3/13/2007

Top 11 TTC News Articles

--Big Money Paves the Way
--Donors hit the jackpot
--'Under the Radar' Scheme
--Texans voted for the TTC?
--Cintra's Inside Man
--Detours on a Super-Highway
--The Highwaymen
--Losing bidders get 'stipends'
--Toll roads or no roads?
--Rick's Way or the Highway
--Pigs in a Poke

To view the Trans-Texas Corridor Blog click HERE

at 3/13/2007

1 comment:

Sal Costello said...

I DON'T KNOW A COUPLE OF THESE DETAILS, READ THIS AND POST WHAT YOU THINK HERE. THE FIRST ONE BELOW IS FROM GARY, AND THEN A RESPONSE FROM AN ATTORNEY AFTER I FORWARDED GARY'S:

Dear Sal:

Regarding the TTC and the Senate hearing held back on March 1st, 2007 I have a couple of questions.

I submitted the attached written testimony to the Committee (since Ric Williams effectively barred most legal citizens from speaking by drawing out his ponderous statements as long as possible) and I ask when you have time, could you read the attached testimony (and the reference attachments) which I presented to the Committee and see if anything therein would be of help to your group?

I raise issues therein which were not fully addressed at the hearing by the Senators or by the public.


What spurs my question, is that I have a letter responding to my concerns about the TTC dated September 15th, 2006 from U.S. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison. that letter states in part: "Since the TTC in not under the jurisdiction of the Federal government, I recommend you contact your state senator or representative in Austin, as your concerns would be addressed at the state level."

This was in response to my concern that the TTC, if implemented in conjunction with the "SPP" unconstitutional treaty agreement of March of 2005, would pretty much wipe out most Congressional powers vested by Article I, Section VIII of the U.S. Constitution should the Dept. of Commerce/Homeland Security/SPP decide to utilize the "Trusted Traveler Status" RFID to provide entry into the United States, which is what they infer on their web site located at www.spp.com.

Without specific approval from the Senate (since it alters border and immigration policies which a STATE cannot involve themselves in without specified approval pursuant to Article I, Section X, paragraph III, and since the Dept. of Commerce/Transportation/Homeland Security, et al. is not the United States Senate, I can see a very big problem.

As you know, not one vote was cast in the United States Senate regarding the "North American Partnership Agreement" nor the "trilateral law enforcement for the protection of Judges and Officers" of which is mentioned on their web site located at www.spp.gov. In fact, as far as anyone can tell, the Senate wasn't even asked to vote at all.

Article I, Section X, paragraph I of the United States Constitution bars individual States from entering into any treaty, alliance or confederation, and its third clause additionally mandates that no State may enter into any treaty or COMPACT with another State, or with a foreign Power, without the consent of the Congress.

It would seem that the Federal Government should be involved in making of any "North American Partnership Agreement" treaty, pursuant to Article II, Section II. In my testimony, I bring up the fact that the agent for service of notice of default in the CDA between TXDOT and Cintra is the "Office of General Counsel" located in Madrid Spain.

Since the Department of Commerce/Homeland Security/SPP et al group is NOT the legislative body vested with power under Article II, Paragraph II, you can understand why I am at a loss to grasp how the "North American Partnership Agreement", and its "SPP" arrangements dictating border issues can be Constitutionally legal, since Article VI, Section II pretty much says the United States Constitutution, is the Supreme Law of the land.

After consideration of the above, and reading the information contained in the above attachment, can you let me how it could be even remotely possible, that the "Trans Texas Corridor (if utilized for the purpose the Sixteen United States Congressmen sponsoring H. Con. Res. 40 say it is intended for) is 1: Constitutionally Lawful and;

2: Why it is being ignored by the United States Senate?

Could they possibly not know?

Sincerely,
Gary


----------
RESPONSE FROM ATTORNEY:

SAL,

The TTC is not going to wipe out the power of the senate to ratify treaties. I don't even know if the SPP resulted from a treaty. Did it? Is the North American Partnership Agreement a treaty? I don't know. Whether all of North America becomes one government or not, the TTC will be a different issue. It's got to be illegal for a different reason, if at all.

As you know, the best pressure is political. Lawsuits can only accomplish so much.

7:31 AM, March 13, 2007

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)