Context is determinative in interpreting any text. The US Constitution starts: "We the People". Which people? Everyone in the world? No. Only the ones who are forming "a more perfect union" - ie: those citizens of the United States.

If you read the 5th amendment, you'll see that people in the armed forces do not have due process rights during times of war.

Since when do illegal enemy combatants get more rights under our constitution than our own soldiers?

The constitution further states that only congress has the authority to create courts and decide what their jurisdiction is. Congress passed laws establishing the military tribunals to try these terrorists. Under what authority does the president expand the jurisdiction of the civil courts to try these terrorists?

1) Create artificial scarcity of electric power
2) Use 'crisis' to grab more governmental control over people
3) ?????
4) State goes into bankruptcy!

Logic based on a faulty premise still gets you to the wrong conclusion. At the risk of confusing you with the facts, here's the start of the executive summary of the research paper I linked to. Nothing about pulling things out of asses here. Just hard research based on facts. Worth a read if you care to educate yourself instead of pontificating.

While considerable research has been conducted over the past 50 years quantifying the significant roles motor vehicle design, drunk and drugged driving, speeding and non-use of seatbelts play as factors in the number, severity and economic costs of motor vehicle crashes in the United States, this is the first national study in many years to examine the role and consequences of another major factor in these tragic incidences--the physical condition of U.S. roadways.

The study finds that the cost and severity of crashes where roadway conditions are a factor "greatly exceeds the cost and severity of crashes where alcohol or speeding was involved, or the cost of non-use of seatbelts." Among the study's key findings:

Roadway condition is a contributing factor in more than half--52.7 percent--of the nearly 42,000 American deaths resulting from motor vehicle crashes each year and 38 percent of the non-fatal injuries. In terms of crash outcome severity, it is the single most lethal contributing factor--greater than speeding, alcohol or non-use of seat belts.

Motor vehicle crashes in which roadway condition is a contributing factor cost the U.S. economy more than $217 billion each year. That is more than three-and-one-half times the amount of money government at all levels is investing annually in roadway capital improvements--$59 billion, according to the Federal Highway Ad- ministration. This societal cost includes $20 billion in medical costs; $46 billion in productivity costs; $52 billion in property damage and other resource costs; and $99 billion in monetized quality of life costs.

American businesses are paying an estimated $22 billion of the annual economic cost of motor vehicle crash- es involving their employees in which roadway condition is a contributing factor. This includes almost $10 billion a year in health-related fringe beneft expenses for insurance ($6.0 billion) workers' compensation claims ($1.2 billion), sick leave ($1.7 billion) and Social Security ($920 million). These crashes cost government (taxpay- ers) at all levels $12.3 billion

And I suppose your comments are from the "I like to use rhetoric instead of facts" department. Seriously, here's a recent report on the topic:

http://www.trb.org/Main/Public/Blurbs/On_a_Crash_Course_the_Dangers_and_Health_Costs_of_161951.aspx

An estimated 20% of traffic fatalities in the US are currently correlated with inadequate road surface friction. This is usually the asphalt roads, which can become very slick when wet, when hot, or when exposed to heavy traffic. Killing 10,000 people a year because the gov't doesn't want to fix the roads is pretty serious. If the gov't isn't doing what they can about the current roads, what are the odds that they will have their eye on the ball with this new 'green' tech?

A couple of years ago, a large fuel tanker crashed on I95 between Baltimore and Washington. It caught fire and caused all kinds of mayhem. If I95 was also a power generator and a transmission line and a communication trunk, that mayhem would have been greatly multiplied.

Currently, road repairs can be accomplished quickly with low tech to get traffic moving, then a more permanent repair can be done when traffic is lighter. This seems much more finicky.

What rate of return would this investment receive?

Don't get me wrong - there's huge historical significance here - but only politicians use weasel words like 'investment' to describe state grants.

The more they legislate, the more (supposedly) unintended consequences we get. If only they'd agree to be limited by the Constitution's enumerated powers - we'd get far fewer unintended consequences.

How about if we 1) term limit lawmakers, and 2) put mandatory sunset provisions on each law so that it automatically expires after 25 years?

What good would that do? For #1, we'd at least get some new blood in there once in a while. For #2, remember the telephone tax that was imposed to pay for the Spanish - American War, and was still in place 100 years later? Do we really want this law on the books in 100 years?