I am Pro-Ron Paul but don't see what's wrong with the NAU/NAFTA Superhighway?

[john_anderson_ii]

We would lose our sovereignty in the same we lose sovereignty to the U.N. and WTO only in a much grander scale.

When the U.N. passes a resolution, for the sake of argument, that everyone must wear white socks on Mondays, the U.S. is subject to this resolution. However, we citizens of the U.S. do not have proper representation in the U.N. We have one ambassador, who is an appointee of the President. He does not, and cannot, represent Americans from California to New York.

So in essence, the U.N. and the WTO make "laws" that Americans must abide by, yet our representatives do not vote on those laws. That is how we lose sovereignty to them.

A North American Union would mean that Canadians and Mexicans would have a voice in American lawmaking, and that is not in the contract we have with our government. Our government *should* govern solely by the consent of the people governed. So any organization outside our constitutional republic that passes resolutions, laws or decrees that are enforced on citizens within the borders of the U.S. are in reality "above the law" of the land, and oppressive to the people

 

[Patronus]

It's a U.S. road. Nothing about the highway allows for open borders. All traffic rules will apply as on any other U.S. interstate. It's just like any other highway, just financed differently. No one has complained for 50 years while the U.S. interstate system build freeways all across the country. It's also open to anyone to bid. A Spanish company won the contract for a few sections in conjunction with a construction company from San Antonio. The rest of the links through Texas will be open to bids to all companies yet again. Domestic companies just need to step up.

 

[Thomas Paine]

In addition, Mexican truck drivers do not exacerbate the drug trade. What exacerbates the drug war is this country's criminalization of drugs. Legalizing drugs would do more to eliminate the drug trade and all of its evil consequences far more than eliminating the superhighway or banning Mexican truck drivers.

 

[aravoth]

Also, if a company wants to use Mexican truck drivers, then it is going to hire Mexican truck drivers regardless of whether or not there is a superhighway.

Hire whoever the hell you want. If you think it's "just a damn highway" I wonder how you'd feel if a farm that has been in your family for generations was suddenly confiscated and sold down the river to a god damn foreign company that will use tax payer dollars to build it, and then charge your ass a toll to drive on it.

Why is it that no one gives a shit when it doesn't happen to them, and then when they finally get hosed by the rest of the "it's just a damn highway" crowd, they cry out to the same people that resisted it in the beginning, who then turn their backs on them. The trans-texas corridor isn't the only highway they have drawn up btw. It's a larger network, and it runs east to west also.

 

[Thomas Paine]

With all due respect, any analogy to the UN is meritless. If the UN passes a resolution, this country is not bound to abide by it or any other resolution.

 

[ionlyknowy]

The takings clause in the consitution states that the government may take property for PUBLIC USE.

Now highways are for public use, but if what is initiating this is Private business aspirations then I would say that this does not constitute the public use requirement especially if the road has a toll placed on it.

There have been takings in the past such as land for an airport. But a taking cannot happen if it is not needed. If a city has tons of airports, and the government wants to take land for yet another airport but solely because a private business would profit from it, then this is illegal per the Constitution.

Unless this super highway is needed by the people, and is implemented for the people for public use, then they cannot exercise emminent domain to take the property.

Even if they could take the property, the government has to reasonably compensate the people that currently own the land they will be taking.
Unless the property owner is creating a nuisance on their land, or by inhabiting the land are creating a public hazard.

This will cost untold billions of dollars. Imagine our government taking millions of acres of land (assumed legally), and Per the Constitution they MUST compensate these people with just compensation. Meaning market rate. Meaning Billions of dollars.

Do you see now why it is so bad. The government is overstepping it's bounds to put money in Private Businesses pockets at the taxpayers expense.

That is right, you pay taxes and your money will now be taken from you and given to the land owners that will be stripped of their land. All of this without you having any say in the matter..... If you dont find this disturbing then I dont know what is wrong with you..

 

[thatnerdyguy]

A giant super highway that gets built by the government enforcing eminent domain crap at tax payer expense, then charging tax payers to use the road, also giving up portions of our soil to other nations while being lax on driving requirements for truck drivers (think Mexican auto standards for Mexican drivers, without U.S. authorities being able to cite them for it). Is a BAD thing.

Ok, just reading in Wikipedia, it seems like it will be entirely privately funded. So tolls are no big deal here. Toll based roads are the libertarian way, so that is fine with me.

However, it does say the land will be aquired via eminent domain, which is bull. If a private company wants to build a road they should be required to PURCHASE the land required on the open market.

Without the eminent domain stuff, I see no problem with it. Econ 101, Trade = Good, Tarriffs and closed borders = Bad.

 

[Thomas Paine]

Also, if you don't want to pay the tolls for the superhighway, then don't drive on it. I would rather see a toll system in place for the superhighway because such tolls will be used for future road maintenance expenses. Moreover, only the persons that use the superhighway will pay such tolls. Otherwise, the U.S. taxpayers who don't use the superhighway will pay for future road maintenance expenses.

 

[Patronus]

Hire whoever the hell you want. If you think it's "just a damn highway" I wonder how you'd feel if a farm that has been in your family for generations was suddenly confiscated and sold down the river to a god damn foreign company that will use tax payer dollars to build it, and then charge your ass a toll to drive on it.

The highway is owned by the state, and only leased to the these private firms for 50 years. It is no different than an interstate. In all other cases, Ron Paul supporters are for getting government out of our lives. Here we have private firms trying to enter the market of transportation and we're crying like babies. We sound like Hillary Clinton calling for universal health care. "Only the big strong government can provide us with roads... "

Yeah it sucks that eminent domain is being used. But with its practice in use for decades to construct the socialist road system, private firms have no other way of entering the market. Please study the work of the Reason Foundation or the Mises Institute on this topic.

The NAU is bad. But the Trans Texas Corridor is just a small step in the solution to our transportation woes - not a conspiracy to jeopardize sovereignty.

 

[Menthol Patch]

Here is a link that has a ton of evidence that proves the NAU is REAL.

http://infowars.net/articles/december2007/031207NAU.htm

 

[sparebulb]

This is only a good idea for Texas. We don't have to pay for anything upfront. All the risk is transferred to a private company. TxDOT isn't paying anything. Plus the road is only under a 50 year lease. It's not owned by Cintra-Zachry.



Because Interstate 35 through Austin is a parking lot 75% of the time. I explained in a previous post regarding why the gas tax is failing us, but essentially it hasn't been raised since '91. Also it's indexed as cents per gallon - not a percentage. Gas prices, inflation and population have risen, but the gas tax has not.

You haven't been doing very much research about this if you haven't learned about the "no compete" language that is included in these agreements that prohibit the construction of ANY additional roadways that would (even if only theoretically) reduce toll paying traffic from these roadways. This guarantees 50 or 100 years of stagnation in development of new roadways. In Denver, a local roadway has been fitted with stoplights to slow down and increase congestion on a roadway that allegedly competes with a private roadway. See what your friends in "education" won't tell you?

 

[john_anderson_ii]

With all due respect, any analogy to the UN is meritless. If the UN passes a resolution, this country is not bound to abide by it or any other resolution.

I was just answering the question on how something like a NAU could effect sovereignty.

The Bush administration used U.N. resolutions, as a major selling point of the current war, so they do effect Americans. Even if they were just an excuse as in this case.

The problems aren't necessarily with the resolutions themselves, but the fact that our lawmakers are expected to enact legislation to conform to these resolutions and agreements. Often they do, no matter what the will of their constituents.

 

[spiteface]

I call it you providing comfort and support to a Communist Chinese regime with disregard to the realities of unfair trade policies that disadvantage your fellow American worker. Other than that, I'm all for fair and open trade.

So other than "unfair trade policies that disadvandage your fellow American worker" you're for for fair and open trade? LOL, gimme a break. How do we get screwed by Chinese trade policy? How about your fellow American consumer? My fellow American worker, if you're any indication, would step in and have the government stop me from buying what I want, and force me to buy his overpriced, union labor produced junk. To the extent that any country has a trade policy, it always harms the country with the policy but others may benefit. If a country retaliates against said policy, they just screw themselves. Free trade requires no document, communist countries involved or not. Free trade with ALL nations as Dr. Paul says.

 

[torchbearer]

If the highway is such a secret, then how come there are over 50 posts on this subject within the last hour???

Why don't the majority of people know about it, including reporters on CNN?

 

[PathIveMade]

Good info on NAU/ NAFTA etc.

here's a link.. there's some good info, many articles and a whole issue dedicated to the NAU/NAFTA in PDF format if any one's interested. Obviously, this is just a point of view, but I've found it helpful.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/node/6230

 

[JesseCRX]

It's just a damn highway.

This is not a propaganda piece. This is an award winning documentary on the subject that was released recently.

I hope this informs those of you who have questions about the TTC and SPP.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=792962976050500387

 

[torchbearer]

On the gold standard there can not be any prolonged trade inbalances because once they got all our gold, we can't buy anymore from them, so they have to start buying our goods so that we have the money to buy theirs...
Gold standard creates equality in trade by its limitation on currency.

 

[Thomas Paine]

Okay, speaking as a constitutional lawyer with a background in eminent domain, property acquired via eminent domain is purchased by the government at fair market value. Now, if the land has sentimental value for the property owner (as was the case for the homeowners in the U.S. Supreme Court case of Kelo v. New London), then the property owner will be less likely to be satisfied with the fair market value price offered for the property. (BTW, if a property owner has hired a good eminent domain attorney, then the property owner will definately good at least the fair market value price for the property, if not more.) However, the notion that private property is confiscated by the government without compensation to the property owner is meritless. In fact, if you read the text of the Fifth Amendment, the taking of private property by the government in exchange for compensation to the property owner has always been constitutional.

 

[Patronus]

You haven't been doing very much research about this if you haven't learned about the "no compete" language that is included in these agreements that prohibit the construction of ANY additional roadways that would (even if only theoretically) reduce toll paying traffic from these roadways. This guarantees 50 or 100 years of stagnation in development of new roadways. In Denver, a local roadway has been fitted with stoplights to slow down and increase congestion on a roadway that allegedly competes with a private roadway. See what your friends in "education" won't tell you?

I'm perfectly aware of the non-compete provisions. There was an utter failure in the case of State Route 91 in California because of it - failure for the state of California. They had to buy back the road from a domestic private consortium. Both parties in Texas are fully aware of the repercussions of unreasonable non-compete clauses. Both TxDOT and the Capital Metropolitan Planning Organization in Austin have addressed this thoroughly and have many other provisions in the contract to ensure this is the best thing for the area.

 

[torchbearer]

Okay, speaking as a constitutional lawyer with a background in eminent domain, property acquired via eminent domain is purchased by the government at fair market value. Now, if the land has sentimental value for the property owner (as was the case for the homeowners in the U.S. Supreme Court case of Kelo v. New London), then the property owner will be less likely to be satisfied with the fair market value price offered for the property. (BTW, if a property owner has hired a good eminent domain attorney, then the property owner will definately good at least the fair market value price for the property, if not more.) However, the notion that private property is confiscated by the government without compensation to the property owner is meritless. In fact, if you read the text of the Fifth Amendment, the taking of private property by the government in exchange for compensation to the property owner has always been constitutional.

Do you understand the difference between rights and privileges? The government has privileges, we have rights... The U.S. government was not given the privilege(enumerated powers) to take by force anyone's property under any condition. Not even to keep soldiers during time of war.