FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues
-
I wonder if the companies allowed to take LifeLine subsidies and his bank account have anything in common.
-
@mattspeller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@mlnews said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Is it just me or is this guy a gigantic useless tool?
The question is, which tool is worse? The one with the orangutan hair or Pai. . .
-
@dustinb3403 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@mattspeller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@mlnews said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Is it just me or is this guy a gigantic useless tool?
The question is, which tool is worse? The one with the orangutan hair or Pai. . .
-
@mattspeller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dustinb3403 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@mattspeller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@mlnews said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Is it just me or is this guy a gigantic useless tool?
The question is, which tool is worse? The one with the orangutan hair or Pai. . .
Both A&B -
-
-
@mlnews said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
How is that possible? Does FCC have that type of power to enforce individual states to comply?
-
@black3dynamite said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@mlnews said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
How is that possible? Does FCC have that type of power to enforce individual states to comply?
Likely, yes.
-
@black3dynamite said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@mlnews said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
How is that possible? Does FCC have that type of power to enforce individual states to comply?
Not in the least. Now do you think that actually matters to anyone?
-
@travisdh1 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@black3dynamite said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@mlnews said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
How is that possible? Does FCC have that type of power to enforce individual states to comply?
Not in the least. Now do you think that actually matters to anyone?
Why do you say that? What do you mean not in the least? Everything the FCC does is federal and supercedes state laws.
-
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@travisdh1 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@black3dynamite said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@mlnews said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
How is that possible? Does FCC have that type of power to enforce individual states to comply?
Not in the least. Now do you think that actually matters to anyone?
Why do you say that? What do you mean not in the least? Everything the FCC does is federal and supercedes state laws.
Because I actually know the constitution and what the federal government is allowed. Like I said, nobody at any level actually pays any attention to it today, but it's never officially been changed to allow things like the FCC to exist.
-
@travisdh1 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@travisdh1 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@black3dynamite said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@mlnews said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
How is that possible? Does FCC have that type of power to enforce individual states to comply?
Not in the least. Now do you think that actually matters to anyone?
Why do you say that? What do you mean not in the least? Everything the FCC does is federal and supercedes state laws.
Because I actually know the constitution and what the federal government is allowed.
So you know that interstate commerce is purely a federal concern then, so the states have no say in the matter.
-
@travisdh1 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Like I said, nobody at any level actually pays any attention to it today, but it's never officially been changed to allow things like the FCC to exist.
Quite the opposite, they've paid very close attention and use the constituion. It's people making up fake states' rights that is the confusion. Telecommunications has been an interstate concern since day one and never fallen to the states. The FCC is able to exist, and needed, specifically because the constitution creates a need for federal oversite of interstate matters.
-
It's actually states, not the fed, that typically over step their bounds. The fed actually has nearly unlimited power in an age when almost all aspects of life are not bound to within the confines of a single state. Anything having to do with typical business, logistics, communications, or similar is clearly a federal concern.
-
-
Also worth noting that interstate commerce includes anything affecting other states, not just trade directly with them.
In United States v. Wrightwood Dairy Co. (1942) the Court upheld federal price regulation of intrastate milk commerce, stating:
The commerce power is not confined in its exercise to the regulation of commerce among the states. It extends to those activities intrastate which so affect interstate commerce, or the exertion of the power of Congress over it, as to make regulation of them appropriate means to the attainment of a legitimate end, the effective execution of the granted power to regulate interstate commerce. [ ...] The power of Congress over interstate commerce is plenary and complete in itself, may be exercised to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations other than are prescribed in the Constitution. [ ... ] It follows that no form of state activity can constitutionally thwart the regulatory power granted by the commerce clause to Congress. Hence, the reach of that power extends to those intrastate activities which in a substantial way interfere with or obstruct the exercise of the granted power
-
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Also worth noting that interstate commerce includes anything affecting other states, not just trade directly with them.
In United States v. Wrightwood Dairy Co. (1942) the Court upheld federal price regulation of intrastate milk commerce, stating:
The commerce power is not confined in its exercise to the regulation of commerce among the states. It extends to those activities intrastate which so affect interstate commerce, or the exertion of the power of Congress over it, as to make regulation of them appropriate means to the attainment of a legitimate end, the effective execution of the granted power to regulate interstate commerce. [ ...] The power of Congress over interstate commerce is plenary and complete in itself, may be exercised to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations other than are prescribed in the Constitution. [ ... ] It follows that no form of state activity can constitutionally thwart the regulatory power granted by the commerce clause to Congress. Hence, the reach of that power extends to those intrastate activities which in a substantial way interfere with or obstruct the exercise of the granted power
You've missed the entire issue. I'd argue the commerce clause is abused today, but it's a valid power of the congress.
-
@travisdh1 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Also worth noting that interstate commerce includes anything affecting other states, not just trade directly with them.
In United States v. Wrightwood Dairy Co. (1942) the Court upheld federal price regulation of intrastate milk commerce, stating:
The commerce power is not confined in its exercise to the regulation of commerce among the states. It extends to those activities intrastate which so affect interstate commerce, or the exertion of the power of Congress over it, as to make regulation of them appropriate means to the attainment of a legitimate end, the effective execution of the granted power to regulate interstate commerce. [ ...] The power of Congress over interstate commerce is plenary and complete in itself, may be exercised to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations other than are prescribed in the Constitution. [ ... ] It follows that no form of state activity can constitutionally thwart the regulatory power granted by the commerce clause to Congress. Hence, the reach of that power extends to those intrastate activities which in a substantial way interfere with or obstruct the exercise of the granted power
You've missed the entire issue. I'd argue the commerce clause is abused today, but it's a valid power of the congress.
But that's the point, that the commerce claus gives rise to the FCC and gives it the power over the states.
-
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@travisdh1 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Also worth noting that interstate commerce includes anything affecting other states, not just trade directly with them.
In United States v. Wrightwood Dairy Co. (1942) the Court upheld federal price regulation of intrastate milk commerce, stating:
The commerce power is not confined in its exercise to the regulation of commerce among the states. It extends to those activities intrastate which so affect interstate commerce, or the exertion of the power of Congress over it, as to make regulation of them appropriate means to the attainment of a legitimate end, the effective execution of the granted power to regulate interstate commerce. [ ...] The power of Congress over interstate commerce is plenary and complete in itself, may be exercised to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations other than are prescribed in the Constitution. [ ... ] It follows that no form of state activity can constitutionally thwart the regulatory power granted by the commerce clause to Congress. Hence, the reach of that power extends to those intrastate activities which in a substantial way interfere with or obstruct the exercise of the granted power
You've missed the entire issue. I'd argue the commerce clause is abused today, but it's a valid power of the congress.
But that's the point, that the commerce claus gives rise to the FCC and gives it the power over the states.
Trust me, there is no more right to privacy or free speech at least. I've witnessed this myself, no amount of arguing about technicalities will disprove what they've actually done.
-
@travisdh1 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@travisdh1 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Also worth noting that interstate commerce includes anything affecting other states, not just trade directly with them.
In United States v. Wrightwood Dairy Co. (1942) the Court upheld federal price regulation of intrastate milk commerce, stating:
The commerce power is not confined in its exercise to the regulation of commerce among the states. It extends to those activities intrastate which so affect interstate commerce, or the exertion of the power of Congress over it, as to make regulation of them appropriate means to the attainment of a legitimate end, the effective execution of the granted power to regulate interstate commerce. [ ...] The power of Congress over interstate commerce is plenary and complete in itself, may be exercised to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations other than are prescribed in the Constitution. [ ... ] It follows that no form of state activity can constitutionally thwart the regulatory power granted by the commerce clause to Congress. Hence, the reach of that power extends to those intrastate activities which in a substantial way interfere with or obstruct the exercise of the granted power
You've missed the entire issue. I'd argue the commerce clause is abused today, but it's a valid power of the congress.
But that's the point, that the commerce claus gives rise to the FCC and gives it the power over the states.
Trust me, there is no more right to privacy or free speech at least. I've witnessed this myself, no amount of arguing about technicalities will disprove what they've actually done.
What the heck are you talking about? You specifically said that the FCC could not oversee the states. Now you are talking about something unrelated. This has nothing to do with the conversation.
