The Jones Act For Dummies

[Joanne98]

Merchant Marine Act of 1920

The Merchant Marine Act of 1920 (P.L. 66-261) is a United States Federal statute that regulates maritime commerce in U.S. waters and between U.S. ports.

Section 27, also known as the Jones Act, deals with cabotage (i.e., coastal shipping) and requires that all goods transported by water between U.S. ports be carried in U.S.-flag ships, constructed in the United States, owned by U.S. citizens, and crewed by U.S. citizens and U.S. permanent residents. The purpose of the law is to support the U.S. merchant marine industry, but agricultural interests generally oppose it because, they contend, it raises the cost of shipping their goods, making them less competitive with foreign sources. <1>

In addition, amendments to the Jones Act, known as the Cargo Preference Act (P.L. 83-644), provide permanent legislation for the transportation of waterborne cargoes in U.S.-flag vessels.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchant_Marine_Act_of_1920

Are Republicans trying to help BP screw the shrimpers?

DUH!

[Joanne98]

1. kick

[Honeycombe8]

2. There's also a national security component to the purpose of it, is my understanding.

A foreign ship laying anchor at a U.S. port and traveling between U.S. ports (of course, foreign ships ARE allowed to lay anchor and deliver goods, etc., at U.S. ports).... would have unusual access for a foreign power to refineries, factories, plants, and other large businesses that are located near ports. So....access to such highly sensitive businesses is restricted and supposedly monitored, naturally.

Likewise, I would guess that a U.S. ship can't travel to Saudi Arabia and lay anchor without restrictive permission of Saudi Arabia, and I doubt that ship would be allowed to travel from Saudi Arabian port to Saudi Arabian port, transporting goods for Saudi Arabia. Or any other country.

When we ask why the U.S. does things, we need to comare it with what most other industrialized countries do. The question is not whether what U.S. does makes sense (although that IS a question to be asked at some point), but initially whether what we do is very different from what other industrialized countries do. So...is what we do different from what Great Britain or Canada or Switzerland or Italy does?

[BeFree]

3. heh

In an emergency the representatives of the people are handed the rights to do whatever is necessary to promote the general welfare.

So.... the only question is: Is this an emergency?

[Joanne98]

4. The Republicans must be working for the NWO! Trying to disolve our borders!

SHAME ON THEM!

[Raspberry]

5. Waive the Jones Act!!

If ever there were a situation where it should not apply, this is it. Even Bush knew enough to suspend it after Katrina.

[doc03]

6. Couldn't the President make an exception to the Jones Act

to temporarily allow foreign ships to help in the gulf? While he is at it have the Congress vote to approve it, make the Rethugs put their money where their mouth is.

[Raspberry]

7. Yes, actually he could.

Bush did it after Katrina. At least once, maybe more. There are probably other good examples.

Seriously, if Obama had waived the Jones Act (and he knew he could have) within a few days after the explosion and allowed other countries to help with containment, this catastrophe would have been mitigated. Whether the R's are right, and he wouldn't do anything that would have offended his union buddies--who knows? But, the fact remains that he didn't do what he could have (and should have) done.

[dkf]

9. This decision should have been a no brainer. I hope Obama's conscience is heavy

On the destruction he has contributed to.

Shame on him.

[doc03]

10. We all know what would have happened though. If Obama

would have done so the Republicans would claim it was a power grab and would have him up for impeachment for violating the Jones Act.

[dkf]

8. Are shrimpers alone equipped to do every aspect of the marine cleanup?

I doubt it.

I'd say we need whoever can help including but not exclusive to the shrimpers.