First let's examine where the Feds think they derive the authority to even debate these issues. It probably comes from Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8,"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
Note that the language includes "promote the progress". It does not include provisions for deterring competition. Note also that the language includes "authors and inventors" and makes no provision for the corporate empires which manage to back authors and inventors into a financial corner to induce them to sign away all ownership.
As always, without anything in the Constitution to specifically address P2P, fast-forwarding of commercials, or regulation of content and viewing, we must defer to 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."
To preempt those communists in the crowd who would like to interpolate their favorite part of the Constitution to include their pet issue of the week I would like to remind everyone of Amendment 9,"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
So, there you have it. As always our federal politicians are wasting our taxpayer money debating issues which they have no authority, responsibility, or legal jurisdiction over. As always they will come up with mandates which will tax us further, hamper manufacturers, and prevent the consumers from getting what we pay for.
Don't blame me. I didn't vote for any of the current politicians. I also do more than my fair share attempting to educate those who don't have any clue what real freedom or liberty is.
As usual, the Feds are wasting your taxpayer money to debate issues which aren't their responsibility.
Witnesses before the Senate Commerce Committee's Science, Technology and Space Subcommittee spared no superlative in their description of the negative effects of pornography
The Senate Commerce Committee, huh? Well, let's see. Is there any mention of pornography, addiction, or mental health in the Constitution? No. Then, as usual, we go to Amendment 10.
"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."
Whoops. Looks like this isn't even their business. As usual, however, the communists among us will try to give the Feds a blank check based on A1.S8.C3 commerce. Well, my friends, I assert that commerce is nothing more than point of sale. They can tax sales, or not. Why do I choose such a strict and easy definition? Well... Because it's written in Amendment 9.
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
So, if it's not specifically in the Constitution, then (right, wrong, or indifferent) it's no business of the Feds because it's retained by the states or the people. And, according to Amendment 9, you can't go combing through the Constitution to find excuses to assign authority to the Feds for something based upon a vague association with something else.
So... As usual, the Senators are sitting around, tapping their watches, waiting for the (taxpayer paid) lunch, collecting their excessive (taxpayer paid) paychecks, listening to meaningless drivel from visiting self-proclaimed professionals who are staying probably in (taxpayer paid) hotels and expensing the entire trip to the (taxpayer paid) Congress, and debating issues which are NONE OF THEIR JOB RESPONSIBILITY. You can get fired in most American companies for doing things outside of your job description, you know...
In summary, claims of worker shortages are bull. If these companies cannot find qualified candidates, it is only because their methods cannot determine who is actually qualified
I don't think they want to know who is actually qualified. Most employers worth working for are addicted to nepotism anyways.
I can't find the stats but it has been shown that a significant percentage (on the order of 25% to maybe as high as 50%) of people who are happy with their current position got there not by resume, interview, or online application... but by personal referral through social networking.
Mostly I'm wondering WTF is up with all the IT people whining about their job market. They were lucky to have that market and, if they spent it all rather than saving it, that's their own damned fault. My industry (pharmaceutical R&D) hasn't seen double digit raises, ever, that I'm aware of. Unless you're an executive. They've been taking double-digit raises every year while the research scientists get (at best) a 2% raise. My industry has never hired (the equivalent of) people who program a few lines of some script kiddie language (html + all of it's illegitimate children) for $80k, give them 35 hour workweeks, and 4 weeks of vacation. The scientific sector has been well aware of the influence of H1B and foreign graduate students since before you could fit a computer in a single building.
I have no sympathy for the IT field. Finally you guys can start hanging on by your fingernails like the rest of us do.
So... you're saying that managers are educated to advocate human rights abuses, slavery, and taking advantage of anyone in a weaker position than themselves? So much for fair labor laws.
Not that I'm surprised or disappointed. The world is not a nice place, plain and simple.
Mostly I'm wondering WTF is up with all the IT people whining about their job market. They were lucky to have that market and, if they spent it all rather than saving it, that's their own damned fault. My industry hasn't seen double digit raises, ever, that I'm aware of. My industry has never hired (the equivalent of) people who program a few lines of some script kiddie language (html + all of it's illegitimate children) for $80k, give them 35 hour workweeks, and 4 weeks of vacation.
I have no sympathy for the IT field. Finally you guys can start hanging on by your fingernails like the rest of us do.
Your linking federalism... with communism clearly outlines your ignorance of the US political system
Don't be a dumbs__t. The US government currently serves to extract the resources of the entire population and funnel it to dedicated projects of the federal government's choosing. That is EXACTLY the communist model.
The Supreme Court is doing the job it's supposed to do
That statement is true only if you summarily and naively ignore political influences.
Existing case law does not agree with you
Money talks. That doesn't make it legal.
The pithy response is,"and b___sh_t walks" but, as usual, a pithy saying is nothing more than a pithy saying. The law of the land is the Constitution. It's not my fault if we've had a Congress full of criminals for nearly 200 years.
Interstate commerce includes not merely the act of an interstate commercial transaction, but also the vehicles by which it might occur, entities engaged in it, the goods in motion, etc.
Odd. I don't see that expansion anywhere in the Constitution. Are you making that up?
This is a valid point but, unfortunately for you, there is no clause in the Constitution which gives the Feds the power to regulate access or communication.
he ever changing world around us is the very reason that the constitution is interpreted and reinterpreted constantly
Entirely wrong. The reinterpretation is a product of political motives and an uneducated public. Amendment 10 is very specific: anything not in the Constitution is simply not a responsibility of the Feds. Think of your job description. There are some things you're responsible for and there are other things which are simply not your problem. Regulation of internet access, and any associated taxes and fees, is simply not the Feds' problem.
A vast structure as large as the internet that expands beyond borders of states and beyond the control of a state, without censorship
As it should be.
is the very reason it falls into the hands of the Federal Government,
s/falls into the hands/is not a responsibility/
the only layer of this fedralist nation that wields enough power to have any authority over the net.
I have very little regard for the interpretation of the courts or of the legal profession. Amendment 10 is very particular in its statement that, if it's not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, then it's not something the Feds have any jurisdiction over. Interstate commerce CANNOT (per Amd 9) be enumerated to include internet access. Conducting transactions with vendors in other states is interstate commerce, but as long as your ISP has a local office, it's intrastate commerce.
The power to regulate interstate commerce cannot be enumerated to include the power to regulate internet access. Regardless of who created the internet, there is not right to regulate communication access as provided in the Constitution. As such it is reserved to the States or the People.
The "interpretation of the Constitution" is all bogus. As clearly outlined in Amendment 10 anything not specifically addressed in the Constitution is simply not a responsibility of the Feds.
At best I can see an argument based on Section 10 Clause 2, which states,"Clause 2: No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws...", but at best that indicates that Congress should address the states on a case by case basis, and still is not empowered to pass a blanket law.
As for the power to regulate interstate commerce (Section 8, Clause 3), I still do not agree that this can be enumerated to include regulation (or preemptive consideration thereof) of internet access. Access is not commerce. There is a clear delineation between entering into an establishment and actually conducting business or commerce there.
As usual, politicians are wasting my tax money debating issues they have no legal authority to be debating on company time. If they want to debate it around their coffee tables at home then that's their own business.
Read the Constitution of the United States of America. Is there any mention of the internet in that document? No? Let's have a look at Amendment 10:
Amendment X 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.
Okay. So the "right to regulate the internet" is not under the authority of the Feds because it's reserved to the States or the People.
"What of interstate commerce?", say the trolls.
Let me point you to Amendment 9
Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The "right to regulate the internet" has already been established as retained by the States or the people and, therefore, the interpretation of "interstate commerce" can not be enumerated to include it. It is forbidden to expand the meaning of interstate commerce to include anything not specifically defined in the Constitution.
Don't like it because the politicians haven't checked the 9th or 10th since the early 1800s? These are the knobs you vote for--don't cry to me. Don't like it because 95% of what the Feds do is disqualified by this assessment? Maybe you should move to a communist nation so that you can be happy using the feds to siphon everyone else's cash to assuage your penile deficiency.
So many people rely on the social connotations of the word pirate outside of its rightful context that Webster is forced to make note of the common usage. That doesn't make the mudslinging any more legitimate.
Point: Everyone on earth agrees that "the inventor should get the credit" but, within today's context, the current laws do very little to ensure that the original inventor gets proper credit. While everyone (even most people commonly labeled as pirates) agrees that the inventor should get the credit, most people will concede that lemming-like adherence to the current laws does very little to satisfy this.
So, while I am personally an advocate of intellectual property and individual acheivement, I feel no compulsion (political or moral) to even give remote consideration to current copyright law. When the salaries of the programmers are raised accordingly and the salaries of opportunistic hangers-on (eg. CEOs, VPs, execs) are lowered to realistic levels then I will believe that the system is accomplishing the stated goal of "the inventor should get the credit". Offering the ultimatum of,"Sign over all rights to the Company or we'll put you on laundry-room projects in a broom closet" is no more morally acceptable than downloading someone else's work without paying them proper recompense. Two wrongs doesn't make a right. Making the world right is a lost cause. The only thing I'm interested in is preserving my bank account.
What about the English relationship with the Irish, however? I don't know that the Japanese enslaved the Chinese for 400 years and used their own people's religion to cement a permanent rift in the population.
How about graduating from the ivory-tower school system and learn how the Supreme Court has wiped its ass with the 9th and 10th amendments in the REAL WORLD
I was responding to people who continue to justify the expansion of government based upon expansive interpretations of the regulation of interstate commerce. When someone can show me where the Supreme Court has ruled that the right to regulate interstate commerce is free and clear of the restrictions of the ninth and tenth amendments then you can troll about ivory towers. Until then simply accept that the American public, by and large, has no concept of the proper function of government and should not be allowed to vote.
There are one of two possibilities: 1) You didn't read what I wrote or 2) You have the attention span of a goldfish.
Are you aware of what Amendment 9 says? The enumeration (interpretation with possible expansion of meaning) of the Constitution shall not be construed to deny or disparage rights retained by the people.
This says that you CANNOT take "Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce" and turn it into "The FCC shall tell you how your computer operates", because, according to Amendment 10, the right to tell you how your computer operates is reserved to the States or the People since it is not specifically addressed in the Constitution. According to Amendment 9, you cannot take Section 8, Clause 3 and expand it to take rights retained by the States and people (the right to regulate computer hardware--as per Amendment 10) and assign those rights to the Feds.
See, you people just shouldn't even bother to vote. You don't even know the rules or how they apply. No wonder the nation is going to h-e-l-l in a handbasket.
Now I know you thought you were all cool and the shizzle-nat because you posted a link and quote directly from the Constitution. How about graduating the fifth grade and read the ENTIRE DOCUMENT.
And, whether we like it or not, the Federal Communications Commission does have regulatory authority over interstate communications
You know, I don't see anything about regulating interstate communications in the Constitution as a power of the federal government. You know, I do see a ninth amendment, which says that the enumeration of the Constitution shall not be used to infringe upon rights retained by the people. You know, I do see a tenth amendment, which says that if something isn't specifically mentioned in the Constitution, then it's reserved to the states or the people.
It was set up specifically to regulate interstate communications.
Unconstitutionally. Similar to the FDA.
The question (and the lawsuit) is, does this authority extend to
The authority of which you speak is bogus to begin with. Even if it weren't bogus, the ninth amendment states specifically that you can't go about enumerating (expanding) the rights of the federal government in such a way as to ambiguously fill in the cracks.
Right, wrong, helpful, hurtful, indifferent, undecided... This is not a duty, responsibility, nor a legal authority of the federal government to even bother debating anything of this sort.
The employee might have been a work from home type. Last minute deadline, the audio editor quits working, the VPN has died off and won't come back, need the files by 5 PM... oh look, a CD with Sonic Foundry's Sound Forge and a keygen.
Slashdot Mirror
First let's examine where the Feds think they derive the authority to even debate these issues. It probably comes from Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8,"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
Note that the language includes "promote the progress". It does not include provisions for deterring competition. Note also that the language includes "authors and inventors" and makes no provision for the corporate empires which manage to back authors and inventors into a financial corner to induce them to sign away all ownership.
As always, without anything in the Constitution to specifically address P2P, fast-forwarding of commercials, or regulation of content and viewing, we must defer to 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."
To preempt those communists in the crowd who would like to interpolate their favorite part of the Constitution to include their pet issue of the week I would like to remind everyone of Amendment 9,"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
So, there you have it. As always our federal politicians are wasting our taxpayer money debating issues which they have no authority, responsibility, or legal jurisdiction over. As always they will come up with mandates which will tax us further, hamper manufacturers, and prevent the consumers from getting what we pay for.
Don't blame me. I didn't vote for any of the current politicians. I also do more than my fair share attempting to educate those who don't have any clue what real freedom or liberty is.
Bring on the trolls.
As usual, the Feds are wasting your taxpayer money to debate issues which aren't their responsibility.
Witnesses before the Senate Commerce Committee's Science, Technology and Space Subcommittee spared no superlative in their description of the negative effects of pornography
The Senate Commerce Committee, huh? Well, let's see. Is there any mention of pornography, addiction, or mental health in the Constitution? No. Then, as usual, we go to Amendment 10.
"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."
Whoops. Looks like this isn't even their business. As usual, however, the communists among us will try to give the Feds a blank check based on A1.S8.C3 commerce. Well, my friends, I assert that commerce is nothing more than point of sale. They can tax sales, or not. Why do I choose such a strict and easy definition? Well... Because it's written in Amendment 9.
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
So, if it's not specifically in the Constitution, then (right, wrong, or indifferent) it's no business of the Feds because it's retained by the states or the people. And, according to Amendment 9, you can't go combing through the Constitution to find excuses to assign authority to the Feds for something based upon a vague association with something else.
So... As usual, the Senators are sitting around, tapping their watches, waiting for the (taxpayer paid) lunch, collecting their excessive (taxpayer paid) paychecks, listening to meaningless drivel from visiting self-proclaimed professionals who are staying probably in (taxpayer paid) hotels and expensing the entire trip to the (taxpayer paid) Congress, and debating issues which are NONE OF THEIR JOB RESPONSIBILITY. You can get fired in most American companies for doing things outside of your job description, you know...
Business as usual folks.
In summary, claims of worker shortages are bull. If these companies cannot find qualified candidates, it is only because their methods cannot determine who is actually qualified
I don't think they want to know who is actually qualified. Most employers worth working for are addicted to nepotism anyways.
Maybe they need to form a focus group to study it.
Hahahahahahaa! And then fire every member of the focus group if they come to any conclusion which points to them.
Hurrah! I definitely agree.
I can't find the stats but it has been shown that a significant percentage (on the order of 25% to maybe as high as 50%) of people who are happy with their current position got there not by resume, interview, or online application... but by personal referral through social networking.
Mostly I'm wondering WTF is up with all the IT people whining about their job market. They were lucky to have that market and, if they spent it all rather than saving it, that's their own damned fault. My industry (pharmaceutical R&D) hasn't seen double digit raises, ever, that I'm aware of. Unless you're an executive. They've been taking double-digit raises every year while the research scientists get (at best) a 2% raise. My industry has never hired (the equivalent of) people who program a few lines of some script kiddie language (html + all of it's illegitimate children) for $80k, give them 35 hour workweeks, and 4 weeks of vacation. The scientific sector has been well aware of the influence of H1B and foreign graduate students since before you could fit a computer in a single building.
I have no sympathy for the IT field. Finally you guys can start hanging on by your fingernails like the rest of us do.
So... you're saying that managers are educated to advocate human rights abuses, slavery, and taking advantage of anyone in a weaker position than themselves? So much for fair labor laws.
Not that I'm surprised or disappointed. The world is not a nice place, plain and simple.
Mostly I'm wondering WTF is up with all the IT people whining about their job market. They were lucky to have that market and, if they spent it all rather than saving it, that's their own damned fault. My industry hasn't seen double digit raises, ever, that I'm aware of. My industry has never hired (the equivalent of) people who program a few lines of some script kiddie language (html + all of it's illegitimate children) for $80k, give them 35 hour workweeks, and 4 weeks of vacation.
I have no sympathy for the IT field. Finally you guys can start hanging on by your fingernails like the rest of us do.
There's nothing interstate about me sending my check to a local ISP.
It is perfectly possible for the Supreme Court to be unconstitutional. That is precisely what I am asserting.
Your linking federalism ... with communism clearly outlines your ignorance of the US political system
Don't be a dumbs__t. The US government currently serves to extract the resources of the entire population and funnel it to dedicated projects of the federal government's choosing. That is EXACTLY the communist model.
The Supreme Court is doing the job it's supposed to do
That statement is true only if you summarily and naively ignore political influences.
Existing case law does not agree with you
Money talks. That doesn't make it legal.
The pithy response is,"and b___sh_t walks" but, as usual, a pithy saying is nothing more than a pithy saying. The law of the land is the Constitution. It's not my fault if we've had a Congress full of criminals for nearly 200 years.
Interstate commerce includes not merely the act of an interstate commercial transaction, but also the vehicles by which it might occur, entities engaged in it, the goods in motion, etc.
Odd. I don't see that expansion anywhere in the Constitution. Are you making that up?
Exactly when were you thinking the internet rose?
This is a valid point but, unfortunately for you, there is no clause in the Constitution which gives the Feds the power to regulate access or communication.
he ever changing world around us is the very reason that the constitution is interpreted and reinterpreted constantly
Entirely wrong. The reinterpretation is a product of political motives and an uneducated public. Amendment 10 is very specific: anything not in the Constitution is simply not a responsibility of the Feds. Think of your job description. There are some things you're responsible for and there are other things which are simply not your problem. Regulation of internet access, and any associated taxes and fees, is simply not the Feds' problem.
A vast structure as large as the internet that expands beyond borders of states and beyond the control of a state, without censorship
As it should be.
is the very reason it falls into the hands of the Federal Government,
s/falls into the hands/is not a responsibility/
the only layer of this fedralist nation that wields enough power to have any authority over the net.
s/fedralist/communist/
I have very little regard for the interpretation of the courts or of the legal profession. Amendment 10 is very particular in its statement that, if it's not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, then it's not something the Feds have any jurisdiction over. Interstate commerce CANNOT (per Amd 9) be enumerated to include internet access. Conducting transactions with vendors in other states is interstate commerce, but as long as your ISP has a local office, it's intrastate commerce.
The power to regulate interstate commerce cannot be enumerated to include the power to regulate internet access. Regardless of who created the internet, there is not right to regulate communication access as provided in the Constitution. As such it is reserved to the States or the People.
The "interpretation of the Constitution" is all bogus. As clearly outlined in Amendment 10 anything not specifically addressed in the Constitution is simply not a responsibility of the Feds.
At best I can see an argument based on Section 10 Clause 2, which states,"Clause 2: No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws...", but at best that indicates that Congress should address the states on a case by case basis, and still is not empowered to pass a blanket law.
As for the power to regulate interstate commerce (Section 8, Clause 3), I still do not agree that this can be enumerated to include regulation (or preemptive consideration thereof) of internet access. Access is not commerce. There is a clear delineation between entering into an establishment and actually conducting business or commerce there.
As usual, politicians are wasting my tax money debating issues they have no legal authority to be debating on company time. If they want to debate it around their coffee tables at home then that's their own business.
Consider: "The right to regulate the internet"
Read the Constitution of the United States of America. Is there any mention of the internet in that document? No? Let's have a look at Amendment 10:
Amendment X
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.
Okay. So the "right to regulate the internet" is not under the authority of the Feds because it's reserved to the States or the People.
"What of interstate commerce?", say the trolls.
Let me point you to Amendment 9
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The "right to regulate the internet" has already been established as retained by the States or the people and, therefore, the interpretation of "interstate commerce" can not be enumerated to include it. It is forbidden to expand the meaning of interstate commerce to include anything not specifically defined in the Constitution.
Don't like it because the politicians haven't checked the 9th or 10th since the early 1800s? These are the knobs you vote for--don't cry to me. Don't like it because 95% of what the Feds do is disqualified by this assessment? Maybe you should move to a communist nation so that you can be happy using the feds to siphon everyone else's cash to assuage your penile deficiency.
So many people rely on the social connotations of the word pirate outside of its rightful context that Webster is forced to make note of the common usage. That doesn't make the mudslinging any more legitimate.
Point: Everyone on earth agrees that "the inventor should get the credit" but, within today's context, the current laws do very little to ensure that the original inventor gets proper credit. While everyone (even most people commonly labeled as pirates) agrees that the inventor should get the credit, most people will concede that lemming-like adherence to the current laws does very little to satisfy this.
So, while I am personally an advocate of intellectual property and individual acheivement, I feel no compulsion (political or moral) to even give remote consideration to current copyright law. When the salaries of the programmers are raised accordingly and the salaries of opportunistic hangers-on (eg. CEOs, VPs, execs) are lowered to realistic levels then I will believe that the system is accomplishing the stated goal of "the inventor should get the credit". Offering the ultimatum of,"Sign over all rights to the Company or we'll put you on laundry-room projects in a broom closet" is no more morally acceptable than downloading someone else's work without paying them proper recompense. Two wrongs doesn't make a right. Making the world right is a lost cause. The only thing I'm interested in is preserving my bank account.
Wow. Here is an even better idea. If you don't like the company, don't play the game. Don't pirate it, just ignore it and go on with your life
I don't like you, but I like your wife. I'm going to take your wife. That's stealing.
I don't like you, but I like your wife. I'm going to kill you, tie your wife up, and carry her kicking and screaming to my den. That's piracy.
I don't like you, but I like your game. I'm going to copy your game. That's copyright infringement.
Quit propagating the pirate lie. You don't make yourself cool by using the word pirate.
At best he's a copyright infringer.
Quit propagating the pirate lie.
What about the English relationship with the Irish, however? I don't know that the Japanese enslaved the Chinese for 400 years and used their own people's religion to cement a permanent rift in the population.
How about graduating from the ivory-tower school system and learn how the Supreme Court has wiped its ass with the 9th and 10th amendments in the REAL WORLD
I was responding to people who continue to justify the expansion of government based upon expansive interpretations of the regulation of interstate commerce. When someone can show me where the Supreme Court has ruled that the right to regulate interstate commerce is free and clear of the restrictions of the ninth and tenth amendments then you can troll about ivory towers. Until then simply accept that the American public, by and large, has no concept of the proper function of government and should not be allowed to vote.
There are one of two possibilities: 1) You didn't read what I wrote or 2) You have the attention span of a goldfish.
Are you aware of what Amendment 9 says? The enumeration (interpretation with possible expansion of meaning) of the Constitution shall not be construed to deny or disparage rights retained by the people.
This says that you CANNOT take "Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce" and turn it into "The FCC shall tell you how your computer operates", because, according to Amendment 10, the right to tell you how your computer operates is reserved to the States or the People since it is not specifically addressed in the Constitution. According to Amendment 9, you cannot take Section 8, Clause 3 and expand it to take rights retained by the States and people (the right to regulate computer hardware--as per Amendment 10) and assign those rights to the Feds.
See, you people just shouldn't even bother to vote. You don't even know the rules or how they apply. No wonder the nation is going to h-e-l-l in a handbasket.
Now I know you thought you were all cool and the shizzle-nat because you posted a link and quote directly from the Constitution. How about graduating the fifth grade and read the ENTIRE DOCUMENT.
And, whether we like it or not, the Federal Communications Commission does have regulatory authority over interstate communications
You know, I don't see anything about regulating interstate communications in the Constitution as a power of the federal government. You know, I do see a ninth amendment, which says that the enumeration of the Constitution shall not be used to infringe upon rights retained by the people. You know, I do see a tenth amendment, which says that if something isn't specifically mentioned in the Constitution, then it's reserved to the states or the people.
It was set up specifically to regulate interstate communications.
Unconstitutionally. Similar to the FDA.
The question (and the lawsuit) is, does this authority extend to
The authority of which you speak is bogus to begin with. Even if it weren't bogus, the ninth amendment states specifically that you can't go about enumerating (expanding) the rights of the federal government in such a way as to ambiguously fill in the cracks.
Right, wrong, helpful, hurtful, indifferent, undecided... This is not a duty, responsibility, nor a legal authority of the federal government to even bother debating anything of this sort.
The employee might have been a work from home type. Last minute deadline, the audio editor quits working, the VPN has died off and won't come back, need the files by 5 PM... oh look, a CD with Sonic Foundry's Sound Forge and a keygen.