The Constitution and the Department of Transportation

By Douglas V. Gibbs



On last Sunday's episode of Constitution Speaker Radio with Douglas V. Gibbs on KCAA 1050 AM Loma Linda/San Bernardino, a caller, Richard from Riverside, chimed in to challenge my assertion regarding the limiting principles of the Constitution against the federal government, and the idea of State Sovereignty. Since I had mentioned on the show that during the week I drive a big rig, he decided to use the Department of Transportation (D.O.T.) as an example.



Richard explained that thanks to federal regulations the safety standards required for the trucking industry are uniform throughout the several states. Tires, for example, have minimum standards they must meet, which ensures the roadways around the country are equally safe. Tires that don't meet federal standards, he added, end up being sold to Mexico (I have not verified this, so I will take his word on it) where the regulations are more relaxed, and the accident rate due to tire failure is higher (once again a statistic not confirmed, but we'll accept his argument as presented for the sake of argument).



I responded by saying that the federal government, through D.O.T., is acting unconstitutionally. Transportation is not supposed to be a federal authority. The power of regulating transportation constitutionally belongs to the States.



Richard responded by presenting a scenario he felt proved the potential danger of allowing the States to regulate themselves on this issue. Going back to the tires, perhaps most State's standards regarding tires would be good enough. "But let's say in Louisiana they aren't as concerned and their regulations are relaxed. Now you have trucks with substandard tires on the road."



I went back to constitutional authorities. Just because something is a good idea, it doesn't mean the federal government automatically has the constitutional authority, or that the federal government can take the power for itself to regulate without obtaining the proper authority. Authorities to the federal government are granted to it by the States, which is why it takes 3/4 of the States to ratify an amendment.



Due to the lack of time, for I had a couple more callers behind him in the queue, and an important segment awaiting patiently to air, I ended the conversation there.



To fully answer Richard's scenario, let's run through what would happen if his expectations regarding Louisiana actually transpired.



If trucking companies, under the lower standards in Louisiana, wanted to move goods into other States, they would be required to adhere to the standards of those other states, as well. Therefore, the standards the trucking company expected of themselves would have to be at least at the same level as the standards of the State they traveled into with the strictest expectations. If trucks merely adhered to Louisiana's lousy standards, they would be limited to remaining within Louisiana's borders.



In Louisiana, with such low standards, the people would begin to complain about the dangerous trucks on the road, and work to raise the standards. Petitions would be filed, laws would be made, and in order to comply with the wishes of the people, Louisiana's standards would improve.



The standards would eventually, in every State, be pretty close to what the D.O.T. expects in today's world, but those standards would exist legally in the sense of Constitutionality. This also would mean that the States would be governing themselves on this issue, and funding the programs themselves, rather than being extorted by the federal government's funding practices. Also, each State's standards would be more in line with local expectations, rather than the decisions of a bunch of bureaucrats in some federal office far away who do not understand the State's local concerns.



The issue presented by Richard, in the end, was not about standards. The issue, as I presented it, was about legality of authority, and the difference between collectivism and individualism. The liberal mind has it stuck in their heads that individuals can't make their own decisions, therefore a wiser political elite must do it for them. With that in mind, they believe the States can't be trusted to do the right thing, so the federal government must force them to adhere to federal standards.



Does that sound a little dictatorial to you?



And people wonder why I compare liberalism to totalitarian regimes.



-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary