Says the AC. The difference between your straw man and the situation at hand is that tariffs by definition only apply to good imported across the border, whereas the California law applies to all ISPs doing business in California, including those based in California.
You're asserting that "If not A, then B" is equivalent to "If A, then not B". It most definitely is not.
Wrong. Here is the 10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
In plain English, that amendment means that powers that are reserved to the states or the people must meet both requirements. They must not be delegated to the United States (the federal government) and they must not be prohibited to the states. If the Constitution grants (takes) the power to do something, that takes it away from the States. If the Constitution does not take a power for the federal government but does prohibit it to the States, then nobody has it.
Incorrect. This is basic formal logic, and is easily verified.
A=not delegated to the United states nor prohibited to the states
B=reserved to the states or the people
If A, then B. The contrapositive (If not B, then not A) follows, but the converse (If B, then A) and inverse (If not A, then not B) do not.
This isn't just me confusing things. The federal courts have regularly ruled that the power to regulate interstate commerce IS delegated by the Constitution to the US and is NOT prohibited in the Constitution to the States, but the States do not have power to regulate interstate commerce based on the 10th Amendment. It's not that difficult. ICC IS one of the two limits, thus the result is prohibited.
The courts have indeed regularly ruled that states cannot enact laws and regulations that are discriminatory to other states (ie, applying only to commercial enterprises from outside their borders - cf Baldwin v GAF Seelig, in which the court struck down a NY law prohibiting the sale of milk from other states). But they have also regularly ruled that laws that are not discriminatory to other states are constitutional (cf Cooley v Board of Wardens, in which the Supreme court upheld a Pennsylvania law requiring the use of local pilots on boats entering Philadelphia Harbor).
The jurisprudence is generally accepted that states have the right to regulate commercial activity within their own borders - even if it involves interstate trade - as long as the law and/or regulation is not discriminatory against out of state trade. Chief Justice Roger Taney wrote in 1847:
"... the state may, nevertheless, for the safety or convenience of trade,or for the protection of the health of its citizens, make regulations of commerce for its own ports and harbours, and for its own territory; and such regulations are valid unless they come in conflict with a law of congress."
The California law applies to commerce within its territory, applies to all ISPs doing business within their borders, and does not conflict with any law of congress. The idea that it is not allowable due to the Insterstate Commerce Clause is patently false.
Chairman Ajit Pai's FCC argued that broadband is not a "telecommunications service" as defined in federal law, and therefore it must be classified as an information service instead. As an information service, broadband cannot be subject to common carrier regulations such as net neutrality rules, Pai's FCC said. The FCC is only allowed to impose common carrier regulations on telecommunications services.
"Given these classification decisions, the Commission determined that the Communications Act does not endow it with legal authority to retain the former conduct rules," the FCC said in a summary of its defense filed yesterday in the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
The 10th Amendment is what gives congress the authority to prevent states from regulating interstate commerce. Regulating IC is a power delegated to the United States by the Constitution", so IC meets the logical statement "delegated to the US OR not prohibited to the states", thus "not reserved to the States".
Living up to your username as always, I see.
You're asserting that "If not A, then B" is equivalent to "If A, then not B". It most definitely is not.
But that's beside the point, as California isn't trying to regulate interstate commerce. They're only regulating commerce within their borders.
Laws only give the government authority to do something. There is no laws on the books regards net neutrality... so technically, neither FCC nor states can implement them.
You might familiarize yourself with the 10th amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
States absolutely are not barred from regulating commerce within their borders. Thus, they are authorized to pass laws - like California's - to do just that.
States also can't regulate other states, the Internet crosses states and even international, so the closest entity to an "authority" would be the UN.
California isn't regulating other states, or the internet. They are regulating ISPs doing business within their borders.
If the agency chooses to deliberately not regulate, the dormant commerce principle says no state may override the feds' choice of no regulation.
That's not at all what the dormant commerce principle says. The dormant commerce principle prohibits state legislation which discriminates against interstate or international commerce. Applied to net neutrality, it would prohibit California from passing a law requiring net neutrality for ISPs based outside of California but not for ISPs based within California. It most certainly doesn't permit a federal agency to bar states from implementing regulations of commerce occuring within their states.
interstate commerce clause does have authority to regulate however
The FCC has no general right to regulate interstate commerce, which makes that largely irrelevant. The federal government has the right to regulate it, but not the imperative, nor the sole right.
Further, federal agencies may only regulate interstate commerce as authorized by federal law. There is no federal law allowing the FCC to regulate what regulations states may impose.
States absolutely regulate health care. My state bars health care providers operating within its borders from being for-profit. Texas bars doctors without admitting priveleges at a local hospital from performing abortions.
This has nothing to do with when "your websites" are hosted and everything to do with where you connect to the internet. Which is the state your house/apartment/cottage/cave is in.
What this means is that the FCC has no regulatory authority to block California nor do they have the authority to even intervene legally. Congress never gave them this power.
That's the bottom line. I would go further and say that even if FCC had not declared ISPs to be data services, they would still lack the authority to prevent states from implementing regulations on how ISPs operate within their borders, or to block them from imposing regulations more stringent than the FCC's.
The interstate commerce clause doesn't have authority to do anything. It gives congress authority to pass laws allowing the executive to regulate interstate commerce. There is no law allowing the FCC to regulate what intrastate regulations the various states can impose.
You might want to re-read your links, as they don't really say what you claim they do.
But even taking your claims on face value, 60,000 represents 0.4% of Ontario's total population. The remaining 99.6% is better off (overall wages for the province are up), as will be that 60,000 in the long run. That's a pretty good trade-off.
That's only true if the energy used to go from CO2 to CH4 is carbon neutral (which it probably is not). If the energy source isn't carbon neutral, than you're adding more carbon to the atmosphere than you started with.
Well, to date, NASA is the only organization of any sort to have put a human on any world besides the earth. I'm not sure who has a better track record than them in manned spaceflight.
Your math is off by a few orders of magnitude. 1kg=1,000g=1,000,000mg. 1 mg/ml=1g/l. On cup is about 1/4 liter. 1mg/ml of sugar would be about 1/16 of a teaspoon in a cup of water.
The deliberate absence of a federal law indicates this area is reserved to federal acts and cannot be infringed upon by states.
Bullshit. There is no legal basis for this assertion
In this particular arena, the federal government has expressed a clear interest in reserving this space by repealing net neutrality,
More bullshit. Not only is there no legal basis for this assertion, the FCC's own reasoning (ie they don't have jurisdiction to regulate ISPs) is to the contrary.
so the lack of a federal law does not mean this space is available for CA to enter and legislate.
Total bullshit. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Federal supremacy clause says CA loses this one in a whimper.
Complete, unadulterated bullshit. There is no federal law which is in conflict with the California law, so the supremacy clause doesn't come into play.
It wasn't part of what I was responding to, nor is it particularly germane given that the post RockDoctor was responding to was predicated on IAU revisiting its definitions, thus throwing out the "has cleared its orbit" criterion. Which they should, given that that criterion has little to do with the intrinsic characteristics of the body itself and a lot to do with where it is. For example, Earth would not clear its orbit in the same orbit as Pluto. Go far enough out, and Neptune wouldn't clear its orbit. Further still, Jupiter wouldn't clear its orbit. And given what we know about the mass and distance of this potential Planet X, it's likely it won't clear its orbit.
Slashdot Mirror
If you do not pay taxes, like the ~44%-plus of Americans who pay no Federal income taxes, you have no right to vote on how those taxes are spent.
Even people who don't pay federal income tax pay taxes.
Says the AC. The difference between your straw man and the situation at hand is that tariffs by definition only apply to good imported across the border, whereas the California law applies to all ISPs doing business in California, including those based in California.
You're asserting that "If not A, then B" is equivalent to "If A, then not B". It most definitely is not.
Wrong. Here is the 10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
In plain English, that amendment means that powers that are reserved to the states or the people must meet both requirements. They must not be delegated to the United States (the federal government) and they must not be prohibited to the states. If the Constitution grants (takes) the power to do something, that takes it away from the States. If the Constitution does not take a power for the federal government but does prohibit it to the States, then nobody has it.
Incorrect. This is basic formal logic, and is easily verified.
A=not delegated to the United states nor prohibited to the states
B=reserved to the states or the people
If A, then B. The contrapositive (If not B, then not A) follows, but the converse (If B, then A) and inverse (If not A, then not B) do not.
This isn't just me confusing things. The federal courts have regularly ruled that the power to regulate interstate commerce IS delegated by the Constitution to the US and is NOT prohibited in the Constitution to the States, but the States do not have power to regulate interstate commerce based on the 10th Amendment. It's not that difficult. ICC IS one of the two limits, thus the result is prohibited.
The courts have indeed regularly ruled that states cannot enact laws and regulations that are discriminatory to other states (ie, applying only to commercial enterprises from outside their borders - cf Baldwin v GAF Seelig, in which the court struck down a NY law prohibiting the sale of milk from other states). But they have also regularly ruled that laws that are not discriminatory to other states are constitutional (cf Cooley v Board of Wardens, in which the Supreme court upheld a Pennsylvania law requiring the use of local pilots on boats entering Philadelphia Harbor).
The jurisprudence is generally accepted that states have the right to regulate commercial activity within their own borders - even if it involves interstate trade - as long as the law and/or regulation is not discriminatory against out of state trade. Chief Justice Roger Taney wrote in 1847:
"... the state may, nevertheless, for the safety or convenience of trade,or for the protection of the health of its citizens, make regulations of commerce for its own ports and harbours, and for its own territory; and such regulations are valid unless they come in conflict with a law of congress."
The California law applies to commerce within its territory, applies to all ISPs doing business within their borders, and does not conflict with any law of congress. The idea that it is not allowable due to the Insterstate Commerce Clause is patently false.
They do have authority to regulate commerce within their borders.
Chairman Ajit Pai's FCC argued that broadband is not a "telecommunications service" as defined in federal law, and therefore it must be classified as an information service instead. As an information service, broadband cannot be subject to common carrier regulations such as net neutrality rules, Pai's FCC said. The FCC is only allowed to impose common carrier regulations on telecommunications services.
"Given these classification decisions, the Commission determined that the Communications Act does not endow it with legal authority to retain the former conduct rules," the FCC said in a summary of its defense filed yesterday in the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
The 10th Amendment is what gives congress the authority to prevent states from regulating interstate commerce. Regulating IC is a power delegated to the United States by the Constitution", so IC meets the logical statement "delegated to the US OR not prohibited to the states", thus "not reserved to the States".
Living up to your username as always, I see.
You're asserting that "If not A, then B" is equivalent to "If A, then not B". It most definitely is not.
But that's beside the point, as California isn't trying to regulate interstate commerce. They're only regulating commerce within their borders.
Laws only give the government authority to do something. There is no laws on the books regards net neutrality ... so technically, neither FCC nor states can implement them.
You might familiarize yourself with the 10th amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
States absolutely are not barred from regulating commerce within their borders. Thus, they are authorized to pass laws - like California's - to do just that.
States also can't regulate other states, the Internet crosses states and even international, so the closest entity to an "authority" would be the UN.
California isn't regulating other states, or the internet. They are regulating ISPs doing business within their borders.
If the agency chooses to deliberately not regulate, the dormant commerce principle says no state may override the feds' choice of no regulation.
That's not at all what the dormant commerce principle says. The dormant commerce principle prohibits state legislation which discriminates against interstate or international commerce. Applied to net neutrality, it would prohibit California from passing a law requiring net neutrality for ISPs based outside of California but not for ISPs based within California. It most certainly doesn't permit a federal agency to bar states from implementing regulations of commerce occuring within their states.
interstate commerce clause does have authority to regulate however
The FCC has no general right to regulate interstate commerce, which makes that largely irrelevant. The federal government has the right to regulate it, but not the imperative, nor the sole right.
Further, federal agencies may only regulate interstate commerce as authorized by federal law. There is no federal law allowing the FCC to regulate what regulations states may impose.
States absolutely regulate health care. My state bars health care providers operating within its borders from being for-profit. Texas bars doctors without admitting priveleges at a local hospital from performing abortions.
*where, not when
This has nothing to do with when "your websites" are hosted and everything to do with where you connect to the internet. Which is the state your house/apartment/cottage/cave is in.
What this means is that the FCC has no regulatory authority to block California nor do they have the authority to even intervene legally. Congress never gave them this power.
That's the bottom line. I would go further and say that even if FCC had not declared ISPs to be data services, they would still lack the authority to prevent states from implementing regulations on how ISPs operate within their borders, or to block them from imposing regulations more stringent than the FCC's.
The interstate commerce clause doesn't have authority to do anything. It gives congress authority to pass laws allowing the executive to regulate interstate commerce. There is no law allowing the FCC to regulate what intrastate regulations the various states can impose.
That's a big fat affirmative. The FCC is trying to not have their cake and keep anyone else from eating it, too.
You might want to re-read your links, as they don't really say what you claim they do.
But even taking your claims on face value, 60,000 represents 0.4% of Ontario's total population. The remaining 99.6% is better off (overall wages for the province are up), as will be that 60,000 in the long run. That's a pretty good trade-off.
That's only true if the energy used to go from CO2 to CH4 is carbon neutral (which it probably is not). If the energy source isn't carbon neutral, than you're adding more carbon to the atmosphere than you started with.
Well, to date, NASA is the only organization of any sort to have put a human on any world besides the earth. I'm not sure who has a better track record than them in manned spaceflight.
Your math is off by a few orders of magnitude. 1kg=1,000g=1,000,000mg. 1 mg/ml=1g/l. On cup is about 1/4 liter. 1mg/ml of sugar would be about 1/16 of a teaspoon in a cup of water.
How about something simple, and intrinsic to the body in question, like if it's large enough to achieve hydrostatic equilibrium?
The more the merrier!
The deliberate absence of a federal law indicates this area is reserved to federal acts and cannot be infringed upon by states.
Bullshit. There is no legal basis for this assertion
In this particular arena, the federal government has expressed a clear interest in reserving this space by repealing net neutrality,
More bullshit. Not only is there no legal basis for this assertion, the FCC's own reasoning (ie they don't have jurisdiction to regulate ISPs) is to the contrary.
so the lack of a federal law does not mean this space is available for CA to enter and legislate.
Total bullshit. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Federal supremacy clause says CA loses this one in a whimper.
Complete, unadulterated bullshit. There is no federal law which is in conflict with the California law, so the supremacy clause doesn't come into play.
It wasn't part of what I was responding to, nor is it particularly germane given that the post RockDoctor was responding to was predicated on IAU revisiting its definitions, thus throwing out the "has cleared its orbit" criterion. Which they should, given that that criterion has little to do with the intrinsic characteristics of the body itself and a lot to do with where it is. For example, Earth would not clear its orbit in the same orbit as Pluto. Go far enough out, and Neptune wouldn't clear its orbit. Further still, Jupiter wouldn't clear its orbit. And given what we know about the mass and distance of this potential Planet X, it's likely it won't clear its orbit.
Except that the research shows that psilocybin works well, without the ongoing side effects typical of standard drugs, and it works in situations where other treatments fail.
How much of that land is arable, and how much of it is unsuitable for crops?