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

[Thomas Paine]

Meant to type in prior post that the property owner will GET (not "good") at least the fair market value...

 

[sparebulb]

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.

Why don't you learn a little bit more about the real trade policies with the Communist Chinese. Come back and look me up when you find where American companies have fair and equal access to Red Chinese markets once you factor in tariffs, quotas, and other restrictions. I'm all for free and fair trade with everyone.

You seem to have some pent-up resentment for your fellow American worker, Spiteface. Would you like to talk about it?

 

[Aus4RP]

What is bad about it? Why shouldn't we have it?

Please back up all statements with quality sources.

No propaganda videos on youtube please.

C'mon, There is going to be a High-way leading vertically-north from Mexico to Canada, I'm not even American and I see the absurdity in it. What possible benefit would it be to Americans whose land the road will be on?.

You have roads to Mexico, you have roads to Canada, think about it. It's all slow-reform change, implementing one thing here - there all leading to the American borders over-time becoming redundant. You need a damn wall, not a 6 lane freeway.

 

[sparebulb]

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.

And your point is..........? Sounds like another faith-based contract to me. You seem to have a great deal of faith in government and those that have worked very hard to quell public input and scrutiny of this project. Also, you praise the "no upfront cost" to TXDOT of the highway, but isn't this partially negated by the US taxpayer picking up the tab for the highway in Mexico?

 

[Delain]

You are thinking of "only" the highway. The highway is just one symptom of the NAU.
When thinking of the "highway" - if you just want to focus on that... and ignore everything else, then you need ask questions such as "safety" - who will control that corridor and will all trucks traveling that road need to follow the 'same' safety policy. If so, then 'that' safety policy will be an Umbrella for the three countries.

1. So, now we have a safety advisory council for all three countries. Now, because they are on "our" roads - what takes precedence? This 'new' safety policy or an existing one? Then, in this case - which one takes precendence?

2. Now that we have safety to concern ourselves with, what about "trade". What are the new trade policies? These trade laws, like the EU, will supercede American laws.

3. The obvious next step is - if you are 'TRADING' to such a degree - you are inweaving trade, safety - and because of "scary terrorists", now military - you would probably want a single currency - else, there would be too much fluctuation in invididual markets between countries.. - with such a trade agreement...THUS, the Amero.

So, now we have a trade, safety and currency that NOW is beyond America's sovereignty....

Then what?

Little by little this comes about... and this is ALL down without American citizens consent. Corrupt governors in Texas and elsewhere are allowing this to be built. Now, 'private companies' are pushing forward with the funding. Who are these "private companies" - who are they affiliated with?

Alot of nefarious things are coming our way.

That is exactly it. I see it like they want to go from A (sovereign nations) to B (regional blocks). If they presented their plan to the public they could never get it done, the people would not accept it. So they carved it up into small pieces and are implementing it one at a time. So it stays under the radar and out of view.

That’s the difficulty with a question “Whats wrong with an highway?” - It’s just one part. You have to include the other parts to get the complete picture, but then its being dismissed as conspiracy theory.

Indeed, "Something Wicked This Way Comes"

 

[Patronus]

And your point is..........? Sounds like another faith-based contract to me. You seem to have a great deal of faith in government and those that have worked very hard to quell public input and scrutiny of this project.

You have to have great faith in government to build all our roads in the first place.

Look, I-35, I-25 and I-15 essentially already go straight from Mexico to Canada. The main purpose of this corridor is not as a superhighway between countries. It's to facilitate travel and trade within our own country.

 

[Thomas Paine]

The Fifth Amendment expressly states in pertinent part: "...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

As the late and great Chief Justice Rehnquist stated in the majority opinion of First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. County of Los Angeles, 482 U.S. 304 (1987):
"Consideration of the compensation question must begin with direct reference to the language of the Fifth Amendment, which provides in relevant part that 'private property shall not be taken for public use, without just compensation.' As its language indicates, and as the Court has frequently noted, this provision DOES NOT PROHIBIT THE TAKING OF PRIVATE PROPERTY (bold emphasis mine), but instead places a condition on the exercise of that power. This basic understanding of the [Fifth] Amendment makes clear that it is designed not to limit the governmental interference with property rights per se, but rather to secure COMPENSATION (emphasis in the original) in the even of otherwise proper interference amounting to a taking. Thus, government action that works a taking of property rights necessarily implicates the 'constitutional obligation to pay just compensation.'"

In layman's terms, government taking of property is, and always has been, constitutional under the Fifth Amendment. However, if the government takes private property, it has to provide "just compensation" to the property owner. Defining "just compensation" in each and every case is what keeps eminent domain attorneys employed.

 

[sparebulb]

You have to have great faith in government to build all our roads in the first place.

Look, I-35, I-25 and I-15 essentially already go straight from Mexico to Canada. The main purpose of this corridor is not as a superhighway between countries. It's to facilitate travel and trade within our own country.

Thank you for making a statement that is clearly naive, incorrect, and contradicts with your previous assertions. Please show a greater level of skepticism in your professional judgement in your occupation before you start playing with other peoples' money.

 

[ronpaulfan]

Anyone supporting the NAU is a traitor

 

[torchbearer]

The Fifth Amendment expressly states in pertinent part: "...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

As the late and great Chief Justice Rehnquist stated in the majority opinion of First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. County of Los Angeles, 482 U.S. 304 (1987):
"Consideration of the compensation question must begin with direct reference to the language of the Fifth Amendment, which provides in relevant part that 'private property shall not be taken for public use, without just compensation.' As its language indicates, and as the Court has frequently noted, this provision DOES NOT PROHIBIT THE TAKING OF PRIVATE PROPERTY (bold emphasis mine), but instead places a condition on the exercise of that power. This basic understanding of the [Fifth] Amendment makes clear that it is designed not to limit the governmental interference with property rights per se, but rather to secure COMPENSATION (emphasis in the original) in the even of otherwise proper interference amounting to a taking. Thus, government action that works a taking of property rights necessarily implicates the 'constitutional obligation to pay just compensation.'"

In layman's terms, government taking of property is, and always has been, constitutional under the Fifth Amendment. However, if the government takes private property, it has to provide "just compensation" to the property owner. Defining "just compensation" in each and every case is what keeps eminent domain attorneys employed.

Is the US government authorized to use lethal force to take people's property if they resist?

 

[ionlyknowy]

The Fifth Amendment expressly states in pertinent part: "...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

As the late and great Chief Justice Rehnquist stated in the majority opinion of First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. County of Los Angeles, 482 U.S. 304 (1987):
"Consideration of the compensation question must begin with direct reference to the language of the Fifth Amendment, which provides in relevant part that 'private property shall not be taken for public use, without just compensation.' As its language indicates, and as the Court has frequently noted, this provision DOES NOT PROHIBIT THE TAKING OF PRIVATE PROPERTY (bold emphasis mine), but instead places a condition on the exercise of that power. This basic understanding of the [Fifth] Amendment makes clear that it is designed not to limit the governmental interference with property rights per se, but rather to secure COMPENSATION (emphasis in the original) in the even of otherwise proper interference amounting to a taking. Thus, government action that works a taking of property rights necessarily implicates the 'constitutional obligation to pay just compensation.'"

In layman's terms, government taking of property is, and always has been, constitutional under the Fifth Amendment. However, if the government takes private property, it has to provide "just compensation" to the property owner. Defining "just compensation" in each and every case is what keeps eminent domain attorneys employed.

Yes, but there has also been considerable litigation as to what constitutes "public use" in the above amendment....

The Government cannot take private property, compensate for it out of tax payers money, then sell or give it to a private entity that will not make the land use public.

 

[Thomas Paine]

Ever hear of the Cherokee Indians and the Trail of Tears???

 

[Electrostatic]

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.

So it's ok to remove people from their property using inflationary fiat money that loses value every day, and then pass the land onto a foreign company?

 

[raystone]

Originally Posted by Patronus
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.

And your point is..........? Sounds like another faith-based contract to me. You seem to have a great deal of faith in government and those that have worked very hard to quell public input and scrutiny of this project. Also, you praise the "no upfront cost" to TXDOT of the highway, but isn't this partially negated by the US taxpayer picking up the tab for the highway in Mexico?

WHOA ! Neither of these 2 started this thread, and they are now fighting it out.
doronster195 actually started this.. a 2 week member. doronster195 not only asked a divisive question to start some attacking each other, s/he also asked for "quality sources" to take MORE of our time. Why would an authentic RP grassroots member raise this question here, instigating division and infighting ? As many have pointed out, it's doronster195's role to research first.

 

[torchbearer]

Ever hear of the Cherokee Indians and the Trail of Tears???

Indians weren't citizens, they had there own sovereignty, they were a conquered people who if they wish, can remain sovereign on a reservation, a concession to the terms of ending the Indian Wars.

 

[torchbearer]

If the government has the authority to kill you for your property, then the constitution must assume that the government has a "right" to your life and property under any circumstances the government deemed necessary.
My rights are not transferable. sorry.

 

[c0unterph0bia]

The house I used to live in when I was a child was taken away by eminent domain. Luckily, they are required to attempt to purchase the property before seizing it. While we got a semi-fair deal out of it, others on our street didn't happen to have the legal team we did at the time. In fact, my neighbors almost had to give their property away for free because they had an "illegal 10' commercial driveway". They faced huge fines and their property was basically taken away because of the possible repercussions of their situation, should they refuse the governments offer. The government sends bullies in to attempt in every way possible to seize your land for as little as possible.

 

[sparebulb]

Originally Posted by Patronus
WHOA ! Neither of these 2 started this thread, and they are now fighting it out.
doronster195 actually started this.. a 2 week member. doronster195 not only asked a divisive question to start some attacking each other, s/he also asked for "quality sources" to take MORE of our time. Why would an authentic RP grassroots member raise this question here, instigating division and infighting ? As many have pointed out, it's doronster195's role to research first.

We're not fighting it out, we are putting it in perspective.

 

[lorindon]

So... I see that some troll has just pwn'd the grassroots forum.

 

[torchbearer]

Part of my family is Cherokee from the fort smith Arkansas area.. i know of the trail of tears... i have heard about it many times. My great grandfather didn't even speak english or have a birth certificate.