court precedence does exist regarding restricting constitutional rights during pandemics. In a 1905 ruling during the Small Pox epidemic (Jacobson v. Mass), in Justice Duncan's ruling he clearly states that all constitutional rights may be reasonably restricted to combat a public health emergency. And while some may argue that a ruling from over 100 years doesn't apply today, I would encourage you to look into what Texas is doing right now, as their court systems referenced this exact statement relating to restricting public rights in their state. I am not saying what Franklin Co. is doing is right or that this would necessarily apply, but I do feel it is worth noting that constitutional rights can be restricted.
STMU wrote:Just for reference, Supreme Court precedence does exist regarding restricting constitutional rights during pandemics. In a 1905 ruling during the Small Pox epidemic (Jacobson v. Mass), in Justice Duncan's ruling he clearly states that all constitutional rights may be reasonably restricted to combat a public health emergency. And while some may argue that a ruling from over 100 years doesn't apply today, I would encourage you to look into what Texas is doing right now, as their court systems referenced this exact statement relating to restricting public rights in their state. I am not saying what Franklin Co. is doing is right or that this would necessarily apply, but I do feel it is worth noting that constitutional rights can be restricted.
Please don't bring facts, logic, or legal precedent into this conversation.
STMU wrote:Just for reference, Supreme Court precedence does exist regarding restricting constitutional rights during pandemics. In a 1905 ruling during the Small Pox epidemic (Jacobson v. Mass), in Justice Duncan's ruling he clearly states that all constitutional rights may be reasonably restricted to combat a public health emergency. And while some may argue that a ruling from over 100 years doesn't apply today, I would encourage you to look into what Texas is doing right now, as their court systems referenced this exact statement relating to restricting public rights in their state. I am not saying what Franklin Co. is doing is right or that this would necessarily apply, but I do feel it is worth noting that constitutional rights can be restricted.
SCOTUS does NOT issue rulings... they issue OPINIONS!! As for precedent, it's over turned regularly.
Read the link below for information from a constitutional scholar on the constitutionality of emergency declarations. Please understand, the constitution does not authorize the government AT ANY LEVEL to suspend constitutional rights. This authority was not granted to the government by the constitution. It was granted legislatively and legislation CAN NOT grant powers to any branch of government not originally enumerated in the constitution. The ONLY mechanism for any branch to obtain new powers, is via the amendment process. I understand the legislature has done this numerous times, but that doesn't make it right or constitutional. Please, don't take my word for it...read the link. She's a former assistant US attorney and teaches constitutional classes. She backs up her positions with facts from the Federalist Papers, which are the handbook to the constitution.
starting to sound like football season maybe we need to move worlds largest cocktale party to c-quarters and quarantine evererbody there for 14 hrs GO DOGS!!
be glad when this over will not avoid Carrabelle hope two brothers survives this cant, wait to get back down there and spend some ga. money on boom boom sauce and onion rings
hairface wrote:starting to sound like football season maybe we need to move worlds largest cocktale party to c-quarters and quarantine evererbody there for 14 hrs GO DOGS!!
^ what he said . . .
Happy Good Friday everybody!
Even when things get a little dark, the Son still rises!
Some folks talking about the law actually have law degrees and licenses to practice law.
Some folks talking about the law have actually read the law.
That Supreme Court case does not allow disproportionate treatment of any citizen based on their state of residency.
That Supreme Court does not allow a county commission to exceed its powers as defined by the State Constitution and State laws.
That Supreme Court case does not allow excessive government action that does not logically and reasonably protect all.
The State of Florida has issued its order and the State government's actions trump the local county and state actions.
I'm in Franklin County and I will fish and I will be responsible in my social distancing. I don't have this oh my God the world is ending virus and I brought my personal physician, who needed a break, to certify that.
Access to a boat ramp is not a "constitutional right" as has been claimed numerous times here over the past few weeks. Kind of hilarious that actually needs to be said out loud.
Whether or not there is discrimination happening with regards to who is or is not being allowed to utilize ramps by some of these jurisdictions, well... there's a probably ample opportunity available here for some lawsuits to sort those questions out.
StMarksAngler wrote:Access to a boat ramp is not a "constitutional right" as has been claimed numerous times here over the past few weeks. Kind of hilarious that actually needs to be said out loud.
Whether or not there is discrimination happening with regards to who is or is not being allowed to utilize ramps by some of these jurisdictions, well... there's a probably ample opportunity available here for some lawsuits to sort those questions out.
Who made these numerous claims that it's a constitutional right to have access to a boat ramp? I guess i missed those.
