The NAFTA Superhighway...

MrNightly

Anyone else heard much about this? If it ever did happen, It will be great for Kansas City. KC will be the main entry and inspection point for all products from Asia.

Interesting.


___________________________

The NAFTA Superhighway


October 30, 2006


By now many Texans have heard about the proposed “NAFTA Superhighway,” which is also referred to as the trans-Texas corridor. What you may not know is the extent to which plans for such a superhighway are moving forward without congressional oversight or media attention.

This superhighway would connect Mexico, the United States, and Canada, cutting a wide swath through the middle of Texas and up through Kansas City. Offshoots would connect the main artery to the west coast, Florida, and northeast. Proponents envision a ten-lane colossus the width of several football fields, with freight and rail lines, fiber-optic cable lines, and oil and natural gas pipelines running alongside.

This will require coordinated federal and state eminent domain actions on an unprecedented scale, as literally millions of people and businesses could be displaced. The loss of whole communities is almost certain, as planners cannot wind the highway around every quaint town, historic building, or senior citizen apartment for thousands of miles.

Governor Perry is a supporter of the superhighway project, and Congress has provided small amounts of money to study the proposal. Since this money was just one item in an enormous transportation appropriations bill, however, most members of Congress were not aware of it.

The proposed highway is part of a broader plan advanced by a quasi-government organization called the “Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America,” or SPP.

The SPP was first launched in 2005 by the heads of state of Canada, Mexico, and the United States at a summit in Waco.

The SPP was not created by a treaty between the nations involved, nor was Congress involved in any way. Instead, the SPP is an unholy alliance of foreign consortiums and officials from several governments. One principal player is a Spanish construction company, which plans to build the highway and operate it as a toll road. But don’t be fooled: the superhighway proposal is not the result of free market demand, but rather an extension of government-managed trade schemes like NAFTA that benefit politically-connected interests.

The real issue is national sovereignty. Once again, decisions that affect millions of Americans are not being made by those Americans themselves, or even by their elected representatives in Congress. Instead, a handful of elites use their government connections to bypass national legislatures and ignore our Constitution-- which expressly grants Congress the sole authority to regulate international trade.

The ultimate goal is not simply a superhighway, but an integrated North American Union--complete with a currency, a cross-national bureaucracy, and virtually borderless travel within the Union. Like the European Union, a North American Union would represent another step toward the abolition of national sovereignty altogether.

A new resolution, introduced by Representative Virgil Goode of Virginia, expresses the sense of Congress that the United States should not engage in the construction of a NAFTA superhighway, or enter into any agreement that advances the concept of a North American Union. I wholeheartedly support this legislation, and predict that the superhighway will become a sleeper issue in the 2008 election.

Any movement toward a North American Union diminishes the ability of average Americans to influence the laws under which they must live. The SPP agreement, including the plan for a major transnational superhighway through Texas, is moving forward without congressional oversight-- and that is an outrage. The administration needs a strong message from Congress that the American people will not tolerate backroom deals that threaten our sovereignty.

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst103006.htm

F1nut

Eff that ****!!!

Got any links to folks that will listen?

Early B.

MrNightly wrote:

The real issue is national sovereignty. Once again, decisions that affect millions of Americans are not being made by those Americans themselves, or even by their elected representatives in Congress. Instead, a handful of elites use their government connections to bypass national legislatures and ignore our Constitution-- which expressly grants Congress the sole authority to regulate international trade.

Nothing new here. This is how most major economic decisions are made in this country. America would be a true democratic nation if the people actually had a voice.

PolkWannabie

MrNightly wrote:

If it ever did happen, It will be great for Kansas City. KC will be the main entry and inspection point for all products from Asia.

Maybe also the main northern drop off point for illegal aliens ... Careful what you wish for ...

mrbigbluelight

I thought there already was a NAFTA superhighway.

In Texas, I believe they call it the Rio Grande.

Polkersince85

Private parties cannot "take" privately owned land for public use, if I interpret the Constitution correctly. We need to wake up folks and keep our country an independent nation. They keep chewing our rights away every day. Somebody needs to file a lawsuit against the government for failure to carry out their oath of office to uphold the laws of the U.S. IMHO

Sansui

mrbigbluelight wrote:

I thought there already was a NAFTA superhighway.

In Texas, I believe they call it the Rio Grande.

LOL!

markmarc

Polkersince85:
Unfortunately less than 2 years ago the Supreme Court decided that the gov't could take land thru immenent domain and give to a private group for redevelopment.
Many states in the last election, passed new laws protecting against such railroading.
Funny thing, the Justices who voted in favor of allowing such action, are the same ones who deride the concept of an activist court that makes laws.

bobman1235

Polkersince85 wrote:

Private parties cannot "take" privately owned land for public use, if I interpret the Constitution correctly. We need to wake up folks and keep our country an independent nation. They keep chewing our rights away every day. Somebody needs to file a lawsuit against the government for failure to carry out their oath of office to uphold the laws of the U.S. IMHO

Sorry. Nowhere in the Constitution are we given the right to property. That famous saying "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is actually a bastardization of "Life, liberty, and property" by John Locke (no lie). The Founding Fathers didn't WANT everyone to be entitled to property - themselves being wealthy landowners for the most part - so they changed that saying.

Not to say that that shouldn't be remedied in modern times.

markmarc

Bobman:
The thread pertains to the rights of property owners. The last sentence of the Fifth Amendment does protect private property against seizure.


Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Demiurge

markmarc wrote:

Bobman:
The thread pertains to the rights of property owners. The last sentence of the Fifth Amendment does protect private property against seizure.


Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

It's a little more vague than you're making it out to be. It's quite open to interpretation.

markmarc

First, I need to correct myself, Scalia voted in the minority against such action. Justice Kennedy voted with the majority. My apologies.

Demuirge:
One must remember that when the Constitution was originally written, revised, etc. the framers desired a document that could be understood by the masses. In order to achieve this, they elected the brilliant writing ability of Governor (real first name) Morris of New York to revise into short forceful points the long pasages that made heads spin.

Demiurge

markmarc wrote:

First, I need to correct myself, Scalia voted in the minority against such action. Justice Kennedy voted with the majority. My apologies.

Demuirge:
One must remember that when the Constitution was originally written, revised, etc. the framers desired a document that could be understood by the masses. In order to achieve this, they elected the brilliant writing ability of Governor (real first name) Morris of New York to revise into short forceful points the long pasages that made heads spin.

What does that have to do with the notion that the passage in the Constitution you cited guarantees no private land? There must be ample compensation for private land to be seized by the government. I'm as big a private property rights guy as you get, and land should only be taken if it both serves the public good and the land owner is given ample compensation for his trouble.

You said:

"The last sentence of the Fifth Amendment does protect private property against seizure."

That's just not true. The Constitution protects against seizure of private property without just compensation. It does not protect against seizure of private property. Activist judges can take the phrase 'just compensation' and twist that however they'd like. That's what lawyers do, and almost all judges were lawyers first.

I don't think private land should ever be seized unless a strict set of barriers can be gone over within the bounds of law. My only real point in commenting on what you wrote is that words mean things, and you're trying to make it say something different than what it explicitly does.

Much like freedom of religion -- not freedom from.

It's the job of the SCOTUS to uphold the Constitution, not legislate from the bench.

Polkersince85

bobman1235 wrote:

Life,_liberty_and_the_pursuit_of_happiness

This was in the Declaration of Independence not the Constitution.

bobman1235

Polkersince85 wrote:

This was in the Declaration of Independence not the Constitution.

Whoops.

The point still stands.

markmarc

Demuirge:
It does protect, just as you yourself said "with just compensation". Forgive me for not adding in my personal quote with "just compensation". I assumed by bolding the exact words of that section of the Fifth Amendment that the reader would connect the dots to my stance.

It's pretty sad whan a Supreme Court with a non-activist majority, goes activist as what happened in the case I referred to (kelo vs. City of New London).

As a parochial school teacher I'm right with you on the Freedom of vs. Freedom from ignorance.

Early B.

Laws are necessary for those who choose to abide by them. The proponents of projects such as the NAFTA Superhighway are obviously not concerned about the law, and possess the ability to supercede the law at will. In these instances, attempts to use the law against the lawless are likely to lead in failure. Other "unlawful" means may be required, i.e., civil disobedience.

amulford

Where are the Senators and Representatives of the districts in question? What are the elected officials on the state and local levels doing?

Something you people don't understand, there is no real government of the people, for the people and by the people any longer. The laws are now made by lobbyists and corporate interest. It's not you or me...

The amounts of money involved in **** like this is beyond comprehension. My only hope is that when the realization finally hits home, it won't be too late.

Polkersince85

"Let them eat cake"

amulford

That cost her her head...