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

[ionlyknowy]

I purposefully referenced the Cherokee Indians and the Trail of Tears because it had the same relevance to the eminent domain question as the query whether the government could use lethal force to remove someone from his/her property in response to one of my prior posts discussing eminent domain. Ever hear of sarcasm???

Oh I thought you were saying that the govt. can take land for no reason.
And I was pointing out that land was taken from the Indains because they were deemed as only inhabitants not land owners...

Sorry.

 

[raystone]

Please... I am hardly a troll.

........... 11 pages worth of discussion.

And after 11 pages, RP is not closer to winning a primary, exactly the point of being a troll.

 

[torchbearer]

I purposefully referenced the Cherokee Indians and the Trail of Tears because it had the same relevance to the eminent domain question as the query whether the government could use lethal force to remove someone from his/her property in response to one of my prior posts discussing eminent domain. Ever hear of sarcasm???

Those Cherokee were not citizens.. they were technically, enemy combatants or more benevolently foreign citizens illegally in the U.S. territories. That example is not the government using force against its citizens.

 

[Thomas Paine]

Don't kid yourself that this nation is not impoverished. You, I, and everyone else in this great nation accounts for about $30,000 worth of national debt per person for a whopping total of $10 Trillion and rising by $1 Million per minute. In fact, the national debt increased by about $100 Million while everyone made their posts to this thread.

However, I think the question regarding who will be using the superhighway is being evaded. Will the public be able to drive on the superhighway or only the shareholders of the private companys who own the superhighway? If the public can use the superhighway (even if tolls must be paid), then the taking of private property for this superhighway is constitutional by the Founding Fathers' criteria embodied in the Fifth Amendment and ratified by the several states.

 

[torchbearer]

And after 11 pages, RP is not closer to winning a primary, exactly the point of being a troll.

Its ok, i've taken care of my business here locally, We have Louisiana gift wrapped for Ron. I'm just winding down for the night. I enjoy learning new things, and i've learned a few new things from this thread. This is a productive thread in the educational sense.

 

[john_anderson_ii]

Please... I am hardly a troll. This is the only issue of Ron Paul's I am unclear on and I wanted it to be cleared up. I, obviously, am not alone on this as my question has caused for 11 pages worth of discussion.

Yes, this is a very complicated issue. But now you see why Ron's answer at the YouTube debate was spot on.

It's not about whether a secret organization is planning this! They may be, they may not be, and it doesn't really matter. It's about what the United State could become if current globalist trends continue.

It is, in fact, a conflict of ideologies. No one has a problem understanding socialism Vs. capitalism, or authoritarian Vs. democratic. I just wonder why so many people have a problem grasping the concept of globalism Vs nationalism as opposing forces.

First it's a trade agreement to solidify trade. Then it's a highway to expedite it. Then it's a safety commission or some such thing to make common policy. Then it's an integration of the currency to balance debt and correct inflation for 'political expediency'. Then it's a new banking and revenue system for the new currency.

 

[torchbearer]

Don't kid yourself that this nation is not impoverished. You, I, and everyone else in this great nation accounts for about $30,000 worth of national debt per person for a whopping total of $10 Trillion and rising by $1 Million per minute. In fact, the national debt increased by about $100 Million while everyone made their posts to this thread.

However, I think the question regarding who will be using the superhighway is being evaded. Will the public be able to drive on the superhighway or only the shareholders of the private companys who own the superhighway? If the public can use the superhighway (even if tolls must be paid), then the taking of private property for this superhighway is constitutional by the Founding Fathers' criteria embodied in the Fifth Amendment and ratified by the several states.

Problem is... the constitution didn't authorize the federal government to build infrastructure. Those things were to be left to the states and the people of the states. again enumeration. if it isn't written, it isn't allowed. A constitution that is made to create a "limited" central government can not be interpret to mean whatever you deem "necessary and proper" if so, what is the point of writing it?

 

[ionlyknowy]

Don't kid yourself that this nation is not impoverished. You, I, and everyone else in this great nation accounts for about $30,000 worth of national debt per person for a whopping total of $10 Trillion and rising by $1 Million per minute. In fact, the national debt increased by about $100 Million while everyone made their posts to this thread.

However, I think the question regarding who will be using the superhighway is being evaded. Will the public be able to drive on the superhighway or only the shareholders of the private companys who own the superhighway? If the public can use the superhighway (even if tolls must be paid), then the taking of private property for this superhighway is constitutional by the Founding Fathers' criteria embodied in the Fifth Amendment and ratified by the several states.

You can classify anything as for public use... suppose I want to build a mall, and I want to do it right in the middle of Miami. Under your logic, I could then go to govt. officials, tell them I would support and donate for their campaigns if they exercised eminent domain to take the land I needed for my mall project. Then they would give me the land to build my mall. All at the tax payers expense?

I think that you must look at the intent of the taking for public use coupled with if it is actually used for public use.

If there is no intent in justifying taking for public use, then it only makes sense that the govt. should not be able to take the property.. it leaves too much room for corruption. And this is what the Constitution writers were trying to guard against.

In Kelo, the situation for pretty bad, the town desperately needed the development, and most all of the citizens agreed and you can see this because most of them agreed for the Govt. to buy their land from them without force of eminent domain.

The entire US is not in the state of the city in Kelo...

 

[dwdollar]

America is a UNION of states. Hence the term United States. If Canada, Mexico, or any other state wants to join the US then let's have a debate about it. Anything that supercedes this UNION is unconstitutional. I didn't think this was debatable?

 

[derdy]

There is no doubt NAFTA has been a complete failure. In the last democratic debate, Hillary Clinton was asked whether she thought NAFTA was a mistake, and she said "It didn't work out the way they thought it would."

American Companies move down to Mexico, get cheap labor, tax exempts, import their products into American, and sell them for the same relative price they before NAFTA.

It was a failure for American workers and the economy, but a great success for transnational corporations.

I'm pretty sure it was meant to be like that.

 

[NewEnd]

Problem is... the constitution didn't authorize the federal government to build infrastructure. Those things were to be left to the states and the people of the states. again enumeration. if it isn't written, it isn't allowed. A constitution that is made to create a "limited" central government can not be interpret to mean whatever you deem "necessary and proper" if so, what is the point of writing it?

I think interstates count in the "interstate commerce" clause.

And I dont see a whole lat wrong with the superhighway... allthough the NAU can be scary, because it undoubtedly becoe one of those bit by bit moves that slowly bleeds our sovereignity.

 

[Thomas Paine]

Actually, Article I, Section 8 authorizes the federal government to construct the superhighway. If you read the text of the foregoing constitutional provision (google it, I'm too lazy to retype it), Congress is authorized to "provide for the general welfare," "establish post roads," and "to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers..."

The "necessary and proper" clause provides the constitutional authority to Congress to build infrastructure. There are numerous cases that support the foregoing notion going as far back as Chief Justice John Marshall of the U.S. Supreme Court in the early 19th century.

Now, if "we the people" do not like the superhighway, then we do have a remedy by electing persons to Congress who will stop the superhighway. If the people choose not to elect persons opposed to constructing the superhighway, then the people have spoken.

 

[ionlyknowy]

Actually, Article I, Section 8 authorizes the federal government to construct the superhighway. If you read the text of the foregoing constitutional provision (google it, I'm too lazy to retype it), Congress is authorized to "provide for the general welfare," "establish post roads," and "to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers..."

The "necessary and proper" clause provides the constitutional authority to Congress to build infrastructure. There are numerous cases that support the foregoing notion going as far back as Chief Justice John Marshall of the U.S. Supreme Court in the early 19th century.

Now, if "we the people" do not like the superhighway, then we do have a remedy by electing persons to Congress who will stop the superhighway. If the people choose not to elect persons opposed to constructing the superhighway, then the people have spoken.

Yup, and RP is our man.


Article I Section 8
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"
"To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

It says that they may make all laws, but they still must abide by existing laws to "provide for the common general welfare"

 

[torchbearer]

Yup, and RP is our man.

It says that they may make all laws, but they still must abide by existing laws to "provide for the general welfare"

how do i benefit from this highway? Its not for my welfare.

 

[Thomas Paine]

"You can classify anything as for public use... suppose I want to build a mall, and I want to do it right in the middle of Miami. Under your logic, I could then go to govt. officials, tell them I would support and donate for their campaigns if they exercised eminent domain to take the land I needed for my mall project. Then they would give me the land to build my mall. All at the tax payers expense?"

The foregoing quote from a prior post is essentially the argument that was made (and that I would have made) on behalf of Kelo and I think a very valid argument. That is why there was an uproar in most legal circles when the U.S. Supreme Court rendered its decision against the private property owners. It is also the reason why some states in reaction to the Kelo v. New London decision enacted legislation that restricts eminent domain for public use and not "public benefits." I am proud to say that Michigan was one of those states who reacted accordingly against the Kelo v. New London decision.

 

[Thomas Paine]

It's not your welfare that is the sole consideration but rather the "general" welfare.

 

[ionlyknowy]

Article I Section 8
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"
"To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

 

[Thomas Paine]

To be quite honest, this debate over the superhighway should spur some folks participating in this threat and this forum that it will not be enough to simply elect Ron Paul as President. President Ron Paul is going to need some allies in Congress and that means some of you should seriously start thinking about running for Congress in your respective congressional districts. If not for the 2008 election, then certainly for the 2010 election.

 

[Thomas Paine]

Meant to type "thread" instead of "threat" in my previous post.

 

[derdy]

The highway would only be a threat to land owners if we didn't have NAFTA and the SPP. Instead it's a threat to our national sovereignty