First, they are and second that is already the minimum requirement. See the Administrative Procedures Act 5 USD ch 5 part 553.
The vote was only a PRECURSOR to the rulemaking process, not an avoidance of it.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
FCC Votes To Protect Net Neutrality, Reclassify Broadband
- Thread starter HardOCP News
- Start date
First, they are and second that is already the minimum requirement. See the Administrative Procedures Act 5 USD ch 5 part 553.
The vote was only a PRECURSOR to the rulemaking process, not an avoidance of it.
Let me throw this out there for the leftist techies to think about here. The FCC are hiding the details of the proposed regulations from the public. You have the clapping seals regurgitating what the perceived intentions are of the regulations, but not the actual substantive text of the regulation. They are refusing to release it all in detail.
Why? Enough nonsense fellas, they don't care about protecting the little guy. They care about control. Now they have a new platform for people to lobby them on, where bureaucrats can pick and choose the winners/losers. The ISPs can be Satan for all I care, look at how the FCC refuses to release the details of their proposed plan. By sole virtue of that, everyone should reject them.
Why? Enough nonsense fellas, they don't care about protecting the little guy. They care about control. Now they have a new platform for people to lobby them on, where bureaucrats can pick and choose the winners/losers. The ISPs can be Satan for all I care, look at how the FCC refuses to release the details of their proposed plan. By sole virtue of that, everyone should reject them.
You think so? My impression was the more conservative side doesn't trust government at all, for anything, even if it would help people in general. Can you think of examples in recent memory where conservatives supported additional regulation of any kind on business or industry?
It's a good point, however I think it comes down to just how cynical one is about the current situation. You said yourself, the ISPs can be Satan for all you care. I don't see how you do much worse than that. So our options are:
1. More Satan.
2. Something that MIGHT not be Satan, and that the ISPs were fighting really hard to prevent.
I personally would rather see option 2 if that's all we have to pick from (and it likely is).
LightningCrash
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2000
- Messages
- 2,470
In Oklahoma and maybe some other states, the fundie conservatives passed a law to impose additional rules on abortion providers.
There's also the federal regulation on pseudoephedrine, and the Patriot Act title III. I'm sure there are some more but I don't want to Google.
Not to mention the more recent proposals to change AP history classes (in OK) to have more propaganda, which is in effect a type of regulation. Conservatives offer plenty of regulation, too, just not the same as left leaning types.
The founders of this country would laugh at you for such a pov.
Considering there is 200+ years between now and then, I am glad you have their ear and are on good enough terms you know what they would think and do.
Since you know so much about how they think and all, maybe they have some words of wisdom you could pass along.
They said that net neutrality rocks and that your mom makes a great sandwich.
Just off the top of my head: the 13th amendment and all of the civil rights era legislation
heatlesssun
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2005
- Messages
- 44,154
Even in these matters, the role of Federal government was far more contentious than the issue of net neutrality. There is a long history of resistance to Federal action by some no matter the issue and any intervention by the Federal government is seen as an assault on liberty, even if the liberty is to enslave other humans.
Certainly some see it that way. I, for one, cringe whenever I see "state's rights" used a justification for anything. I hate seeing people fall back on that kind of argument when they know that they can't win on the substance of the issue at hand.
I'm not sure if you've taken your American history class or not, but state sovereignty was one of the strongest provisions of our framework. Ratifying the Constitution was not easy, and almost did not happen. Many were concerned that the Constitution (which gave power to a Federated government) did not adequately protect the sovereign rights afforded the states through the Articles of Confederation. Many believed the Articles should've been revised instead.
They were eventually signed, as the founding fathers pimped hard for the changes and wrote many articles and papers to illustrate that the enumeration of the power given to the fed was not to be feared. They drafted the Constitution in a way that provided guarantees, via the Bill of Rights (by demand of the states). Additionally, the 10th Amendment was written a few years later to reassert the sovereign power of the states. States have not always been "right" in the use of their power, but neither has the federal government. Regardless, the 10th Amendment was clear in that the federal government should exercise no power outside of that which was already given to it by the states. Everything else is the right of the states. Period.
I'm always shocked to realize how many people simply do not understand the intent behind our country's framework, as written by our founding fathers. So much of what we debate nowadays is due to people trying to skew the meaning of the actual wording of those documents to support an argument that would've flown in the face what of those men wanted for the newly formed country.
Granted, while the Constitution was written to be as clear and concise (and short) as possible, it is not a perfect document. There is definitely things that are up for interpretation... things that are almost unanimously used to erode the protections put in place.
To better understand the Constitution and its amendments, as well as the Bill of Rights, people need to understand the thoughts behind the men who drafted them. The absolute best way to do that is to read the "Federalist Papers". These are not "law", but they give you an insight as to what these documents were intended to do.
The Federalist Papers
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fedpapers.html
States rights is just a dog whistle trotted out by conservatives when they disagree with something the government is doing. You never see them touting the importance of states rights when a state does something liberal (read: fair, right or intelligent) like letting gays marry.
They also forget that states rights is traditionally the knee jerk defense of things like slavery and discrimination.
But history is super important, right Flapjack? I'm sure you above all here would know that.
They also forget that states rights is traditionally the knee jerk defense of things like slavery and discrimination.
But history is super important, right Flapjack? I'm sure you above all here would know that.
heatlesssun
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2005
- Messages
- 44,154
States don't have the right to enslave or write laws that clearly are targeted at groups based on skin color. And that concept is post 10th Amendment
heatlesssun
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2005
- Messages
- 44,154
Bingo. There is no definition of marriage in the Constitution. So let's add one to it because states don't have the right to redefine marriage?
ManofGod
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2007
- Messages
- 12,864
Oh well, I guess you do not give 2 craps about how this nation was designed and founded then, right? The sky is blue, grass is green, water is wet and the Constitution and Bill of Rights clearly spell out the limits of the federal government. Do not like that, change it.
Semantics
2[H]4U
- Joined
- May 18, 2010
- Messages
- 2,811
Well considering that the constitution and bill of rights at least from the jeffersonian point of view was a document meant to be changed and updated with the will of the people. Probably because he wasn't a dumbass that thinks the founding fathers knew the future and could interpret what the internet is and what i means on a global scale.
Do people roll their eyes when you talk to them in person too?
ManofGod
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2007
- Messages
- 12,864
There you go. History is reality, your interpretation of events not withstanding.
ManofGod
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2007
- Messages
- 12,864
I do not have a problem with net neutrality. Only have an issue with folks who want things there way and then it comes back and bites them in the butt when they get it. However, I do not have an issue with this net neutrality bill if it is what we believe it to be. (We will see.)
Oh, and it is time we bring our military home and stop fighting everyone else's wars.