Friday, July 02, 2010

Was Mrs. O'Leary's Cow was a British Agent?

By Phasma Scriptor

Mrs. O'Leary's Cow was a British Agent; the latter-day Cow is an Elephant, agents of the BP, or Why BP’s Alaskan faux island gambit provides ZERO protection against federal rules concerning offshore drilling

When the Brit-owned Illinois Central RR (technically, everything in a monarchy is owned by occupant of the Throne via dominion directum - absolute power to direct) decided to construct its main route from Chicago to Mobile, it was doing so as part of the Queen's grand strategy to take back the renegade colony. All the other main rail lines traversed the US E to W; the IC cut the country in half parallel to the Miss R, upon which the Brit Navy could navigate w/impunity vs. the puny American Navy (forget that silly 1812 affair). The IC would supply logistical support and rapid troop transport/deployment.

One ointmental fly - the crooked-from-year-0 Chicago City Council (dominated by the original ruling triumvirate of saloonkeepers, pimps & gamblers) which, w/o proper grease (that would be an actual shakedown, done Chicago-style), wasn't about to approve IC right-of-way into downtown Chicago. Undeterred, the Brits bought up available land as far N as they could - up to 55th St. ~8 miles from the business district (now the Loop). The rest of the route eventually veered off into Lake Michigan on pilings several hundred feet from the South Shore.

The Councilmen, wise in the ways of protecting their turf, passed an ordinance forbidding landfill off the lakeshore, obviously, a clear this-means-you shot across the bow of IC. As part of the Brits' 'scuse-us for their part in the semi-successful attempt to recoup the Amer colonials via the coup dubbed The Civil War, a specially-tricked-out IC train carried the body of murdered Prez Lincoln back to his home state of Illinois, at the Chicago terminus (pix are available). Inter alia, it was a return shot across the bow of the Chicago fixers.

6 years later, w/Reconstruction in full swing (there being no Honest Abe to prevent the post-war Deconstruction of the Constitution under the guise of freeing the slaves; Lincoln would have freed the slaves w/o converting the Rebel States into military regions, key to the necessity to eliminate him, he having been a praying man, not, as was the Queen, a preying mantis), Mrs. O'Leary's cow started the Great Chicago Fire, burning down the all-wood infrastructure of Chicago's downtown, all the way up to, hmmm, 55th St., where a man dressed-up as an Army Major just happened to be parked w/wagons loaded w/just enough dynamite to blow a firebreak in the wood-frame bungalows, heroically stopping the raging flames just short of the, uh, um, hmmmm, IC trackage from where it said bye-bye to the shoreline.

What to do? What to do? Here we veddy prahper Brits are w/all this construction equipment and all this debris lying around. Should we get in touch w/the Councilmen? Maybe, they might try to enforce that landfill ordinance. Naw. Let's go ahead and shove all this ugly debris into the water. We won't even charge ‘em.

Thus, the IC tracks were wondrously joined to land. The Queen was pleased. Of course, as any visitor to Chicago's South Shore and to Grant Park can see, the IC didn't stop the landfill gambit at their sort-of offshore tracks; those tracks now appear to be well inland. According to Illinois Central Railroad v. Illinois, 146 US 387 (1892), they're not.

The IC wanted to claim that the "land" upon which they had, with such intrigue, labored to reclaim from navigable waters, were theirs to do w/as the Queen pleased. The Supremes exclaimed, w/a nod to the Great Wizard of Oz, Not so fast. They held that navigable waters always remained navigable waters. Their reasoning:

It is a title held in trust for the people of the state, that they may enjoy the navigation of the waters, carry on commerce over them, and have liberty of fishing therein, freed from the obstruction or interference of private parties. The interest of the people in the navigation of the waters and in commerce over them may be improved in many instances by the erection of wharves, docks, and piers therein, for which purpose the state may grant parcels of the submerged lands; and, so long as their disposition is made for such purpose [and does not substantially impair the public trust], no valid objections can be made to the grants. … But that is a very different doctrine from the one which would sanction the abdication of the general control of the state over lands under the [146 U.S. 387, 453] navigable waters of an entire harbor or bay, or of a sea or lake. Such abdication is not consistent with the exercise of that trust which requires the government of the state to preserve such waters for the use of the public. The trust devolving upon the state for the public, and which can only be discharged by the management and control of property in which the public has an interest, cannot be relinquished by a transfer of the property. The control of the state for the purposes of the trust can never be lost, except as to such parcels as are used in promoting the interests of the public therein, or can be disposed of without any substantial impairment of the public interest in the lands and waters remaining. … A grant of all the lands under the navigable waters of a state has never been adjudged to be within the legislative power; and any attempted grant of the kind would be held, if not absolutely void on its face, as subject to revocation. The state can no more abdicate its trust over property in which the whole people are interested, like navigable waters and soils under them, so as to leave them entirely under the use and control of private parties, … than it can abdicate its police powers in the administration of government and the preservation of the peace. In the administration of government the use of such powers may for a limited period be delegated to a municipality or other body, but there always remains with the state the right to [146 U.S. 387, 454] revoke [emphasis added] those powers and exercise them in a more direct manner, and one more conformable to its wishes. So with trusts connected with public property, or property of a special character, like lands under navigable waters; they cannot be placed entirely beyond the direction and control of the state.

Soooo, building a faux island in the Beaufort Sea, 3 miles offshore, upon which to build BP's latest Doomsday device (dubbed Project Liberty), in order to justify claiming that offshore oil-drilling rules don't apply to BP's plan to put holes in really, really cold Alaskan water has, well, one honking big hole in it. Given the loss of the Gulf of Mexico shores, placing the enjoyment of those navigable entirely in jeopardy via this ruse is “always” subject to revocation.

Of course, we are talkin’ the State of Alaska, which, we've been lately given an entirely unwanted update, is populated w/"sportsmen" of which at least 1 is a "sportswoman" ("sportsditz"?). You betcha. All sportspersons own, at minimum, 1 shotgun per family member. And, I would guess, a significant number have sat w/their loaded shotguns, after a particularly bad day for harvesting moose antlers and ... think "The Deer Hunter" & Christopher Walken doing Russian Roulette duels. At that point, the typical Alaskan might catch himself (or her Sister-self) and realize, "I can't blow my brains out. I don't have any!! How useless is that?" More to the point, oh, wait a minute, yeah, that is the point. They're provably brainless, having put the Sister into the Governor's log cabin; thus, Alaskans aren't going to use the perfectly serviceable ruling in Illinois Central to insist that BP abide by offshore drilling rules on their faux island sitting on the public trust.