Constitutionality of Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956

[The Midnight Ride]

Wanted to get some opinions regarding the constitutionality of this piece of legislation.

I got into an argument with a democrat over whether government intervention is necessary in regards to the climate or whether free-market environmentalism and opening up stronger liability for damage to property (ex: BP's cap on damages - not free market) would have better results. I cited this Act during the argument as an example of how the government introduces legislation that has unintended consequences despite the intention. This Act created the highway system at the expense of our locomotive industry. In fact, trains today have over three times the efficiency of semi's (130 ton-miles to 430 ton-miles). One would have to think that should the locomotive industry continued and expanded at the rate it was that number would be even higher as operators who would use their trains to transport goods would more urgently seek new technologies to lower their cost compared to their competitors. I figure that if the market had demanded such an expansive highway system, private entrepreneurs would have sprung and sought to satisfy consumer demand (I know that Eisenhower argued for this in order to have a greater national defense).

I have argued against the use of the Art. I, Sec. 8 and the General Welfare Clause in Con Law when discussing the FAHA, citing much of the same information that is used to show the lack of constitutionality with the Dept. of Education (Federalist No. 33, Ratifying Conventions, Express Delegation of Power, etc.). But I would like to hear your thoughts, was this a Constitutional Act?

[Icymudpuppy]

While it may not be a good act, I would say that it is constitutional as the constitution does have the power to provide for the common defense, and also to establish post roads.

Since Eisenhower's primary purpose for the Highway was to allow for mobilization of Army units, it does have a national defense value.

Also, since the mail is carried over these highways, they qualify as post roads.

[The Midnight Ride]

While it may not be a good act, I would say that it is constitutional as the constitution does have the power to provide for the common defense, and also to establish post roads.

Since Eisenhower's primary purpose for the Highway was to allow for mobilization of Army units, it does have a national defense value.

Also, since the mail is carried over these highways, they qualify as post roads.

I guess my response would be to what extent does federal power allow post roads to be built? I would think the applying the "less intrusive means" test would be appropriate in this instance. In other words, since there was roads which already allowed the mail to be carried, were these roads really necessary and not just convenient? I would have to make the same argument in regards to the National Defense as well.

If I recall, several President's including Madison, Monroe, Jackson and Tyler, vetoed similar legislation on the grounds of constitutionality.

[Icymudpuppy]

I guess my response would be to what extent does federal power allow post roads to be built? I would think the applying the "less intrusive means" test would be appropriate in this instance. In other words, since there was roads which already allowed the mail to be carried, were these roads really necessary and not just convenient? I would have to make the same argument in regards to the National Defense as well.

If I recall, several President's including Madison, Monroe, Jackson and Tyler, vetoed similar legislation on the grounds of constitutionality.

The problem is something that a lot of people on this board have pointed out. The constitution does not limit nearly enough.

I don't agree with the the FAHA, but I can clearly see how it is constitutional on multiple grounds.

[South Park Fan]

The Interstate Highway System ought to be considered an anathema to libertarians and environmentalists alike. The former should realize how the nationalization of transportation has been the death knell of federalism in this country as the Feds can just threaten to cut any state's highway funds that threatens to defy the Feds. The latter should realize that the IHS was essentially a massive subsidy to the automotive industry to the detriment of more efficient modes of transportation.

[heavenlyboy34]

The Interstate Highway System ought to be considered an anathema to libertarians and environmentalists alike. The former should realize how the nationalization of transportation has been the death knell of federalism in this country as the Feds can just threaten to cut any state's highway funds that threatens to defy the Feds. The latter should realize that the IHS was essentially a massive subsidy to the automotive industry to the detriment of more efficient modes of transportation.qft

[heavenlyboy34]

While it may not be a good act, I would say that it is constitutional as the constitution does have the power to provide for the common defense, and also to establish post roads.

Since Eisenhower's primary purpose for the Highway was to allow for mobilization of Army units, it does have a national defense value.

Also, since the mail is carried over these highways, they qualify as post roads.
Don't "post roads" have to be exclusively for postal use? Highways wouldn't count in that case.

[Dr.3D]

Well, now that those highways have been built, I see no reason for federal involvement and so the act should be abolished, allowing the states to take care of those highways.

[ronpaulfollower999]

Meh. I can see how it would be important to mobilize ground troops across the country should America be attacked…but the Interstate Highway System is one of a few reasons why private intercity passenger rail went bankrupt. Of course during WWII, the military made up a good chunk of rail travel…hell, nearly everything during that period was for the military. But it ended the Gr8 Depression!!11! :rolleyes:

[Microsecessionist]

I think it is because the Constitution intended for public works which makes it no good. Hamilton and Jay 2 of the 3 authors of the Federalist papers, and they supported Public works projects. The Federalists were economic fascists.

Madison also did not believe in States' Rights. When confronted about the lack of the word "specifically" in the 10th Amendment that was ratified, he said the Federal Government should have implied powers. When he said the powers reserved to the States would be "numerous and indefinite", that was nothing more than a lie so that the States would ratify the Constitution. He also burned all of his records of the Constitutional Convention (he was the last Framer to die). Google "Constitution as Counter Revolution" by Jeffrey Rogers Hummel. I'm sure Dr. Paul knows about it.

[sailingaway]

Eisenhower argued that in the event of attack, as if the Japanese had gotten here, we would need it for national troop movements, pulling it under national defense.

I'm not all that concerned with that fiction, mostly because as Ron Paul says, "No one wants a revolution because of the highways."

However, why would article I Section 8 specify 'post roads' were ok amongst roads if others already were? But the 13 colonies were much smaller, as well.