[Chancellor]

Quote by: christibe what? I only said that the bridge itself existed because of the Interstate highway system, as The Decider very eloquently portays above

No, what you said was, "So, though it is maintained by the state of Minnesota, most of the funding comes from federal levels."

And I agree with you, the fed's responsibility is not to maintain roads, that's the states responsibility... however I am pretty happy about the Interstate highway system we have. The choice we face then is either to allow for the federal government to provide the FUNDS for the maintenance of the Interstate system to the States DOTs, or, we could force the States to foot the extremely costly bill for a highway system that they did not create, or, we could just not fix any interstate highways and bridges and let them go back to nature. But then we would be able to most of the things our economy relies on- the ability to quickly traverse long distances for free-to-cheap while transporting goods to market.

The federal interstate system was no doubt a beneficial system. But consider one of the primary purposes President Eisenhower had for proposing it: http://www.eisenhower.utexas.edu/dl/...ys22255pg2.pdf SEE THE FIRST PARAGRAPH

One thing President Eisenhower said in his letter to Congress was, "...the Governors in July of last year at my request began a study of both the problem and methods by which the Federal Government might assist the States in its solution" (http://www.eisenhower.utexas.edu/dl/...ys22255pg1.pdf). Notice that the states were very much involved in coming up with the system. The role of the federal government was to assist the states, clearly indicating the primary responsibility was at the state level.

what? is it fair for me to assume you are suggesting that I commit this treason? If you are suggesting anything of the sort, you are being preposterous.

If this fits you, yes: "The people who commit treason against the Constitution by insisting that the federal government take upon itself power that the Constitution does not give it."

Here is a fun fact regarding the limits of state power:

Yes, yes, I'm well aware of Article 1, Section 10 (and quoted it in another thread).

Does this mean that if the interstate highway system wasn't actually a federal program, then wouldn't the taxation of drivers through tolls be in violation to Art. 1 Sec. 10?

This article doesn't apply to toll roads.

Or, do the states for some reason provide these amazing roads for public use at a small fee out of the goodness of their hearts, giving that money they collect to the Federal Treasury even though they don't have to?

Again, the article you cited doesn't apply here.

And if they didn't give the money to the Fed., and instead kept it in their own budget, the states wouldn't actually be taxing interstate commerce through the collection of tolls, when the purpose of using the interstate to go between states?

See above.

What then about the many states that don't require tolls for the use of the interstate? Are their roads then free somehow? How is this supposed to work, Chancellor, without going against the Constitution?

That's why they're called freeways. :) There's nothing unconstitutional about states choosing either to have tolls or not have tolls.

How also is Amtrak, our national rail-line, a federal program?

It's not so much a program as it is a quasi-government corporation, much like the Post Office.

Why is this paid for by the Federal government?

Good question! Why should the federal government be running a passenger train service? There's no constitutional authority for it.

I guess I am trying to understand what your stance is. And what then is the confusion about the delegation of power in regards to the levee systems in place around the south-east section of the state of Louisiana, involving the city of New Orleans, specifically? Does the state get to say,

Your confusion is in thinking that the federal government has all this power to run all these different government programs.

"Hey, ok, Army Corp of Engineers... since you didn't do a good job, by which we mean your incompetence in the realm of maintaining the fairly simple engineering endeavor of a levee system caused our city to become flooded for a long time and made lots of people die and lots still had to leave forever, because they no longer have a place to live.... so yeah, since you do not have the authority to deal in this local state matter you have until 5pm today to clean out your desks and hit the non-federal interstate back to D.C.... but since nobody maintains it anymore you might take the train instead, oh wait, right, it really did turn out that the states couldn't afford to keep Amtrak running... well, you still have planes. Or, no, I guess the federal government also had no authority in regulating air traffic and the lack of communication between the states-run controllers caused many mid-air collisions that the airlines decided to close up shop. well... So, hey, actually, we're just going to split from the Union since we seem to be so completely confused about the relationship the States have with the federal side, especially since we give them alot of our revenue for no apparent reason now.

The federal government is supposed to be a very limited government. It has only those powers specifically set forth in the Constitution. It has no other powers!

Since we are completely independent of other states now, and since the Congress has no authority over things, like deciding if the levees need to be repaired and then allocating a portion of the Federal budget to such aim,,,, there's really not a point left to it then. Also, as the Republic of Louisiana, we are at war with the United States since its incompetence killed so many of our nationals. Our Army fka the Louisiana National Guard is enroute to DC right now, but we might have to burn down Atlanta first?"

But you're not completely independent states. This kind of nonsense shows just how much you really don't know what you're talking about.

I don't understand how that stated above is not the implication of rendering the federal government unconstitutional regarding interstate commerce. It is kind of the complete reverse of that which I think is your stance.

It's not your place to imply! You are expected to read what is written and take it to mean exactly and only what is written. There is nothing implied, inferred or written between the lines and it is only an evil, deceptive person who looks for such things.