Pennsylvania Act 44
Included in Pennsylvania's Act 44 is an attempt to make Interstate 80 in Pennsylvania a toll road.
It is my opinion that, in effect, this amounts to an unconstitutional attempt to impose a tax on interstate commerce.
First, let us examine the Constitution. Part of Section 10 of the Constitution, Powers Prohibited of States, states:
So it would seem that Congress is not allowed to authorize Pennsylvania to impose a tax on interstate commerce.
How could a toll on Interstate 80 in Pennsylvania be a tax on interstate commerce? Let's say a farmer in Iowa grows some sweet corn that the citizens of New Jersey would like to purchase. To get the corn to New Jersey, the product must transit through Pennsylvania. Should the state of Pennsylvania be allowed to charge more then it costs to build and maintain the roads in Pennsylvania for the goods going through the state? The Constitution says it can not!
Pennsylvania's tax on diesel fuel already stands at 38.1 cents per gallon which is the highest tax on diesel in the nation. Now, in fairness, Pennsylvania does not charge a ton mile tax which some states with lower fuel tax rates also charge in addition (or in the case of Oregon, instead of) to fund highway maintenance. However Pennsylvania also has large sections of interstate highways where, in addition collecting the fuel tax for miles traveled, a toll is collected. Even without collecting tolls for traveling on Intestate 80, Pennsylvania probably ranks as high as # 3 in the nation, (certainly at least in the top 5) for revenue collected for miles traveled through the state.
There is no way all the money collected goes towards highway construction and maintenance. Any money collected that goes towards anything other then highway construction and maintenance amounts to an unconstitutional tax on interstate commerce.
So what do we do about it?
If Pennsylvania receives authorization to make I80 a toll road, we wait until the toll has been in effect long enough to collect several million dollars in tolls. Then we find a young, sharp, hungry lawyer who wants to become rich and famous and we file a class action lawsuit seeking the return of the revenue collected illegally. The lawyer can subpoena Pennsylvania's highway construction and maintenance tax receipt and expenditure records so he can prove that more money is collected then is spent on maintaining the highway infrastructure. The lawyer would receive his compensation from a portion of the millions in tolls that had been collected.
Pennsylvania has no justification for making I80 a toll road. It is impossible for the state to be wisely spending all the revenue already collected on highway construction and maintenance. The highways in Pennsylvania are not that good. Money has to be being siphoned off for other purposes somehow, and such siphoning is unconstitutional. It amounts to an illegal tax on interstate commerce. Citizens of New Jersey should not have to pay for services provided to the citizens of Pennsylvania only because goods they need and desire are transported through the state of Pennsylvania.
Now it is my understanding that a large portion of the revenue collected goes to fund mass transit. A sliver of the revenue collected going to mass transit probably could be justified because mass transit relieves congestion in metropolitan areas. Vessels (trucks) transporting goods through these areas benefit through reduction in congestion. However it should not be too hard for a sharp lawyer to crunch the numbers and prove the portion of revenue provided for mass transit exceeds the benefit gained.
Certainly imposing a tax on interstate commerce that transits the I80 corridor can not be justified because any benefits from funding mass transit will not be realized on this corridor.
If the state of Pennsylvania wants to ignore the Constitution, we'll take them to court!
It is my opinion that, in effect, this amounts to an unconstitutional attempt to impose a tax on interstate commerce.
First, let us examine the Constitution. Part of Section 10 of the Constitution, Powers Prohibited of States, states:
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.Now this would seem to indicate that Pennsylvania could in fact tax interstate commerce if such a tax was authorized by Congress. But can Congress authorize such a tax? Let us examine part of Section 9, Limits on Congress, which states:
No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.
No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.
So it would seem that Congress is not allowed to authorize Pennsylvania to impose a tax on interstate commerce.
How could a toll on Interstate 80 in Pennsylvania be a tax on interstate commerce? Let's say a farmer in Iowa grows some sweet corn that the citizens of New Jersey would like to purchase. To get the corn to New Jersey, the product must transit through Pennsylvania. Should the state of Pennsylvania be allowed to charge more then it costs to build and maintain the roads in Pennsylvania for the goods going through the state? The Constitution says it can not!
Pennsylvania's tax on diesel fuel already stands at 38.1 cents per gallon which is the highest tax on diesel in the nation. Now, in fairness, Pennsylvania does not charge a ton mile tax which some states with lower fuel tax rates also charge in addition (or in the case of Oregon, instead of) to fund highway maintenance. However Pennsylvania also has large sections of interstate highways where, in addition collecting the fuel tax for miles traveled, a toll is collected. Even without collecting tolls for traveling on Intestate 80, Pennsylvania probably ranks as high as # 3 in the nation, (certainly at least in the top 5) for revenue collected for miles traveled through the state.
There is no way all the money collected goes towards highway construction and maintenance. Any money collected that goes towards anything other then highway construction and maintenance amounts to an unconstitutional tax on interstate commerce.
So what do we do about it?
If Pennsylvania receives authorization to make I80 a toll road, we wait until the toll has been in effect long enough to collect several million dollars in tolls. Then we find a young, sharp, hungry lawyer who wants to become rich and famous and we file a class action lawsuit seeking the return of the revenue collected illegally. The lawyer can subpoena Pennsylvania's highway construction and maintenance tax receipt and expenditure records so he can prove that more money is collected then is spent on maintaining the highway infrastructure. The lawyer would receive his compensation from a portion of the millions in tolls that had been collected.
Pennsylvania has no justification for making I80 a toll road. It is impossible for the state to be wisely spending all the revenue already collected on highway construction and maintenance. The highways in Pennsylvania are not that good. Money has to be being siphoned off for other purposes somehow, and such siphoning is unconstitutional. It amounts to an illegal tax on interstate commerce. Citizens of New Jersey should not have to pay for services provided to the citizens of Pennsylvania only because goods they need and desire are transported through the state of Pennsylvania.
Now it is my understanding that a large portion of the revenue collected goes to fund mass transit. A sliver of the revenue collected going to mass transit probably could be justified because mass transit relieves congestion in metropolitan areas. Vessels (trucks) transporting goods through these areas benefit through reduction in congestion. However it should not be too hard for a sharp lawyer to crunch the numbers and prove the portion of revenue provided for mass transit exceeds the benefit gained.
Certainly imposing a tax on interstate commerce that transits the I80 corridor can not be justified because any benefits from funding mass transit will not be realized on this corridor.
If the state of Pennsylvania wants to ignore the Constitution, we'll take them to court!
posted by Little David at 12/14/2007 11:38:00 AM
21 Comments:
The state is not laying tax on "imports" or "exports" they are laying tax on the use of the roads. That seems to be the key concept you are confusing. Those engaging in interstate commerce, nor their payloads, are specifically taxed, nor are they singled out from EVERY person using a toll road.
Therefore, a toll road on an interstate can not be construed as a "tax" on interstate commerce simply because vehicles engaged in interstate commerce happen to traverse that stretch of road.
That is completely convoluted, and any "young, hungry lawyer" stupid enough to take that up would probably watch his career ruined over the case.
When the toll revenue received is used to pay for expenses other then the maintenance of the roads used it amounts to a tax.
If the tolls received are used to pay for construction and maintenance of the roads being tolled, that is another story. However Pennsylvania would use the revenue to provide benefits to their citizens at the expense of citizens of other states. This amounts to a tax on interstate commerce which is prohibited by the Constitution.
Putting a toll on a highway larger then the amount required to construct and maintain the highway is no different then the action prohibited by the Constitution as specified by the sections I quoted. Just because the Constitution speaks generally in terms of water borne commerce while tolls would be subjected to surface transportation does not make the proposed Pennsylvania tolls more acceptable. Please note that the "Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports" prohibited would not necessarily have prevented such revenue generated on the goods exported themselves. They prevent imposing unreasonable fees on the seagoing vessels themselves as well beyond those which "which may be absolutely necessary".
1. When the toll revenue received is used to pay for expenses other then the maintenance of the roads used it amounts to a tax.
- Actually, Im willing to define all tolls as tax....what is your point? They arent taxing "interstate commerce".
2. However Pennsylvania would use the revenue to provide benefits to their citizens at the expense of citizens of other states.
- That is not intentional. The intent of the "tax" is not to tax interstate commerce, just for the use of the road. If you "flew" your goods in, or carted them on your back through the grass, you would not be subject to the taxation.
3. This amounts to a tax on interstate commerce which is prohibited by the Constitution.
- No it doesnt. A tax on interstate commerce is a tax on interstate commerce. A tax for using a road, is not a tax on interstate commerce simply because interstate commerce happens to use that road.
However taxing the transit of goods through one state only because they transit through the state is unconstitutional considering the articles of the Constitution I cited.
It does not make any difference that you do not see a problem with it. The problem is with the Constitution.
If it is OK for Pennsylvania to impose a "toll" on surface commerce then it would be OK for states with ocean boundaries to impose a "toll" on waterborne commerce. Such activity is specifically prohibited by the Constitution. Just because a "vessel" is a truck instead of a ship does not make the revenue raising scheme more lawful.
1. It does not make any difference that you do not see a problem with it. The problem is with the Constitution.
- No the problem is that you are misdefining the toll as a tax on commerce. It is clearly NOT a tax on commerce, and does not violate ANY parts of the constitution. This is fact, not my "opinion".
2. If it is OK for Pennsylvania to impose a "toll" on surface commerce then it would be OK for states with ocean boundaries to impose a "toll" on waterborne commerce.
- For the 4th time, the tax is NOT on commerce, it is on the use of the road. The fact that commerce travels ON the road does NOT make it a tax on commerce. That is a complete and utter logical fallacy.
In other words Pennsylvania cannot say "I am taxing your freight for coming in my state" or "I am taxing you simply because you transport items for resale".
Just because you repeat the same false line over and over again does not make it correct.
The Constitution specifically bars imposing a tariff on commerce only because it is transported through somewhere. Just because you are going to call it a "toll" or a "fee" does not change it from what it is. As long as the fee charged amounts to more then the cost of building and maintaining the road it amounts to a tariff on interstate commerce.
Truckers engaged in using the highway should not be entitled to use the highway for free. However if the tolls (or even fuel tax) charged result in a "profit" that is used for something other then highway maintenance, or for services that improve the use of the highway (such as improving safety through law enforcement) it amounts to a tariff which is prohibited by the Constitution.
Now, this does not prohibit all tollways. It does not even prohibit public/private tollroad partnerships where private enterprise operates the tollroads at a profit where the tolls charged remain the same and the profits come through the increased efficiencies of private management. However it does prohibit what Pennsylvania was/is trying to do through Act 44.
1. The Constitution specifically bars imposing a tariff on commerce only because it is transported through somewhere. Just because you are going to call it a "toll" or a "fee" does not change it from what it is. As long as the fee charged amounts to more then the cost of building and maintaining the road it amounts to a tariff on interstate commerce.
- Read the part I bolded. Pennsylvania DID NOT IMPOSE A TAX ON FREIGHT OR COMMERCE, they IMPOSED A TAX ON USING THE ROAD.
I dont give a damn if you call it a tax, a toll, or peanuts, that is no issue. The issue is that you are defining a tax on using the road, as a tax on interstate commerce. That is like defining a tax on eating apples, as a tax on apples. No, you can have apples all you want, just like you can bring out of state freight in Pennsylvania all you want, the issue is when you eat the apple, just like the issue is when you use the road that has a toll on it. You as interstate commerce are NOT singled out for being interstate commerce. You pay the toll just like everyone else. Therefore the tax is NOT specific to interstate commerce, and could NEVER be proven so in any respectable court, not even with OJ's defense team. It is a colossal logical fallacy, and its something taught very early in any lawyers career to avoid as an argument.
A tax for using the road is no different then imposing a tariff on a "vessel" for simply using a port. Such a fee, beyond the amount necessary to maintain the port, is specifically prohibited by the Constitution.
In the same manner, a fee imposed on a highway beyond the expense required to construct and maintain it is also prohibited.
As for your apple example. Guffaw. You can have all the apples you want, you just can't eat them! What a hoot.
I'm going to use your apple example to once again attempt to prove my point.
Let's say apples are being grown in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania puts a tax on apples (or even eating apples not the apples themselves). Pennsylvania can charge such a tax within her borders. Pennsylvania can even charge a citizen of New Jersey the tax for the apples that a citizen of New Jersey buys within the state of Pennsylvania in the retail market. However the state of Pennsylvania is prohibited from charging the tax (whether it is on the apple itself or the act of eating the apple) on apples sold wholesale within Pennsylvania destined for the New Jersey retail market even though the apples were originally grown in Pennsylvania.
There are some exceptions since Pennsylvania is allowed to impose fees on wholesale commerce in order to pay for the expenses of regulating the wholesale market. Such fees are permitted under the Constitution, however they must be justifiable.
1. A tax for using the road is no different then imposing a tariff on a "vessel" for simply using a port. Such a fee, beyond the amount necessary to maintain the port, is specifically prohibited by the Constitution.
- You cannot arbitrarily apply one section of the constitution to a seperate situation. The reason ports were specifically referenced, was because taxing a foreign boat for specifically docking at another state would parallel taxing a truck for entering Pennsylvania from Ohio. This is not the case.
2. As for your apple example. Guffaw. You can have all the apples you want, you just can't eat them! What a hoot.
- As entertaining as that is to you, its a legit example
3. However the state of Pennsylvania is prohibited from charging the tax (whether it is on the apple itself or the act of eating the apple) on apples sold wholesale within Pennsylvania destined for the New Jersey retail market even though the apples were originally grown in Pennsylvania.
- Actually, this is where you are wrong. They are not allowed to tax on INTERSTATE COMMERCE, therefore, they cannot tax the apples, coming to or going from New Jersey. By every definition of the word, commerce is the EXCHANGE, of goods and services, for an equivalent consideration. Commerce is NOT the use of roads involved in the trade, it is not the vehicles involved, it is not the consumption of the goods or services involved in the exchange.
By your argument, and some slight variations to it, you could argue that ANY tax on any part of an item that comes in to the state, is unconstitutional. Its unconstitutional to put retail tax on clothing made in North Carolina, its unconstitutional to require any kind of DOT permits specific to Pennsylvania on the vehicles hauling those clothes, its unconstitutional to charge a tax on the roads used to transport the goods, its unconstitutional to charge fuel tax on the fuel put in the truck that is involved in the commerce.......you see how that just spiders? It all sounds equally rediculous, but can be argued under the EXACT premise you are arguing against tolls.
In fact trucking is involved in interstate commerce. That is why for a long period of time trucking was regulated by the "Interstate Commerce Commission" (which no longer exists).
And as for your arguments on taxes, note how goods mail ordered from Pennsylvania are not allowed to be taxed by either the state of Pennsylvania or your own state (commonwealth) Virginia. There is an exception to this requirement (free from taxes) where if the entity you are ordering the merchandise from also conducts business in your state, then the tax can be levied by the state of the recipient of the goods.
As for my argument about Pennsylvania's Act 44 being unconstitutional, word is that Pennsylvania has pretty much given up on making Interstate 80 a toll road and the reason for abandoning it lies pretty much along the reasons I expressed concern about.
And no, my argument does not spider out to everything you state. Pennsylvania can charge "reasonable" fees for regulation, inspections etc etc. Pennsylvania can charge taxes on fuel (whether the fuel is purchased in Pennsylvania or not) to fund construction and maintenance of the roadways in Pennsylvania. What Pennsylvania can not do is put unreasonable charges (no matter what they call it) on interstate commerce in order to get out of state citizens to pay for government services that would be received largely only by the citizens of Pennsylvania.
1. In fact trucking is involved in interstate commerce. That is why for a long period of time trucking was regulated by the "Interstate Commerce Commission" (which no longer exists).
- Trucks ARE involved in interstate commerce, this is true. They are not "taxing" you for driving a truck, they are taxing you for driving on the road.
2. And as for your arguments on taxes, note how goods mail ordered from Pennsylvania are not allowed to be taxed by either the state of Pennsylvania or your own state (commonwealth) Virginia.
- The order of a "mail order good" constitutes COMMERCE, and that is why it cannot be taxed. However, the transportation OF that good, can be taxed, and often is. This is usually cloaked in shipping and handling fees. By the same premise, Pennsylvania cannot tax your load, can not tax you for having that load, and cannot tax you specifically for being a vehicle that transports interstate commerce. By having a toll road, they are doing none of that.
3. As for my argument about Pennsylvania's Act 44 being unconstitutional, word is that Pennsylvania has pretty much given up on making Interstate 80 a toll road and the reason for abandoning it lies pretty much along the reasons I expressed concern about.
- From what I read, it was passed in July of 2007, and the big hoopla over it wasnt a "constitutional" matter, it was simply the question of the Federal Highway Administration approving the tolls on a federal highway (largely because federal law, not consititutional law, sets requirements of how much "extra" money can be scraped off the top, and what the rest needs to be spent on). Its kind of funny though, because, my research led me to the Federal Highway Administration page, where it actually lays out Federal GUIDELINES for placing tolls on the federal highway system (it is part of the federal code). This has been in effect for decades, and hasnt once been challenged as unconsititutional. Tolls, are not unconstitutional, period. They are allowed, and regulated by a federal office.
4. What Pennsylvania can not do is put unreasonable charges (no matter what they call it) on interstate commerce.....
- They didnt put fees on interstate commerce......they put fees on usage of the road.
Actually, fees placed on trucking have often been challenged as being unconstitutional. Sometimes successfully and sometimes not. Trust me, I am exposed to a little bit more info on what is going on in the trucking industry then you do.
As for your OPINION that excessive tolls beyond what is necessary for construction and maintenance of the highways is Constitutional or not, well, we'll see. If Pennsylvania is successful in placing a toll on Interstate 80 in the manner proposed, I'm getting me a lawyer. You might see my name in the news.
Now, I am not saying all tollroads are unconstitutional. Missouri has won preliminary approval to make Interstate 70 in that state a tollroad. Depending on the specifics and the level of toll charged, Missouri almost has justification (Missouri's fuel taxes are fairly low). Virginia has won approval to make Interstate 81 a tollroad in our state. However Virginia was thinking about making it a toll for trucks only (cars could travel for "free") which would get into a grey area of being a tax on commerce (in my opinion). However Virginia has pretty much abandoned the idea. If Virginia had gone through with it (in the manner discussed) I'd once again be searching for a lawyer.
I understand your OPINION (and it is not an expert one) on the subject and I disagree with it. I understand that at least some who would benefit from taxing the trucking industry might agree with you. However if states insist on imposing what I consider to be unreasonable tariffs, (or taxes, fees, tolls or whatever you want to call them) I'm going to attempt to force the Supreme Court to give us their opinion on the subject.
If my opinion does not have merit, I won't even be able to get a lawyer. I'll bet I can interest one without even having to spend a dime of my own money on legal fees.
1. Actually, fees placed on trucking have often been challenged as being unconstitutional.
- Read that about a dozen times.....THEY ARE NOT TAXING TRUCKING, THEY ARE NOT PUTTING FEES ON TRUCKING, THEY ARE PUTTING FEES ON USAGE OF THE ROAD. I dont know how much simpler or clearer that can be made.
2. However Virginia was thinking about making it a toll for trucks only (cars could travel for "free") which would get into a grey area of being a tax on commerce (in my opinion).
- In this case, I would agree with you, taxing a specific vehicle type, that is primarily involved in commerce, could be construed as being unconstitutional if you argued well. When ALL vehicles traveling on the road are taxed though, that no longer is even remotely a tax on commerce, it is a tax on usage of the road. Everyone pays to use it.
3. I understand that at least some who would benefit from taxing the trucking industry might agree with you.
- They arent taxing the trucking industry though, they are taxing for the usage of the road. If you can please point out how you have come to the conclusion that taxing a road EVERYONE drives on is equivalent to taxing the trucking industry, maybe I could see where you are coming from.
4. However if states insist on imposing what I consider to be unreasonable tariffs, (or taxes, fees, tolls or whatever you want to call them) I'm going to attempt to force the Supreme Court to give us their opinion on the subject.
- The Supreme Court did not disagree with the Federal Laws regarding BUILDING tolls on federal highways. They did set requirements for building those tolls, and as long as Pennsylvania follows them, taxing everyone who goes on the road is perfectly legal and not unconstitutional.
5. I'll bet I can interest one without even having to spend a dime of my own money on legal fees.
- You will never EVER have a lawyer have any interest in that particuliar scenario. Yeah, if that case where they are only taxing trucks happened, you might have a number who would take that on. If Pennsylvania built a toll that didnt follow federal law, you might get a lawyer to do that.
However you will never get a lawyer to try to take on a case of tolls being unconstitutional simply because they lay tax to trucks involved in interstate trucking (along with taxing every other vehicle).
To quote you:
"THEY ARE NOT TAXING TRUCKING, THEY ARE NOT PUTTING FEES ON TRUCKING, THEY ARE PUTTING FEES ON USAGE OF THE ROAD."
You did not have to put it in all caps. I understood and disagreed with you when you typed it previously in normal case.
I guess you are not aware, but Interstate 80 is a major truck route. Tolls are not imposed on small vehicles at the same rate as smaller vehicles. But that's fair you say? Trucks already pay taxes on diesel fuel in Pennsylvania at over 38 cents per gallon which is the highest diesel fuel tax in the nation. Since they already pay higher fuel taxes due to their extremely low fuel mileage (think 6 miles per gallon) then the smaller more fuel efficient passenger vehicles, why should they then have to pay an additional premium on the tollroad? Pennsylvania does not give credit towards fuel taxes for miles traveled on tollroads. By the way, due to IFTA (International Fuel Tax Agreement) most trucks have to pay Pennsylvania's tax on diesel for the amount of diesel CONSUMED while traveling in Pennsylvania even if the fuel was purchased outside the state!
It is my opinion that the proposal to make I80 a toll road in Pennsylvania is nothing more then a complicated, hidden agenda attempt to place a tax on interstate commerce and get out-of-state citizens to pay for the expenses of government within Pennsylvania so Pennsylvania's citizens do not have to pay for everything they want.
By the way, while I am against Virginia's attempt to make I81 a tollroad for trucks only, it is my opinion that it would have been more difficult to defeat Virginia's proposal as being unconstitutional. Unfair? Yes. Unconstitutional? Perhaps, however it is not (in my opinion) as clearcut a case as was Pennsylvania's Act 44.
1. I guess you are not aware, but Interstate 80 is a major truck route. Tolls are not imposed on small vehicles at the same rate as smaller vehicles. But that's fair you say? Trucks already pay taxes on diesel fuel in Pennsylvania at over 38 cents per gallon which is the highest diesel fuel tax in the nation.
- As long as ALL trucks are treated the same, by weight, and not by purpose, yes, charging heavier vehicles more, is not taxing trucking. In order to be a tax on interstate commerce it HAS to be a tax on interstate commerce directly, or a tax that can be very easily shown to only discriminate against vehicles involved in interstate commerce. Circumstantial items such as saying "well, you make me pay more for being a truck, and diesel fuel, and I happen to be involved in interstate trucking", does not mean they are taxing you FOR being interstate trucking. You just happened to be subjected to the tax that every other truck your weight and every other vehicle that uses diesel fuel is.
The diesel fuel tax is immaterial. Many vehicles, including passenger vehicles, use diesel fuel.
2. It is my opinion that the proposal to make I80 a toll road in Pennsylvania is nothing more then a complicated, hidden agenda attempt to place a tax on interstate commerce and get out-of-state citizens to pay for the expenses of government within Pennsylvania so Pennsylvania's citizens do not have to pay for everything they want.
- No, I seriously doubt they are just trying to single out interstate trucks (even in secret). They have probably determined that road has a high traffic frequency, and has few "go arounds", and they figured it was a perfect place to pop one in order to seperate ALL vehicles from their money.
1. In order to be a tax on interstate commerce it HAS to be a tax on interstate commerce directly, or a tax that can be very easily shown to only discriminate against vehicles involved in interstate commerce.
- It is my opinion that this is not what the Constitution says. In fact the Constitution would seem to indicate that any fees charged beyond those reasonably assessed to build, maintain and regulate the highways is illegal, and by that I mean unConstitutional. Of course any expression of opinion by the courts, with the highest court being the Supreme Court, is all that really matters.
2. ...I seriously doubt they are just trying to single out interstate trucks (even in secret). They have probably determined that road has a high traffic frequency, and has few "go arounds", and they figured it was a perfect place to pop one in order to seperate ALL vehicles from their money.
- In fact Pennsylvania promised her citizens along the I80 corridor that toll booths would be strategically located so as to allow most local traffic to escape paying any toll on most trips.
1. It is my opinion that this is not what the Constitution says. In fact the Constitution would seem to indicate that any fees charged beyond those reasonably assessed to build, maintain and regulate the highways is illegal, and by that I mean unConstitutional. Of course any expression of opinion by the courts, with the highest court being the Supreme Court, is all that really matters.
- Ok once again, the state of Pennsylvania is NOT taxing imports, for the 600th time. Since it is NOT taxing imports, the argument you use supported by Article 1 section 10
"No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress."
Is completely invalid. Your whole complete argument from start to finish is based on the assumption that a vehicle transporting interstate commerce happening through a toll road, means that tax is a tax on interstate commerce, which it is NOT.
2. In fact Pennsylvania promised her citizens along the I80 corridor that toll booths would be strategically located so as to allow most local traffic to escape paying any toll on most trips.
- So, it local traffic can escape those tolls so "easily", why cant you take the same routes they are supposed to?
Cory:
You said:
"Is completely invalid. Your whole complete argument from start to finish is based on the assumption that a vehicle transporting interstate commerce happening through a toll road, means that tax is a tax on interstate commerce, which it is NOT."
So then it should be OK for the state to impose a $1,000 toll on commercial vehicles transiting the highway? Even if the cost of repaying the expense and maintaining the roads only amounts to $50?
Should the citizens of Pennsylvania be allowed to charge tolls that allow them to build new stadiums for the Phillies and Pirates at the expense of the citizens of New Jersey? That's what we are talking about. I exagerated on the tolls, but the reasoning is the same... and the reasoning is that it is unconstitutional.
You also said:
"So, it local traffic can escape those tolls so "easily", why cant you take the same routes they are supposed to?"
It is pretty obvious that you have never driven a truck. This is not a condemnation, just a statement of fact. If you had any experience you would understand that the citizens on these routes are going to put pressure on the politicians and the police force to stop the truck traffic. Truck drivers on these routes will be given tickets for outright imaginary infractions to harass the trucks back into paying the tolls.
1. So then it should be OK for the state to impose a $1,000 toll on commercial vehicles transiting the highway? Even if the cost of repaying the expense and maintaining the roads only amounts to $50?
- No, taxing commerical vehicles specifically, would come dangerously close to the interstate taxation clause in the Constitution. However, if the FHA allows that gross amount of profit, it might be morally wrong, but it does not violate the Constitution.
2. Should the citizens of Pennsylvania be allowed to charge tolls that allow them to build new stadiums for the Phillies and Pirates at the expense of the citizens of New Jersey?
- It is unlikely the Federal government would allow a toll on a federal interstate highway that is scraping off money to build a stadium. Pennsylvania is going to have to justify the appropriation of that money somehow before they gain approval to pop up a toll. However, after that point, yes, I do agree that New Jersey residents coming through Pennsylvania have to pay the toll just like everyone else. If they dont like it, dont come through PA. New Jersey collects plenty of money from dozens of bridges (almost all are tolled) crossing the Delaware from Delaware and Pennsylvania residents.
3. If you had any experience you would understand that the citizens on these routes are going to put pressure on the politicians and the police force to stop the truck traffic. Truck drivers on these routes will be given tickets for outright imaginary infractions to harass the trucks back into paying the tolls.
- I think you are veering off into conspiracy territory. Yes, Ive never driven a truck, but Im certainly positive the citizens are not teaming up with the local government to force you into paying tolls. Citizens might bitch about the noise, or the girth of the trucks coming through residential roads, but theyd do that regardless of toll roads or not. I doubt it is any citizens intention to force you on a toll road.
As to whether the tolling of I80 (in the manner proposed) would be Constitutional, I understand your expression of opinion.
As to who's opinion is correct, this could only be decided in the courts, possibly the Supreme Court itself. Since it appears Pennsylvania is not going to make I80 a tollroad, I guess we will not be finding out.
As for New Jersey collecting tolls on the bridges crossing the Delaware river... these tolls are collected by a toll authority. I believe the authority is actually a joint venture of all the ajoining states. In any event, to my knowledge none of tolls are collected on the New Jersey side of the border, all of tollboothes (for the Delaware River crossings) are on the other side of the river.
As for me being a conspiracy theorist: try being in a big truck and attemt to avoid paying the tolls on I95 in Maryland or Delaware. You might get away with it a few times but eventually you are going to get a ticket because you can not legally be on these routes in a typical big truck except for local pickups and deliveries. In New Jersey I once was pulled over for attempting to avoid the tolls on the Jew Jersey Turnpike. The state trooper cut me a break and only gave me a warning ticket. He also informed me that next time I would receive a citation and that the fine was over $400.
While the ire of the local citizenry might be for the reasons you stated, the end result is going to be the same. By hook or by crook trucks are going to be forced into taking the tollroad and paying the toll.
Post a Comment
<< Home