Talk:Leander Perez
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
|
|
Leander Perez is within the scope of the WikiProject New Orleans, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to New Orleans and the Greater New Orleans area on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. |
| Low | This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale. |
|
Looking to help? Check out the New Orleans To-do List:
|
|
I wouldn't say this article has POV issues, but it really could benefit from source info. I know some of the Perez family, and they're nothing like what this article portrays. -- SwissCelt 12:13, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
- Does this article portray anything about the "Perez family"? It seems to me that it says nothing about anyone except Leander Perez.Acsenray 16:46, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, and it does so anecdotally... which is my point. I can match anecdote with anecdote, but neither will give us any true sense of whom Leander Perez was. Sources will. It's not just a good idea, it's Wikipedia policy. -- SwissCelt 17:08, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Edit War?
What exactly is going on here? Why are there repeated attempts to remove the quotations?Acsenray 16:46, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
- I'm rather wondering that myself. I have no problem with the quotations, so long as someone can provide source info. If he said it, we can't deny it. -- SwissCelt 17:08, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Can you guys advise on propriety of rumor?
Is it proper to have a rumor (see Hurricane Katrina section of this article) on a wikipedia page? I thought that the whole idea was that everything must be verified by source.
- I just marked the section as needing a source. I also cleaned up the section so that it's a complete paragraph. -- SwissCelt 06:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Louisiana's "missing" oil revenue
Hello. I've read a few articles/blogs that somehow lay the blame of Lauisana not getting a cut to offshore oil revnue with Mr. Perez. Anyone have any more information?
- "In 1953, President Eisenhower promised Louisiana 50% of the tax revenue earned from its oil and gas production. One person, Leander Perez, who controlled Plaquemines Parish, didn't think half of the revenues was good enough, and demanded 100%. No one could get him to back off, and as a punishment, Louisiana got nothing at all." [1]
- "The Truman administration initially offered Louisiana control of the first three miles off its shores and a share of royalties beyond that. But, according to Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., Plaquemines Parish boss Leander Perez demanded all of the royalties or nothing -- and the state got nothing." [2]
- "Leander Perez, the powerful boss of Plaquemines Parish who not only controlled people but also a wealth of mineral rights, refused to take the deal. Perez was a greedy man by all accounts –– he redrew entire city boundaries to move along personal business deals –– so it was no surprise when he held out for 100 percent of all royalties off Louisiana’s shoreline." [3]
Thanks! Ewlyahoocom 20:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I do! Unfortunately, the facts are greatly muddled by modern day politicians and media types who have non-objective motivations (reelection, ratings, readership, etc.). In reality, simple federalism would lead to the conclusion that the U.S. President lacks the authority to offer on behalf of the country such a deal. Even more absurd is the notion that a Parish President has the authority to accept on behalf of the state any such "deal". Nevertheless, this too is a gross simplification of the issue. The following piece should illustrate how embroiled the issue was at the time and should elucidate the interaction between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches, which led to the current disparity in treatment between Gulf States. Note that the President's involvement was very brief and tenuous. He was only able to offer an executive order that had no real teeth. That was enough, though to get the process rolling and have the Courts and finally Congress join in the act. In the end, blame rests squarely on Congress' shoulders for forsaking Louisiana. Enjoy!:
The debate of how to finance the recovery of Southern Louisiana in the wake of hurricanes Katrina and Rita has recently focused on Louisiana’s greatest resource, offshore minerals. Some Louisianans and Americans were shocked to find that Louisiana is entitled to offshore mineral rights three miles from its coast while Texas and Florida reap those same benefits to ten miles. Fashionable as it is to cast politicians as self-serving and corrupt – especially those hailing from Louisiana, it is natural that blame for such inequities has often come to rest on the white linen shoulders of Louisiana politicians.
It will likely surprise Americans – and Louisianans alike – to learn that this disparity is not the result of sweaty, back-room, bayou politics that lined the pockets of the powerful and left citizens holding the bag. Instead, the federal government defined the coastal states’ mineral rights. The resulting inequity can only be remedied by additional federal action. A brief history illustrates this point.
The oil and gas industry drilled its first over-water well in Louisiana in 1910. In 1940, a major oil field was discovered in Louisiana. In 1945, recognizing potential ownership and jurisdictional issues, President Truman proclaimed “exclusive jurisdiction” over the resources on and below the continental shelf of the United States, which was comprised of offshore water bottoms or “submerged lands.” Exec. Proc. No. 2667, 10 F.R. 12303 (1945). In 1947, Louisiana drilled its first well out of sight of land. Since the true meaning of President Truman’s proclamation of “exclusive jurisdiction” had not yet taken form, Louisiana argued that it owned all submerged lands and minerals offshore of its coast. Louisiana contended that its fragile coast line, infrastructure, and people supported the extraction efforts and paid the price in wetlands destruction, wildlife habitat loss, road and port maintenance, sweat, blood, and human lives.
In 1947, U.S. Attorney General Tom Clark filed a lawsuit in the U.S. Supreme Court against California, U.S. v. California, and sought to use President Truman’s 1945 proclamation to assert federal ownership over submerged lands. 332 U.S. 19, (1947). Therein, the Court held that the federal government had “paramount rights” in those submerged lands off of California’s Pacific coast. The Court later extended the principles of U.S. v. California to the Gulf States’ submerged lands, including Louisiana, in 1950. U.S. v. State of Louisiana, 339 U.S. 699 (1950).
The Court’s “paramount rights” language, equally as vague as President Truman’s “exclusive jurisdiction” language, gave way to clarification efforts by the U.S. Congress. Accordingly, in 1953, Congress passed and President Eisenhower signed the Submerged Lands Act (“SLA”). 43 USC 1301. The SLA declared that all submerged lands and minerals beyond three miles of a state’s shores were owned by the U.S. However, if a Gulf Coast State could prove in court that its boundary was greater than three miles, it would be entitled to the submerged lands and minerals out to that boundary but not to exceed three leagues (approximately ten miles). To prove such a boundary, the Act declared that the operative border was the one that was in place at the time of the State’s entry into the Union.
Again, the stage was set for legal battle. In 1960, the Gulf Coast States, including Louisiana, attempted to prove the maximum three league boundaries in U.S. v. States of Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida. 363 U.S. 1 (1960). Following Congress’ direction, the Court analyzed each state’s Act admitting it to the Union. The Act of 1812, which admitted Louisiana to the Union and was thereby the operative boundary according to the SLA, reads in part as follows: “. . . to the Gulf of Mexico; thence, bounded by said gulf, to the place of beginning, including all islands within three leagues of the coast . . . .”
Louisiana made several arguments. One of which was that it was logical to conclude that if islands three leagues from Louisiana’s coast were within Louisiana’s boundary according to the Act of 1812, then the submerged lands adjacent to those islands must also be within Louisiana’s boundary. The federal government countered that the Act of 1812 mentioned nothing of the surrounding submerged lands; therefore, it was impossible to contemplate Louisiana owning submerged lands beyond three miles. Amazingly, the Supreme Court sided with the federal government and held that Louisiana’s boundary was three miles from shore.
In that same case, the Court held that Texas was entitled to submerged lands three leagues from its coast based on an 1836 Act passed internally by the Texas Congress that read as follows: “. . . running west along the Gulf of Mexico three leagues from land, to the mouth of the Rio Grande . . . .” Although it sounds very similar to the verbiage in the Act of 1812, the result was vastly different.
When it passed the SLA, it is difficult to believe that U.S. Congress intended to treat neighboring states so differently. It is incredulous, though, that Congress did nothing to amend the Act to provide equally for sister states once the Court exposed the discrepancy that the SLA created. After all, it is understandable that a nearly 200 year old document (the Act of 1812) is silent about offshore submerged lands rights.
[edit] Leadership of what?
- In the 1950s and 1960s, Perez became a nationally prominent opponent of desegregation, taking a leadership role along with William M. Rainach, Shelby M. Jackson, Strom Thurmond, George C. Wallace, Sr., and Ross Barnett.
Leadership role in what? What common organization connected those above except maybe the Democrat Party? 68.50.107.169 01:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Pronunciation
I'm inclined to remove the text saying "(pronounced PE REZZ)". Does this make anything clear that otherwise would have been confusing? If we need a pronunciation, perhaps IPA would be better? Wondering, -- Infrogmation 06:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Tomb
Rather belatedly related to material since removed from the article a few months ago, I was in Metairie Cemetery yesterday and snapped this photo of Judge Leander Perez's tomb. He is apparently buried within the city of New Orleans. -- Infrogmation 17:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
