pageok
pageok
pageok
You Haven't Forgotten the Tonnage Clause, Have You?

The Second Circuit hasn't.

Downfall:
Great find. I'll be sure to thank you in my forthcoming paper on the philosophical underpinnings underlying the interplay between the Tonnage Clause and certain clauses of the Third Amendment.
6.4.2009 2:11pm
BRM:
The Second Circuit has the major case on the Third Amendment, too.
6.4.2009 2:19pm
zuch (mail) (www):
So do I get my $4 back? Actually, I think the last time I used the PJF was in the '80s though.... It's worth the $2 (plus ferry fare) though to get out on the water, relax, and avoid New Yawk "expressways"....

Cheers,
6.4.2009 2:24pm
martinned (mail) (www):
Is it just me or did they overthink this one a bit? Would have been too much common sense to simply observe that the charge paid for the harbor (area), which the ferry passengers used to get to Bridgeport? (In other words: passengers use the port, passengers pay for the port, without too much detailed litigating as to whether the passengers actually use every part of the port...)
6.4.2009 2:27pm
Soronel Haetir (mail):
I love the chutzpah of the BPA expecting the ferry line to collect a special fee to fund adverse litigation. Plus, with the testimony quoted at the end of the opinion didn't the port lawyers just know they were dealing with a loser of a case here?
6.4.2009 2:31pm
dmv (www):
Justice Jackson cites the Third Amendment in his Youngstown concurrence, too. I think it's my favorite amendment, actually. It's a useful reminder that the Constitution was written in and for an 18th century world by 18th century men.
6.4.2009 2:36pm
NaG (mail):
dmv: It's also a useful reminder that if we ever wind up having to fight battles on American soil again, the military will use private homes as befits them unless specifically prohibited.
6.4.2009 2:41pm
Steve:
I love the chutzpah of the BPA expecting the ferry line to collect a special fee to fund adverse litigation.

I wouldn't call it chutzpah, I'd call it a rather nasty strategic decision. The most logical conclusion is that the BPA wanted to marshal public sentiment against the Ferry Authority by saying "sorry folks, but you have to pay an extra fee because of these litigious jerks over here."
6.4.2009 2:43pm
PatHMV (mail) (www):
Is there a link available which doesn't require registration with FindLaw?
6.4.2009 2:43pm
William Spieler (mail) (www):
The $1 special fee to fund litigation adverse to the interests of the ferry passengers is clearly in the ferry passenger's interests and furthermore
6.4.2009 2:44pm
PatHMV (mail) (www):
Found one, directly from the 2nd Circuit website.
6.4.2009 2:46pm
anomdebus (mail):
Isn't there a tonnage clause being debated in the SC now? (Polar Tankers v. City of Valdez)
6.4.2009 3:08pm
martinned (mail) (www):

Isn't there a tonnage clause being debated in the SC now? (Polar Tankers v. City of Valdez)

Yes.

(Kudos on the memory.)
6.4.2009 3:17pm
Jeff Walden (www):
Heh, someone else remembered the Supreme Court case from this last session too. :-) I didn't pay much attention to it, but I certainly recall seeing it mentioned a handful of times on SCOTUSblog.
6.4.2009 4:29pm
Edward Lunny (mail):
Hmmm, I wonder, would such reasoning apply to bridge tolls collected from drivers/riders and then used to fund sports stadium projects and various other projects unrelated to the operation of the bridges and tunnels the tolls are ostensibly collected for ?
6.4.2009 4:56pm
J. Aldridge:
Courts still think human beings are articles of trade? Yikes!
6.4.2009 7:52pm
ReaderY:
"Interstate Commerce" still has its old meaning of interstate travel or transportaion. It means much else it was never intended to mean, but it includes at least that.
6.7.2009 6:14am

Post as: [Register] [Log In]

Account:
Password:
Remember info?

If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.

Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.

We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.

And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.