A question for the great legal minds and constitutional experts on this forum.

jamma

Active Member
I think you are wrong. A state fishing license is required to fish in all national forest areas that I am familiar with. Perhaps you are thinking of National Parks, where a fishing license is not required, except if a specific park, like Yellowstone, requires a park fishing license.
I was thinking Gifford Pinchot but that was when I was young, may be different now.
 

Rob Allen

Active Member
Huh? Yes that is their job. To interpret the constitution to all the cases and unique cases. There is no box formula that fits all issues. The constitution...it was meant to be fluid and change as we and society change. Thus the interpretation or changing:updating whatever you want to call it for our laws of the land. Why it is such a prestigious position. Perhaps more powerful than the POTUS. They interpret the constitution as it fits a certain dynamic and make the law.


No the constitution was meant to be a rock because it is based on principles that are objective truth.. we can add to it based on those eternally true principles. We cannot change it because we no longer believe in those principles..



It's my understanding that in general the states have been given authority over that states fish and wildlife and the management thereof.

In the state of Wyoming non residents cannot hunt big game in designated wilderness areas without a professional outfitter.
 
Last edited:

Furled

Active Member
In the case of out of state guides or outfitters, even if the Privileges and Immunities Clause does not apply, then the Commerce Clause likely does apply. In the case of navigable waters, the Feds have claimed unfettered authority to regulate business under the commerce clause.
 

tippet

hardcore flyfishing addict
Check out the 10th Amendment of the Constitution to explore the right of states to generate local law.
Jamma,
I agree that the 10th amendment reserves powers not delegated or prohibited by the Constitution for the states or the people at large, giving them a lot of latitude. However, if a state tries to exercise its power over the citizens of their state and citizens visiting from another state, they must ensure that all U.S. Citizens are treated equitably under Article IV, Section 2 which does explicitly regulate these "Privileges and Immunities", taking it out of the realm of the 10th amendment. At least that is the way I read it. I am certainly no expert. Others have made it clear that the Supreme Court has indeed interpreted Article IV somewhat more narrowly in non-essential areas such as hunting and fishing, allowing states to discriminate against out-of-state U.S. Citizens.
 

jamma

Active Member
Jamma,
I agree that the 10th amendment reserves powers not delegated or prohibited by the Constitution for the states or the people at large, giving them a lot of latitude. However, if a state tries to exercise its power over the citizens of their state and citizens visiting from another state, they must ensure that all U.S. Citizens are treated equitably under Article IV, Section 2 which does explicitly regulate these "Privileges and Immunities", taking it out of the realm of the 10th amendment. At least that is the way I read it. I am certainly no expert. Others have made it clear that the Supreme Court has indeed interpreted Article IV somewhat more narrowly in non-essential areas such as hunting and fishing, allowing states to discriminate against out-of-state U.S. Citizens.
O.K., I actually read the entirety of Article IV Section 2 which you apparently did not, at least past the first sentence, because all it says is you cannot commit a major crime in one state and avoid prosecution by fleeing to another and that that state is obligated to return the offender to the state where the crime was commited. How this bolsters your argument escapes me but this is common when laymen attempt to interpret the law.

Thank you and good night. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

jamma

Active Member
And by the way, that "privileges and immunities" clause you are so enamored with? That was only ever included to extend those powers to slave owners should a slave escape to another state, even one that outlaws slavery. Once slavery was abolished that phrase became irrelevant, much like this post when you think about it.

You guys claim to exalt the Constitution but you have no friggin' idea what it actually says. But I thank you for the education.

b_illy, you may shut down this post but I think I already did a pretty good job of it. :cool:
 

Old Man

A very Old Man
WFF Supporter
Hey guys, we are all getting a history lesson here. Sit up and pay attention. I believe that states can make their own laws so that is how all this comes about.

I believe that the Bill of Rights and the Constitution are just guidelines. The States can make their own laws. If everything was the same from state to state we wouldn't need government in each state. It would be one big cluster fuck.
 

Krusty

Outta Here
Hey guys, we are all getting a history lesson here. Sit up and pay attention. I believe that states can make their own laws so that is how all this comes about.

I believe that the Bill of Rights and the Constitution are just guidelines. The States can make their own laws. If everything was the same from state to state we wouldn't need government in each state. It would be one big cluster fuck.
Isn't it one big clusterfuck already?
 

Support WFF | Remove the Ads

Support WFF by upgrading your account. Site supporters benefits include no ads and access to some additional features, few now, more in the works. Info

Latest posts

Top