[christibe]

Quote by: Chancellor No, what you said was, "So, though it is maintained by the state of Minnesota, most of the funding comes from federal levels." 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. 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." Yes, yes, I'm well aware of Article 1, Section 10 (and quoted it in another thread). This article doesn't apply to toll roads. Again, the article you cited doesn't apply here. See above. That's why they're called freeways. :) There's nothing unconstitutional about states choosing either to have tolls or not have tolls. It's not so much a program as it is a quasi-government corporation, much like the Post Office. Good question! Why should the federal government be running a passenger train service? There's no constitutional authority for it. Your confusion is in thinking that the federal government has all this power to run all these different government programs. 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! 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. 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.

I wrote that before my new-debating-technique. (where I limit when I use new-fiction to create a ridiculous scenario that I think is illustrating my point, as satire is intended to do.)

With the fake-Louisiana scenario all I wanted to do was show what would happen if the Federal Government did not assist the states by providing funds for maintenance of federal projects.

money = assistance in this case. Sometimes, though, assistance also = providing staff, if the assisted are grossly underqualified and it is not expected that the state or local government will have the potential for developing qualified staff to take on the purpose (in the case of the Army Corps of Engineers maintaining levees.. por ejemple.)

As The Decider pointed out the long precedent behind national roads, and the other reasons given higher priority by President Eisenhower for the Interstate roads system, I won't really reply anymore on that issue.

As money is given in lump to the states by the Fed with allotments on type of spending, and no more will be given to the states unless through very special order, the states draw a yearly budget they usually must stay within. The states also have their own revenue that they collect from the residents and the local governments. They include this money in the yearly budget, as well. Their constitution sometimes, and sometimes only the state legislature, decides on how the budget is written. States generally are very efficient at creating their budget. They, like any business, needs to make concessions when budgeting. They can never, however, make concessions on the federal allotment for anything. So, Minnesota could not use less than what the Federal govt. gave them for Interstate maintenance, but they could have added to that total aspect of the budget. The state adds to the federal value with whatever their constitution, and/or residents, and/or legislature decided.

So, the idea is that the federal government should provide enough money for the states to realistically keep and maintain the interstates. So the idea is that the states will then be able to use their own revenue for their intrastate roads. However, if the state was in fact fortunate enough to have enough revenue after meeting all of their OTHER budget regulations, they could potentially ADD their own revenue to the Interstate funds.

The Federal Government does not always provide financial assistance to the states with their mandates. One example of this is the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996.

Are we clear?

Fortunately we both have read and both are in clear and reasonable comprehension of that portion, Article One Section Ten of the document called the United States Constitution. So, I am quite happy you posted in another thread the portion I posted in this thread. Since you didn't in fact post it here, and since I don't make it a practice to read every post made in history by every poster on every thread I visit, I did not realize that you had until you just replied here, in this thread, that you have read at least Art I Sec 10. Great that we have that established.


The thing that I fear is not established is the portion of that same Article that states the authority that the United States Congress has. The United States Congress has the only authority in the Federal Government to create legislation, that is laws. In the case of the Interstate Highway System, the Executive Branch of the Federal Government who's head administrator at the time was Dwight David Eisenhower, term 20 January 1953-1961 (total 8 years which equals two publicly elected terms under the guidance of the Electoral College, holding the political support and recognition of the U.S. Republican Party, he worked for the maximum time any person may in this job) this administrator proposed to the United States Congress that an "Interstate Highway System" be constructed, the Congress deliberated and decided democratically to approve the proposition. Because President Eisenhower followed the guidelines found in the United States Constitution to get his project completed, it is as of yet unquestioned that the Interstate Highway System itself is unconstitutional. Since the Constitution creates the Judicial Branch of the Federal Government and grants it the power to examine the legislation put forth by the United States Congress, the Executive Branch or the American People could ask the Courts to examine the Constitutionality of the law, in this case, the Interstate Highway System. As far as I am aware no entity has asked the Judicial System to perform this oversight. Because of this, the Interstate Highway System remains in line with the Constitution.

Shall we discuss more how I do not know how to interpret the United States Constitution, or shall we agree that I am fully cognizant of the manner in which said document creates a finely tuned system of balance within our Federal Government, for the purpose of both limiting its size and scope and that each of the three branches of the federal government will perform oversight on the rest? If you are not yet fully convinced, you are more than welcome to type my username into the search function found under the Search tab on any screen in Volconvo and read comments I have made in other threads regarding the Constitution, and the apparent unconstitionality of other acts of the current Federal government, though I do not challenge the federal highway system though I welcome YOU, as a vigilant defender of the Constitution, to fully research this issue you appear to be emotionally invested in and present any case you might develop to the proper judiciary. Since I am not on the SCOTUS, and since this internet forum is not able to perform oversight on the Legislative branch of the Federal Government, it will always be unable to satisfy your desire to find that the highway system is illegal.

I believe that the syntax of my last statement which you quote, and that the fictitious rendering I portrayed of a completely 'powerless' federal government was not understood by you, and the unrelated notion of toll roads that I hoped would also work in the satire I presented, confused you in the majority of your statement to me.

Since I believe that I have stated my position on how the federal government is structured by the Constitution, I do not wish to speak about that again.


The topic under debate is the specific bridge on I35W in Minneapolis, MN which collapsed on 1 August 2007 at 6:05pm and as of 16 August 2007 11 deaths have been attributed with 2 missing and presumed to be dead.
Hennepinonline and MPR: Human remains found in two vehicles recovered at bridge collapse.