3 votes

Department of Transportation Sets Sights on Farmers' and States' Rights


...(the DOT wants to reclassify farm vehicles and implements — everything from tractors to cattle haulers — as Commercial Motorized Vehicles (CMVs), which would then mandate all farm workers to meet the same set of requirements that over-the-road truck drivers do. Farmers would have to acquire a Commercial Drivers License (CDL), display DOT numbers, track mileage, limit hours worked, and maintain health cards while farms would have to monitor all of the above and pay highway use taxes (and probably higher insurance rates). ....

I have a few implements and there is now way I'll be able to pay any more to these thieves or keep up with their rules and Regulations.

I'm fed up

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

This slipped by during the

This slipped by during the Weiner distraction:

President Obama Executive Order 13575 Rural Councils Fox News Agenda 21 July 4, 2011 - YouTube


Trust in God, but tie your camel tight.

"Socialism needs two legs on which to stand; a right and a left. While appearing to be in complete opposition to one another,they both march in the same direction." - Paul Proctor

This is crazy

After reading the article, my thought is the DOT has no jurisdiction to classify farm vehicles as CMV's. They can call tractors ducks for all I care, but IMO if you are using a tractor/harvester on your own farm, and not on the highway, I don't see where the DOT can require CDL's and all the other crap. The interstate commerce clause has been abused beyond the original intent, but this is ridiculous.

Around here farmers have to drive their tractors on the roads

to get to and from their fields, but I still don't see a reason for the farmers to have to pay extra fines and taxes, just to do so.
Now, if they are taking a night out on the town, then maybe they need to be fined and taxed as they have too much disposable income that could be used by some random department:)

Congress should never have

Congress should never have been given the power to regulate interstate commerce.

The problem isn't so much the power to regulate as it is

people's ignorance and stupidity over what the word 'regulate' means. For those who are clueless it means "to keep regular." Thus, "free-flowing" rather than "restrict."

However, in 235 years of hindsight, it probably would have been better to handle this in Article 1 section 9 as a restriction on the States, rather than in section 9 as a positive power for the Congress.

That is precisely what I

That is precisely what I meant too.. everytime Congress is given a power, no matter how succinctly worded, restricted, or well intentioned, it will be abused.

It's generally agreed by students of history and the constitution that the commerce clause was intended to protect the market from states making unfair laws to gain a special advantage or punish foreign companies, but this would have been better off as an amendment protecting commerce under the bill of rights or, as you've stated, as a 1/9 restriction on the states.

The constitution has many flaws, this is just one of them, and while the framers worked very hard to restrict federal power, they really didn't do enough to restrict lower levels of government.

Rights are rights are right, no matter which level of government is being dealt with; restriction thereof by anyone for any reason is criminal.

A regulator

is a tool to keep things consistant with NORMAL.
Dictating Commerce is NOT normal.

Since we rule by "popular opinion" the LAW does not matter.
That is what Democracy is: rule by popular opinion. Majority opinion rules. It's the way ALL Communist Nations rule out of the one party, that has two parties inside.

I am an upholsterer and one of the tools I use

is called a regulator. It is about 12 inches long, sharp and pointy and used to pierce the upholstery fabric and move the stuffing around. Very dangerous tool. Sounds like the regulators in Government.


one. Thanks.
EXLAX is a good example of a regulator.
Forced EXLAX could be disasterous.

Farmers: "They're coming to take you away, ha, ha, hee, hee"

I wonder if this will somehow tie in with President Obama's Rural Council which probably has the DOT listed as a 'stakeholder'.

Also "The Partnership for Sustainable Communities has distributed huge chunks of cash to more than 200 rural communities in dozens of states. Most of the money has come via grants from the EPA, Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the Department of Transportation (DOT). Obama’s HUD secretary, Shaun Donovan, calls it an “unprecedented effort to help America’s rural, urban and suburban communities realize their visions for building more livable, walkable and environmentally sustainable regions.” http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2011/jun/u-s-spends-2-5-bi...