Passenger Rail and Human Rights Relationship

[Anthony]

A major reason passenger rail needs to be expanded so it can be a part of a balanced transportation infrastructure in this country is because it is an important element to improving America's human rights record, particularly our freedom of movement and pursuit of health and happiness, rights guaranteed under the US Constitution. When passenger rail routes are cut, ALL Americans' (not just those who live in towns losing service) freedom of movement and opportunities to live healthier lives become that much more restricted, violating two of our basic civil liberties. This is especially true for those with disabilities or medical conditions that preclude them from highway or air travel, mainly because you must stay seated for the whole duration of the trip when you use these modes. Here's a news video confirming this statement: http://www.wifr.com/video?vid=486838681" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In addition, staying seated for too long and even frequent flying can also lead to a slew of new health problems in otherwise healthy people. All of this put together means that America's lack of a truly national passenger rail network is putting a damper on America's human rights record and health, especially for those with disabilities or certain medical conditions.

What do you think of this view on why we need more passenger rail in America? Please leave your opinion below.

[mtuandrew]

Moderator’s Note: proceed at restricted speed, be prepared to stop at any signal. Also, be respectful of the OP and other posters, whether you agree or disagree.

[electricron]

No human rights are lost if the government doesn't provide it. We can fly, sail, drive, ride, swim, and walk just about anywhere in the country, but the government doesn't provide that service. You could try to make the argument that the government provides the means but that argument will lose because there were no roads when pioneers used prairie schooners across the plains and there were no canals when pioneers used rafts to cross or follow rivers. So not only did the government not provide the service, it also did not provide the means - and we still had freedom of movement over public lands and waters. As for those with physical difficulties moving around, there were pioneers that had the same difficulties of movement that did not lose any human rights if they found their own means to overcome it.

Freedom doesn't mean lack of personal struggle or effort.

[Ken W2KB]

A major reason passenger rail needs to be expanded so it can be a part of a balanced transportation infrastructure in this country is because it is an important element to improving America's human rights record, particularly our freedom of movement and pursuit of health and happiness, rights guaranteed under the US Constitution.

The right to travel has long been settled in the law as meaning a state cannot restrict travel across its borders to and from an adjoining state as nations do across international borders. Neither the states nor the federal government are required by the Constitution to provide any means or facilitation of travel.

As to pursuit of health or pursuit of happiness, no such words/phrases are contained in the Constitution; such are not rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

[R36 Combine Coach]

Neither the states nor the federal government are required by the Constitution to provide any means or facilitation of travel.

Only relevant clause would be "post roads".

[ExCon90]

And even then, you walk or provide your own wheels; if you can afford a horse, so much the better, because nothing says the government will provide one.

[ConstanceR46]

i'd say a much more important train-related human rights question would be making sure everything can be accessed by people in wheelchairs

[wigwagfan]

Let me know where I can get my ObamaGun. After all, the 2nd Amendment guarantees me a gun.

Oh, it only guarantees me the right to own a gun, not to actually be given a gun. Likewise, just because I have the right to be happy, does not mean I have a right to a train/car/bike/airplane/LearJet/private yacht.

[mtuandrew]

Let me know where I can get my ObamaGun.

Lemme guess: after you 3D print the gun from Michelle’s plans, it returns itself to the Deep State? /utter sarcasm

Constance has it right: if you’re going to build & maintain a public infrastructure, you have a public obligation to make the system accessible to all citizens. If you have a private system, you have a fiduciary duty to reach as many customers as possible.

Corollary though, what happens in re: rights when you take away effective transit to an entire segment of your city? See the MTA L train.

[Ken W2KB]

Let me know where I can get my ObamaGun. After all, the 2nd Amendment guarantees me a gun.

Oh, it only guarantees me the right to own a gun, not to actually be given a gun. Likewise, just because I have the right to be happy, does not mean I have a right to a train/car/bike/airplane/LearJet/private yacht.

Heck, nowhere in the Constitution does it say anyone has the right to be happy. p.s. You left out horse drawn buggy in your list of conveyances.

[John_Perkowski]

The interstate and US highway systems, the management of the airways, and the LAND GRANTS clearly demonstrate our Nation has met the burden of the Framers in Article I.

So, I absolutely discount the OPs entire position.

[SouthernRailway]

OP, sorry but I don’t buy your position. Yes, I know that today’s Democrats think that the government has an obligation to dole out free stuff just because its voters want free stuff, but that’s a recipe for disaster over the long run and there is no legal or economic basis at this time for that kind of view.