| | States rights are just something the feds recognize when the state wants the same thing that they do. Just look at the medical marijuana issue. Many states passed it, but the feds "don't recognize" the state's laws. Go figure, you're only as free as they let you be. | |
|
 Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
 ·Cox HSI
| Re: States rights said by xerxes3642:are just something the feds recognize when the state wants the same thing that they do. Just look at the medical marijuana issue. Many states passed it, but the feds "don't recognize" the state's laws. Go figure, you're only as free as they let you be. And since when it has not been like that. Freedom in a society does not mean you can do whatever you when ever your want. We all (states as well) have rights and responsibilities. And by many you mean....
Going back to this case, clearly the muni band is NOT in the interest of the CITIZENS. And if someone could help understand how is in their interest, I'll appreciate that. | |
|
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| The States Rights issue here is a red herring given the fact that town and city rights in this instance were the rights being taken away. And taken away by laws written by companies whose only interest was self serving, no less. The medical marijuana issue is not comparable.... | |
|
 |  pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Re: States rights said by Karl Bode:The States Rights issue here is a red herring given the fact that town and city rights in this instance were the rights being taken away. States have always had higher legal authority than county, municipal or local governments though. Unless a state's constitution declares otherwise, a state-level ban on municipal broadband is perfectly legal.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. | |
|
| | Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
4 edits | Re: States rights Obviously it's legal. These companies had the law changed.
My point being that in this case it's a Red Herring argument (though effective if you want to pollute the issue) because the real rights being eliminated are individual, and by corporations. If States start passing Exxon-written laws that say Exxon can dump petroleum in my lemonade, I'd expect those to be struck down too. And I'd find arguments by Exxon employees and supporters claiming that this infringed on state rights equally disingenuous. | |
|
| | |  Titus PulloI came, I saw, I slept
join:2004-06-26
kudos:1
 ·Embarq Now Centu..
| Re: States rights said by Karl Bode:Obviously it's legal. These companies had the law changed. My point being that in this case it's a Red Herring argument (though effective if you want to pollute the issue) because the real rights being eliminated are individual, and by corporations. If States start passing Exxon-written laws that say Exxon can dump petroleum in my lemonade, I'd expect those to be struck down too. And I'd find arguments by Exxon employees and supporters claiming that this infringed on state rights equally disingenuous. Yes, but keep in mind -- while monitoring your BP -- that you're dealing with corporate sycophants weaned on TV and its advertisers; these amurakens can tell you any brand name and its product but not where a given state is on a map 
--
A monthly desktop thread is what happens when a Paris Hilton mentality mates with a computer | |
|
| | | | | Bravo! I can't possibly add anything to this comment. Best. Comeback. Ever. | |
|
|
|
