Bridge collapses into Mississippi

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Technosoul According to the link you provided the highway fund expired on September 30, 2005. It is now 2007. You are dabating with "has been" data that is not directly related to current situations.

That bridge didn't become defective in the last two years. It was in need of repair long before the fund expired. Further, the existence or absence of the fund does not remove the responsibility of the individual states to repair roads and bridges. The Fund was not the sole (or even primary) source of revenue for such repairs.

[christibe]

Quote by: Chancellor I demonize federal tax collection to fund things that are the responsibility of state and local governments. I don't give a rat's behind about this being a "difficult society" to run, we have a Constitution that is the absolute law of the land. There is no constitutional authority for your leftist wealth redistribution schemes.

That bridge is a part of Interstate 35. So, though it is maintained by the state of Minnesota, most of the funding comes from federal levels.

Where is your anger coming from, anyway?

[Chancellor]

Quote by: christibe That bridge is a part of Interstate 35. So, though it is maintained by the state of Minnesota, most of the funding comes from federal levels.

It's still not the federal government's responsibility to pay for roads and bridges. Just because the federal government does something doesn't make it right and it was stupid of you to try this kind of the government does it, so that makes it right argument.

Where is your anger coming from, anyway?

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. People who, like sheep, just blindly follow the federal government as it takes upon itself more and more power and takes away from the people more and more liberty.

[The Decider]

Quote by: christibe That bridge is a part of Interstate 35. So, though it is maintained by the state of Minnesota, most of the funding comes from federal levels.

Exactly. The federal funding of interstate roads has ample precedent in American history, beginning with the National Road in 1818. The motley "system" of narrow and mostly unpaved private roads built in the late 18th and 19th centuries couldn't keep pace with demands of national commerce. Americans wanted a modern interstate road system which the states could not afford to build on their own, let alone regulate and maintain. We now enjoy one of the finest national highway systems in the world for a country of its size--perhaps the finest anywhere. It costs to maintain such a system for interstate commerce--a federal responsibility mentioned in Article One of the US Constitution. Critics have spent two centuries arguing that "regulating" interstate commerce doesn't include payment contributions for the same. And for two centuries their arguments have failed. It's the same old bitter frustration bubbling up again.

[christibe]

Quote by: Chancellor It's still not the federal government's responsibility to pay for roads and bridges. Just because the federal government does something doesn't make it right and it was stupid of you to try this kind of the government does it, so that makes it right argument.

what?

I only said that the bridge itself existed because of the Interstate highway system, as The Decider very eloquently portays above

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 people who commit treason against the Constitution by insisting that the federal government take upon itself power that the Constitution does not give it. People who, like sheep, just blindly follow the federal government as it takes upon itself more and more power and takes away from the people more and more liberty.

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.

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

Quote by: wikipedia Article One of the U.S. Constitution, Section 10 States may not, without the consent of Congress, tax imports or exports except for the fulfillment of state inspection laws (which may be revised by Congress). The net revenue of the tax is paid not to the state, but to the federal Treasury.

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? 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? 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?

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? How also is Amtrak, our national rail-line, a federal program? Why is this paid for by the Federal government? 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,

"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.

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?"

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.

[Nono]

Quote by: Chancellor There is no constitutional authority for your leftist wealth redistribution schemes.

Nor is there (correct me if I'm wrong, eh?) any constitutional "authority" for the massive redistribution-toward-the-already-well-off that has occurred in the US since Saint Ronald Reagan was pres.

Man, if everything had to be specifically mandated by the US constitution, not much would happen in the country.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Nono Nor is there (correct me if I'm wrong, eh?) any constitutional "authority" for the massive redistribution-toward-the-already-well-off that has occurred in the US since Saint Ronald Reagan was pres.

Agreed.

Man, if everything had to be specifically mandated by the US constitution, not much would happen in the country.

Well, let's just say it wouldn't be the government doing it. Hmmmmm, limited government; now there's a novel concept!

[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.

[The Decider]

Quote by: Chancellor 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

The first paragraph on page two of the document referred to the need for better roads in case of nuclear attack. National defense is also a primary function of the federal government, and a legitimate reason for a federally supervised and partially funded system of roads, highways, bridges, and tunnels. However, Eisenhower's document placed road safety and lower transportation costs ahead of national security as reasons for the interstate system. All these arguments can be traced back to the first National Road in the early 19th century, an important precedent for later federal projects.

Quote by: Chancellor 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.

Yes, it's a cooperative system involving the federal/state/local jurisdictions. But nowhere in the document does it say that the state's must bear the lion's share of the cost for building and maintaining federally mandated roads. Federal money was always part of the deal, just as it was with the old National Road. The states and localities had some leeway on how and when the monies were spent, but the feds wanted accountability on design, materials, and timetables. And they had the right to inspect every single project to ensure compliance. Without federal coordination and financial aid, our nation would have never built the finest system of roads in the world.

[Chaossaber314]

I am legitimately surprised that no one has begun claiming this collapse was a controlled demolition and how it looks like it fell at free fall speeds, etc.

[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.

[christibe]

Quote by: Chaossaber314 I am legitimately surprised that no one has begun claiming this collapse was a controlled demolition and how it looks like it fell at free fall speeds, etc.

Why? Do you think it was a controlled demolition? Have you information that leads you think that there was anything other than the official story?

Please tell.

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: christibe Why? Do you think it was a controlled demolition? Have you information that leads you think that there was anything other than the official story? Please tell.

Sarcasm - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[christibe]

Quote by: Chaossaber314 Sarcasm - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I thought as much.

[Darebirth]

I simply do not understand how people can get so worked up over a bridge collapsing. ONE bridge collapsed, and now everytime I drive over a bridge with someone, they start praying that the bridge doesn't collapse or some other fanatical shit.

This is the same thing that happened after the September 11th bombings. Everytime someone saw a plane, they got scared and ran inside their homes.

This is simply the fault of the news media. They work people up over stupid things like this and make them afraid that it is going to happen to them now. The news media must die.

[christibe]

Quote by: Darebirth I simply do not understand how people can get so worked up over a bridge collapsing. ONE bridge collapsed, and now everytime I drive over a bridge with someone, they start praying that the bridge doesn't collapse or some other fanatical shit. This is the same thing that happened after the September 11th bombings. Everytime someone saw a plane, they got scared and ran inside their homes. This is simply the fault of the news media. They work people up over stupid things like this and make them afraid that it is going to happen to them now. The news media must die.

Agreed. It is a tragedy, however when a tragedy happens out of everyday experience, you should take it at face value. It was a scary thing, people did die, though. For everyone to just freak out, by using th tragedy to further one's politics, ahem, or as you suggest Dare, and go far as to pray whenever they cross a bridge takes away dignity from those that died, IMHO.