"It is successfully noted that there is no "Consent of Congress" phrase in Article 1 Section 10 Clause 1.  "

Well Duh.  It simply states that the states CANNOT.  Period.

The consent is about the President entering into contract (Treaty)

And for the record, folks around here know the difference between a tax and a toll...  We also have adequate math skills to calculate the average $6 per crossing currently paid will not even pay for the operation of the new bridge.

Given that little fact it seems there is a deception on the part of SOMEONE advocating the new bridge and the ability to finance it.  ESPECIALLY with the existing DIBC sharing the revenue load.  Something will have to change.  Rates going up?  Well of course.  Drastically.

But how does that happen if there is competition?

Oh wait.  there must be a plan for that.  Lets just say the existing 80 year old span (which BTW is still structurally sound - though will always need paving work) Will find a solution in the nature of Road blockades once the new bridge is built.  Canada has been trying to steal the bridge out from under the DIBC since the 70s.  They, like all socialist types cannot fathom a 'private' entity owning such a structure.  When the new bridge is built, the Morouns will own the largest over-the-water parking deck you have ever seen.

The best part about a monopoly, is the efforts to keep it.  Think about that a second. Or two.  It means cheap fares.  

Its like a tax increase if the private entity is chased out by Canada closing the door at the other side to protect its interests.

Thanks a lot Mr Snyder.

A private MICHIGAN based taxpaying entity will have had its lights snuffed out by nothing more than the same type of class envy and political brinksmanship that has an as yet unknown TRUE cause.  Jobs are jobs.  10,000 building new DRIC under existing treaty, or 10,000 building new CANADA owned unit.  So what is Snyder's motivation?

So yeah.. Thanks for playing.