The And Object Of Annexation

The ending of the Spanish-American War left the United States with a controversial question. Many debates rose throughout the U.S. about whether the Philippine Islands should be annexed or not. The Philippines fought along side with the United States against Spanish to gain their independence. The annexation of the Philippine Islands would be unjustified and an act of tyranny. The decision done by the U.S. to annex the Philippines would rise uncertainty between the two countries.

Although controversial to some, the Americans made the right decision to annex the Philippines after successfully freeing them from Spanish tyranny and rule. Without American rule and support, the Philippines would have been an easy target to be taken over by Germany, England or Japan who all would have savaged the land and further suppressed the people. The Filipinos were weak, inexperienced and not ready to establish their own government and self rule themselves. During the time of the annexation, the Americans needed a strategic place in that part of the world to protect their interests, expand their trading partners and show the world they were a power to be

Amongst topics of conversation regarding eminent domain, one will find regulatory usage of land, seizing of land for public use, and the most controversial of late, the seizing of land from a private owner and giving it to a more economically beneficial, often politically connected private owner. Kelo v New London (US 2005), has prompted dozens of proposals to reform eminent domain practices legislatively. Most of these proposals would restrict the use of eminent domain to transfer property from one private individual to another. It is one thing to have a city claim property to further the development of the city by building roads, schools, etc. It is another thing altogether for the government to seize a property so as to gain money from higher taxation. For many years, however, courts have read the public-use restraint broadly, enabling governments to take property from one owner, often small and powerless, and transfer it to another, often large and politically connected, all in the name of economic development, urban renewal, or job creation.

In the United States, a tyranny of power has been allowed to occur. Thousands of residents have been done wrong by governmental powers without having any say so to stop it. The forcible annexation of residential areas without voter permission should not be allowed in the United States. Many would say the source of this problem of abuse of power comes from the days of American Imperialism. American Imperialism is when we would annex small, and what we considered to be lower, countries just for the use of power and extra money in our pockets. Whatever the cause, forcible annexation is something that wrongly continues to exist today.

| 21 |LO 4 |Basis for inherited property: community property vs common law | |Unchanged | 21 |

“No man is good enough to govern another man without that other’s consent.” Abraham Lincoln. (Document A). The United States did just this in 1898, when they annexed the Philippines. The Filipino people had been fighting for their independence against Spain for many years before the US intervened. The rebels, led by Emilio Aguinaldo, were grateful for the assistance. The Filipino people thought that the US had come to help free them from Spain. Unfortunately for the Filipino people, they were incorrect. On February 6, 1899, the United States of America annexed the Philippines, much to the disgust of the rebels in the Philippines and many people in America (including Mark Twain, Andrew Carnegie, and former President Grover Cleveland.) The reasoning behind this was partially for economic prosperity, thinking that the Philippines held the “secret route” to riches by being a trading partner and a jumping

The possesion of land has proved to greatly amplify and draw out several different stereotypes and conflicts between societies in the world 's history. From Many different accounts all over the world today there has always been a dispute over land. However other disputes shadow in that of the colonial New England settlers and the Native Americans, both virtually revolving their lives around this concept of land distribution. For the settlers it meant wealth and prosperity, for the natives it meant staying alive. William Cronon 's book, Changes in the Land: Indians, Colonists, and the Ecology of New England, illustrates the differences between these two separate societies and describes what life was like during the period of exploration and settlement in the New World. There are several other facts or opinions that one could take away from this passage, but the three main points are differences in the Colonist and Native conceptions of property, as well as how cultural stereotypes and eventual conflict emerged from mutual understanding of the land and use of property by each group.

• Whether the transfer of chattels and other personal property attached to the land were not fixtures under the general law definition.

Underestimating us, defying rules and power in our own rightful land. Mexico should not be treated so poorly after their gaining of independence. In 1836 Texas had gotten their independence from Mexico. Still 10 years later, America had interfered with the set border at the Nueces River (Doc B). Mexico was only defending their rightful lands and laws of slavery and governmental power when America invaded. Americas thoughts of going to war with Mexico were unjustified. Even though America was trying to achieve their American dream, and reach coast to coast; they never had to be disrespectful to Mexico’s authority and laws .The American government was being ignorant to Mexico’s governmental authority, invading their rightful territory, and defying the laws of slavery.

To begin with, looking at the sandstone model we can then identify its status and ownership through its classification being established as either moveable or heritable. However, if the structure is held to be moveable in nature and subject to accession it would become the property of Lisa . The case of Zahnrad Fabrik Passau GmbH v Terex Ltd. When looking at cases surrounding moveable property, ‘diminution of efficiency’ may result as the test of accession . With this in mind, and applied to James’ case, the folly ‘rests on its own weight although the site had obviously been prepared for it’, it is further established that the folly is in one part, and needed to be removed by a crane to be replaced by a replica model due to ‘substantial damage’. It can be easily established that the folly has been in situ for a considerable amount of time and as illustrated in the case facts ‘The plot was very overgrown’ it was only after considerable landscaping

The bald red, white, and blue eagle of American Democracy is coming for you Phillipines, run while you can! Theodore Roosevelt, the 26th president of the United States, was so infatuated with the idea of democracy, and he wanted every country to have a little taste of American freedom! After America's victory in the Spanish American War, George Dewey and his 11,000 American troops marched into manila and were unsure whether to liberate or occupy the filipino people. Thinking the they were here to help, the Filipino rebels trusted the Americans, but were soon betrayed as Dewey decided to occupy the land. The United States had three choices to determine what they wanted to do with the Philippines: Give it back to Spain, Give the filipino people their freedom, or to annex the whole country itself. With much debate ranging from artists, influential citizens, and government officials, the US ultimately decided it would annex! The United States should not have annexed the Philippines but rather should have given them their independence. While others may think the annexation of the Philippines would have benefited them, what the Philippines really needed was

Being one of the most extensive law reforms of the Law Commission, Land Registration Act 2002 aims to create a flawless legal framework for land registration, especially in terms of conveyancing with emphasis on overriding interests and adverse possession. It is agreed that the Land Registration Act 2002 (hereafter LRA 2002), by putting emphasis on strict registration, moved the idea of land ownership from ownership by possession to bureaucratization of title via registration. Therefore, LRA 2002 is said to bring further strictness and clarity to land ownership and subsequent conveyancing. In conjunction, LRA 2002 was expected to bring an “e-conveyancing revolution” to land registration which was awaited to be a major success. Although steps are taken towards this development, it is claimed that there is still long way to go before a complete and problem-free e-conveyancing system. Apart from matters relating to conveyancing, LRA 2002 consists of sections regarding overriding interests where their number and scope are widely reduced with specifications of registration introduced. Moreover, the Act includes strictly drafted provisions about adverse possession, aiming to bring further restrictions to this matter by bringing further difficulties to the acquisition of title and therefore shifting from a squatter prone approach to a registered owner supporting view.

On the contrary, in Bruton court’s understanding of “exclusive possession” was a relative concept. Exclusive possession granted to Mr. Bruton was found based on the fact that he was not required to “share possession with the trust, the Council or anyone else”[13] and “the trust did not retain such control”[14]. Whether the grantor possesses title or not was held to be irrelevant. Nevertheless, since LQHT in fact could not exclude the true owner (i.e. the Council) from taking possession, the exclusive possession enjoyed by the “tenant” would be “only as against the grantor and not the rest of the world”[15] and practically dependent on the contractual relationship. This has received support from later cases applying Bruton. In Islington LBC v Green[16]with similar facts to Bruton, the tenant raised an argument that the

The Land Registration Act (LRA) 1925 has drawn much flak over the years with regards to one of its most important provisions on overriding interests (OI), which often goes unnoticed until it swoops up and takes priority over the rights of a future purchaser. These interests often come in the form of other occupiers in the property with an equitable interest and, like in the case of Boland , this leaves the lender in a tight spot when they find out about the existence of these interests only after they have initiate proceedings for possession against the defaulting borrowers. Due to the other occupier’s concealed nature on the property register, the lenders have regained their footing by applying the concept of overreaching and ….. The Law Commission, on the other hand, contemplated abolishing these interest altogether but did not go to that extent because it was neither feasible nor desirable Instead, they shrank their impact on land by reforming the operation and scope of the OI. With LRA 2002 sch 3 para 2, lenders now have more control over what may bite them. …. This essay will access…. with a focus on how the lending world have dealt with the implications of Boland…. The best way to access the impact of … would be to go through the pre – post blabla to show how the thing has balanced.

E. M. Forster expresses his personal struggles with owning property in his essay titled “My Wood”. Through the fame and fortune presented to him after his most prominent novel, A Passage of India was published, he had the opportunity to expand his horizons and purchase land. Often times, countless individuals believe owning land and experiencing economic growth in a personal matter may make someone feel enlightened or perhaps powerful. However, for Forster, the experience only brought upon feelings of misery and self-condemnation. E.M. Forster’s presents his central question in the first paragraph when he asks, “What is the effect of property on the character?” (246). Forster refers to the contradictory nature one feels with owning