Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Frankly, Scott has a better idea on highway funding
nj.com (Star-Ledger) ^ | September 29, 2011 | Paul Mulshine

Posted on 09/29/2011 1:01:24 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks

The other day our sister newspaper, the Gloucester County Times, reported on a raid at a fraternity house at Rowan University where — get ready for a shock — some college kids were drinking. About 100 of the kids were underage and will face charges.

Believe it or not, that incident has its roots in the same problem that led to the controversy over the so-called "Bridge to Nowhere" in Alaska.

That problem lies in the way the federal government distributes highway funding: poorly.

It’s obvious in the case of the bridge that would have connected the city of Ketchikan, Alaska, with the island on which its airport is located. The cost of the bridge seemed to be much too high — at least when compared with other projects around the country. Construction plans were canceled after a Louisiana congressman concluded the money could be much better spent in his home state.

When it comes to drinking at that frat house, though, the connection to federal highway funding seems anything but obvious. It’s likely that most of the partygoers arrived on foot. So why make a federal case about it?

I blame the 17th Amendment.

The 17th Amendment was passed in 1913 amid a wave of populism. It mandated direct election of U.S. senators. In the original Constitution, the framers had left the choice to the state legislatures.

Wisely so. State legislators would tend to select as senators only those who would represent the interests of the state against the federal government. No state would ever have selected a guy who would give the federal government the power to order the states around.

(Excerpt) Read more at blog.nj.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; US: New Jersey
KEYWORDS: 10thamendment; 17thamendment; 1913; 21; 55; 55mph; age21; college; drinking; drinkingage; federalism; franklautenberg; fueltax; gastax; highwayfunding; highways; infrastructure; nanystate; populism; powergrab; progressives; progressivism; roads; scottgarrett; states; statesovereignty; transportation

1 posted on 09/29/2011 1:01:27 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
The best argument in favor of repealing the 17th amendment is occupying the senior senator's position for Washington.

The second best argument in favor of repealing the 17th amendment is occupying the senior senator's position for California.

The third best argument in favor of repealing the 17th amendment is occupying the senior senator's position for Pennsylvania.

2 posted on 09/29/2011 1:32:03 PM PDT by Vigilanteman (Obama: Fake black man. Fake Messiah. Fake American. How many fakes can you fit in one Zer0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vigilanteman
Well, we will just have to disagree about the best argument in favor of repealing the 17th Amendment. It should be the senior senator from New York. But that's a quibble I suspect we can live with.

And, as an aside, the 21 year old drinking age is nonsense. Prohibition for them, but not for us. Gee, don't we feel moral.

3 posted on 09/29/2011 4:10:34 PM PDT by BfloGuy (Even the opponents of Socialism are dominated by socialist ideas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson