It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Nafta Toll road is unconstitutional

page: 2
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by ntech
 


Then don't use the toll road. Use another road.




posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 04:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by benign.psychosis
reply to post by ntech
 


Too bad it doesn't say "all tolls"

A Duty is a TAX on GOODS. A road is not a GOOD, you are not BUYING IT, or TAKING IT WITH YOU. YOU DO NOT IMPORT IT, OR EXPORT IT.

A road is a SERVICE that allows easy/safe travel from one place to the next.

A TOLL is a fee to use that service. You pay the toll when, and only when you use the service. Think of a telephone, a TOLL-free 800 number does not have a fee associated with it, but a normal long distance call does have a toll.

Just because you happen to be importing goods into the country and have to drive on a toll road does not mean the toll magically converts to a tax, a duty, or an impost. If you are not going through customs and not being charged a certain amount (e.g $1 duty per bottle of wine, .02 cents per washer, 5 cents per bunny rabbit) based on your inventory manifest and what it contains, then you are not being "taxed".

Depnding on who is constructing your imaginary - or not - NAFTA highway, they aren't going to do it for free and let people drive all over it. If it is a private company, then they will not be charging "taxes" and will need to offset the cost and make a profit by charging tolls.


Your premise is incorrect. A duty/impost is a interchangeable term for tax. All taxes are duties. All duties are taxes.

And we have a constitutional provision that says states may not profit from duties on imported goods.

Merely selling the business to a private concern does not mean that the states can evade this responsibility.

2nd problem. You need to look at the original intent of the authors of this section. Who wrote this? The same people who held the Boston tea party of course. Did they want this to be a ban to the states as far as generating revenue was concerned? I would think so. You have to remember that they were ticked off at the British over what they thought was excessive and unjust taxation. And that quite a sizable amount of commerce was going through the ports at the time.

This excessive taxation was a leading cause of the American Revolution.

So trying to use a indirect form of taxation would simply be viewed as attempt to evade this ban.

I was just holding the marijuana for a friend officer. Riight.

*********************************************************

Then don't use the toll road. Use another road.


Well, thats a problem. Sometimes they are not available. Or when they are you are suddenly putting hundreds or thousands of trucks a day on roads not built for that kind of pounding. Little towns with a 2 lane main street getting bumper to bumper truck traffic going through it.

Or take US 41 through the northern suburbs of Chicago for another example. They raised the toll for trucks up to 7 bucks to go 20 miles on a stretch of I-94.

Several days later the people living in those suburbs started screaming because US 41 truck traffic had doubled and the highway was jammed up.

Actions can have unintended reactions.



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 07:47 AM
link   
There are two problems with the argument that the NAFTA toll road is unconstitutional. One is a technical problem, and one is a very obvious one.

First, the technical problem
A toll levied for the use of a roadway is not a tax on goods carried over said roadway. It's a cost of doing business, just like oil changes, new tires, or fuel...or drivers' wages. It's a fee charged for the use of a service, not a tax.

This argument might hold water if the toll was ONLY being charged on vehicles loaded with goods, since there would then be a linkage between the imported goods and the toll. As long as the toll is levied against all vehicles, laden or empty, or non-commercial, then it's kosher.

Now for the simple problem
Even if you could find some legal support for the idea that the toll was a tax on imported goods, the Constitutional passage that you cite does *not* forbid the states from taxing imported goods. It forbids them to do so without the consent of Congress. If the Congress has given its approval, they can do as they please.



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 09:41 AM
link   
reply to post by ntech
 


Well, then! You better bring this to someones attention!

Write your congressman! Help save the US!

You appear to be the only one who has spotted this flagrant violation of constitutionality!




posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 11:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Brother Stormhammer
There are two problems with the argument that the NAFTA toll road is unconstitutional. One is a technical problem, and one is a very obvious one.

First, the technical problem
A toll levied for the use of a roadway is not a tax on goods carried over said roadway. It's a cost of doing business, just like oil changes, new tires, or fuel...or drivers' wages. It's a fee charged for the use of a service, not a tax.

This argument might hold water if the toll was ONLY being charged on vehicles loaded with goods, since there would then be a linkage between the imported goods and the toll. As long as the toll is levied against all vehicles, laden or empty, or non-commercial, then it's kosher.

Now for the simple problem
Even if you could find some legal support for the idea that the toll was a tax on imported goods, the Constitutional passage that you cite does *not* forbid the states from taxing imported goods. It forbids them to do so without the consent of Congress. If the Congress has given its approval, they can do as they please.


As I explained before in this thread a toll is considered a duty. In this case an indirect duty but still a duty. And this section is supposed to be a ban on state taxation of imports/exports for the purpose of generating revenue. And a ban would be ineffective if it didn't cover all possibilities. Even those sneaky taxes trying to evade the intended purpose of the ban.

Now as far as Congressional approval goes there is still a snag. That being even with Congressional approval of the tax the problem is that any revenue raised is reserved for the FEDERAL TREASURY. The states cannot keep the money. Keeping the money is unconstitutional. And the only way the states could keep the money is through a constitutional amendment. And I don't see one.

And maybe I have.
www.nogitolls.com...


[edit on 11-1-2008 by ntech]



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 05:18 AM
link   


As I explained before in this thread a toll is considered a duty.


ntech,

By who? You?

So on this road, a toll becomes a duty when and only when you are importing goods from another country? You aren't being very logical.

USCODE TITLE 23 > CHAPTER 1 > § 129 "Toll roads, bridges, tunnels, and ferries"



(2) Ownership.— Each highway, bridge, tunnel, or approach thereto constructed under this subsection must—

(A) be publicly owned, or
(B) be privately owned if the public authority having jurisdiction over the highway, bridge, tunnel, or approach has entered into a contract with a private person or persons to design, finance, construct, and operate the facility and the public authority will be responsible for complying with all applicable requirements of this title with respect to the facility.

...

(3) Limitations on use of revenues.— Before the Secretary may permit Federal participation under this subsection in construction of a highway, bridge, or tunnel located in a State, the public authority (including the State transportation department) having jurisdiction over the highway, bridge, or tunnel must enter into an agreement with the Secretary which provides that all toll revenues received from operation of the toll facility will be used first for debt service, for reasonable return on investment of any private person financing the project, and for the costs necessary for the proper operation and maintenance of the toll facility, including reconstruction, resurfacing, restoration, and rehabilitation.

If the State certifies annually that the tolled facility is being adequately maintained, the State may use any toll revenues in excess of amounts required under the preceding sentence for any purpose for which Federal funds may be obligated by a State under this title.


You can check that title to find out where exactly those toll revenues can be spent on by the state. They are not duties and are not sent to the Federal Treasury.

No, that law is not unconstitutional, so don't even think about it. You're just going to wind up like one of those people who think ALL CAPITAL letters means you are a slave to the government. It would be better to just stop, and accept it. It's in the law, and it is not unconstitutional. Tolls are not duties.

There it is, in the US Code, plain as day. Do you still think a toll is a duty? According to the the US Code, it is not. The constitution never mentions anything about tolls. I don't know where you picked up that toll and duty are interchangeable, but you should avoid going there again.

That site about "Just say no to tolls" makes about as much sense as, "Just say no to telephone bills."

I hope this post helps!



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 05:54 AM
link   
When your arterial roads into your capitals are paralysed by dodgy companies charging tolls, like Sydney now is in Australia, enjoy the constitutionality of the disaster.

I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever.

Thomas Jefferson



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 03:18 PM
link   
Look at this. It appears that when the authors of the constitution wrote Article 1 sec. 10 para. 2 they had toll roads in mind.

en.wikisource.org...


The defect of power in the existing Confederacy to regulate the commerce between its several members, is in the number of those which have been clearly pointed out by experience. To the proofs and remarks which former papers have brought into view on this subject, it may be added that without this supplemental provision, the great and essential power of regulating foreign commerce would have been incomplete and ineffectual. A very material object of this power was the relief of the States which import and export through other States, from the improper contributions levied on them by the latter. Were these at liberty to regulate the trade between State and State, it must be foreseen that ways would be found out to load the articles of import and export, during the passage through their jurisdiction, with duties which would fall on the makers of the latter and the consumers of the former. We may be assured by past experience, that such a practice would be introduced by future contrivances; and both by that and a common knowledge of human affairs, that it would nourish unceasing animosities, and not improbably terminate in serious interruptions of the public tranquillity. To those who do not view the question through the medium of passion or of interest, the desire of the commercial States to collect, in any form, an indirect revenue from their uncommercial neighbors, must appear not less impolitic than it is unfair; since it would stimulate the injured party, by resentment as well as interest, to resort to less convenient channels for their foreign trade. But the mild voice of reason, pleading the cause of an enlarged and permanent interest, is but too often drowned, before public bodies as well as individuals, by the clamors of an impatient avidity for immediate and immoderate gain.

The necessity of a superintending authority over the reciprocal trade of confederated States, has been illustrated by other examples as well as our own. In Switzerland, where the Union is so very slight, each canton is obliged to allow to merchandises a passage through its jurisdiction into other cantons, without an augmentation of the tolls. In Germany it is a law of the empire, that the princes and states shall not lay tolls or customs on bridges, rivers, or passages, without the consent of the emperor and the diet; though it appears from a quotation in an antecedent paper, that the practice in this, as in many other instances in that confederacy, has not followed the law, and has produced there the mischiefs which have been foreseen here. Among the restraints imposed by the Union of the Netherlands on its members, one is, that they shall not establish imposts disadvantageous to their neighbors, without the general permission.



[edit on 30-1-2008 by ntech]

[edit on 30-1-2008 by ntech]



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by benign.psychosis


As I explained before in this thread a toll is considered a duty.


ntech,

By who? You?

So on this road, a toll becomes a duty when and only when you are importing goods from another country? You aren't being very logical.

USCODE TITLE 23 > CHAPTER 1 > § 129 "Toll roads, bridges, tunnels, and ferries"



(2) Ownership.— Each highway, bridge, tunnel, or approach thereto constructed under this subsection must—

(A) be publicly owned, or
(B) be privately owned if the public authority having jurisdiction over the highway, bridge, tunnel, or approach has entered into a contract with a private person or persons to design, finance, construct, and operate the facility and the public authority will be responsible for complying with all applicable requirements of this title with respect to the facility.

...

(3) Limitations on use of revenues.— Before the Secretary may permit Federal participation under this subsection in construction of a highway, bridge, or tunnel located in a State, the public authority (including the State transportation department) having jurisdiction over the highway, bridge, or tunnel must enter into an agreement with the Secretary which provides that all toll revenues received from operation of the toll facility will be used first for debt service, for reasonable return on investment of any private person financing the project, and for the costs necessary for the proper operation and maintenance of the toll facility, including reconstruction, resurfacing, restoration, and rehabilitation.

If the State certifies annually that the tolled facility is being adequately maintained, the State may use any toll revenues in excess of amounts required under the preceding sentence for any purpose for which Federal funds may be obligated by a State under this title.


You can check that title to find out where exactly those toll revenues can be spent on by the state. They are not duties and are not sent to the Federal Treasury.

No, that law is not unconstitutional, so don't even think about it. You're just going to wind up like one of those people who think ALL CAPITAL letters means you are a slave to the government. It would be better to just stop, and accept it. It's in the law, and it is not unconstitutional. Tolls are not duties.

There it is, in the US Code, plain as day. Do you still think a toll is a duty? According to the the US Code, it is not. The constitution never mentions anything about tolls. I don't know where you picked up that toll and duty are interchangeable, but you should avoid going there again.

That site about "Just say no to tolls" makes about as much sense as, "Just say no to telephone bills."

I hope this post helps!



Problems here.

First off the problem is with the language used here. When the Constitution was written in 1783 the language was a bit different.
English has been evolving. But back then the terms "duty" and "impost" were interchangable with taxes. They meant the same thing.

Secondly the law presented in title 23 sec. 129 is for federal highway loan programs. It doesn't authorize toll roads. It only authorized the Federal Govt. to loan money to states for highway construction where toll roads are involved.



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 01:44 AM
link   
My latest masterpiece. a reply I made on a different board.

What you guys are missing out on is the domestic tranquility clause of the constitution. The problem is that the founding fathers were concerned with the possibility of domestic frictions breaking out into insurrections or even a civil war. So here is their thoughts on commerce.
The Federalist #7.

The competitions of commerce would be another fruitful source of contention. The States less favorably circumstanced would be desirous of escaping from the disadvantages of local situation, and of sharing in the advantages of their more fortunate neighbors. Each State, or separate confederacy, would pursue a system of commercial policy peculiar to itself. This would occasion distinctions, preferences, and exclusions, which would beget discontent. The habits of intercourse, on the basis of equal privileges, to which we have been accustomed since the earliest settlement of the country, would give a keener edge to those causes of discontent than they would naturally have independent of this circumstance. WE SHOULD BE READY TO DENOMINATE INJURIES THOSE THINGS WHICH WERE IN REALITY THE JUSTIFIABLE ACTS OF INDEPENDENT SOVEREIGNTIES CONSULTING A DISTINCT INTEREST. The spirit of enterprise, which characterizes the commercial part of America, has left no occasion of displaying itself unimproved. It is not at all probable that this unbridled spirit would pay much respect to those regulations of trade by which particular States might endeavor to secure exclusive benefits to their own citizens. The infractions of these regulations, on one side, the efforts to prevent and repel them, on the other, would naturally lead to outrages, and these to reprisals and wars.

The opportunities which some States would have of rendering others tributary to them by commercial regulations would be impatiently submitted to by the tributary States. The relative situation of New York, Connecticut, and New Jersey would afford an example of this kind. New York, from the necessities of revenue, must lay duties on her importations. A great part of these duties must be paid by the inhabitants of the two other States in the capacity of consumers of what we import. New York would neither be willing nor able to forego this advantage. Her citizens would not consent that a duty paid by them should be remitted in favor of the citizens of her neighbors; nor would it be practicable, if there were not this impediment in the way, to distinguish the customers in our own markets. Would Connecticut and New Jersey long submit to be taxed by New York for her exclusive benefit? Should we be long permitted to remain in the quiet and undisturbed enjoyment of a metropolis, from the possession of which we derived an advantage so odious to our neighbors, and, in their opinion, so oppressive? Should we be able to preserve it against the incumbent weight of Connecticut on the one side, and the co-operating pressure of New Jersey on the other? These are questions that temerity alone will answer in the affirmative.

The Federalist 35.
The maxim that the consumer is the payer, is so much oftener true than the reverse of the proposition, that it is far more equitable that the duties on imports should go into a common stock, than that they should redound to the exclusive benefit of the importing States.

What they were worried about was the possibility of war and insurrection over the payment of taxes from one state to another. And they also belived that such taxes should go to a common fund for the benefit of all. Aka the treasury clause in Article 1 sec. 10 para. 2.

And that leads us to Federalist 42.
Continued in next post.

[edit on 2-2-2008 by ntech]



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 01:48 AM
link   
The Federalist 42.
The defect of power in the existing Confederacy to regulate the commerce between its several members, is in the number of those which have been clearly pointed out by experience. To the proofs and remarks which former papers have brought into view on this subject, it may be added that without this supplemental provision, the great and essential power of regulating foreign commerce would have been incomplete and ineffectual. A very material object of this power was the relief of the States which import and export through other States, from the improper contributions levied on them by the latter. Were these at liberty to regulate the trade between State and State, it must be foreseen that ways would be found out to load the articles of import and export, during the passage through their jurisdiction, with duties which would fall on the makers of the latter and the consumers of the former. We may be assured by past experience, that such a practice would be introduced by future contrivances; and both by that and a common knowledge of human affairs, that it would nourish unceasing animosities, and not improbably terminate in serious interruptions of the public tranquillity. To those who do not view the question through the medium of passion or of interest, the desire of the commercial States to collect, in any form, an indirect revenue from their uncommercial neighbors, must appear not less impolitic than it is unfair; since it would stimulate the injured party, by resentment as well as interest, to resort to less convenient channels for their foreign trade. But the mild voice of reason, pleading the cause of an enlarged and permanent interest, is but too often drowned, before public bodies as well as individuals, by the clamors of an impatient avidity for immediate and immoderate gain.

The necessity of a superintending authority over the reciprocal trade of confederated States, has been illustrated by other examples as well as our own. In Switzerland, where the Union is so very slight, each canton is obliged to allow to merchandises a passage through its jurisdiction into other cantons, without an augmentation of the tolls. In Germany it is a law of the empire, that the princes and states shall not lay tolls or customs on bridges, rivers, or passages, without the consent of the emperor and the diet; though it appears from a quotation in an antecedent paper, that the practice in this, as in many other instances in that confederacy, has not followed the law, and has produced there the mischiefs which have been foreseen here. Among the restraints imposed by the Union of the Netherlands on its members, one is, that they shall not establish imposts disadvantageous to their neighbors, without the general permission.

Continued in next post.



[edit on 2-2-2008 by ntech]



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 01:51 AM
link   
The Federalist #44.

"No State shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection laws, and the net produce of all duties and imposts laid by any State on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress. No State shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty on tonnage, keep troops or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another State, or with a foreign power, or engage in war unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay."

The restraint on the power of the States over imports and exports is enforced by all the arguments which prove the necessity of submitting the regulation of trade to the federal councils. It is needless, therefore, to remark further on this head, than that the manner in which the restraint is qualified seems well calculated at once to secure to the States a reasonable discretion in providing for the conveniency of their imports and exports, and to the United States a reasonable check against the abuse of this discretion. The remaining particulars of this clause fall within reasonings which are either so obvious, or have been so fully developed, that they may be passed over without remark.

They considered taxes levied by one state on another to be unfair and improper. And as a future cause of insurrections and civil wars.

So why the heck are toll roads mentioned in Federalist 42?
BECAUSE THEY SAW THEM AS A POSSSIBLE FLASHPOINT FOR FUTURE CIVIL UNREST.

HECK YES THEY WANTED TOLL ROADS UNDER THE CONTROL OF ARTICLE 1 SECTION 10 PARAGRAPH 2.

My source for the Federalist Papers quotes.
en.wikisource.org...

[edit on 2-2-2008 by ntech]



posted on Feb, 11 2008 @ 01:46 AM
link   
I found this picture and all I could think of was NAFTA. Once this highways are complete, the NAU will go into effect. Keep in mind that the EU was supposed to be just a trade alliance really. But now Tony Blair wants to be President of Europe.





[edit on 2/11/0808 by jackinthebox]



posted on Feb, 11 2008 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by ntech
First off the problem is with the language used here. When the Constitution was written in 1783 the language was a bit different.
English has been evolving. But back then the terms "duty" and "impost" were interchangable with taxes. They meant the same thing.

Secondly the law presented in title 23 sec. 129 is for federal highway loan programs. It doesn't authorize toll roads. It only authorized the Federal Govt. to loan money to states for highway construction where toll roads are involved.



Originally posted by ntech

Secondly the law presented in title 23 sec. 129 is for federal highway loan programs. It doesn't authorize toll roads. It only authorized the Federal Govt. to loan money to states for highway construction where toll roads are involved.


Look, I don't think you understand that that some toll roads are PRIVATE PROPERTY on PRIVATELY OWNED LAND or PRIVATE PROPERTY on CONTRACTED PUBLIC LAND, or even PUBLIC PROPERTY OPERATED BY A PRIVATE CORPORATION, built by a company/corporation (perhaps with aid from the federal government), and then leased to the state for long periods - such as 100 years, which after the ownership of the road is transfered to the state. It may continue to be operated by a private toll company, or it may become a toll free road. The above law gives the state the authorization to keep the tolls for debt services to the private company that owns and/or operates the road, and for maintanence/repair be it by the state or by a private company.

It is a Business. A private business, to make money by providing a service to the state in order to ease traffic congestion - a service that the state could not otherwise afford to do the budget restraints.

You can hate and protest against toll roads as much as you want, but there is nothing unconstitutional or illegal about them. Trying to back up your OPINION with false facts or your OPINION of the constitution, federalists ideals, or whatever just makes you look like a nut.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join