Posted on 03/05/2004 3:58:55 PM PST by Indy Pendance
1. Medicare Prescription Drug Entitlement
2. Planned Parenthood Funding
7. U.S. Postal Service
10. Social Security
They don't! For the most part the Amtrak trains all run on lines owned by the freight railroad companies -- indeed the freight trains have priority when there is a schedulding conflict. Amtrak pays a fee to the freight railrods for the use of their tracks.
See here:
Although it operates over 22,000 miles of track in the United States, it owns only about 650 miles of track, primarily in the Northeast corridor between Washington, D.C., and Boston. The rest of the track it uses is owned by major freight railroads, including Richmond, Va.-based CSX Corp. and Norfolk, Va.-based Norfolk Southern for Amtrak trains serving Pittsburgh.
I seem to recall that's also the area where Amtrak actually turns a profit.
There are some places where passenger rail makes sense, and there are places where freight rail makes sense, but passengers and freight have different requirements and I don't know that it makes sense for them to try to share track on a routine basis. Having passenger and freight networks compatible and interconnected could be useful for some purposes (some that come to mind would be (1) transporting empty passenger rolling stock from one place to another, where the rolling stock itself is regarded as "freight"; (2) getting passengers who would otherwise be stranded to their destination, albeit slowly, via the freight network in case part of the passenger network goes out of commission; (3) getting freight to its destination via the passenger network in case part of the freight network went down; it may be necessary to segment long trains to avoid excessive wear to the passenger lines, but this could be better than not being able to move it at all) but in general I think the requirements are apt to be different enough that trying to use the lines for multiple purposes really won't work that well.
Every federal law has two constitutional thresholds to hurdle.
One, does the power and jurisdiction exist to enact a law?
Two, if yes, then does the enacted law violate the bill of rights?
The power and jurisdiction for the federal Congress to enact federal laws comes from several sources:
Some say Article I, Section 8, Cl 1, the "general welfare clause." (Medicare, Farm Subsidies, National Endowment for the Arts, Education, Title IX, Amtrak, etc.)
Some say Article I, Section 8, Cl 3, the "commerce clause." (minimum wage, OSHA, anti-discrimination laws, overtime pay, etc.)
Article I, Section 8, Cl 17, federal jurisdiction within the boundaries of a sovereign state that the federal government lawfully purchases from a state. (forts, federal buildings, armories, mints, etc.)
Article VI, Section 2, ratified treaties becoming the "law of the land." (Endanger Species Act, Social Security, Migratory Bird Act, etc.)
Ok, so the Congress can name several sources of constitutionally granted power and jurisdiction.
But, many of these laws violate the Bill of Rights.
The Endangered Species Act violates the 5th amendment. (..nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.)
Minimum Wage Laws, Family Leave Act violates the 5th amendment.
Social Security is "voluntary" for U.S. citizens, mandatory for legal aliens.
Unfortunately, it is the modern interpretation of expanding the power and jurisdiction of the "general welfare clause" and the "commerce clause" coupled with the blatant ignoring of the 5th amendment to reign in this expanded power, by former and current President's (both parties), members of Congress (both parties), and the federal judiciary that has unleashed the federal leviathan into unconstitutional denying and disparaging of our personal and property rights.
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.