 batterupI Can Not Tell A Lie.Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ | Big government, I'm here to help you. What happened to state rights? |
|
| The state right to what... submit to whatever the market says you can get. Even if your local government will like to serve you in the absence of a willing provider.
The sate in this case is not looking in their citizens best interest. |
|
 MaxoYour tax dollars at work.Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL | reply to batterup
said by batterup:What happened to state rights? I agree. This is a decision that states should be allowed to make. The federal government has no place telling states how they can and cannot run themselves. |
|
|
|
 jester121Premium
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL | reply to batterup
It's a delicate balance between respecting the rights of the several states to govern themselves, and saving the citizens of those states from the greedy, corrupt, or inept state legislatures. |
|
 pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | said by jester121:It's a delicate balance between respecting the rights of the several states to govern themselves, and saving the citizens of those states from the greedy, corrupt, or inept state legislatures. Then amend the US Constitution to allow for the Federal Government to exert such authority. If this becomes law it will be overturned.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. |
|
 Jim GurdPremium
join:2000-07-08
Plymouth, MI | said by pnh102:If this becomes law it will be overturned. Unfortunately it won't. The 10th Amendment hasn't been enforced since the 1930s. 
--
We don't care. We don't have to. We're the phone company.
-- Ernestine |
|
 ZaberWhen all are gone, there shall be none
join:2000-06-08
Cleveland, OH | reply to Maxo
said by Maxo:said by batterup:What happened to state rights? I agree. This is a decision that states should be allowed to make. The federal government has no place telling states how they can and cannot run themselves. But the state has the power to tell a City it cannot run itself?
--
Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he will feed himself for a lifetime |
|
MaxoYour tax dollars at work.Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL | said by Zaber:said by Maxo:said by batterup:What happened to state rights? I agree. This is a decision that states should be allowed to make. The federal government has no place telling states how they can and cannot run themselves. But the state has the power to tell a City it cannot run itself? That depends on the state's constitution. The federal constitution gives the feds limited power and puts all other powers on the state. The state then gets to decide what remaining powers are theirs, and what goes to the local level.
--
"Padre, nobody said war was fun now bowl!" - Sherman T Potter
»www.cafepress.com/maxolasersquad
»maxolasersquad.com/
»maxolasersquad.com/network/ My DSL Network Guide
»myspace.com/mlsquad |
|
| reply to pnh102
Why amend the Constitution when they can simply create a law and let that law be challenged? If it stands, then that is the way it is. If it falls, then time to try another angle if need be. |
|
 ieolusSupport The Clecs
join:2001-06-19
Duluth, GA | reply to Maxo
When one level of government abdicates its responsibility to the People, I am happy that another can step-up and do the right thing.
--
"Speak for yourself "Chadmaster" - lesopp |
|
 John GaltForward, MarchPremium
join:2004-09-30
Happy Camp
kudos:3 | reply to Skippy25
said by Skippy25:Why amend the Constitution when they can simply create a law and let that law be challenged? If it stands, then that is the way it is. If it falls, then time to try another angle if need be. To all posters and not just Skippy25  , the Federal Government already has exerted its authority over all things related to communications...even down to individual pieces of property. This is an example of that:
»www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/otard.html
--
A is A |
|
 tim_kButtons, Bows, Beamer, Shadow, KaseyPremium,VIP
join:2002-02-02
Stewartstown, PA
kudos:13 | reply to batterup
said by batterup:What happened to state rights? Died when the civil war ended. Now a days, the Commerce Clause is used to provide almost unlimited federal power over the states.
--
RIP my baby Buttons 1/15/94-2/9/07 |
|
Jim GurdPremium
join:2000-07-08
Plymouth, MI | said by tim_k:Now a days, the Commerce Clause is used to provide almost unlimited federal power over the states. Sad but true.
--
We don't care. We don't have to. We're the phone company.
-- Ernestine |
|
emptywigHuh? What?Premium
join:2002-08-05
Pasadena, TX | reply to Maxo
The US Constitution gives the feds powers over issues related to interstate commerce, a BROAD definition which in today's world would most certainly include the building of data networks, as it does telecommunications and transportation.
I have no problem with this law. My state is run by idiot blowhards.
Besides, in this day and age the idea that any of the states is somehow "independent" of all the others, that they somehow stand alone, is complete baloney.
wig
--
Sometimes a paradox is just a paradox |
|
 BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | reply to batterup
said by batterup:What happened to state rights? what happened to the state doing what good for the PEOPLE not the corporations. As far as I'm converned as soon as a state start working for the corporation they lose their rights. government by the PEOPLE of the PEOPLE and for the PEOPLE. |
|
MaxoYour tax dollars at work.Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL | reply to emptywig
said by emptywig:The US Constitution gives the feds powers over issues related to interstate commerce, a BROAD definition which in today's world would most certainly include the building of data networks, as it does telecommunications and transportation. This is true. Interstate commerce act has been interpreted by the supreme court such that any and all activities fall under it's umbrella. If you eat with a fork in stead of a spork it is regulatable by the fed under interstate commerce because you have affected everyone in a very minute way because you have furthered the cause of spork lovers everywhere.
--
"Padre, nobody said war was fun now bowl!" - Sherman T Potter
»www.cafepress.com/maxolasersquad
»maxolasersquad.com/
»maxolasersquad.com/network/ My DSL Network Guide
»myspace.com/mlsquad |
|
| reply to batterup
said by batterup:What happened to state rights? Yes, I agree. Unless it is wireless, how do the Feds come in and regulate relations between states and local communities?
Usually they do this by cutting off Fed $'s unless the state complies. Meaning the state loses some Federal money for broadband deployments unless they opt-in to the law.
Unless that is the way they plan on getting compliance, this law sounds unconstitutional.
--
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page |
|
KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | reply to batterup
how could a law prevent wifi? just market it as for police and fire and accidently leave them open....
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports |
|
MaxoYour tax dollars at work.Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL | reply to BF69
said by BF69:what happened to the state doing what good for the PEOPLE not the corporations. It is not constitutional for the federal government to interfere with the states outside of the powers granted to it by the constitution. The state is free to make dumb laws within the boundaries of its authorities as granted by the constitution. It doesn't make it moral or right, but it is the way the laws for this country are written.
--
"Padre, nobody said war was fun now bowl!" - Sherman T Potter
»www.cafepress.com/maxolasersquad
»maxolasersquad.com/
»maxolasersquad.com/network/ My DSL Network Guide
»myspace.com/mlsquad |
|
batterupI Can Not Tell A Lie.Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ Reviews:
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
said by fAcEtIOUs:said by batterup:What happened to state rights? Yes, I agree. Unless it is wireless, how do the Feds come in and regulate relations between states and local communities? Usually they do this by cutting off Fed $'s unless the state complies. Meaning the state loses some Federal money for broadband deployments unless they opt-in to the law. Unless that is the way they plan on getting compliance, this law sounds unconstitutional. The Feds wanted .08 as the blood alcohol limit. They did not pass a law but threatened to withhold highway funds if the states did not comply. |
|
