[Rushtalk] U.S. Supreme Court: "We Don't Need No Stinkin' American Truckers, Open u..

Carl Spitzer lynuxrocks at gmail.com
Sun Feb 16 07:20:53 MST 2014


http://libertyfight.com/2014/supreme_court_we_dont_need_no_stinkin_americans.html
                                    
                                    
U.S. Supreme Court: "We Don't Need No Stinkin' American Truckers, Open
up the Floodgates To Mexican Trucks" 
By Martin Hill 
January 14, 2014 
Despite the fact that the American government continuously passes laws
and enforces abusive practices under the guise of "keeping us safe," the
U.S. Supreme Court has rejected a plea from the Owner-Operator
Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) to review the program allowing
Mexican trucks onto the roads of America. Under the program, the U.S.
Department of Transportation's Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration allows special accommodations to Mexican-based trucks and
drivers, allowing them to comply with Mexican laws regarding commercial
trucks, licensing and safety requirements rather than American laws.
Meanwhile, U.S. regulators continue to clamp down passing increasingly
restrictive rules on American trucking companies and drivers, which have
reportedly caused a decrease in income and productivity. Last November,
FMCSA Administrator Anne S. Ferro, who has been highly criticized by
many in the trucking industry, described a "smack in the face" & "much
clearer view" after she took up a challenge to ride in an actual big rig
for two days. 
In March 2011 President Barack Obama and Mexican president Felipe
Calderon signed an agreement allowing Mexican trucks to deliver their
load to its final destination, instead of transfering the freight to an
American carrier soon after crossing the border. In exchange, Mexico
eliminated tariffs on American goods which it had imposed in 2009 in
protest of that policy. The Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety
[saferoads.org], the Teamsters Union, and Sierra Club joined the 
....Joan Claybrook, Consumer Co-Chair of Advocates for Highway and Auto
Safety (Advocates) and former Administrator of the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) said, "Zaro Transportation has a
driver fitness BASIC score that is a disaster at 99.4% (100% being the
worst score) and nearly as dismal a vehicle maintenance BASIC score of
95.7%. Auto Transportes Zaros SA de CV, likewise has an unheard of 99.4%
driver fitness score, and an even lower vehicle maintenance BASIC score
of 99.5%. The FMCSA should be using every tool available to protect
motorists, not further endanger them by allowing treacherously unsafe
Mexico-domiciled motor carriers to participate in the NAFTA Pilot
Program."  James Hoffa, General President of the International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, said, "We’ve said all along that our concern
about this program was ensuring that Mexican trucks and drivers meet our
U.S. safety standards, and it’s clear that FMCSA has not been exercising
the proper oversight to accomplish this goal. It’s wrong and inexcusable
to endanger the traveling public in this way."  "It’s blatantly clear
that the only entities truly pushing for opening the border are big
businesses in the United States seeking to force small business truckers
to forfeit their own economic opportunities. FMCSA’s actions show that
they are following an agenda for large economic interests and are
determined to accept a significantly lower standard for trucks from
Mexico than what they apply to those in the U.S. This altogether means
compromised highway safety and loss of U.S. jobs," said Todd Spencer,
Executive Vice President of the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers
Association." [See also Dangerous Mexican trucks allowed in pilot
program; Teamsters object 5/15/13] 

The OOIDA's DOT Cross Border Trucking Program - Case Summary explains,
"On June 3, 2013, OOIDA asked the US Court of Appeals to grant a
rehearing regarding the issue of whether commercial drivers licenses in
Mexico should be accepted as equivalent to those issued in the United
States . OOIDA would like a panel hearing or rehearing en banc. The
Association contends that trucking companies based in Mexico cannot
comply with U.S. regulations and should not have full access to U.S.
highways." 
The OOIDA's Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed on 10/24/2013 outlines
how the government's involvement with the NAFTA treaty is in conflict
with U.S. laws regardng commercial driver compliance and license,
medical, and safety requirements. The document stated, in part, 

"OOIDA challenges the authority of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration ("FMCSA") to conduct a "pilot program" allowing
Mexico-domiciled trucking companies to operate trucks throughout the
United States driven by individuals who do not hold valid commercial
drivers licenses ("CDL’s") issued under federal standards... On December
17, 1992, the leaders of the United States of America , Canada , and the
United Mexican States gathered to sign the North American Free Trade
Agreement ("NAFTA"), an agreement regulating trade in goods and
services. North American Free Trade Agreement, U.S.-Can.-Mex., Dec. 17,
1992, 32 I.L.M. 289 (1993). On November 20, 1993, Congress officially
approved the NAFTA agreement. The legislation implementing NAFTA
specifically provides: "nothing in this Act shall be construed – (A) to
amend or modify any law of the United States , including any law
regarding . . . (iii) motor carriers or workers safety. . . ." North
American Free Trade Implementation Act, Pub. L. No. 103-182, Title I, §
102(a)(2)(A)(iii), 107 Stat. 2057 (1993). The United States has
undertaken no obligation under NAFTA to provide exemptions or waivers
from the application of U.S. trucking laws or regulations to
Mexico-domiciled motor carriers except insofar as such exemptions or
waivers may also be available to U.S.-domiciled motor carriers...

..Petitioner here and other interested parties challenged FMCSA’s 2007
Demonstration Project in court. Congress, however, cut off funding for
the project and, as a result, the suit was dismissed as moot. SierraClub
v. Dep’t of Transp., 563 F.3d 897, 898 (9th Cir.2009.)

On April 13, 2011, FMCSA published a Notice and Request for Comments in
anticipation of launching a pilot program to test the efficacy of
issuing operating authority to Mexico-domiciled motor carriers to
operate beyond the commercial zones on the U.S. side of the border with
Mexico ... The April 2011 Notice disclosed that FMCSA would accept
compliance with specific Mexican rules governing drug testing, medical
qualifications and commercial driver’s licenses in lieu of compliance
with corresponding U.S. statutes and regulations. Fed. Reg. at
20814-16....The pilot program implements FMCSA’s proposal to provide
special accommodations to Mexico-domiciled motor carriers and drivers by
permitting them to comply with Mexican laws and regulations governing
commercial driver’s licenses, driver’s medical qualifications and drug
testing rather than to comply with several U.S. statutes and
regulations....FMCSA, relying on the 1991 MOU with Mexico, decided to
allow Mexican drivers to operate commercial motor vehicles under
Licencia Federal de Conductor (LF) issued by Mexico rather than a CDL
meeting the requirement of U.S. statutes and regulations. App. 59-61. In
this case, the terms of 49 U.S.C. § 31302, the later enacted statute,
are clear and unambiguous: "No individual shall operate a commercial
motor vehicle without a valid commercial driver’s license issued in
accordance with [49 U.S.C.] Section 31308." "The language of the statute
is entirely clear, and if it is not what Congress meant then Congress
has made a mistake and Congress will have to correct it." Conroy v.
Aniskoff, 507 U.S. 511, 528 (1993) (Scalia, J., concurring in the
judgment). The OOIDA argument concluded, in part, 

"The Court Of Appeals Decision Upsets The Equilibrium Between Congress
And The Executive Branch Under The Supremacy Clause: 
The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution provides that: "[t]his
Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in
Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under
the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the
Land." U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2. It is well-settled that the Supremacy
Clause places treaties and statutes on equal footing, which is why
courts have always evaluated conflicts between statutes and treaties
using the last-in-time rule. See Chew Heong v. United States , 112 U.S.
536, 549-50 (1884); S. African Airways v. Dole, 817 F.2d 119, 126 (D.C.
Cir. 1987). As this Court explained: "The Constitution gives [a treaty]
no superiority over an act of Congress in this respect, which may be
repealed or modified by an act of a later date." Edye v. Robertson, 112
U.S. 580, 599 (1884).. RELATED: 


                                    


 *COPYRIGHT NOTICE** In accordance with Title 17 U. S. C. S e c t io n
                                 107, 

a n y c o p y r i g h t e d w o r k i n t h is m e ssa g e is dis t r i
                    b u t e d u n d e r fai r us e 

wi t h ou t p r ofi t o r p ay m e n t t o t h os e w h o h av e e x p r
                  e ss e d a p r io r i n t e r e s t

i n r e c e ivi n g t h e i n c l ud e d i n fo r m a t io n fo r n o n
p r ofi t r e s e a r c h a n d e du c a t io n a l p u r p os e s o n l
   y.[R e f. h t t p :// w w w . l a w . c o r n e l l . e du/us c od
                         e /17/107.s h t m l ]





 To t h os e w h o h av e t ak e n t h e Oa t h , R e m e m b e r t h e
                                Oa t h !

To t h os e w h o h av e n o t a n d b e l i e v e i n t h e Co n s t i
                              t u t io n ,

  Tak e a si m i l a r Oa t h n o w t o t h e Co n s t i t u t io n !

R e m e m b e r t h a t t h os e w h o m ak e l a w s c o n t r a r y t
                    o t h e Co n s t i t u t io n ,

T h os e w h o e n fo r c e l a w s c o n t r a r y t o t h e Co n s t i
                              t u t io n ,

A n d t h os e w h o g iv e o r d e r s c o n t r a r y t o t h e Co n s
                            t i t u t io n ,

Hav e b e c o m e do m e s t i c e n e m i e s of t h e Co n s t i t u t
                                 io n !

 I t do e s n ' t t ak e a Jud g e o r a l a w y e r t o k n o w t h e
                           diff e r e n c e !


  "I DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR (OR AFFIRM) THAT I WILL SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE
   CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND
 DOMESTIC; THAT I WILL BEAR TRUE FAITH AND ALLEGIANCE TO THE SAME; AND
THAT I WILL OBEY THE (CONSTITUTIONAL AND LAWFUL) ORDERS OF THE PRESIDENT
 OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE (CONSTITUTIONAL AND LAWFUL) ORDERS OF THE
  OFFICERS APPOINTED OVER ME, ACCORDING TO REGULATIONS AND THE UNIFORM
              CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE. SO HELP ME GOD." 
A l l l a w s w h i c h a r e r e p u g n a n t t o t h e Co n s t i t u
t io n a r e n u l l a n d void." Ma r b u r y vs. Madiso n , 5 US (2 C
r a n c h ) 137, 164, 176. (1803)   "W h e r e r i g h t s s e c u r e d
b y t h e  Co n s t i t u t io n a r e i n vo l v e d, t h e r e c a n b
e n o r u l e m aki n g o r l e g is l a t io n w h i c h w ou l d a b r
o g a t e t h e m ." Mi r a n da vs. A r izo n a , 384 U.S. 436, 491.
"A n u n c o n s t i t u t io n a l a c t is n o t l a w ; i t c o n f e
r s n o r i g h t s; i t i m p os e s n o du t i e s; i t affo r ds n o
p r o t e c t io n ; i t c r e a t e s n o offi c e ; i t is i n l e g a
l c o n t e m p l a t io n , as i n o p e r a t iv e as t h ou g h i t h
ad n e v e r b e e n p ass e d." No r t o n vs. S h e l b y Cou n t y ,
118 US 425, 442. 
              T e ddy ' s A n s w e r t o Div e r si t y!



T h e r e is n o r oo m i n t h is c ou n t r y fo r h y p h e n a t e d
A m e r i c a n is m . T h e o n e a b so l u t e l y c e r t ai n w ay
of b r i n g i n g t h is n a t io n t o r ui n , of p r e v e n t i n g
a l l p ossi b i l i t y of i t s c o n t i n ui n g t o b e a n a t io
n a t a l l , w ou l d b e t o p e r m i t i t t o b e c o m e a t a n g
           l e of squa b b l i n g n a t io n a l i t i e s. 

— T h e odo r e Roos e v e l t , s p e e c h b e fo r e t h e K n i g h
               t s of Co l u m b us, 1915 , N e w Yo r k
                   T e ddy ' s A n s w e r t o Bus h!
To a n n ou n c e t h a t t h e r e m us t b e n o c r i t i c is m of t
h e p r e sid e n t , o r t h a t w e a r e t o s t a n d b y t h e p r
e sid e n t r i g h t o r w r o n g , is n o t o n l y u n p a t r io t
i c a n d s e r vi l e , b u t is m o r a l l y t r e aso n a b l e t o
                  t h e A m e r i c a n p u b l i c . 

                     — T h e odo r e Roos e v e l t
           T e ddy ' s A n s w e r t o Bus h & Co n g r e ss
"W e c a n n o t affo r d t o diff e r o n t h e qu e s t io n of h o n
e s t y if w e e x p e c t ou r r e p u b l i c p e r m a n e n t l y t
o e n du r e .  Ho n e s t y is n o t so m u c h a c r e di t as a n a b
so l u t e p r e r e quisi t e t o e ffi c i e n t s e r vi c e t o t h
e p u b l i c .  U n l e ss a m a n is h o n e s t , w e h av e n o r i
g h t t o k e e p h i m i n p u b l i c l if e ; i t m a t t e r s n o t
h o w b r i l l ia n t h is c a p a c i t y."  — T h e odo r e Roos e v
                                 e l t
                       Want to be on our lists?  
                               Click here
                                    
                                    
       W r i t e t o usvfnews at charter.net   to b e off l is t s!
 I t w i l l t ak e u p t o 72 Hou r s t o t ak e you off of l is t s!
              Bi l l 's Vi e t n a m M e m o r ia l Pa g e

                          http://www.wjpbr.com
                                    
                                    
  


email message attachment
-------- Forwarded Message --------
From: usvfnews <usvfnews at charter.net>
To: usvfnews <usvfnews at charter.net>
Subject: U.S. Supreme Court: "We Don't Need No Stinkin' American
Truckers, Open up the Floodgates To Mexican Trucks"
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 16:09:25 -0500

 

 

             Molonlabe Email News List usvfnews at charter.net



              In God, we have a great and invincible ally!

             His faithful will be raised on eagle's wings! 



                                    











                                    



                                    



U.S. Supreme Court: "We Don't Need No Stinkin' American Truckers, Open
up the Floodgates To Mexican Trucks" 
By Martin Hill 
January 14, 2014 

Despite the fact that the American government continuously passes laws
and enforces abusive practices under the guise of "keeping us safe," the
U.S. Supreme Court has rejected a plea from the Owner-Operator
Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) to review the program allowing
Mexican trucks onto the roads of America. Under the program, the U.S.
Department of Transportation's Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration allows special accommodations to Mexican-based trucks and
drivers, allowing them to comply with Mexican laws regarding commercial
trucks, licensing and safety requirements rather than American laws.
Meanwhile, U.S. regulators continue to clamp down passing increasingly
restrictive rules on American trucking companies and drivers, which have
reportedly caused a decrease in income and productivity. Last November,
FMCSA Administrator Anne S. Ferro, who has been highly criticized by
many in the trucking industry, described a "smack in the face" & "much
clearer view" after she took up a challenge to ride in an actual big rig
for two days. 


In March 2011 President Barack Obama and Mexican president Felipe
Calderon signed an agreement allowing Mexican trucks to deliver their
load to its final destination, instead of transfering the freight to an
American carrier soon after crossing the border. In exchange, Mexico
eliminated tariffs on American goods which it had imposed in 2009 in
protest of that policy. 


The Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety [saferoads.org], the Teamsters
Union, and Sierra Club joined the ....Joan Claybrook, Consumer Co-Chair
of Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates) and former
Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA) said, "Zaro Transportation has a driver fitness BASIC score that
is a disaster at 99.4% (100% being the worst score) and nearly as dismal
a vehicle maintenance BASIC score of 95.7%. Auto Transportes Zaros SA de
CV, likewise has an unheard of 99.4% driver fitness score, and an even
lower vehicle maintenance BASIC score of 99.5%. The FMCSA should be
using every tool available to protect motorists, not further endanger
them by allowing treacherously unsafe Mexico-domiciled motor carriers to
participate in the NAFTA Pilot Program." 


James Hoffa, General President of the International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, said, "We’ve said all along that our concern about this
program was ensuring that Mexican trucks and drivers meet our U.S.
safety standards, and it’s clear that FMCSA has not been exercising the
proper oversight to accomplish this goal. It’s wrong and inexcusable to
endanger the traveling public in this way." 


"It’s blatantly clear that the only entities truly pushing for opening
the border are big businesses in the United States seeking to force
small business truckers to forfeit their own economic opportunities.
FMCSA’s actions show that they are following an agenda for large
economic interests and are determined to accept a significantly lower
standard for trucks from Mexico than what they apply to those in the
U.S. This altogether means compromised highway safety and loss of U.S.
jobs," said Todd Spencer, Executive Vice President of the Owner-Operator
Independent Drivers Association." [See also Dangerous Mexican trucks
allowed in pilot program; Teamsters object 5/15/13] 



The OOIDA's DOT Cross Border Trucking Program - Case Summary explains,
"On June 3, 2013, OOIDA asked the US Court of Appeals to grant a
rehearing regarding the issue of whether commercial drivers licenses in
Mexico should be accepted as equivalent to those issued in the United
States. OOIDA would like a panel hearing or rehearing en banc. The
Association contends that trucking companies based in Mexico cannot
comply with U.S. regulations and should not have full access to U.S.
highways." 



The OOIDA's Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed on 10/24/2013 outlines
how the government's involvement with the NAFTA treaty is in conflict
with U.S. laws regardng commercial driver compliance and license,
medical, and safety requirements. The document stated, in part, 


"OOIDA challenges the authority of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration ("FMCSA") to conduct a "pilot program" allowing
Mexico-domiciled trucking companies to operate trucks throughout the
United States driven by individuals who do not hold valid commercial
drivers licenses ("CDL’s") issued under federal standards... On December
17, 1992, the leaders of the United States of America, Canada, and the
United Mexican States gathered to sign the North American Free Trade
Agreement ("NAFTA"), an agreement regulating trade in goods and
services. North American Free Trade Agreement, U.S.-Can.-Mex., Dec. 17,
1992, 32 I.L.M. 289 (1993). On November 20, 1993, Congress officially
approved the NAFTA agreement. The legislation implementing NAFTA
specifically provides: "nothing in this Act shall be construed – (A) to
amend or modify any law of the United States, including any law
regarding . . . (iii) motor carriers or workers safety. . . ." North
American Free Trade Implementation Act, Pub. L. No. 103-182, Title I, §
102(a)(2)(A)(iii), 107 Stat. 2057 (1993). 


The United States has undertaken no obligation under NAFTA to provide
exemptions or waivers from the application of U.S. trucking laws or
regulations to Mexico-domiciled motor carriers except insofar as such
exemptions or waivers may also be available to U.S.-domiciled motor
carriers... 


..Petitioner here and other interested parties challenged FMCSA’s 2007
Demonstration Project in court. Congress, however, cut off funding for
the project and, as a result, the suit was dismissed as moot. SierraClub
v. Dep’t of Transp., 563 F.3d 897, 898 (9th Cir.2009.) 


On April 13, 2011, FMCSA published a Notice and Request for Comments in
anticipation of launching a pilot program to test the efficacy of
issuing operating authority to Mexico-domiciled motor carriers to
operate beyond the commercial zones on the U.S. side of the border with
Mexico... The April 2011 Notice disclosed that FMCSA would accept
compliance with specific Mexican rules governing drug testing, medical
qualifications and commercial driver’s licenses in lieu of compliance
with corresponding U.S. statutes and regulations. Fed. Reg. at
20814-16....The pilot program implements FMCSA’s proposal to provide
special accommodations to Mexico-domiciled motor carriers and drivers by
permitting them to comply with Mexican laws and regulations governing
commercial driver’s licenses, driver’s medical qualifications and drug
testing rather than to comply with several U.S. statutes and
regulations....FMCSA, relying on the 1991 MOU with Mexico, decided to
allow Mexican drivers to operate commercial motor vehicles under
Licencia Federal de Conductor (LF) issued by Mexico rather than a CDL
meeting the requirement of U.S. statutes and regulations. App. 59-61. In
this case, the terms of 49 U.S.C. § 31302, the later enacted statute,
are clear and unambiguous: "No individual shall operate a commercial
motor vehicle without a valid commercial driver’s license issued in
accordance with [49 U.S.C.] Section 31308." "The language of the statute
is entirely clear, and if it is not what Congress meant then Congress
has made a mistake and Congress will have to correct it." Conroy v.
Aniskoff, 507 U.S. 511, 528 (1993) (Scalia, J., concurring in the
judgment). 


The OOIDA argument concluded, in part, 
    
"The Court Of Appeals Decision Upsets The Equilibrium Between Congress
And The Executive Branch Under The Supremacy Clause: 
The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution provides that: "[t]his
Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in
Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under
the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the
Land." U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2. It is well-settled that the Supremacy
Clause places treaties and statutes on equal footing, which is why
courts have always evaluated conflicts between statutes and treaties
using the last-in-time rule. See Chew Heong v. United States, 112 U.S.
536, 549-50 (1884); S. African Airways v. Dole, 817 F.2d 119, 126 (D.C.
Cir. 1987). As this Court explained: "The Constitution gives [a treaty]
no superiority over an act of Congress in this respect, which may be
repealed or modified by an act of a later date." Edye v. Robertson, 112
U.S. 580, 599 (1884).. 




                                    



 

http://libertyfight.com/2014/supreme_court_we_dont_need_no_stinkin_americans.html
-- 
Lynux the choice of a GNU generation
 ,= ,-_-. =. 
((_/)o o(\_))
 `-'(. .)`-' 
     \_/     


CWSIV
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://kalos.csdco.com/pipermail/rushtalk/attachments/20140216/d0467904/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the Rushtalk mailing list