- Apr 15, 2007
- 9,280
- 0
- 0
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aunzocnGrU48&pos=8
I lost my copy of the Constitution, where does it grant the federal government authority to regulate intrastate commerce?
Obamao: Federal Government to Control Light Rail
- Thread starter Patranus
- Start date
I lost my copy of the Constitution, where does it grant the federal government authority to regulate intrastate commerce?
Ozoned
Diamond Member
- Mar 22, 2004
- 5,578
- 0
- 0
The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) was created by the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 primarily to "promulgate and enforce rail safety regulations.
Public safety comes under Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution.
glenn1
Lifer
- Sep 6, 2000
- 25,383
- 1,013
- 126
Fine, let them take on those craptacular money pits. I doubt there's a light rail system anywhere in the country that doesn't bleed red ink.
Another anti-Obama PaTrollUs thread. Oh, joy.
Ignore works wonders for P-anus threads.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Well that's pretty easy, planes and cars routinely travel between states and are used for interstate commerce, hence you can regulate how they move around. In addition any time a state takes a single federal cent, the fed is allowed to attach strings for its use. I'm not exactly sure what the justification would be for regulating intrastate movement for municipalities that don't take federal dollars though.
- Apr 15, 2007
- 9,280
- 0
- 0
That falls under INTERstate commerce.
next....
If that is the case, why can't the federal government pass a national drinking age?
next....
Oh you mean like "the INTERstate"? I wonder what the prefix "inter" means?!?!?!
Huh, word on the street is that the light rail that Obama wants to regulate is INTRAstate transportation. I wonder what the prefix "intra" means?!?!?
Nobody's actually offered why it would be a bad idea, either, other than the usual strawman ravings about the constitution. There's no argument, just contrarianism... hand waving, nay saying. Whatever the Dems want, so-called conservatives are against it...
Make an actual argument- screaming hatred ain't it, either...
- Apr 15, 2007
- 9,280
- 0
- 0
Yes, the Constitution is a straw-man (huh?)
How is me bringing up the constitutionality of this irrelevant and attempting to divert the topic?
(If you haven't noticed, this is just another example of the federal government attempting to expand its power....in reality...THAT IS THE TOPIC)
Ozoned
Diamond Member
- Mar 22, 2004
- 5,578
- 0
- 0
If I am a resident of Nebraska, and purchase a service from a business that is based in New York, I and that business have engaged in INTERstate commerce.
The simple act of Drinking alchohol does not pose a threat to public safety.
The way you wave it around is a strawman- you just admitted such in offering that the real topic is the expansion of federal power, constitutional or not...
Leave the propagandizing to the pros, like CSG...
- Apr 15, 2007
- 9,280
- 0
- 0
Actually they did when they mentioned that these light rail systems are basically money pits.
So why is this a good idea again?
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another epic fail by FearNoEvil.
Even the ever trollish Patranous says, "The Obama administration is proposing that the federal government oversee safety regulations for subway and light-rail systems in the wake of several accidents that killed or injured passengers. "
Or in short, the need for regulation logically follows in the wake of accidents that killed and injured passengers.
And now the ever reading challenged FearNoEvil says there is no reason for regulation?????????? And dead and maimed passenger are not any reason for concerns.
May I suggest that failing kindly just shutting up, FearNoEvil should try to peddle his swill to the families of dead and maimed passengers to get the other side of the story.
- Apr 15, 2007
- 9,280
- 0
- 0
Again, this has to do with FEDERAL regulation not all regulation.
It is the states, county, and cities responsibility to effectively manage their light rail, not the federal government. Those entities should not be able to cost shift those responsibilities onto the greater American population.
Why exactly should someone in North Dakota pay for the mismanagement of a public transit system in San Francisco?
The simply answer is, they shouldn't.
It is the responsibility of the agencies the run these rail services to manage them correctly. This does not mean bowing to every union demand essentially barring them from terminating employees.
The fact of the matter is that it is the responsibility of the local elected officials to effective manage local properties/services. If they are not doing an effective job that that is only the fault of the voter. The fact of the matter is the federal government is trying to legislate responsibility, something that simply cannot be done.
Then again, I guess Liberals think the constitution is only toilet paper and we might as abolish state governments as they serve no purpose. Daddy Obama to the rescue: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z44noxCQWP8
Last edited:
Maybe because populous and prosperous states like California subsidize states like North Dakota quite heavily, and voluntarily. If it wasn't for federal monies, lots of red states would dry up and blow away, the population count shrivel up like dried prunes.
I'm sure North Dakota will continue to come out ahead, as will a lot of other red state ingrates and whiners...
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html
They're also the ones with the most to gain from healthcare reform, even though there's no known cure for stupidity...
So what you are claiming is no state or local regulations exist for safety of these trains currently? I'll assume you aren't that big of a moron.. but that may not be a safe assumption. Is there any indication that the Feds will improve safety over the current state and local regulations? Planes and cars still crash and have issues under Federal regulation. Are you going to keep peddling YOUR swill to the families of the dead and mained on our highways and airways?
And kindly quote where I said there is no need for regulation. Oops.. epic fail. Most of your post was just made up. I simply said nobody had posted a good reason why federal regulation was a good idea. I didn't even give my opinion as it if I thought it was or not.
I'll shut up when you learn how to read and stop posting lies.
- Apr 15, 2007
- 9,280
- 0
- 0
Nice dust bowl reference. I guess you haven't been to central California recently. Thank you federal government.
Where exactly did I say California should subsidize activities in North Dakota?
I am pretty sure I never said that.
Now, if North Dakota wants to create incentives to attract business than that is their prerogative. Hmmm the ability of states to compete against each other...choice and competition...sounds like a good thing to me...
But I off topic.
You realize that the only reason central California wasn't a dust bowl the whole time is ENTIRELY BECAUSE of the federal government, right? Who do you think built the irrigation network to begin with? How dumb can you be?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter