how-to block ads
|
Uniqs:
455 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
bmn? ? ?Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus | A win for local representation... A law that would preserve local representation... Wow, what a change. Instead of handing power to the state and federal governments, it leaves the power to decide whether or not muni projects should exist where it belongs... At the local level.
Of course telco and cable guys will find some way to spin this in a negative light despite it actually being good for consumers... Just goes to show, they don't care about the consumer.
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool. | |
|  Reviews:
 ·Windstream
| Re: A win for local representation... I view this as the federal government usurping the sovereignty of the states. Again. I see no interstate commerce question here (except in municipalities on border areas).
Fundamentally, I don't view it to be the federal government's job to protect "the people" from the gullibility and corruption of their own state legislature.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people. | |
| | RayWPremium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
kudos:1 | Re: A win for local representation... said by LostInWoods:I view this as the federal government usurping the sovereignty of the states. Again. I see no interstate commerce question here (except in municipalities on border areas). Fundamentally, I don't view it to be the federal government's job to protect "the people" from the gullibility and corruption of their own state legislature. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people. So it is ok for some politicians at the state level to screw with the counties and cities, but if the feds tell the states to play fair despite how much money they are paid in bribes, that is not ok?
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. | |
| | |  pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Re: A win for local representation... said by RayW:So it is ok for some politicians at the state level to screw with the counties and cities, but if the feds tell the states to play fair despite how much money they are paid in bribes, that is not ok? As a matter of fact, it is perfectly OK for states to screw with, screw over and even screw up the affairs of counties and cities if they so chose to do it.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. | |
| | | | RayWPremium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
kudos:1 | Re: A win for local representation... said by pnh102:said by RayW:So it is ok for some politicians at the state level to screw with the counties and cities, but if the feds tell the states to play fair despite how much money they are paid in bribes, that is not ok? As a matter of fact, it is perfectly OK for states to screw with, screw over and even screw up the affairs of counties and cities if they so chose to do it. Well, I guess that answers that, it is okay for one level, but not the other. I personally would like to see this pass, and then have all the telcos demand their money back from the state scum that are screwing with local decisions, maybe our local muni system will be able to grow faster and get to my house sooner.
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. | |
| | | |  ieolusSupport The Clecs
join:2001-06-19
Duluth, GA | Not in the Post-Civil War United States! | |
|
| bmn? ? ?Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus | said by LostInWoods:I view this as the federal government usurping the sovereignty of the states. Indeed, however, in this case, it is needed.
Fundamentally, I don't view it to be the federal government's job to protect "the people" from the gullibility and corruption of their own state legislature. And the state's should not be interfering with what should be and community issue. Decisions about municipal networks are best made at the local level where those directly affected are closest to the issue. In other words, states should be protecting the people from making decisions regarding what happens in their community. It may be legal, but that is FAR from making it right.
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool. | |
| | | pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Re: A win for local representation... said by bmn:Indeed, however, in this case, it is needed. If that is the case, then what should be proposed is a Constitutional Amendment which explicitly grants to the Federal government the authority necessary to make such a law.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. | |
| | | | TheGhostPremium
join:2003-01-03
Lake Forest, IL | Re: A win for local representation... said by pnh102:said by bmn:Indeed, however, in this case, it is needed. If that is the case, then what should be proposed is a Constitutional Amendment which explicitly grants to the Federal government the authority necessary to make such a law. I think they might be able to use interstate commerce, or whatever gives rights to FCC and the like. | |
| | | | bmn? ? ?Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus | said by pnh102:If that is the case, then what should be proposed is a Constitutional Amendment which explicitly grants to the Federal government the authority necessary to make such a law. Agreed, however, until something such as that is done, this is the right thing to do, despite Constitutional considerations. People worry about the higher levels of government dictating from afar with respect to the federal government, the same problem exists with state governments.
However, what really is needed is nationwide lobbying reform. A ban on all forms of corporate lobbying at the national, state and local level is needed. That is the reason we are even having this discussion today.
Only individuals and organizations made up solely of private individuals should have lobbying power. Government is suppose to represent the people.
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool. | |
| | | |  PaladinSage of the light
join:2001-08-17
Chester, IL | This falls under the reins of the Commerce Clause, and since the Internet deals with the spreading of information in commercial matters across state lines, it's a pretty clear issue for the Federal Government to regulate. All in all, I'm for a much smaller Federal Government, but this is a clear issue relating to Interstate Commerce since one of the primary purposes of the Internet is to spread Interstate Commerce.
Case Closed. | |
| | | | | pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Re: Commerce Clause said by Paladin:This falls under the reins of the Commerce Clause, and since the Internet deals with the spreading of information in commercial matters across state lines, it's a pretty clear issue for the Federal Government to regulate. Municipal governments do not cross state lines. The infrastructure necessary to run such services within a municipal jurisdiction won't generally leave that jurisdiction. The only part of it that is interstate would be the actual connection from that town to the rest of the Internet.
This is similar to saying that the federal government should pay for the paving of local streets because the traffic might go out of state. But we don't see the feds doing that either.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. | |
|
KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | imo if the citizens vote yes to Muni broadband it should be illegal for the incumbents to challenge it. a corperation able to challenge the will of democratic process is just plain wrong. basicly its says yea the people said yes but we will sue and make the court say your votes ment jack shit.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
| | tlcbob
join:2001-07-11
Harrisburg, PA | Re: A win for local representation... That's OK. In PA, voters passed a cap on local school tax increases (Dauphin County) and the state senate OVERRULLED the cap and added an additional ~ 2% increase!! | |
|
| |
|
