Posted on 06/11/2017 8:12:36 AM PDT by Olog-hai
Why?
I use to drive a taxi in New York city and stopped (thank God) around 10 years ago. One time I drove an air traffic controller to LaGuardia airport and he told me they were still using equipment from the 1960s, in other words, while you are up there flying around in a jet, you life is literally dependent on machines that are 40 years old, well now it’s 50 years old because I never read anything about them being replaced. I have an old record player from the 1960s, very simple design and it doesn’t work, and that’s just a record player and they are using radar and God knows what else to land your plane. But hey, Schmucky Shoomer doesn’t want them improved, no doubt because it’s racist or some other psychotic reason made up by lunatics like him.
I guess I’ll let others decide if there is a practical way we can have 10 roadways competing against each other between New York and Chicago, or 10 airlines competing against each other serving those cities. I’ve only seen competition among airlines...never among highways, but maybe there’s some way to have highways compete...
Of course Schumer opposes it; if Trump proposed anything, Schumer would oppose it. But Trump has talked to his pilots, and he now knows what they know: the reason our air traffic control system is so antiquated is because it is government-controlled. A private company could modernize it and make it far better than it is today, and reduce accidents even more.
And in other news, scientists report the sun may rise in the east and set in the west, and that ice is cold.
Who cares what Chuckwad thinks or sez.
And there it is. Only the (socialist) government should be allowed to control costs.
It’s at least a good thing to keep abreast of the latest talking points he was given. I don’t presume he actually thinks.
Schumer is like a dog who barks at his own barks a result of in breeding.
Haha......a democrat thinks? LOL
Exactly.
Those ugly reading glasses aren’t for nothing.
“FWIW, I spoke w/ one of my Gen-Av buds this past week who was for it since he knows of some privatized towers, and he hears any issues of hardware, software,and systems such as ILS, if they have a failure it is fixed right away vs months of waiting for procurement paperwork to get done.”
There is inaccurate information in this statement. Yes, at some airports the towers are private, but the navigation facilities are not private. They are part of the overall air navigation system. The navigation system is a separate entity from air traffic control.
The FAA maintains a huge depot at the Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center in Oklahoma City to replace navaids and their components. The statement that it takes a long time to fix a federal navaid is incorrect. The exception is Non-Directonal Beacons which are obsolete and are not being maintained.
Thanks for the clarification, can you tell I am rusty and need some dual :-).....
With all due respect to Sen. Schumer, he’s once again proving himself to be an excellent example why the ill-conceived 17th Amendment should never have been ratified imo, misguided state lawmakers foolishly giving up the voices of the state legislatures in Congress when they ratified that amendment.
More specifically, I wouldn’t be surprised if Schumer, probably like most other low-information citizens, thinks that everything that the constitutionally limited power feds do these days is “constitutional.” This is likely because most citizens have grown up with the unconstitutionally big federal government and probably think that everything that the feds do is constitutional.
That being said, I hope that patriots are developing the habit of checking every law, regulation and action of the feds against the fed’s constitutionally enumerated powers, Congress’s constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers a good place to start.
In the case of aviation, while federal oversight of daily commercial aviation in the USA is arguably a good idea, especially where suppressing terrorism is concerned, it remains that the states have never expressly constitutionally delegated to the unconstitutionally big feds the specific power to stick their big noses into any aspect of commercial aviation imo.
In fact, note that while it can be argued that commercial airlines conduct business over state lines and are therefore under the regulatory control of Congress through the Commerce Clause (1.8.3), please consider the following.
Not only did a previous generation of state sovereignty-respecting Supreme Court justices clarify that contracts are not commerce, contracts therefore outside the scope of Congress’s Commerce Clause powers, but airline tickets, and the legal basis of other types of commercial travel, are evidently regarded as contracts, referred to as contract of carriage.
"4. The issuing of a policy of insurance is not a transaction of commerce within the meaning of the latter of the two clauses, even though the parties be domiciled in different States, but is a simple contract [emphases added] of indemnity against loss.” —Paul v. Virginia, 1869. (The corrupt feds have no Commerce Clause (1.8.3) power to regulate contracts.)
Corrections, insights welcome.
When the states quit sitting on their hands and repeal the 17th Amendment, the repeal amendment should include a provision which does the following. The provision should require the courts to presume the federal government guilty of trying to unconstitutionally expand its powers when the feds cannot reasonably justify any legislation, regulation or action with any of its constitutionally enumerated powers.
"In every event, I would rather construe so narrowly as to oblige the nation to amend, and thus declare what powers they would agree to yield, than too broadly, and indeed, so broadly as to enable the executive and the Senate to do things which the Constitution forbids." --Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1793.
Drain the swamp! Drain the swamp!
Remember in November ’18 !
Since Trump entered the ’16 presidential race too late for patriots to make sure that there were state sovereignty-respecting candidates on the primary ballots, patriots need make sure that such candidates are on the ’18 primary ballots so that they can be elected to support Trump in draining the unconstitutionally big federal government swamp.
Such a Congress will also be able to finish draining the swamp with respect to getting the remaining state sovereignty-ignoring, activist Supreme Court justices off of the bench.
In fact, if Justice Gorsuch turns out to be a liberal Trojan Horse then we will need 67 patriot senators to remove a House-impeached Gorsuch from office.
Noting that the primaries start in Iowa and New Hampshire in February ‘18, patriots need to challenge candidates for federal office in the following way.
While I Googled the primary information above concerning Iowa and New Hampshire, FReeper iowamark brought to my attention that the February primaries for these states apply only to presidential election years. And after doing some more scratching, since primary dates for most states for 2018 elections probably haven’t been uploaded at this time (March 14, 2017), FReepers will need to find out primary dates from sources and / or websites in their own states.
Patriots need to qualify candidates by asking them why the Founding States made the Constitution’s Section 8 of Article I; to limit (cripple) the federal government’s powers.
Patriots also need to find candidates that are knowledgeable of the Supreme Court's clarifications of the federal government’s limited powers listed below.
“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
”State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress [emphasis added].” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.