RNC Convention Platform Plank addressing Amtrak

[Alexandria Nick]

Rubber tired vehicles had also not been invented back then. So road building is really sanctioned only for horse drawn carriages on wood wheels.

The Constitution really does not say anything about construction and maintenance of metaled roads for gasoline and diesel powered vehicles either.

Hang on now, anyone of means was using iron banded tires because a wood wheel wears out, like, instantly.

I had to look up what a metaled road was, but one can assume that the framers of the Constitution would have had knowledge of such roads because they date to antiquity. The first asphalt road was built in 615 BC! And if they didn't, they were definitely familiar with pavers and bricks.

 

[jis]

Rubber tired vehicles had also not been invented back then. So road building is really sanctioned only for horse drawn carriages on wood wheels.

The Constitution really does not say anything about construction and maintenance of metaled roads for gasoline and diesel powered vehicles either.

Hang on now, anyone of means was using iron banded tires because a wood wheel wears out, like, instantly.

I had to look up what a metaled road was, but one can assume that the framers of the Constitution would have had knowledge of such roads because they date to antiquity. The first asphalt road was built in 615 BC! And if they didn't, they were definitely familiar with pavers and bricks.

So we are now going to argue about this in order to try to prove that railroads were not admissible, even though over and over the federal government has funded and subsidized development of freight and passenger railroads, and continues to do so today? Does it worry such folks that we are driving around in powered vehicles that would scare the bujeezus out of those poor horseys? Clearly they should be outlawed forthwith too, and forget about government aid given to propagate and perpetuate such malarkey. Of course Air traffic is completely out. I think the Commerce Clause issue raised by Woody pretty much covers it all even if metal tired and asphalt roads were known.

 

[kmock]

Apparently the fact that every mile driven on American roads and every ticket bought on airlines are also subsidized indirectly seem to not occur to these nimrods.

Over the years, I have stayed out of this argument when it has been brought up here, but now I will get into it. And I'm sure I will not be popular.

The Constitution expressly gives Congress the power to build intercity highways, or as they were called then, "post roads." (Article I, Section 8.) Therefore, spending money to build and maintain intercity highways is constitutional. The Constitution does not give Congress the power to operate transportation companies. Therefore spending money to operate a railroad is unconstitutional. (Amendment X.)

Railroads and airplanes did not exist when the Constitution was written, or course, but coaches and ships did, and the Constitution does not give Congress the power to operate stagecoach lines and merchant maritime fleets.

What were the Framers trying to accomplish by granting Congress the power to build intercity roads? They were trying to build an infrastructure that would knit the states together and allow commerce and communication among them. (It is worth noting that intrastate infrastructure projects like the Erie Canal came to the Federal government for funding and were told to get lost, because Congress could not spend money on things that only benefitted one state.) If they were writing the Constitution at a time when railroads and airplanes existed, the Framers might have included things like airports and intercity railroad rights-of-way as things Congress could build, because such things are nodes and links of a network, and building such a network helps tie the country together. But they would not have given Congress the power to operate railroads and airlines.

Remember, when in the 1860s the US government wanted a transcontinental railroad to tie the new Pacific coast states to the rest of the Union, they did not create a federal railroad -- they did not have the power, so that would have been illegal -- but instead paid companies to build it and then left those companies to operate it.

It is no coincidence that the unconstitutional Amtrak was created by the most "progressive" president of the last 50 years, Richard Nixon.

Ugh. these sorts of statements are incredibly politically boring. The constitution is an evolving document. We now have 27 amendments to it (including the original ten bill or rights, giving us things like free speech, unreasonable searches and seizures, right to bear arms (disputable), etc., etc.). Some of these amendments of been removed (21st amendment repealing the 18th is one of my favorites ). And moreover, it is up to Congress and the Supreme Court to then further refine what is meant by a 200+ year-old piece of paper, which is what they do all the time. Now, if the National Railroad Passenger Corporation were illegal (re: not constitutional), I'm sure it would have been brought to the Supreme Court long ago and argued out there. In fact, SCOTUS did determine that Amtrak is like a public entity in Department of Transportation v Association of American Railroads.

 

[cirdan]

The early indutrial railways and tramways of Britain were operated more like toll roads then modern day railroads.

The company would lay rails bteween two points and then independent shippers or customers would bring their own wagons and horses and pay a per-mile toll to use them on said railway because that was cheaper and faster than rattling along on bumby roads.

It was only after the advent of steam locomotives that that model was forced to change due to the stricter needs for scheduling and the fact that most shippers and customers couldn't afford their own locomotives.

 

[dlagrua]

In the interest of being non-partisan; I just read both the RNC and DNC platforms.The DNC platform includes a paragraph on improving infrastructure including roads, bridges, and passenger rail. The RNC platform does not mention much on infrastructure but there is nothing in it that mentions de-funding Amtrak. If Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump is elected will the situation on Amtrak really change for the better or worse??

 

[willem]

Ugh. these sorts of statements are incredibly politically boring. The constitution is an evolving document. We now have 27 amendments to it (including the original ten bill or rights, giving us things like free speech, unreasonable searches and seizures, right to bear arms (disputable), etc., etc.).

I was wondering where the police got the authority for unreasonable searches and seizures.

 

[WoodyinNYC]

The constitution is an evolving document. We now have 27 amendments to it (including the original ten bill or rights, giving us things like free speech, unreasonable searches and seizures, right to bear arms (disputable), etc., etc.).

I was wondering where the police got the authority for unreasonable searches and seizures.

You'll find that authorization in the Declaration of War against Drugs. And I know you feel safer because of it. Unless your ancestors were slaves.

 

[CHamilton]

Passenger rail and the party platforms

 

[jis]

In the interest of being non-partisan; I just read both the RNC and DNC platforms.The DNC platform includes a paragraph on improving infrastructure including roads, bridges, and passenger rail. The RNC platform does not mention much on infrastructure but there is nothing in it that mentions de-funding Amtrak. If Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump is elected will the situation on Amtrak really change for the better or worse??

Do you suppose that they are asserting that "Amtrak is an extremely expensive railroad for the American taxpayers, who must subsidize every ticket", because they really think that subsidy should be maintained or increased?

But of course, we have been repeatedly reminded by many responsible Republicans in the last few days that what is in the platform does not matter. It will be forgotten in a week.

 

[neroden]

The Constitution expressly gives Congress the power to build intercity highways, or as they were called then, "post roads." (Article I, Section 8.) Therefore, spending money to build and maintain intercity highways is constitutional. The Constitution does not give Congress the power to operate transportation companies. Therefore spending money to operate a railroad is unconstitutional. (Amendment X.)

Legally every single railroad in the country is a "post road". Look it up, it's still good law. Been the law since the early days of railroads.

 

[dlagrua]

The Constitution expressly gives Congress the power to build intercity highways, or as they were called then, "post roads." (Article I, Section 8.) Therefore, spending money to build and maintain intercity highways is constitutional. The Constitution does not give Congress the power to operate transportation companies. Therefore spending money to operate a railroad is unconstitutional. (Amendment X.)

Legally every single railroad in the country is a "post road". Look it up, it's still good law. Been the law since the early days of railroads.

We can debate the constitutionality of Amtrak but the reality is that government subsidizes numerous business and items within the public infrastructure; education, roads, , highways, bridges, airports, prisons, welfare, farms, parks, clean energy, grants for research, museums, and other things that serve the public interest. It is unfair to single out Amtrak, a vital part of the US transportation system, as being a burden on the taxpayer. If private railroads feel that they can do a better job than Amtrak, then I am open to giving them a chance BUT in simple terms there is no interest. Even back in the day when passenger rail was at its peak,it was marginally profitable. Freight was always where the money was. While I can visualize privatization of some of the commuter lines, I cannot see that the freight railroads or any private corporation will be getting into the long distance passenger rail business anytime soon.

 

[jis]

A private outfit operating as a contractor via a government granted franchise to provide specific minimum services for a specified amount of subsidy would/should be manageable I think. It is only in this sense that some commuter railroads have been privatized. I cannot foresee anything more radical being practical.

Specifically time and again it has been found that attempts to privatize the infrastructure leads to bad things, and tends to produce "too big to fail" behemoths who then has the society over a proverbial barrel. That is the case more or less in the US right now. Historically we got here in the process of trying to correct for too mindless regulation that existed before. The pendulum may have swung too far and in the need of some significant correction.

 

[leemell]

Where the rubber meets the road so to speak, Trump acceptance speech specifically mentions rail --- "...We will build the roads, highways, bridges, tunnels, airports, and the railways of our tomorrow." This puts him at odds with the Republican Congress.

 

[jis]

Where the rubber meets the road so to speak, Trump acceptance speech specifically mentions rail --- "...We will build the roads, highways, bridges, tunnels, airports, and the railways of our tomorrow." This puts him at odds with the Republican Congress.

And with the Platform too, which I am told does not matter since nothing written in the Platform is taken seriously by anyone apparently.

 

[Bob Dylan]

Ugh. these sorts of statements are incredibly politically boring. The constitution is an evolving document. We now have 27 amendments to it (including the original ten bill or rights, giving us things like free speech, unreasonable searches and seizures, right to bear arms (disputable), etc., etc.).

I was wondering where the police got the authority for unreasonable searches and seizures.

In addition to the War on Drugs (Phoney), the No Knock Provision of the Safe Streets Act ( President Johnson's biggest mistake after Vietnam), the Scarey Patriot Act and several terrible Supreme Court Decisions helped give the Police Un-Constitutional Powers to Harass and Arrest People in this Country.

 

[leacrane]

1. platforms do not appropriate money. The House does with Senate and approval. No matter who wins each rep will vote according to the interests of his or her own state.

2. so, how's Amtrak doing now? spending money efficiently? providing great customer service? having a great safety record?

3. Trump if you like him or not is not in line with all GOP dogma. In fact he is big on spending govt money on capital projects.

Maybe as NY er he'd be pro rail.

 

[saxman]

Did anyone notice that the word "railroad" already has "road" in it?! And to turn around and say the Constitution only allows the government to subsidize a post-road?

 

[afigg]

The Transport Politic blog has posted a useful summary of the transportation and transit spending proposals in the Republican platform, the Democratic party platform, and Hillary Clinton's $275 billion infrastructure plan. Donald Trump has issued almost no policy papers, so all there is to go by is whatever he had said on any given day.

Both parties claim support for investing in infrastructure. But how will they do it?

Rather substantial difference between the two parties platforms and positions on federal spending for transportation and infrastructure.