Re: Washington State Lawmakers seek oil train regs. & restrictions
Author: Fred
Date: 02-09-2014 - 16:19
brains Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dear David Smith (and H.30cal., too!)- You might
> both benefit by using modern technology to bone up
> on basic political science to get a grasp of the
> terminology and a refresher course on the REAL
> Constitution of the United States of America, not
> to mention, say, the Louisiana Purchase, before
> you sound off like a bunch of loose cannons of
> windiness with nothing FACTUAL to bolster your
> assertions. If you want to turn this discussion
> board into a forum for political tirades, at least
> try to assemble some verifiable evidence for your
> views.
> Others posting on this thread have weighed in
> with relevant points that touch more acutely on
> pros/cons on this.
> As a resident of Washington and residing not
> too far from a refinery that already receives
> Bakken Shale oil, over an old swing bridge and
> along if not pristine, very alive coastal shore-
> and wetlands, I can see no harm in close scrutiny
> in light of Lac Megantic and Casselton, and the
> "commerce clause" has less to do with this than
> Federal legislation that uses that clause to sweep
> all RR regulation into Federal hands, much to the
> benefit of the RRs, and demolishing more local
> regulation that had to be instituted in the days
> of the tycoons!
>the "commerce clause"...
if you go back to the civil rights movement of the 60's/70's you will find at least one instance where Uncle Sam used "Interstate Commerce" as a way to prosecute whites for violating the civil rights of blacks.