By: Iowa Jim

Iowa Jim — Sat, 12 Jan 2013 21:35:29 +0000

It would be just like the San Francisco Board of Supervisors to try to ban the Bay Bridge. It isn’t theirs to ban. It’s part of Interstate 80. They can’t even prohibit its entry into San Francisco, because it continues as Interstate 280. The Board of Supervisors has, in the past, tried to impose mandates on
federally-regulated businesses. About a dozen years ago, it banned the imposition of fees charge to people using an ATM that didn’t belong to the bank that issued the ATM card. The law lasted about twenty nanoseconds in federal court; national banks pointed out that they were engaged in interstate commerce, and that they were already regulated by the federal government (states can actually regulate interstate commerce if the federal government isn’t regulating it; the US Constitution says that the federal government may regulate “commerce between the states”, but it doesn’t say that states can’t also regulate it).

By: Tau Dades

Tau Dades — Sat, 12 Jan 2013 18:20:46 +0000

they would just ban assault tankers…

By: DonMegel

DonMegel — Sat, 12 Jan 2013 17:10:42 +0000

Do you know how many people are killed every year on or around bridges? Bridge collapses could literally kill hundreds of children if they are on said bridge. They must be stopped

Comments on: San Francisco Chronicle Headline I Wouldn’t Be Surprised to See

By: Iowa Jim

By: Tau Dades

By: DonMegel