Re:Stup The Hell Up, Haters
on
Iron Baby
·
· Score: 1
Get off your high horse
You obviously meant to reply to the parent of my comment, since he was the one putting himself above other people. I was merely poiting out his obvious hypocrisy in doing so. Try again!
Re:Stup The Hell Up, Haters
on
Iron Baby
·
· Score: 2, Funny
I'M JUST KEEPING IT REAL, YO
Re:Stup The Hell Up, Haters
on
Iron Baby
·
· Score: 1
If you don't like it, don't frickin' watch it, and don't whine like little bitches in the comments.
Back at you: if you don't like our comments, don't read them, and don't whine like a little bitch about them in the comments.
You'd think you could find a better way to compensate for your shitty lives without dumping on someone who actually has talent.
You'd think you could find a better way to compensate for your shitty life without dumping on someone who actually has a thoughtful opinion.
Leave the ansty, I'm-so-cool shit to the emo teenagers. It's getting tired.
Leave the ansty, I'm-so-cool shit to the emo teenagers. It's getting tired.
I really hate things trying to make babies look cute by acting like adults in some ways. This is like the worst commercials ever made -- the etrade commercials -- on crack.
there is nothing inherent about the rule of law that protects anyone.... All I am trying to get at is that the rule of law is a great theory and, when followed, is just.
Your first sentence disagrees with your first.
However, there is nothing inherent to it that keeps a society that is following the rule of law
Of course. No one ever implied any such thing. I've said, you need to elect people devoted to following the rule of law. It doesn't just happen. This is obvious from looking at our Constitution, for example. As Justice Hugo Black said, for example (regarding the 14th Amendment): I can say only that the words "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" seem to me an eminently reasonable way of expressing the idea that, henceforth, the Bill of Rights shall apply to the States.
Makes sense, right? But our Court, for more than 100 years, has declined to intepret the plain language of the Constitution to mean what it says (before the Court right now is a case that could -- but probably won't -- finally overturn this precedent, the Chicago gun case). Our people in power often don't follow the rule of law. This is a given. Our Congress passes laws and our states ratify amendments, and they expect they will be interpreted in an obvious way, but they often aren't.
The problem of rule of law versus rule of men is one primarily of people, not of structure. Structure can help, but it's only the beginning of the process, not the end of it. And the process never, ever, ends, until human government is no more.
it only works as long as those in power want it to work. As you said, at that point, you are no longer operating within the rule of law, but it doesn't seem like the rule of the law, in any way, protects those who are less powerful, from those who are more powerful any more effectively than the rule of men does.
Well, no: if "those in power" are not protecting those who are less powerful -- making sure that they are as protected by the rule of law as everyone else -- then the rule of law is not being followed. That is the rule of men, rather than the rule of law.
As a personal side-note, I still take exception to the implication that I hate the rule of law.
Noted.
my statement that I don't think the law must be followed, does not imply that I expect any exception from the punishments of such action
I didn't imply that.
I feel that the law itself can and should be breached in certain circumstances.
The context here is something like what the FCC did: going around the law, outside of the law, violating the law. You, to my mind, expressed approval of this, so long as it's for a good reason. This is hatred of the rule of law.
If that was not your intent, then what I said does not apply, but that's how I understood you.
I'm not sure how you got from what I said to what you said, particularly when you agreed that, if they do what everyone is saying they'll do and reclassify the service, that "they facially have that authority."
So you're arguing that if they TRY to follow the law, they arne't violating the law?
I'm not sure how it can "undeniable" be unconstitutional when they didn't want to touch that issue
I didn't mention the Constitution at all. I said it undeniably violates our civil rights.
If it was truly undeniable, they'd have gone to that reason first
You're backward. I said it is undeniable that it violates our civil rights GIVEN THAT they implemented the rule without the authority to do so (which the court did say). IF an executive agency enforces rules on people without the authority to do so THEN civil rights have been violated.
I am not sure that you can make the leap from "I don't consider the law to be something that must be followed..." to "...you hate the rule of law..."
Again, it depends on what you mean by "follow." If you mean you don't think the FCC has to stay within the law -- which was the context I was thinking in -- then yes, you hate the rule of law, in my view, and I'll stick by that unless it's demonstrated to be wrong.
I actually think the law has a place in society.
I did not say you hate law. I said you hate the rule of law. Obama, for example, loves the law. He loves crafting it in certain ways to reach certain outcomes; he loves relying on it when it suits his purposes; but, he also ignores it when it suits his purposes. He loves the law, but he really, really hates the rule of law. He demonstrated this even in his Inaugural Address, when he impugned people who wanted to abide by the law as people bound to the "old way" of thinking.
There's two ways we've got here: the rule of law, and the rule of men. If you believe that the executive may make up rules as it goes along (such as John Yoo says Bush was allowed to do during wartime, which is why Yoo is disliked by many conservatives), or if you think the court can decide whatever it wishes regardless of what the law and Constitution says, then you prefer the rule of men, which is contrary to the rule of law.
Furthermore, the law is handed down by men, so I am not sure where the distinction comes from.
Men can violate the law. Men can disregard the Bill of Rights. Law is something written that we initially agree upon and then rely upon to protect our activities. If the law says I can do something, I can act freely, with the knowledge that the law is protecting my activities.
It is through the rule of law that my rights are provided a guarantee. The rule of law says, "you have a right to speak, to due process, against self-incrimination, and there's not a thing government can do about it, because it's in the law." Rule of men says, "well, yeah, you have those rights, but if we decide not recognize them, tough."
Rule of men says that I can never know if what I am doing is going to be protected by government, or attacked by it. Tomorrow I could get arrested for something the law says I can do, and a Court could rule that this is appropriate just because they don't like what I did.
Rule of men is injustice. Rule of law is justice. That doesn't mean the law in question is itself just; that's a separate issue. We need both just laws AND the rule of law. But unjust laws is no excuse for rule of men.
I suppose I don't see how the law is in any meaningful way distinguishable from men with power.
I hope the above has explained it sufficiently to you. They are very different. This goes all the way back to the Magna Carta, where the King accepted that he must abide by what the law said, by the rights granted to the people, and by the restrictions placed on him. It's about justice and respect for the dignity of each individual.
What if the law is wrong? What if the law is outdated? What if the law is discriminatory or unjust?
Change it.
I am just curious if your hard line faith in the law is absolute or not.
It's not about "faith." Nothing in what I said implies the law is always right, or that it will always lead us to the best outcome in a particular circumstance. I am saying that it is much more important to follow the law than to do what is right in the short term, because rejecting the law for your subjective view of what is right gives us precedent where it is essentially arbitrary whether or not we follow the law.
Frankly, I don't consider the law to be something that must be followed, at all times, in all cases.
OK. Then you hate the rule of law, and prefer the rule of men, which means our liberties have no serious protections and no guarantees, but are subject to the whims of whoever happens to be in power. If we say that people joining together lose their freedom of political speech because we dislike some of the people who join together, then we create a precedent whereby anyone's right to political speech can be abridged, because we've already said that the First Amendment doesn't apply if we simply don't want it to.
If the FCC is allowed to make up its own laws to get net neutrality, then it can make up its own laws for anything else, including whether or not you're allowed to post comments on Slashdot.
Anyways, all ramblings aside, I am curious, do you feel that the rule of the law must, truly, always be followed?
It depends on what you mean. I am not saying someone must never violate the law; that is completely separate from any point I made. I may decide to break the speed limit so I can get someone to the hospital, but that's irrelevant to my point. I am talking about executive policies and judicial decisions.
Nope. As long as they stay within their statutory authority, I expressed no misgivings (other than that the only reason we "need" Net Neutrality is because of over-regulation in the first place, but that's beside the point).
Although, since then I've read the "third way" document and now I do have concerns: that they are trying to shoehorn Net Neutrality into a regulatory framework not designed for it.
I can see your point, but honestly the correct way would be for the FCC to re-designate ISPs back to Title II
... fully reclassifying broadband services as “telecommunications services” and applying the full suite of Title II obligations, has serious drawbacks. While it would clarify the legal foundation for broadband policy, it would also subject the providers of broadband communications services to extensive regulations ill-suited to broadband. Title II, for example, includes measures that, if implemented for broadband, would fail to reflect the long-standing bipartisan consensus that the Internet should remain unregulated and that broadband networks should have only those rules necessary to promote essential goals, such as protecting consumers and fair competition.
As I said in another comment yesterday: reclassifying to Title II merely to be able to implement Net Neutrality is short-sighted, because a lot more comes along with it.
Boo hoo. The FCC exists to implement the laws that Congress passes, not execute its own whims.
Right. That's my point.
And if the laws that Congress passes makes it a burden to regulate common carriers, well then perhaps Congress should look into that rather than expecting the FCC to make a politically opportunistic end run around the law.
I agree with you that the FCC shouldn't knowingly attempt to make rules outside of their area of authority, but as far as I can tell in this particular situation, the system is working as it is supposed to. Ie: The FCC tried to instate a questionable rule. They were called out on it by those that they regulate. A judge ruled that the new rule is outside the FCCs realm of authority and thus void.
I don't disagree with that, and it doesn't disagree with me.
But like others have said, the fact that their last rule was judged to be outside the realm of their authority does not automatically mean that they cannot achieve the intent of the rule via other means that are within that authority.
I didn't imply that they could not.
In any case, I'm not sure exactly what you are worried about.
I didn't imply I was "worried" about anything. I am disappointed that they are not doing this the Right Way, which is through Congress. They are working hard, instead, to shoehorn a rule into a framework that isn't designed to accept the rule.
In this case Congress has already given the FCC extensive authority to regulate Internet access providers. The FCC simply has to use Title II to do it.
That's beside the point: they were NOT classifying ISPs using Title II, and they do not WANT to classify ISPs using Title II, because it creates even more problems to do so.
The problem, as/.ers from time out of mind have pointed out, is that Congress is bought and paid for by the telecom and cable TV industries - who are the very folks you're proposing the FCC ask them to regulate here.
First, that's completely orthogonal to the fact that only Congress gets to make new laws and grant new authority to the FCC. If that's a problem, fine, address it separately.
Second, you're asking me to believe that the FCC -- which is beholden to Congress in many ways, and selected by a President who is similarly "bought and paid for" -- is somehow immune to the same pressures you say is on the Congress. That doesn't even pass the smell test.
It's important to understand that the American system of checks and balances is tripodal, and that the FCC is a quasi-independent function of the executive leg of that tripod.
In truth, it's not independent. The Constitution (very first line of Article II) is clear on this: it's an executive agency and therefore its power belongs to the President (as all executive power does), and the President can tell them what to do with that power. In practice, the President may decide to allow the agency to function of its own accord, but he doesn't have to do so. Perhaps that is what you mean by quasi-independent, though.
Congress must assert its authority to make law, the executive branch must assert its authority to parse and implement those laws, and the judicial branch must asset its authority to test the validity of those laws.
I am entirely aware of this, but I don't see the point you're making.
When one branch allows itself to become subordinate to another - as happened with Congress during the Bush years - disaster inevitably ensues (Patriot Act, anyone?).
I don't see what the Patriot Act has to do with this. That was an example of the Congress (en masse) agreeing (on multiple occasions) to grant authority to the Executive. There was no subordination.
What the Congress has done in recent years is worse than subordination: it's refused to take its proper role of supremacy. Note that there's never an implication in our founding documents that the three branches are "coequal," but when Congress and the President fight, the Congress inevitable asserts "well, but we're coequal to you!" No, you're not: as Madison wrote in Federalist 51, "In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates."
This is why the Legislature is Article I, and why on a cursory reading of the Constitution, the Legislature clearly has more power over the other two branches than they have over the Congress. Congress can disband most of the judiciary, write laws and propose amendments to overrule the judiciary, pass laws without the President, cut funding to everything the President does, and even remove any of them from office. There's no coequality.
The phrase "checks and balances" does not appear in our founding documents either, although SOME of the sense of it is there (not the coequality sense, though). Well, the phrase does appear in a particular form, but it applies to the checks and balances between the House and Senate, not between the three branches.
Anyway... not sure what all this has to do with the point that the FCC cannot act except within its statutory authority.
So, in the absence of specific direction from Congress to the contrary, the FCC is absolutely within its mandate to change its mind about how to regulate a particular segment of the communications market in this country
Only if the law gives them that authority. If you're making the case that the FCC can, under existing law, reclassify this segment such that it can apply other existing law in order to implement Net Neutrality, this is not the point. I am simply saying they must rely on existing law to do anything they do.
It seems to me that you would have the law violated just to get what you want.
Most would, but give him some credit, he would have the law violated for what he thinks is right.
That's a distinction without any difference whatsoever.
We're talking about the rule of law here. Regardless of your motives -- whether you think it's "the right thing" or not -- there's never an excuse for violating the rule of law. The process matters more than the immediate outcome, because that process is the only thing ultimately guaranteeing our rights.
If the Court says our law can be ignored because the specific goal is "right," then we've effectively put the judges over the law, and it is now only their view of what is "right" that matters, and if they decide it's "right" to censor political speech, or to wiretap without a warrant, or to ignore due process for terror suspects... well, so be it, because it's "right"!
The outcome matters too, of course, but the outcome will take care of itself if the process is followed. It might mean we don't get Net Neutrality now, but if the people generally agree that it is the right thing, then it will be implemented sooner or later, following the rule of law.
You simply cannot come up with a single example of me disfavoring any of those things.
As to National Mysticism, wow, that is something I'm diametrically opposed to. That demonstrates even better than your unexplained list of parts of the Constitution how completely wrong you are.
They have never made laws. They make rules.... What they exceeded was their rulemaking authority.
In this case, their rule -- not being backed up with statutory authority -- amounted to an invention of new law. That's the point I made. This is how it is often described when an Executive agency tries to enforce something it has no right to enforce.
You can say it's not actually law, just an unauthorized rule, but that is an arbitrary distinction. The reason why the FCC cannot make rules it's not authorized to make is because virtually anything the government does must be backed by the law; and the law is made by Congress, and not the FCC; and thus, any rule made without existing legal authority is as if a new law had been invented.
If you can find anything in the Court's opinion about "violat[ing] our civil rights" please quote it
Shrug. They didn't say it, but the logical path is undeniable. As I noted above, this is akin to making new law. One of our civil rights is to elect our own representatives who make our law. When someone else makes law and enforces it over us, it violates our civil rights, obviously. I didn't say the Court ruled this way: I merely asserted it, being obviously true.
They're doing this to follow the letter of the law.
And it's amazing so many people are in favor of violating the law.
That isn't dispositive. You're assuming that the original classification was proper, and that a further change in classification won't cause harm the FCC is prohibited from making. That said, yes, they facially have that authority, but that doesn't mean it would withstand a legal challenge if they did.
You appear to think that, just because the way they did it overstepped their bounds that there's no way for them to do it without overstepping their bounds.
That's not correct. I was specifically addressing the situation as it existed.
The Court did NOT say they couldn't do this.
If by "this" you mean this "third way," well, I'll wait to see what the "third way" actually is before agreeing with you.
Have you ever heard of the 1996 Telecommunications Act?
Have you ever heard of non sequiturs? You're soaking in one!
Your anti-government bent is baffling.
What's baffling is that you think my claim, that says the ELECTED GOVERNMENT makes the decision here, is anti-government.
I mean, seriously. I've said many things that are anti-government, but this isn't one of them. It's anti-executive-agency-making-up-its-own-laws, not anti-government.
The entire purpose of the FCC is to "make up laws" (as you put it)
No, it's not. As I put it -- as the court put it -- there's a distinction between a "rule" that the FCC is empowered to create, and a "law" that is needed to give the FCC power it doesn't currently have.
Do you think Congress passes a law for each frequency band saying what it can be used for? No, they delegated that authority to the FCC.
Exactly. And Congress did NOT delegate THIS power to the FCC. That's the point.
Now, obviously they can only regulate the matters that have actually been delegated to them by Congress
Your argument makes sense, but the flaw is that democracy doesn't work that way.
No offense, but tough shit. The fact that representative democracy doesn't always work well doesn't give anyone the right to make up laws outside of that system.
But if this is what it takes to get net neutrality, well better than nothing I say.
If by "this" you mean "the FCC illegally making up its own law," that's unacceptable. The rule of law must be followed, because if we don't follow it here, we can't rely on it later.
That said, I agree with you that the problem is the overregulation. Net Neutrality is "needed" because of a lack of competition created by federal regulation.
I can't see this happening by a federal bureaucrat, but how awesome would it be if the FCC's "third way" was actual deregulation that gave consumers more choices?
Slashdot Mirror
Get off your high horse
You obviously meant to reply to the parent of my comment, since he was the one putting himself above other people. I was merely poiting out his obvious hypocrisy in doing so. Try again!
I'M JUST KEEPING IT REAL, YO
If you don't like it, don't frickin' watch it, and don't whine like little bitches in the comments.
Back at you: if you don't like our comments, don't read them, and don't whine like a little bitch about them in the comments.
You'd think you could find a better way to compensate for your shitty lives without dumping on someone who actually has talent.
You'd think you could find a better way to compensate for your shitty life without dumping on someone who actually has a thoughtful opinion.
Leave the ansty, I'm-so-cool shit to the emo teenagers. It's getting tired.
Leave the ansty, I'm-so-cool shit to the emo teenagers. It's getting tired.
I really hate things trying to make babies look cute by acting like adults in some ways. This is like the worst commercials ever made -- the etrade commercials -- on crack.
How can the device wipe itself with no battery?
That's what I get for not reading the story fully. At least they know what to do ... they just now need to get the people on the scene to do it. :-)
The Secret Service just need a Faraday Cage Fanny Pack.
there is nothing inherent about the rule of law that protects anyone. ... All I am trying to get at is that the rule of law is a great theory and, when followed, is just.
Your first sentence disagrees with your first.
However, there is nothing inherent to it that keeps a society that is following the rule of law
Of course. No one ever implied any such thing. I've said, you need to elect people devoted to following the rule of law. It doesn't just happen. This is obvious from looking at our Constitution, for example. As Justice Hugo Black said, for example (regarding the 14th Amendment): I can say only that the words "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" seem to me an eminently reasonable way of expressing the idea that, henceforth, the Bill of Rights shall apply to the States.
Makes sense, right? But our Court, for more than 100 years, has declined to intepret the plain language of the Constitution to mean what it says (before the Court right now is a case that could -- but probably won't -- finally overturn this precedent, the Chicago gun case). Our people in power often don't follow the rule of law. This is a given. Our Congress passes laws and our states ratify amendments, and they expect they will be interpreted in an obvious way, but they often aren't.
The problem of rule of law versus rule of men is one primarily of people, not of structure. Structure can help, but it's only the beginning of the process, not the end of it. And the process never, ever, ends, until human government is no more.
it only works as long as those in power want it to work. As you said, at that point, you are no longer operating within the rule of law, but it doesn't seem like the rule of the law, in any way, protects those who are less powerful, from those who are more powerful any more effectively than the rule of men does.
Well, no: if "those in power" are not protecting those who are less powerful -- making sure that they are as protected by the rule of law as everyone else -- then the rule of law is not being followed. That is the rule of men, rather than the rule of law.
As a personal side-note, I still take exception to the implication that I hate the rule of law.
Noted.
my statement that I don't think the law must be followed, does not imply that I expect any exception from the punishments of such action
I didn't imply that.
I feel that the law itself can and should be breached in certain circumstances.
The context here is something like what the FCC did: going around the law, outside of the law, violating the law. You, to my mind, expressed approval of this, so long as it's for a good reason. This is hatred of the rule of law.
If that was not your intent, then what I said does not apply, but that's how I understood you.
I'm not sure how you got from what I said to what you said, particularly when you agreed that, if they do what everyone is saying they'll do and reclassify the service, that "they facially have that authority."
So you're arguing that if they TRY to follow the law, they arne't violating the law?
I'm not sure how it can "undeniable" be unconstitutional when they didn't want to touch that issue
I didn't mention the Constitution at all. I said it undeniably violates our civil rights.
If it was truly undeniable, they'd have gone to that reason first
You're backward. I said it is undeniable that it violates our civil rights GIVEN THAT they implemented the rule without the authority to do so (which the court did say). IF an executive agency enforces rules on people without the authority to do so THEN civil rights have been violated.
I am not sure that you can make the leap from "I don't consider the law to be something that must be followed..." to "...you hate the rule of law..."
Again, it depends on what you mean by "follow." If you mean you don't think the FCC has to stay within the law -- which was the context I was thinking in -- then yes, you hate the rule of law, in my view, and I'll stick by that unless it's demonstrated to be wrong.
I actually think the law has a place in society.
I did not say you hate law. I said you hate the rule of law. Obama, for example, loves the law. He loves crafting it in certain ways to reach certain outcomes; he loves relying on it when it suits his purposes; but, he also ignores it when it suits his purposes. He loves the law, but he really, really hates the rule of law. He demonstrated this even in his Inaugural Address, when he impugned people who wanted to abide by the law as people bound to the "old way" of thinking.
There's two ways we've got here: the rule of law, and the rule of men. If you believe that the executive may make up rules as it goes along (such as John Yoo says Bush was allowed to do during wartime, which is why Yoo is disliked by many conservatives), or if you think the court can decide whatever it wishes regardless of what the law and Constitution says, then you prefer the rule of men, which is contrary to the rule of law.
Furthermore, the law is handed down by men, so I am not sure where the distinction comes from.
Men can violate the law. Men can disregard the Bill of Rights. Law is something written that we initially agree upon and then rely upon to protect our activities. If the law says I can do something, I can act freely, with the knowledge that the law is protecting my activities.
It is through the rule of law that my rights are provided a guarantee. The rule of law says, "you have a right to speak, to due process, against self-incrimination, and there's not a thing government can do about it, because it's in the law." Rule of men says, "well, yeah, you have those rights, but if we decide not recognize them, tough."
Rule of men says that I can never know if what I am doing is going to be protected by government, or attacked by it. Tomorrow I could get arrested for something the law says I can do, and a Court could rule that this is appropriate just because they don't like what I did.
Rule of men is injustice. Rule of law is justice. That doesn't mean the law in question is itself just; that's a separate issue. We need both just laws AND the rule of law. But unjust laws is no excuse for rule of men.
I suppose I don't see how the law is in any meaningful way distinguishable from men with power.
I hope the above has explained it sufficiently to you. They are very different. This goes all the way back to the Magna Carta, where the King accepted that he must abide by what the law said, by the rights granted to the people, and by the restrictions placed on him. It's about justice and respect for the dignity of each individual.
What if the law is wrong? What if the law is outdated? What if the law is discriminatory or unjust?
Change it.
I am just curious if your hard line faith in the law is absolute or not.
It's not about "faith." Nothing in what I said implies the law is always right, or that it will always lead us to the best outcome in a particular circumstance. I am saying that it is much more important to follow the law than to do what is right in the short term, because rejecting the law for your subjective view of what is right gives us precedent where it is essentially arbitrary whether or not we follow the law.
Frankly, I don't consider the law to be something that must be followed, at all times, in all cases.
OK. Then you hate the rule of law, and prefer the rule of men, which means our liberties have no serious protections and no guarantees, but are subject to the whims of whoever happens to be in power. If we say that people joining together lose their freedom of political speech because we dislike some of the people who join together, then we create a precedent whereby anyone's right to political speech can be abridged, because we've already said that the First Amendment doesn't apply if we simply don't want it to.
If the FCC is allowed to make up its own laws to get net neutrality, then it can make up its own laws for anything else, including whether or not you're allowed to post comments on Slashdot.
Anyways, all ramblings aside, I am curious, do you feel that the rule of the law must, truly, always be followed?
It depends on what you mean. I am not saying someone must never violate the law; that is completely separate from any point I made. I may decide to break the speed limit so I can get someone to the hospital, but that's irrelevant to my point. I am talking about executive policies and judicial decisions.
But you seemed concerned that they would.
Nope. As long as they stay within their statutory authority, I expressed no misgivings (other than that the only reason we "need" Net Neutrality is because of over-regulation in the first place, but that's beside the point).
Although, since then I've read the "third way" document and now I do have concerns: that they are trying to shoehorn Net Neutrality into a regulatory framework not designed for it.
I can see your point, but honestly the correct way would be for the FCC to re-designate ISPs back to Title II
I disagree. I agree with FCC Chairman Genachowski who said today:
As I said in another comment yesterday: reclassifying to Title II merely to be able to implement Net Neutrality is short-sighted, because a lot more comes along with it.
they do not WANT to classify ISPs using Title II
Boo hoo. The FCC exists to implement the laws that Congress passes, not execute its own whims.
Right. That's my point.
And if the laws that Congress passes makes it a burden to regulate common carriers, well then perhaps Congress should look into that rather than expecting the FCC to make a politically opportunistic end run around the law.
Yep. Again, that's my point.
I agree with you that the FCC shouldn't knowingly attempt to make rules outside of their area of authority, but as far as I can tell in this particular situation, the system is working as it is supposed to. Ie: The FCC tried to instate a questionable rule. They were called out on it by those that they regulate. A judge ruled that the new rule is outside the FCCs realm of authority and thus void.
I don't disagree with that, and it doesn't disagree with me.
But like others have said, the fact that their last rule was judged to be outside the realm of their authority does not automatically mean that they cannot achieve the intent of the rule via other means that are within that authority.
I didn't imply that they could not.
In any case, I'm not sure exactly what you are worried about.
I didn't imply I was "worried" about anything. I am disappointed that they are not doing this the Right Way, which is through Congress. They are working hard, instead, to shoehorn a rule into a framework that isn't designed to accept the rule.
In this case Congress has already given the FCC extensive authority to regulate Internet access providers. The FCC simply has to use Title II to do it.
That's beside the point: they were NOT classifying ISPs using Title II, and they do not WANT to classify ISPs using Title II, because it creates even more problems to do so.
The problem, as /.ers from time out of mind have pointed out, is that Congress is bought and paid for by the telecom and cable TV industries - who are the very folks you're proposing the FCC ask them to regulate here.
First, that's completely orthogonal to the fact that only Congress gets to make new laws and grant new authority to the FCC. If that's a problem, fine, address it separately.
Second, you're asking me to believe that the FCC -- which is beholden to Congress in many ways, and selected by a President who is similarly "bought and paid for" -- is somehow immune to the same pressures you say is on the Congress. That doesn't even pass the smell test.
It's important to understand that the American system of checks and balances is tripodal, and that the FCC is a quasi-independent function of the executive leg of that tripod.
In truth, it's not independent. The Constitution (very first line of Article II) is clear on this: it's an executive agency and therefore its power belongs to the President (as all executive power does), and the President can tell them what to do with that power. In practice, the President may decide to allow the agency to function of its own accord, but he doesn't have to do so. Perhaps that is what you mean by quasi-independent, though.
Congress must assert its authority to make law, the executive branch must assert its authority to parse and implement those laws, and the judicial branch must asset its authority to test the validity of those laws.
I am entirely aware of this, but I don't see the point you're making.
When one branch allows itself to become subordinate to another - as happened with Congress during the Bush years - disaster inevitably ensues (Patriot Act, anyone?).
I don't see what the Patriot Act has to do with this. That was an example of the Congress (en masse) agreeing (on multiple occasions) to grant authority to the Executive. There was no subordination.
What the Congress has done in recent years is worse than subordination: it's refused to take its proper role of supremacy. Note that there's never an implication in our founding documents that the three branches are "coequal," but when Congress and the President fight, the Congress inevitable asserts "well, but we're coequal to you!" No, you're not: as Madison wrote in Federalist 51, "In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates."
This is why the Legislature is Article I, and why on a cursory reading of the Constitution, the Legislature clearly has more power over the other two branches than they have over the Congress. Congress can disband most of the judiciary, write laws and propose amendments to overrule the judiciary, pass laws without the President, cut funding to everything the President does, and even remove any of them from office. There's no coequality.
The phrase "checks and balances" does not appear in our founding documents either, although SOME of the sense of it is there (not the coequality sense, though). Well, the phrase does appear in a particular form, but it applies to the checks and balances between the House and Senate, not between the three branches.
Anyway ... not sure what all this has to do with the point that the FCC cannot act except within its statutory authority.
So, in the absence of specific direction from Congress to the contrary, the FCC is absolutely within its mandate to change its mind about how to regulate a particular segment of the communications market in this country
Only if the law gives them that authority. If you're making the case that the FCC can, under existing law, reclassify this segment such that it can apply other existing law in order to implement Net Neutrality, this is not the point. I am simply saying they must rely on existing law to do anything they do.
It seems to me that you would have the law violated just to get what you want.
Most would, but give him some credit, he would have the law violated for what he thinks is right.
That's a distinction without any difference whatsoever.
We're talking about the rule of law here. Regardless of your motives -- whether you think it's "the right thing" or not -- there's never an excuse for violating the rule of law. The process matters more than the immediate outcome, because that process is the only thing ultimately guaranteeing our rights.
If the Court says our law can be ignored because the specific goal is "right," then we've effectively put the judges over the law, and it is now only their view of what is "right" that matters, and if they decide it's "right" to censor political speech, or to wiretap without a warrant, or to ignore due process for terror suspects ... well, so be it, because it's "right"!
The outcome matters too, of course, but the outcome will take care of itself if the process is followed. It might mean we don't get Net Neutrality now, but if the people generally agree that it is the right thing, then it will be implemented sooner or later, following the rule of law.
False on all counts.
You simply cannot come up with a single example of me disfavoring any of those things.
As to National Mysticism, wow, that is something I'm diametrically opposed to. That demonstrates even better than your unexplained list of parts of the Constitution how completely wrong you are.
They have never made laws. They make rules. ... What they exceeded was their rulemaking authority.
In this case, their rule -- not being backed up with statutory authority -- amounted to an invention of new law. That's the point I made. This is how it is often described when an Executive agency tries to enforce something it has no right to enforce.
You can say it's not actually law, just an unauthorized rule, but that is an arbitrary distinction. The reason why the FCC cannot make rules it's not authorized to make is because virtually anything the government does must be backed by the law; and the law is made by Congress, and not the FCC; and thus, any rule made without existing legal authority is as if a new law had been invented.
If you can find anything in the Court's opinion about "violat[ing] our civil rights" please quote it
Shrug. They didn't say it, but the logical path is undeniable. As I noted above, this is akin to making new law. One of our civil rights is to elect our own representatives who make our law. When someone else makes law and enforces it over us, it violates our civil rights, obviously. I didn't say the Court ruled this way: I merely asserted it, being obviously true.
They're doing this to follow the letter of the law.
And it's amazing so many people are in favor of violating the law.
And yes, they DO have authority to reclassify services because they're the ones who reclassified the service to begin with.
That isn't dispositive. You're assuming that the original classification was proper, and that a further change in classification won't cause harm the FCC is prohibited from making. That said, yes, they facially have that authority, but that doesn't mean it would withstand a legal challenge if they did.
You appear to think that, just because the way they did it overstepped their bounds that there's no way for them to do it without overstepping their bounds.
That's not correct. I was specifically addressing the situation as it existed.
The Court did NOT say they couldn't do this.
If by "this" you mean this "third way," well, I'll wait to see what the "third way" actually is before agreeing with you.
Have you ever heard of the 1996 Telecommunications Act?
Have you ever heard of non sequiturs? You're soaking in one!
Your anti-government bent is baffling.
What's baffling is that you think my claim, that says the ELECTED GOVERNMENT makes the decision here, is anti-government.
I mean, seriously. I've said many things that are anti-government, but this isn't one of them. It's anti-executive-agency-making-up-its-own-laws, not anti-government.
Congress explicitly delegated the responsibility to regulate wired communications to the FCC.
What Congress did was give the FCC SOME power to regulate in SOME ways. It was not a blanket grant of approval to regulate in any way the FCC wishes.
You're wrong.
The entire purpose of the FCC is to "make up laws" (as you put it)
No, it's not. As I put it -- as the court put it -- there's a distinction between a "rule" that the FCC is empowered to create, and a "law" that is needed to give the FCC power it doesn't currently have.
Do you think Congress passes a law for each frequency band saying what it can be used for? No, they delegated that authority to the FCC.
Exactly. And Congress did NOT delegate THIS power to the FCC. That's the point.
Now, obviously they can only regulate the matters that have actually been delegated to them by Congress
So you therefore agree with me. Thanks, I guess.
Indeed.
Your argument makes sense, but the flaw is that democracy doesn't work that way.
No offense, but tough shit. The fact that representative democracy doesn't always work well doesn't give anyone the right to make up laws outside of that system.
But if this is what it takes to get net neutrality, well better than nothing I say.
If by "this" you mean "the FCC illegally making up its own law," that's unacceptable. The rule of law must be followed, because if we don't follow it here, we can't rely on it later.
That said, I agree with you that the problem is the overregulation. Net Neutrality is "needed" because of a lack of competition created by federal regulation.
I can't see this happening by a federal bureaucrat, but how awesome would it be if the FCC's "third way" was actual deregulation that gave consumers more choices?