Implications of Republican sweep, part II

[Anonymous]

Another prediction: Look for the Jones Act to be eliminated. This action would have a huge impact on rail operations, as it would allow foreign flagged ships to sail between U.S. ports. It might make Alaskan coals price competitive with PRB coals in coastal coal consumer markets. Also could take some north-south trade away from the railroads on the East Coast.

[vsmith]

Oh no ya dont, I aint getting into this one again....the rest of ya..enjoy!

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal
. . . It might make Alaskan coals price competitive with PRB coals in coastal coal consumer markets. Also could take some north-south trade away from the railroads on the East Coast.

Or not to put to light a point on the matter, Make the CN and Alaska RR hook-up an even more likely and cause the East Coast lines to have an even greater presence through the increase in volume heading toward the East and more particularly the Southeastern U.S.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by piouslion

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal
. . . It might make Alaskan coals price competitive with PRB coals in coastal coal consumer markets. Also could take some north-south trade away from the railroads on the East Coast.

Or not to put to light a point on the matter, Make the CN and Alaska RR hook-up an even more likely and cause the East Coast lines to have an even greater presence through the increase in volume heading toward the East and more particularly the Southeastern U.S.

That would certainly put the railroads back in the driver's seat if indeed the Jones Act was eliminated, but of course the Alaska rail link would take years and some big bucks to construct. Although the Alaska rail link has unilateral support of Alaska's state government and congressional delegation, right now I think their primary focus is on getting the needed incentives for a natural gas pipeline built down to the lower 48. Also, it seems the Canadians are rather lukewarm toward the whole rail thing.

Since pro-development forces basically have a 4 year window of opportunity, I doubt the Alaskan rail link will get serious consideration in the short term. If a pro-development president is elected in 2008, then it might move up on the priority list, but at this point I don't see anyone remotely as pro-development as Bush on either the Republican or Democrat side in line for 2008.

[Anonymous]

True to a point,

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by piouslion

True to a point, But as Mark Hemphill has said on more than one occasion, and I will paraphrase "When it comes to railroads, economics rule." or as Dr. Albro Martin would say "its just as easly all politics." Put them together with a bit of desperation and an opportunity to make some money (profit) You will see that railroad happen.

[espeefoamer]

Alaska RR has already been talking to CN about building a connection.I have seen several news items on this in CTC Board.

[Junctionfan]

Canadian are o.k with rail as long as the government (federal) makes an effort to sell it. We Canadians aren't hard-butts, if you make a worth while pledge and say it will be benefitial to us, as long as it is, we say " go for it".

Bush seems to be good at selling himself (he won the election right?). He should sell the rail industry more if he can concentrate on other important things besides the war on terrorism. Bush wouldn't be quite so bad if he would stop flogging the heck out of the "war on terrorism" and "gay marriages". I think he can get rather single track minded at times and seems to forget about the other stuff until the media and his political opponents bring it up. That is one of the things that concerned me the most about him.

Anyways

I think the U.S government could make a decent case to Canadians which we would support (B.C/ Alaska connection). It's not like its contraversial like Star Wars.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

Canadian are o.k with rail as long as the government (federal) makes an effort to sell it. We Canadians aren't hard-butts, if you make a worth while pledge and say it will be benefitial to us, as long as it is, we say " go for it".

Bush seems to be good at selling himself (he won the election right?). He should sell the rail industry more if he can concentrate on other important things besides the war on terrorism. Bush wouldn't be quite so bad if he would stop flogging the heck out of the "war on terrorism" and "gay marriages". I think he can get rather single track minded at times and seems to forget about the other stuff until the media and his political opponents bring it up. That is one of the things that concerned me the most about him.

Anyways

I think the U.S government could make a decent case to Canadians which we would support (B.C/ Alaska connection). It's not like its contraversial like Star Wars.

It is true that Canada may have different objectives than the U.S. regarding interstate infrastructure development. Take the proposed natural gas pipeline: Alaska wants it to run down into the interior of the state before it crosses into Yukon to aid in development along the Alcan. Canada would rather it cross over from the Artic Plains through the Mackenzie gas fields, which makes sense since it could pick up the major Canadian fields. It will be interesting to see how that all plays out.

Regarding the Alaska rail link, is there at least a consensus on which route is preferable? I can see the U.S. prefering a Dease Lake connection which would better enable the "I-5" rail corridor to the California markets, while Canada might perfer the Fort St. John route into Alberta, which would better serve cross continental traffic needs.

[Junctionfan]

It hasn't really come up yet. I say yet because as soon as the Kyoto Protocol comes into effect, rail investment is on the list of things to do. I would imagine since Canada wanted Kyoto, rail will be easy to sell.

[Anonymous]

I still that the Republican's should come up with a new bill to start oil drilling in Alaska!
Have a nice day.

[daveklepper]

Again, I think the way to approach Bush on all rail investment, including decent funding of Amtrak, is NATIONAL DEFENSE!

[Junctionfan]

QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper

Again, I think the way to approach Bush on all rail investment, including decent funding of Amtrak, is NATIONAL DEFENSE!

Shouldn't have to. He is the President of the United States not the Secretary of Defence or the Secretary of Homeland Security. He should concentrate on not just one issue that matters to Americans but try to address everything that concerns America.

Defence is just one thing; there are other issues. Can't he multi-task?

[dharmon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper

Again, I think the way to approach Bush on all rail investment, including decent funding of Amtrak, is NATIONAL DEFENSE!

Shouldn't have to. He is the President of the United States not the Secretary of Defence or the Secretary of Homeland Security.

Uhh Andrew..psst...the President is the individual you may have heard referred to as the Commander In Chief....that's not just a nice little name those of us in uniform gave him...that's a title...

[ajmiller]

First clause of section 2 of article 2 of the U.S. Constituion says:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;

[Junctionfan]

The president has many roles to play not just Commander in Chief.

What is he going to do about the U.S economy? What is he going to do about the huge pile of jobs lost in Ohio and other states as of late? What is he going to do about seniors medication price increases? What is he going to do about the poverty?

The American people is more than just military and defence. America has a multitude of civilian issues that need to be looked after as well.

[DSchmitt]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

The president has many roles to play not just Commander in Chief.

What is he going to do about the U.S economy? What is he going to do about the huge pile of jobs lost in Ohio and other states as of late? What is he going to do about seniors medication price increases? What is he going to do about the poverty?

The American people is more than just military and defence. America has a multitude of civilian issues that need to be looked after as well.

Canada churns out new jobs; unemployment rate drops to 7.1%
Last Updated Fri, 08 Oct 2004 21:27:37 EDT
OTTAWA - Canada's unemployment rate edged down to 7.1 per cent in September – the lowest in more than three years – as the country generated a better-than-expected 43,200 new jobs, Statistics Canada reported Friday.


U.S. jobs report disappoints
Last Updated Fri, 08 Oct 2004 09:58:45 EDT
WASHINGTON - The U.S. unemployment rate held steady at 5.4 per cent in September, as 96,000 jobs were added to payrolls, diappointing analysts who'd been expecting 150,000 new jobs.

Canada 7.1 = good , US 5.4= bad: Hmmmmm

[Anonymous]

Good direction Andrew, just a bit closer attention to the details of the office will aid in the understanding of a written constitution organizatized as a Federal Republic of 50 soverign states. Being that you are an active and responsible member of the forum and one of our good neighbors in that proud and good land to our North that has more in common with us than any other country in the world, it is fitting that some information about the strange office that our Chief Executive must fill is in order. So I send this to you in the spirit of one good neighbor to another, different country but similar households. Needless to say that if any of my fellow members on the forum need to correct me, I will of course accept any feed back as I am sure I would deserve.
The President of the U.S. while being the Head of State has less less in common with a monarch and more with a CEO/Chairman of the Board of a very large enterprise. Mr. Bush (the current holder of that office) must work with the legislative and remain obedient to the Rule of Law as expressed under the Judicial Supremacy clauses of what the late Chief Justice John Marshall called that most excellent document of the U.S. Constitution as written and intrepited by the courts and finally as intrepreted by the U.S. Suprem Court that has final authroity of what the constitution says and what it says not. This past election that you witnessed has less to do with who will sit as president over the next four years but more to do with the direction of the high court. As you have read in my contributions to the forum over the past few days is that there will be the need for three perhaps four new justices to be nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate to sit for LIFE. What you are observing in a presidential election is only the surface of what is really going on. This is where the mandate to influence what would be called the checks and balances of our system of GOVERNANCE that is granted to elected officials in the legislative and executive by registerd voters (citizens) that influences the direction of the Judicial, a fact taken for granted by the general public of the U.S. ,but admired by many and feared by despots. Have a great day - Roy

[dharmon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by piouslion

Good direction Andrew, just a bit closer attention to the details of the office will aid in the understanding of a written constitution organizatized as a Federal Republic of 50 soverign states. Being that you are an active and responsible member of the forum and one of our good neighbors in that proud and good land to our North that has more in common with us than any other country in the world, it is fitting that some information about the strange office that our Chief Executive must fill is in order. So I send this to you in the spirit of one good neighbor to another, different country but similar households. Needless to say that if any of my fellow members on the forum need to correct me, I will of course accept any feed back as I am sure I would deserve.
The President of the U.S. while being the Head of State has less less in common with a monarch and more with a CEO/Chairman of the Board of a very large enterprise. Mr. Bush (the current holder of that office) must work with the legislative and remain obedient to the Rule of Law as expressed under the Judicial Supremacy clauses of what the late Chief Justice John Marshall called that most excellent document of the U.S. Constitution as written and intrepited by the courts and finally as intrepreted by the U.S. Suprem Court that has final authroity of what the constitution says and what it says not. This past election that you witnessed has less to do with who will sit as president over the next four years but more to do with the direction of the high court. As you have read in my contributions to the forum over the past few days is that there will be the need for three perhaps four new justices to be nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate to sit for LIFE. What you are observing in a presidential election is only the surface of what is really going on. This is where the mandate to influence what would be called the checks and balances of our system of GOVERNANCE that is granted to elected officials in the legislative and executive by registerd voters (citizens) that influences the direction of the Judicial, a fact taken for granted by the general public of the U.S. ,but admired by many and feared by despots. Have a great day - Roy

In short...the Constitution....chicks dig it, dudes want to be like it......

[Junctionfan]

QUOTE: Originally posted by DSchmitt

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

The president has many roles to play not just Commander in Chief.

What is he going to do about the U.S economy? What is he going to do about the huge pile of jobs lost in Ohio and other states as of late? What is he going to do about seniors medication price increases? What is he going to do about the poverty?

The American people is more than just military and defence. America has a multitude of civilian issues that need to be looked after as well.

Canada churns out new jobs; unemployment rate drops to 7.1%
Last Updated Fri, 08 Oct 2004 21:27:37 EDT
OTTAWA - Canada's unemployment rate edged down to 7.1 per cent in September – the lowest in more than three years – as the country generated a better-than-expected 43,200 new jobs, Statistics Canada reported Friday.


U.S. jobs report disappoints
Last Updated Fri, 08 Oct 2004 09:58:45 EDT
WASHINGTON - The U.S. unemployment rate held steady at 5.4 per cent in September, as 96,000 jobs were added to payrolls, diappointing analysts who'd been expecting 150,000 new jobs.

Canada 7.1 = good , US 5.4= bad: Hmmmmm

Keep in mind the major difference in the size of our population and our ability to create jobs. Would you agree that the U.S has a greater advantage in creating jobs than Canada? That is what I think they are going on about when they describe it as disappointing.

[dharmon]

So what you're saying is that if more Americans are unemployed, than they can't afford Canadian beer and back bacon, therefore creating a negative impact on the recreational beverage/food sector of the Canadian economy.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon

So what you're saying is that if more Americans are unemployed, than they can't afford Canadian beer and back bacon, therefore creating a negative impact on the recreational beverage/food sector of the Canadian economy.

But your carbs and fat intake will be dramaticly lowered in your favor[wow][yeah][tup]

[Modelcar]

...Even if we were drilling and finding and pumping and shipping oil in Alaska it probably would be shipped to Japan as some was in the past.

[Junctionfan]

QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon

So what you're saying is that if more Americans are unemployed, than they can't afford Canadian beer and back bacon, therefore creating a negative impact on the recreational beverage/food sector of the Canadian economy.

Don't forget hockey pucks[:D][:D][:D]

[DSchmitt]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

Keep in mind the major difference in the size of our population and our ability to create jobs. Would you agree that the U.S has a greater advantage in creating jobs than Canada? That is what I think they are going on about when they describe it as disappointing.

With a smaller population each percentage point equals fewer people.

Maybe we should build some nuclear plants to use more Canadian uraniun and spur job growth there.

We could then power our trains with electricty and reduce "global warming".[:)]

[ajmiller]

QUOTE: Originally posted by piouslion

Good direction Andrew, just a bit closer attention to the details of the office will aid in the understanding of a written constitution organizatized as a Federal Republic of 50 soverign states. Being that you are an active and responsible member of the forum and one of our good neighbors in that proud and good land to our North that has more in common with us than any other country in the world, it is fitting that some information about the strange office that our Chief Executive must fill is in order. So I send this to you in the spirit of one good neighbor to another, different country but similar households. Needless to say that if any of my fellow members on the forum need to correct me, I will of course accept any feed back as I am sure I would deserve.
The President of the U.S. while being the Head of State has less less in common with a monarch and more with a CEO/Chairman of the Board of a very large enterprise. Mr. Bush (the current holder of that office) must work with the legislative and remain obedient to the Rule of Law as expressed under the Judicial Supremacy clauses of what the late Chief Justice John Marshall called that most excellent document of the U.S. Constitution as written and intrepited by the courts and finally as intrepreted by the U.S. Suprem Court that has final authroity of what the constitution says and what it says not. This past election that you witnessed has less to do with who will sit as president over the next four years but more to do with the direction of the high court. As you have read in my contributions to the forum over the past few days is that there will be the need for three perhaps four new justices to be nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate to sit for LIFE. What you are observing in a presidential election is only the surface of what is really going on. This is where the mandate to influence what would be called the checks and balances of our system of GOVERNANCE that is granted to elected officials in the legislative and executive by registerd voters (citizens) that influences the direction of the Judicial, a fact taken for granted by the general public of the U.S. ,but admired by many and feared by despots. Have a great day - Roy

Having Republicans in office will certianly lead to slightly more conservative Justices on the Supreme Court. It's true that today the Court does decide what the constitution says, but many feel that power is unconstitutional. Judges can decide if laws passed by Congress are constitutional, but they shouldn't be allowed to make new law. That's the job of the legislature. Hopefully new Justices will be more strict in their interpretation of the Constitution. If the Constitiuton needs to say something that it currently does not say, then it should be amended properly by the states instead of letting the Supreme Court make something up.

You also mentioned a Federal Republic of 50 sovereign states.
Amendment X:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
is where the notion of states rights comes from, but this went out the window for all practical purpouses after the Civil War. The federal government today pretty much does whatever it wants.

[dharmon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by ajmiller

You also mentioned a Federal Republic of 50 sovereign states.
Amendment X:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
is where the notion of states rights comes from, but this went out the window for all practical purpouses after the Civil War. The federal government today pretty much does whatever it wants.

Which was the basis of the Civil War. It is commonly taught that slavery was the reason. Slavery was made the focal point of the greater dilemma over states' rights. A southerner would tell you the war was over the rights of the states, a northerner would say it was to preserve the union. It was an ideological war as much as anything else.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by ajmiller

QUOTE: Originally posted by piouslion

Good direction Andrew, just a bit closer attention to the details of the office will aid in the understanding of a written constitution organizatized as a Federal Republic of 50 soverign states. Being that you are an active and responsible member of the forum and one of our good neighbors in that proud and good land to our North that has more in common with us than any other country in the world, it is fitting that some information about the strange office that our Chief Executive must fill is in order. So I send this to you in the spirit of one good neighbor to another, different country but similar households. Needless to say that if any of my fellow members on the forum need to correct me, I will of course accept any feed back as I am sure I would deserve.
The President of the U.S. while being the Head of State has less less in common with a monarch and more with a CEO/Chairman of the Board of a very large enterprise. Mr. Bush (the current holder of that office) must work with the legislative and remain obedient to the Rule of Law as expressed under the Judicial Supremacy clauses of what the late Chief Justice John Marshall called that most excellent document of the U.S. Constitution as written and intrepited by the courts and finally as intrepreted by the U.S. Suprem Court that has final authroity of what the constitution says and what it says not. This past election that you witnessed has less to do with who will sit as president over the next four years but more to do with the direction of the high court. As you have read in my contributions to the forum over the past few days is that there will be the need for three perhaps four new justices to be nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate to sit for LIFE. What you are observing in a presidential election is only the surface of what is really going on. This is where the mandate to influence what would be called the checks and balances of our system of GOVERNANCE that is granted to elected officials in the legislative and executive by registerd voters (citizens) that influences the direction of the Judicial, a fact taken for granted by the general public of the U.S. ,but admired by many and feared by despots. Have a great day - Roy

Having Republicans in office will certianly lead to slightly more conservative Justices on the Supreme Court. It's true that today the Court does decide what the constitution says, but many feel that power is unconstitutional. Judges can decide if laws passed by Congress are constitutional, but they shouldn't be allowed to make new law. That's the job of the legislature. Hopefully new Justices will be more strict in their interpretation of the Constitution. If the Constitiuton needs to say something that it currently does not say, then it should be amended properly by the states instead of letting the Supreme Court make something up.

You also mentioned a Federal Republic of 50 sovereign states.
Amendment X:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
is where the notion of states rights comes from, but this went out the window for all practical purpouses after the Civil War. The federal government today pretty much does whatever it wants.

How well said and I might add with a dose of legalistic realism and no small amount of a Southern since of being. I myself am somewhat of that persuasion. But do remember that Admin. X is what is called an omnibus declaration. Basicly that unless otherwise acted upon by the Federal Government these matters belong to the states. To give an example: What is considered murder in Georgia would not necesssarly have the same definition in Louisana or in another area the adoption laws in the State of New York would not be the same in the Commonwealth of Virginia. If you really want to hear about differences between the states just look at the thinking on the death penality for heanous crimes. Many areas of Admin X. remain as a way for different people in different places to get along in a big place. This is one of the mysteries of American (U.S.) democracy as it is practiced in this day and time. Originaly we were the nation of farmers not the sole surviving super power. The founding fathers (in particular Madison and Hamilton moderated by Franklin and Washington) wrote the excellent document to be changeable and practical, not inflexable or unworkable. In short, don't loose hope or think that it doesn't work anymore the way it started. As railroad historian Albro Martin would say, our system is the worst in the world, but when compared to what? - Have a good week - Roy

[oltmannd]

Oh, no! The Civil War! Next thing you know we'll be discussing the GA state flag. Please! NO! Anthing but that!

How about, "Why don't sports teams ever use chartered trains instead of planes?" instead.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd

Oh, no! The Civil War! Next thing you know we'll be discussing the GA state flag. Please! NO! Anthing but that!

How about, "Why don't sports teams ever use chartered trains instead of planes?" instead.

The GA State Flag? Bravery runs in the viens of every one in the forum, but stupidity does not. Thanks for helping all of us to know that there are limits to courage, bravery, and honor. Sacrifice to such a subject borders on no gain to any member at best and disgrace at worst. So best advise to those that are determined to charge into the morass or impossibility and dispare remains that "Discression is still the greater part of valor." Have a good week, Glad we met - Piouslion