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.
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.
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.
(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.
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!
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.