SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the about-headlines:-don't-use-no-double-negatives dept.
The Register has a story about a court ruling that possibly puts one nail in the coffin of the attempt by the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) to prevent states from banning municipal ISPs.
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals said on Wednesday [PDF] that the American regulator lacks the authority to overrule state laws that prevent cities from operating their own ISPs.
Last year, the watchdog declared it was unfair of North Carolina and Tennessee to block community-run broadband. Now an appeals court has said the FCC overstepped the mark by trying to undo that block with a preemptive order. In other words, in this case, the US states can't be pushed around and overruled by the communications regulator as it lacks the clear authority to do so.
"This preemption by the FCC of the allocation of power between a state and its subdivisions requires at least a clear statement in the authorizing federal legislation," the judges noted.
"The FCC relies upon S706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 for the authority to preempt in this case, but that statute falls far short of such a clear statement. The preemption order must accordingly be reversed."
We obviously have not seen the last of this, especially since the amateur lawyer in me believes the court decision was in error.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by kurenai.tsubasa on Thursday August 11 2016, @07:05PM
Oh that's easy. Commerce clause! Next!
Ok, more seriously, it's right next to the part that allows it to put people in jail for growing unapproved plants or owning unapproved arms; to impose fines for claiming an unapproved substance is a medicine; to dictate educational standards; to impose fines for using unapproved radio frequencies; to promulgate dietary advice; to explore the solar system; to provide farm and other subsidies; to retard the the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for unlimited times to the corporate masters of authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries; oh… to raise and support permanent armies and police actions across the globe; to create a bureaucracy that's expending to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy of social safety net programs; to regulate public bathrooms; to define marriage; to require citizens to purchase certain services; to… oh you get the idea.
Yes, I'm sure there's case law that upholds each and every one of those. And if it ain't the commerce clause, it's the necessary and proper clause.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by mendax on Thursday August 11 2016, @07:31PM
Pretty much if it's something that crosses state (or international) boundaries, the Commerce clause is your man. That gives Congress the power to give the FCC the power to regulate phone service, the radio spectrum, and Internet service. And as I read the statute, which the court no nicely quoted in its decision, a broad reading gives the FCC the power to regulate ISPs in any manner it sees fit.
And with regard to the long paragraph detailing various powers, features, and occasional abuses of federal power, and what you said afterward
You better believe it, although I am still unconvinced that any power granted by the federal constitution gives the feds the power to prosecute me for growing pot in my backyard, or for selling it to my friends and neighbors.
You did miss some abuses of federal power, such as the now dead national speed limit, the Medicaid program, or the statutes that sets guidelines for sex offender registration. The government actually has no power to impose these things on the states. However, it can and does withhold federal money for programs if the states don't comply. In the case or the national speed limit, the extortion involved federal highway funds, money that all states need to keep their roads in good repair.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 12 2016, @04:30AM
Drug prohibition is outright unconstitutional and the government knows it, thats why banning alcohol required a constitutional amendment and why they used roundabout ways like "tax stamps" to subvert the constitution. If nothing else, the very existence of the 18th and 21st amendments makes drug prohibition unconstitutional by precedent. Eventually, after subverting and undermining the constitution for many decades, they just stopped caring and the government officially went rogue.