Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by takyon on Tuesday October 02 2018, @02:18PM   Printer-friendly
from the net-balk dept.

Submitted via IRC for chromas

The Trump administration is suing California to quash its new net neutrality law

The Trump administration said Sunday it will sue California in an effort to block what some experts have described as the toughest net neutrality law ever enacted in the United States, setting up a high-stakes legal showdown over the future of the Internet.

California on Sunday became the largest state to adopt its own rules requiring Internet providers like AT&T, Comcast and Verizon to treat all web traffic equally. Golden State legislators took the step of writing their law after the Federal Communications Commission scrapped nationwide protections last year, citing the regulatory burdens they had caused for the telecom industry.

Mere hours after California's proposal became law, however, senior Justice Department officials told The Washington Post they would take the state to court on grounds that the federal government, not state leaders, has the exclusive power to regulate net neutrality. DOJ officials stressed the FCC had been granted such authority from Congress to ensure that all 50 states don't seek to write their own, potentially conflicting, rules governing the web.

Also at Ars Technica, TechDirt, and Politico.

Previously: California Gov. Signs Nation’s Strictest Net Neutrality Rules Into Law


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Tuesday October 02 2018, @02:42PM (40 children)

    by hemocyanin (186) on Tuesday October 02 2018, @02:42PM (#742805) Journal

    True -- this a Federal v. States rights issue and whoever was president would have their name on the lawsuit. The funny thing though, is that framing it as "Trump does X", these headlines will likely cause Democrats to take a "state's rights" position, something most often associated with the hard right. If Trump wins a second term, I wouldn't be surprised to see Democrats take up secessionist causes.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 02 2018, @02:50PM (14 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 02 2018, @02:50PM (#742809)

    I remember when trump offered to give all the Dreamer's citizenship, then all of a sudden the democrats were against it. Its like dealing hes dealing with children or mentally disabled people where simple reverse psychology tricks can work.

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday October 02 2018, @04:15PM (7 children)

      by DeathMonkey (1380) on Tuesday October 02 2018, @04:15PM (#742870) Journal

      What's the weather like in Bizarro World today?

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 02 2018, @04:31PM (2 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 02 2018, @04:31PM (#742890)
        • (Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 02 2018, @08:52PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 02 2018, @08:52PM (#743062)

          For those of you who didn't bother going to the link, this from the article seems most apropos:

          The rest of the proposal, which was apparently devised by senior policy advisor Stephen Miller, reads like an immigration hawk’s wish list. It would end the visa lottery program, which allows some 50,000 immigrants from around the world to come the US every year. It drastically reduces family-based immigration. It also demands massive government spending—a $25 billion budget— for border security, part of which Trump could spend on his long-promised border “wall” between the US and Mexico.

          Next time, you and your sock puppets should actually read the link you post!

          • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 02 2018, @10:18PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 02 2018, @10:18PM (#743095)

            It sounds like give the people already here citizenship, adjust legal immigration quotas for all the immigrants you just accepted, then start enforcing immigration laws so this situation doesnt happen again. It is amazing to me that someone could have a problem with this plan. I have literally never heard of a more reasonable plan regarding anything from the government.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 02 2018, @04:33PM (3 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 02 2018, @04:33PM (#742893)

        Try this: stick your head out the window, then you can tell us what the weather in Bizzaro World is. But, I know you're so busy with the resistance, you have little time to look out the window.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 02 2018, @08:51PM (2 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 02 2018, @08:51PM (#743060)

          How can one stick their head out the window, if they have it up their own ass?

          • (Score: 3, Funny) by c0lo on Tuesday October 02 2018, @09:30PM (1 child)

            by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday October 02 2018, @09:30PM (#743076) Journal

            It's possible. Last I knew it was still called mooning.

            --
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 03 2018, @03:55AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 03 2018, @03:55AM (#743246)

              Colo, Colo, Colo. Tsk
              You're showing americanization again. Here in Oz, we call it a Browneye.

    • (Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday October 02 2018, @07:10PM (5 children)

      by sjames (2882) on Tuesday October 02 2018, @07:10PM (#743009) Journal

      You left out the part about the huge poison pill in the proposal.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 02 2018, @10:21PM (4 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 02 2018, @10:21PM (#743096)

        The poison pill was enforcing immigration laws?

        • (Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday October 02 2018, @11:52PM (3 children)

          by sjames (2882) on Tuesday October 02 2018, @11:52PM (#743141) Journal

          It was reducing quotas on legal immigration and burning 25 Billion (with a B) dollars on a wall.

          But I'm guessing you knew that.

          • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 03 2018, @12:16AM (2 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 03 2018, @12:16AM (#743152)

            Which would be so awful how? A wall is probably dumb but the point is enforcing immigration laws so the same situation doesnt just repeat.

            • (Score: 2) by sjames on Wednesday October 03 2018, @03:07AM (1 child)

              by sjames (2882) on Wednesday October 03 2018, @03:07AM (#743229) Journal

              Reducing the quota isn't enforcement of an existing law. Wasting 25 billion on a wall that will not even work is just another classic example of GOP "fiscal responsibility".

              • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 03 2018, @03:30AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 03 2018, @03:30AM (#743236)

                Reducing the quota is to account for all the immigrants that just got made official... I really cant believe anyone who actually cared about the dreamers has a serious objection to this plan.

  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 02 2018, @03:29PM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 02 2018, @03:29PM (#742831)

    The Democrats aren't hard-right?

    • (Score: 2, Funny) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday October 02 2018, @04:34PM (1 child)

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday October 02 2018, @04:34PM (#742896) Journal

      No, Dems don't get hard. You've got to be a man to get an erection. You have to have a heart to get a boner. Heartless wimpy authoritarians can never get it up.

      • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 02 2018, @05:24PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 02 2018, @05:24PM (#742939)

        So you adopted huh?

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by hemocyanin on Tuesday October 02 2018, @06:22PM

      by hemocyanin (186) on Tuesday October 02 2018, @06:22PM (#742983) Journal

      I'm with you, but to see Democrats take up common cause with anti-abortion types is ... not funny ... "revealing" I guess would be the word. But yeah, I agree with the sentiment that we have two right-wing major parties in this country and it isn't always easy to tell which is more to the right, though the traditional formulation is that it is GOP that is more right, so I used that formula in my comment.

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Tuesday October 02 2018, @03:55PM (16 children)

    by Thexalon (636) on Tuesday October 02 2018, @03:55PM (#742853)

    cause Democrats to take a "state's rights" position, something most often associated with the hard right

    As I mentioned yesterday [soylentnews.org], absolutely nobody is remotely consistent about "state's rights". Every time you dig into it, it's nonsense to cover up one of these 4 positions:
    1. My state government is doing something I hate, while the federal government wants to stop them. Therefor, the Supremacy Clause rules and the feds should be in control.
    2. The federal government is doing something I like, while my state government wants to stop them. Therefor, the Supremacy Clause rules and the feds should be in control.
    3. My state government is doing something I like, while the federal government wants to stop them. State's Rights are a vital principle of our democracy!
    4. The federal government is doing something I hate, while my state government wants to stop them. State's Rights are a vital principle of our democracy!

    Historically, the reason that conservatives have extolled the virtues of state's rights has most often been "The feds are trying to stop us from being racist."

    --
    The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
    • (Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 02 2018, @04:04PM (3 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 02 2018, @04:04PM (#742858)

      Historically, the reason that conservatives have extolled the virtues of state's rights has most often been "The feds are trying to stop us from being racist."

      IIRC, it was the democratic party that ran the KKK, etc.

      • (Score: 4, Touché) by Chromium_One on Tuesday October 02 2018, @04:11PM

        by Chromium_One (4574) on Tuesday October 02 2018, @04:11PM (#742866)

        Party platform, ideals, and membership, never change over time. Nixon and the Southern Strategy never happened. I just now made up the term "Dixiecrat," and the phrase "because it's the party of Lincoln" has never been seen before your reading it right this second.

        --
        When you live in a sick society, everything you do is wrong.
      • (Score: 5, Informative) by Thexalon on Tuesday October 02 2018, @04:42PM (1 child)

        by Thexalon (636) on Tuesday October 02 2018, @04:42PM (#742909)

        Between 1865 and approximately 1964, there was a quite conservative contingent of what were known as "southern Democrats" that were staunchly racist as all get-out. They had become Democrats mostly because what the Republicans stood for in the 1860's and 1870's was giving equal rights to the newly-freed slaves. By around 1910, the Democratic Party was an uneasy alliance between the fairly liberal union-backed northern Democrats and the quite conservative and racist southern Democrats. Woodrow Wilson really exemplifies this divide: He was fairly liberal on a lot of economic issues, but was also a staunch segregationist.

        By the end of the Franklin Roosevelt administration and his fairly anti-racist policies, the southern Democrats were seriously angry that they were losing ground to the northerners, and Strom Thurmond led a revolt in 1948 by running against Harry Truman as a "Dixiecrat". After that, the Democrats mostly tried to duck the issue, and in 1960 picked Lyndon Johnson as JFK's running mate specifically to try to bridge that divide. After JFK's assassination, Johnson proved he wasn't who the southern Democrats thought he was by signing the Voting Rights Act and Civil Rights Act, and Thurmond and the southern Democrats again looked to bolt. The Republicans welcomed them into their party with open arms in 1964, and there they've mostly been ever since. The most notable Democratic holdouts were George Wallace and Robert Byrd, both of whom announced their change of views about racism in the 1970's.

        That's why I described it as a "conservative" position, not a "Republican" position. When it came to race relations, the positions of the 2 major US political parties flipped between 1960 and 1980. A lot of Republicans these days are now trying to pretend that the flip didn't happen, but it absolutely did, and you only need to listen to guys like Richard Spencer speak for a few minutes to know that.

        --
        The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
        • (Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Wednesday October 03 2018, @04:39AM

          by realDonaldTrump (6614) on Wednesday October 03 2018, @04:39AM (#743261) Homepage Journal

          It flipped. And now it's flipped again, because of me. I am the least racist person you've ever seen in your entire life. I love Hispanic. And I have a great relationship with the blacks & Jews. First club in Palm Beach to allow blacks & Jews. The Establishment went NUTS when I did that!!!

    • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday October 02 2018, @04:17PM

      by DeathMonkey (1380) on Tuesday October 02 2018, @04:17PM (#742872) Journal

      Except that the Dems don't claim otherwise.

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by captain normal on Tuesday October 02 2018, @04:19PM (9 children)

      by captain normal (2205) on Tuesday October 02 2018, @04:19PM (#742874)

      The powers of the Federal Government are specified in Articles 8,9 and 10 of the Constitution. The Amendments set limits on those powers, in particular the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.
      I just do not see a "Supremacy Clause" anywhere in it. I highly recommend reading and rereading the Constitution at least once a year. It is an amazingly well crafted document.
      http://constitutionus.com/ [constitutionus.com]

      --
      When life isn't going right, go left.
      • (Score: 5, Informative) by Thexalon on Tuesday October 02 2018, @04:50PM (8 children)

        by Thexalon (636) on Tuesday October 02 2018, @04:50PM (#742916)

        The Supremacy Clause is the second paragraph of Article VI [cornell.edu] of the Constitution. It was argued for in a couple of the Federalist Papers, and has been the basis of many important Supreme Court decisions, but I guess you just skipped over that part when you read it because it didn't fit what you wanted the Constitution to say.

        But again, all of this is besides the point, which is that the position on whether state's rights is a good thing or a bad thing is extremely situational for just about everybody.

        --
        The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
        • (Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Tuesday October 02 2018, @06:11PM (7 children)

          by fyngyrz (6567) on Tuesday October 02 2018, @06:11PM (#742979) Journal

          From the 2nd para:

          This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby

          That went completely out the window when SCOTUS arrogated power over the constitution with Marbury v. Madison. [constitutionality.us]

          • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Thexalon on Tuesday October 02 2018, @06:41PM (6 children)

            by Thexalon (636) on Tuesday October 02 2018, @06:41PM (#742991)

            The argument from Marbury v Madison isn't nuts:
            1. This clause, and the structure of the US government in general, establishes an order by which conflicting rules are resolved: regulations lose out to laws lose out to treaties lose out to the Constitution itself.
            2. The court's job is to interpret the Constitution, treaties, laws, and regulations in that order to figure out how the rules apply to actual situations.
            3. If the court, doing its job, determines that something lower down the list would always conflict with something higher up the list, then that thing lower down the list doesn't matter any more and can be thrown out.

            In terms of C code, what's going on is that we're starting from this:

            if (some_test()) {
                do_A();
            } else {
                do_B();
            }

            But then someone digs into it, determines that some_test() always returns true, and thus refactors it into:

            do_A();

            (Or, alternately, of course, they could determine that some_test() always returns false, and thus this gets refactored to just do_B();)

            There are some checks on SCOTUS: The justices can't get there without the approval of the president and Senate, and if they ever do something Congress really really doesn't like they can in theory be impeached.

            --
            The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
            • (Score: 2) by RS3 on Wednesday October 03 2018, @02:17AM (2 children)

              by RS3 (6367) on Wednesday October 03 2018, @02:17AM (#743199)

              You're impressively knowledgeable and hopefully correct. Are you an attorney?

              I thought a case could ultimately be brought before Congress if rejected by or lost in SCOTUS?

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 03 2018, @02:43PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 03 2018, @02:43PM (#743402)

                SCOTUS has the final say in interpretation of existing law (including constitutional). Congress has the power to change existing law (including constitutional).

                For example, let's say the pseudo-left petty bourgeois apocalypse happens and Roe v. Wade is completely overturned or maybe they decide we now interpret homicide laws in the context of life beginning at conception... or sooner.... But anyway, the specifics aren't the point. Congress could then go ahead and either pass additional law, or they could amend the Constitution. Amending the US Constitution requires a 2/3rds majority of both houses.

                As an additional check on both the federal legislature and courts, there is also what's known as an Article V Convention which can be called by 2/3rds of the state legislatures. The Article V Convention procedure has never been used. iirc, precedent is that if this is about to be used, Congress will just pass an amendment to deal with the concerns itself.

                Hope that helps!

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 03 2018, @05:02PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 03 2018, @05:02PM (#743497)

                He can write C code. (Or at least psuedo-C, close enough.) Therefore he's not an attorney but rather works for a living.

            • (Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Wednesday October 03 2018, @11:00AM (2 children)

              by fyngyrz (6567) on Wednesday October 03 2018, @11:00AM (#743324) Journal

              The argument from Marbury v Madison isn't nuts:

              Actually, it is nuts. It's an argument that creates power from absolutely nothing.

              Your point #2:

              The court's job is to interpret the Constitution, treaties, laws, and regulations in that order to figure out how the rules apply to actual situations.

              No. It is not to interpret. It is to obey. A judge's job is not interpretation of the law. To the extent that interpretation is required, it is checking the fit of the facts of the matter with the law.

              If you read article III [cornell.edu] carefully, it says specifically, emphasis mine:

              The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority... [and other types of cases]

              You see that? The "judicial power", not the "power to legislate." The judicial power is: hear or not hear, and if hear, guilty or not guilty on the basis of the law; and variations on that theme. When you step up before a judge, they do not (should not) have any constitutionally authorized power to say "the law is now this", although they have been getting away with it for quite some time.

              Furthermore, a little bit later on in the same paragraph, we find:

              ...under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

              Right there in article III, it is specified that congress regulates SCOTUS. Not the other way around. It's not left unsaid, and it is clear and succinct.

              Looking at the question from the other direction, nowhere in article three (or anywhere else in the constitution) does it say that any form of the legislative power vests in SCOTUS. On the contrary, the constitution says that congress has the legislative power made available to them as enumerated, and that in the office of the president vests the power to veto or sign. That's it. What's more, that's specifically it: the constitution explicitly assigns that power in in a detailed, point-by-point manner to the legislature, and not at all to the judiciary, and even specifies that the judiciary is subject to the legislature, not that the legislature is subject to the judiciary.

              The constitution constrains the legislature to various limits, both by enumeration (most of the constitution) and by specific and general restriction (pretty much the entire bill of rights.) Although declared as the supreme law of the land, it rests the power to control the breaking of that law in the hands of the voters: it most certainly does not rest it in the hands of the supreme court.

              Madison v. Marbury is a straight-up arrogation of unauthorized power. There's no constitutional basis for it whatsoever.

              It is important to understand that this is a circumstance where the power that the supreme court has arrogated is based entirely on their own claims, and not one whit upon any power actually authorized to them by the US constitution. It is difficult for most people to understand, because they have been indoctrinated with nonsense basically in the form of your point #2; they've been told (by SCOTUS, not the constitution) that such a thing is the job of the judiciary. But if you actually read the document, no such power is assigned to them, and on the contrary, it is quite pointedly and in detail assigned elsewhere.

              Because they arrogated this power, we now have a system where both the details of the law and its validity is under the effective control of a very small group of people. Again, read the constitution: that is very clearly not the intent of the document.

              SCOTUS should be reined in, and harshly, or, article III should be amended according to the procedure specified in article V. That we have failed to do either one speaks very poorly of our society and our educational system.

              SCOTUS is authorized to decide individual cases one way or another, should they trickle up that far in the court system via appeal. That is the actual judicial power. SCOTUS is not authorized to either change or make law. That's an authority explicitly assigned to the legislature and to which SCOTUS is subject to as directly specified in article III (the second quote from it above.) Outcomes of individual cases, yes. The law, no. Judicial review is a power made up out of nothing, quite literally unauthorized. Why? Because it is neither authorized by the constitution, or by the legislature. There are no other sources of legitimacy for such a power. If it was okay to make such things up out of whole cloth as SCOTUS has done, you could interpret the law all on your own — that would be exactly as legitimate as SCOTUS claiming they can do it. Which is to say, not at all.

              • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 03 2018, @02:46PM (1 child)

                by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 03 2018, @02:46PM (#743404)

                No. It is not to interpret. It is to obey.

                This is an absolutely hilarious statement and demonstrates a profound lack of basic education on your part.

                All human language is ambiguous and interpreted. Human language != code. Deal with it, cupcake.

                • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 03 2018, @04:12PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 03 2018, @04:12PM (#743458)

                  Legal code?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 02 2018, @06:06PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 02 2018, @06:06PM (#742973)

      That set up is supposed to be a feature. Allowing Fed vs. States fighting keeps one or the other from getting too strong.

  • (Score: 2, Offtopic) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday October 02 2018, @04:23PM

    by Phoenix666 (552) on Tuesday October 02 2018, @04:23PM (#742880) Journal

    If Trump wins a second term, I wouldn't be surprised to see Democrats take up secessionist causes.

    California already put secession on the 2018 ballot [occupydemocrats.com].

    --
    Washington DC delenda est.
  • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday October 02 2018, @04:24PM

    by DeathMonkey (1380) on Tuesday October 02 2018, @04:24PM (#742882) Journal

    "Trump does X", these headlines will likely cause Democrats to take a "state's rights" position, something most often associated with the hard right.

    As Thexalon notes, 'States Rights' is just a bullshit excuse.

    Dems think that interstate commerce and communication should be regulated by the feds because that's what the Constitution says.* Also, we think the feds should ensure that the states don't violate the Constitution.

    *although we probably agree that it has been abused in the past

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 02 2018, @11:59PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 02 2018, @11:59PM (#743144)

    I wouldn't be surprised to see Democrats take up secessionist causes.

    Texas and Alaska have done similar when Obama won. Red and blue simply no longer get along such that perhaps an amiable split is in order. We don't need a civil war because both sides want each other out of their hair. Perhaps Lincoln made a mistake by keeping the union together. The civil war never really ended, just took a nap...with one eye open.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday October 03 2018, @02:05AM

      by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Wednesday October 03 2018, @02:05AM (#743193)

      Red and blue simply no longer get along such that perhaps an amiable split is in order.

      That's probably a good idea, except that that (formerly) Republican states will wind up being no more than a source of unskilled illegal immigrants for the (formerly) Democratic states, because the Republicans will bankrupt themselves in short order without the moderating influence and money of states like California and New York to prop them up.

      Just check out what happened to Kansas when they went full-retard Republican, and also who had to pay to pick up the pieces.

      Also, who wants to live in a Theocracy?