Court: Penalties for Poor Amtrak Handling Unconstitutional

Shop deals on ebay
Advertise with us
shop deals on amazon
Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.
How about a concerned parent taking money out of one child's savings (patent controlled savings) to help a child with needs (perhaps medical).
 
Nathanael said:
As for Ayn Rand, she was a hypocrite who depended on public assistance, and her so-called "philosophy" was shallow and full of nonsense.
The key point regarding "Atlas Shrugged" is that in the real world, the people who actually make things operate are NOT the the corporate executives; the corporate executives are, in fact, the useless bureaucratic leeches she railed against, pretty much every damn time. Warren Buffett, who is a decent guy, even *admits* that his talents are socially worthless.

The key point regarding the complete and utter tripe which she called "Objectivism" is that, in actual fact, "A" is *not* A. As any computer scientist, linguist, mathematician, or anyone else trained in an actual hard *or* soft science can tell you: the sign is not the referent, the symbol is not the thing it represents, the name of the variable is not the contents of the variable, the quoted string is not the same as the unquoted string.
Click to expand...
Funny - I am a computer engineer, and I don't deny the law of identity. ;)

As far as Ayn Rand being a hypocrite - this is a rather dishonest talking point by those who don't know the truth of the matter. Your argument sets up a false premise: that she "depended on public assistance". This isn't true. Social security is a "forced" savings account that she had no choice but to fund by law Upon reaching retirement, she began to withdraw the funds she had put in there.

In fact, here is what Rand said about the matter:


"...the victims, who opposed such laws, have a clear right to any refund of their own money—and they would not advance the cause of freedom if they left their money unclaimed, for the benefit of the welfare-state administration.
"



A truly is A. :)
 
Anderson said:
Just a quick question that I cannot recall the answer to: Was the OTP rule only applicable to Amtrak? Or was it more broadly-worded?
Click to expand...
The original preference rule as embodied in RPSA and to be enforced by ICC was only for Amtrak

The RPSA granted Amtrak the right (enforceable by the ICC) to use tracks, facilities, and services of freight railroads in providing passenger services and to compensate the freight railroads at the incremental cost level (plus incentive payments) for the use of their tracks, facilities, and services. RPSA, sec. 305 (as amended in 1973 and 1978); RPSA, sec. 402. Congress also provided that passenger trains operated by Amtrak must be accorded preference over freight trains operated by other railroads in the use of track. RPSA sec. 402 (as amended in 1973).
Click to expand...
AFAICT the PRIIA language is entirely derivative of RPSA (with STB substituted for ICC) and hence applies only to Amtrak as mentioned in the FRA summary of the relevant part of PRIIA 2008:

FRA and Amtrak, in consultation with the Surface Transportation Board (STB), Amtrak’s host railroads, States, Amtrak’s labor organizations, and rail passenger associations are to develop metrics and minimum standards for measuring the performance and service quality of intercity passenger train service [§207]. FRA is to publish quarterly reports on a variety of performance and service quality factors including cost coverage, train delays, and on-board services. STB may investigate on its own initiative or upon receipt of a complaint from Amtrak, an intercity rail passenger operator, a host freight railroad over which Amtrak operates, or an entity for which Amtrak operates intercity passenger rail service of poor on time performance or other service quality deficiencies of intercity passenger rail based on the new standards to determine whether and to what extent delays or failure to achieve minimum standards are due to causes that could reasonably be addressed by the host freight railroad, Amtrak or other intercity passenger rail operators [§213]. If the STB determines that delays or failures to achieve minimum standards are attributable to a rail carrier’s failure to provide preference to Amtrak over freight transportation, it could award damages to be paid by the host freight railroad to Amtrak or the service sponsor. The awarded damages would be used by Amtrak or the service sponsor for capital or operating expenditures on the route to help achieve the minimum standards. The STB will set up its process for receiving and addressing complaints. Following issuance of the metrics and standards, Amtrak is to develop and implement a plan to improve on-board service in accordance with the metrics and standards [§222].
Click to expand...
Only failure to provide preference to Amtrak over freight transportation is mentioned. No mention of other operators as far as the penalty clause goes. Other operators can ask for an investigation though as it would seem.

Of course reading the original text in the bill could provide additional insights, but I don;t have the time to do so right now.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Appeals Court has come back with a verdict from the SCOTUS remand on this case.

The fulle text can be found at:

https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/7DB0A5319D2F70D385257FA4004FAB2B/$file/12-5204-1611061.pdf

Here is the summary of the judgement:

For the freight operators who challenged PRIIA, however, that decision left three questions unanswered. Conceding Amtrak ’s governmental status, the operators — represented by the Association of American Railroads—ask: Does it violate due process for an entity to make law when, economically speaking, it has skin in the game? Does it violate the Appointments Clause for Congress to vest appointment power of a principal officer in the Surface Transportation Board? And is a government corporation whose board is only partially comprised of members appointed by the President constitutionally eligible to exercise regulatory power? We decline to reach the latter question, but we side with the freight operators on the former two. We conclude PRIIA violates the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause by authorizing an economically self -interested actor to regulate its competitors and violates the Appointments Clause for delegating regulatory power to an improperly appointed arbitrator.
Click to expand...
So it is two out of three in favor of AAR and against PRIIA Section 2007.
 
The results-oriented apparatchiks on the Federal Circuit should watch out; this is a ruling which will get them in trouble.

This'll go right back to the Supreme Court, it'll be reversed, and it'll get kicked right back to the Federal Circuit to try again.

After they issue another results-oriented lawless ruling, the Supreme Court will probably take the case up directly in order to smack them down. The Supreme Court seems to generally give lower courts three chances before smacking them down.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maybe I'm missing something. No surprise: it's happened before & will surely happen again.

The Court says Amtrak has no right to serve a regulatory function. We all know Amtrak is not a regulatory agency. Amtrak in a party to a contract which involves operating over the tracks of the other party in compliance with the contract. How can insistence on compliance with the terms of the contract (i.e., schedule conformance) be interpreted as a regulatory function? The issue is contract compliance, IMO. Penalties for failure to comply should be equivalent to, or more than, the amount of money that the freight carrier saved by delaying Amtrak.

Am I out of line here?

Tom
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top