A listener to my radio program (and an advertiser Prying1Books) sent the following Email:
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h1895/show - Bills http:1895 & S.3269
I like that the feds want to reward those that comply and punish those that don't. --- NOT! --- Sounds like more control for a good cause. I wonder how it will be misused. Hmmm. Collecting state funds and giving a pittance back so we can save lives. Is that constitutional???
Also for 3269 - http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-3269&tab=summary - any other requirement that the Secretary may require. Directs the Secretary to withhold a certain percentage of federal-aid highway funds from states that do not comply with the requirements of this Act. - Failed in previous attempts to pass it.
Check out Official Summary at the first link. Click - "Read the rest" -I like that the feds want to reward those that comply and punish those that don't. --- NOT! --- Sounds like more control for a good cause. I wonder how it will be misused. Hmmm. Collecting state funds and giving a pittance back so we can save lives. Is that constitutional???
My answer:
The whole concept of highway funds is unconstitutional in the place. The only authority regarding roadways the federal government has is in Article I, Section 8 where they are given the authority to establish post roads. In fact, James Madison in 1817 vetoed a public works bill because it was unconstitutional to fund roadways and boatways through the federal government. If it is a good idea, then they should have sought an amendment for the authority.
Your bill is an example of the federal government extorting the states. Extortion anywhere else would be illegal, but apparently not when the federal government does it.
Doug
Let me add that what the bills are doing is none of the federal governments business, and outside federal authority. These "safety" issues are up to the States individually.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
No comments:
Post a Comment