In the 1930s, the determination of ownership and jurisdiction over underwater coastal areas in the United States was primarily based on legal principles and historical precedents. The specific status of these areas, whether they belonged to the state or federal government, was determined through a combination of legislation, court decisions, and administrative actions.
One of the key factors influencing the determination of ownership was the concept of "sovereign lands," which refers to submerged lands beneath navigable waters. The United States follows the Public Trust Doctrine, which holds that certain natural resources, including submerged lands, are held in trust by the government for the benefit of the public. This doctrine recognizes that the government has a duty to protect and manage these resources for present and future generations.
The ownership and jurisdictional rights over submerged lands were initially established through common law principles inherited from England. Under English common law, the Crown held ownership over navigable waters and their underlying lands. When the American colonies gained independence, this principle was transferred to the newly formed states.
However, with the establishment of the federal government under the U.S. Constitution, questions arose regarding the extent of federal authority over submerged lands. The Constitution grants Congress the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among states (the Commerce Clause). This power has been interpreted by courts to include authority over navigable waters and their resources.
In response to these questions, Congress passed several acts in the early 19th century asserting federal control over submerged lands. One notable example is the Swamp Lands Act of 1850, which granted certain swamp and overflowed lands to states on the condition that they would be reclaimed for agricultural purposes. This act recognized that submerged lands could be transferred from federal to state ownership under specific circumstances.
The issue of ownership and jurisdiction over underwater coastal areas gained further clarity with a series of court decisions in the early 20th century. In particular, two landmark cases played a significant role in shaping the legal framework: United States v. California (1947) and United States v. Texas (1950).
In United States v. California, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government held title to submerged lands within three miles of the coastline, known as the "submerged lands belt." This decision was based on the interpretation of the Submerged Lands Act of 1947, which confirmed federal ownership over these areas. The Court held that the federal government had paramount rights over submerged lands for purposes such as navigation, commerce, and national defense.
Similarly, in United States v. Texas, the Supreme Court affirmed federal ownership over submerged lands within three marine leagues (approximately 10.35 miles) from the coastline. This decision was based on the equal footing doctrine, which holds that newly admitted states enter the Union with the same rights and privileges as existing states. As a result, Texas, like other coastal states, did not have exclusive ownership over submerged lands beyond its territorial waters.
It is important to note that while federal ownership was established within certain limits, states also retained authority over submerged lands beyond those limits. The Submerged Lands Act of 1953 further clarified this division of authority by granting states ownership and control over submerged lands from their coastline to a distance of three geographical miles.
The determination of ownership and jurisdiction over underwater coastal areas continued to evolve in subsequent years through additional legislation and court decisions. For example, the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953 extended federal control over submerged lands beyond state waters to the outer continental shelf for purposes such as mineral exploration and extraction.
In summary, in the 1930s, the determination of whether underwater coastal areas belonged to the state or federal government was influenced by legal principles such as sovereign lands, common law traditions inherited from England, constitutional interpretations, acts of Congress, and court decisions. The specific status of these areas was ultimately determined through a combination of legislation, court rulings, and administrative actions.
Answer:
the protestant doctirine
Explanation:
B) North and South Korea remain divided at the 38th parallel.
C) SEATO continues to oppose the actions of NATO
D) The opposing forces are still operating under a cease fire.
Answer:
The correct answer is A. Today, Truman's precedent is not in force when presidents have to take military decisions.
Explanation:
The Truman Doctrine was a political principle established by President Harry S. Truman in 1947 in response to ever-increasing influence from the Soviet Union, later also China. The point was that American foreign policy should have a counter principle against communism as a main principle. Truman presented the policy in a speech to the House of Representatives on March 12, 1947.
Truman said the US was ready to respond to the Greek government's urgent appeal for economic and military support in the Greek civil war. Turkey, which was in a similar situation to Greece, should also receive American aid.
The Truman Doctrine marked the end of the American war coalition with the Soviet Union and marked the beginning of the Cold War.
1. The Nationalists led by Jiang
2. Inchon
3. Military spending increased and became a larger proportion
4. SEATO continues to oppose the actions of NATO