Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeSmoke
I'm not debating whether you have the right to travel freely.
I'm saying that the interstate highways were built (and are still maintained) with 90% federal funding, and in my reading of the constitution highway construction is NOT contemplated anywhere. The right to travel freely has nothing to do with whether the federal govenrment has the right to construct highways - I would think that a strict constructionist would believe that the federal government has no business building highways - that it should be left to the states.
So considering the fact that the states "own" interstate highways that were paid for primarily with federal dollars, I would think that you would support one of two positions:
1. Removal of the interstate highways from your state.
2. Your state reiumbursing the federal government the 90% that have they spent to date on constructing and maintaining the highways - at which point the state would actually own the highways and do with them as it pleases.
Either one of those two positions would be consistent with your strict reading of the tenth amendment.
|
This goes a lot deeper than we'll be discussing here. But I've already answered your questions.
"
Heretofore the court has held, and we think correctly, that while a Citizen has the Right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that Right does not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place of business for private gain." Barney vs. Board of Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82; Willis vs. Buck, 263 P.l 982.
"First,
it is well established law that the highways of the state are public property, and their primary and preferred use is for private purposes, and that their use for purposes of gain is special and extraordinary which, generally at least, the legislature may prohibit or condition as it sees fit." Stephenson vs. Rinford, 287 US 251; Pachard vs Banton , 264 US 140, and cases cited; Frost and F. Trucking Co. vs. Railroad Commission, 271 US 592; Railroad commission vs. Inter-City Forwarding Co., 57 SW.2d 290; Parlett Cooperative vs. Tidewater Lines, 164 A. 313.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeSmoke
1. Removal of the interstate highways from your state.
2. Your state reiumbursing the federal government the 90% that have they spent to date on constructing and maintaining the highways - at which point the state would actually own the highways and do with them as it pleases.
Either one of those two positions would be consistent with your strict reading of the tenth amendment.
|
I'm not sure where you live my state is more fiscally responsible than most. As I stated our interstates are and have been fully funded by gas taxes. I haven't checked their budget in a while but our DOT has been running a surplus for quite a long time. The federal government does send more our way like with the recent stimulus money but it always comes with some sort of strings attached. Do you see how that works? You are playing right into what they want. That is that they are in control and not We the People.
Now if you do want to go further down that rabbit hole I'll be glad to.
Once again from the Constitution describing the US Governments powers.
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17
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;--
I don't see anything in there about interstates.