The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

Two specific clauses in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, commonly known as "The Interstate Commerce Clause", and "The Elastic Clause", has been interpreted, or rather misinterpreted to allow federal involvement in both telephone and computer communications.

"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes"

"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

And so I ask, why does the Federal Communications Commission exist?
The FCC was established by the Communications Act of 1934 and is charged with regulating interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable. The FCC's jurisdiction covers the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. possessions.

SEC. 1. [47 U.S.C. 151] PURPOSES OF ACT, CREATION OF FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION.
For the purpose of regulating interstate and foreign commerce in communication by wire and radio so as to make available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United States, without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex, a rapid, efficient, Nationwide, and world-wide wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges, for the purpose of the national defense, for the purpose of promoting safety of life and property through the use of wire and radio communication, and for the purpose of securing a more effective execution of this policy by centralizing authority heretofore granted by law to several agencies and by granting additional authority with respect to interstate and foreign commerce in wire
and radio communication, there is hereby created a commission to be known as the ''Federal Communications Commission,'' which shall be constituted as hereinafter provided, and which shall execute and enforce the provisions of this Act.

SEC. 2. [47 U.S.C. 152] APPLICATION OF ACT.
(a) The provisions of this act shall apply to all interstate and foreign communication by wire or radio and all interstate and foreign transmission of energy by radio, which originates and/or is received within the United States, and to all persons engaged within the United States in such communication or such transmission of energy by radio, and to the licensing and regulating of all radio stations as hereinafter provided.

In 1996, the Federal Government further intruded into Communications with the "Telecommunications Act Of 1996." Link posted. I'll not post the full 128 page text here.
http://www.fcc.gov/Reports/tcom1996.pdf

Now, then. Let's translate the government's own stated reasons for the creation of the F.C.C., shall we?

Regulating interstate and foreign commerce by wire and radio?
Are all, or even most interstate (let's ignore foreign, for now) wire and radio transmissions for the purpose of commerce?

To make available to all people nationwide and worldwide wire and radio communications at reasonable charges?
To regulate (interfere with) free enterprise in the communications industry.

for the purpose of the national defense?
Could we get some clarification on how AT&T and AOL affect National Defense, please.

for the purpose of promoting safety of life and property through the use of wire and radio communication?
Police, Fire, Rescue are state, county, city or local organizations. Is there a Federal fire department or Paramedic I can call in an emergency? Will the F.B.I. show up if I call them about a burglary?

and for the purpose of securing a more effective execution of this policy by centralizing authority heretofore granted by law to several agencies

At last, we get to the point. More centralization of authority. It would have been mighty white of Congress to state the laws referred to in the above clause. Which agencies? In 1934, when the above was enacted, the FBI existed. The CIA didn't exist until 1947, with the passage of the National Security Act. The NSA was created in 1952. The CSS is a branch of the NSA. It does say "several agencies", so safely assuming the FBI, which was created in 1908 is one of those, which other agencies does this refer to?

Given the date the FCC was created, I can only assume it was created for the specific purpose of wire-tapping phone and radio communications in an effort by the FBI to track and capture the "gangsters" that had not already been captured or killed. So, should we blame J. Edgar Hoover for 75 years of government interference in communications?

Is this you trying to prove that you're a lawyer?

Irn-Bru wrote:Is this you trying to prove that you're a lawyer?

Kazoo asked me to begin a thread of interest that might involve or detail the law. So I began one that involves one of his stated areas of expertise and the law both. I want his thoughts on regulation and / or deregulation.
I can only start the thread and hope someone follows up with their thoughts. If no one does, then this thread will die a quick death and I'll look for another topic of interest. I thought this was a good one since everyone at THN obviously has internet access, which is covered under the FCC's extremely broad scope of "wire and radio" communications.

To directly answer your question, no, I have given up on attempting to prove anything to anyone in these threads. People believe what they want to believe, regardless of any concrete evidence to the contrary.

I belieeeeeeeeeve I can fly

Fios wrote:I belieeeeeeeeeve I can fly

Fios, and the bumblebee... a pair of aerodynamic curiosities!

How do they manage to get airborne with those tiny flippers?

I posted this in the Lounge to avoid flying off-topic, or flying of any kind.

It looks like nobody cares about this topic but people should. This is the reason the government can wire-tap your phone without a court order, subpoena your ISP search history without your knowledge or consent, tap into and triangulate your cell phone, control what appears or does not appear on your television, including controlling censorship.

And the stated reasons for the very existence of the F.C.C. are false on face. Elimination of foul language on radio and television airwaves has nothing to do with interstate commerce, upholding any enumerated power(s) of the Constitution, national defense, et. al..

Precisely why I take a bury-my-head-in-the-sand approach to life, the less I know, the less terrified/outraged I am.

Fios wrote:Precisely why I take a bury-my-head-in-the-sand approach to life, the less I know, the less terrified/outraged I am.

It seems that most Americans take the same approach, which is why nothing ever changes other than for the worse. Supposedly, We The People have the final say in what the government that is supposed to represent our interests (Of The People, By The People, And For The People) does or does not do. If We The People simply allow our elected representatives to do whatever they please, we are effectively waiving our right to representation.

It is far beyond time for the American People to file a redress of grievances with our elected leaders. Taxation without Representation was the primary reason the Colonies fought to become the United States. And yet everyone wants to complain about how things are while thinking they are somehow patriotic simply by being an American.

We obviously have learned nothing from our own history and are, therefore, doomed to repeat it. And as is evident from the lack of posts in this thread, everyone will ignore the problem or shift blame elsewhere until there is no United States Of America.

And most of the members here think I'm crazy, insane, screwy, full of (it).
Maybe all of the above, but I'm not blind to the indifference that is eventually going to destroy this country.

Fios wrote:I belieeeeeeeeeve I can fly

I have no problem believing that. I believe almost anything except that which evidence overwhelmingly indicates can't possibly be true.

GSPODS wrote:Two specific clauses in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, commonly known as "The Interstate Commerce Clause", and "The Elastic Clause", has been interpreted, or rather misinterpreted to allow federal involvement in both telephone and computer communications....

I'm not clear exactly what your point is. The title is IT, then you talk about the FCC and whether it should exist and make some reference to phones. Can you summarize your point then I'll re-read the argument?

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

GSPODS wrote:Two specific clauses in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, commonly known as "The Interstate Commerce Clause", and "The Elastic Clause", has been interpreted, or rather misinterpreted to allow federal involvement in both telephone and computer communications....

I'm not clear exactly what your point is. The title is IT, then you talk about the FCC and whether it should exist and make some reference to phones. Can you summarize your point then I'll re-read the argument?

Information Technology (IT) is summarized by the use and maintenance of communications equipment (telephone, computer, etc.), is it not?

The point of this thread is that there is no Constitutional or other legal basis for the existence of the F.C.C., which regulates and interferes with all things relating to wire and radio communications. That would include telephones, computers, radio stations, cellular telephones ... all of the communications devices used by IT personnel.

I detailed this rather extensively in the original post. I know it is rather verbose but when it comes to the Federal Government, there is nothing brief about the laws they create. Brevity does not allow for legal loopholes.

GSPODS wrote:I posted this in the Lounge to avoid flying off-topic, or flying of any kind.

It looks like nobody cares about this topic but people should. This is the reason the government can wire-tap your phone without a court order, subpoena your ISP search history without your knowledge or consent, tap into and triangulate your cell phone, control what appears or does not appear on your television, including controlling censorship.

And the stated reasons for the very existence of the F.C.C. are false on face. Elimination of foul language on radio and television airwaves has nothing to do with interstate commerce, upholding any enumerated power(s) of the Constitution, national defense, et. al..

Big brother is alive and well--unfortunately. I agree that the government can do pretty much as they please nowadays and not many people realize that their civil liberties are going to the wayside. They are trying to make our decisions FOR US and not BY US. Terrorism has opened the door for it to be "ok" that our government is allowed to spy on us. There has been Violation after violation of the fourth amendment and our right to be "left alone" in the 21st century."

GSPODS wrote:Information Technology (IT) is summarized by the use and maintenance of communications equipment (telephone, computer, etc.), is it not?

The point of this thread is that there is no Constitutional or other legal basis for the existence of the F.C.C., which regulates and interferes with all things relating to wire and radio communications. That would include telephones, computers, radio stations, cellular telephones ... all of the communications devices used by IT personnel.

I detailed this rather extensively in the original post. I know it is rather verbose but when it comes to the Federal Government, there is nothing brief about the laws they create. Brevity does not allow for legal loopholes.

Clearly interstate commerce is a lot more complicated then it was in colonial times. Including:

- Huge conglomerates with operations across the country and the world, like oil companies
- Services that are both intra and interstate, like phone and Internet

Also one legitimate use of government (in general) is managing limited resources. For example, recognition of land ownership and water rights. If you have different groups claiming ownership and no one to decide who owns the land or protect the property rights of the owner or of water, then we do have anarchy.

So in telecom, you have all those issues. With land lines you have interstate issues and with wireless even more complicated because bandwidth and frequencies are limited resources, a legitimate role of government.

In all these trying to have States regulate them is impractical. How can you have any kind of efficient phone system with 50 sets of rules? Or no right to frequencies, the powerful could just drown out the weak or competitors could just jam each other's signals rendering them both useless.

And what about Constitutional Authority? Are they covered by that? I totallly agree it's a legitimate question. And I'm not sure where I draw the line. In my view Federal government involvement in some of these things is reasonably the intent of granting the Federal Government the power to regulate interstate trade. On the other hand, the Federal government obviously goes way beyond reasonable regulation.

So where should the line be drawn?

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

GSPODS wrote:Information Technology (IT) is summarized by the use and maintenance of communications equipment (telephone, computer, etc.), is it not?

The point of this thread is that there is no Constitutional or other legal basis for the existence of the F.C.C., which regulates and interferes with all things relating to wire and radio communications. That would include telephones, computers, radio stations, cellular telephones ... all of the communications devices used by IT personnel.

I detailed this rather extensively in the original post. I know it is rather verbose but when it comes to the Federal Government, there is nothing brief about the laws they create. Brevity does not allow for legal loopholes.

Clearly interstate commerce is a lot more complicated then it was in colonial times. Including:

- Huge conglomerates with operations across the country and the world, like oil companies
- Services that are both intra and interstate, like phone and Internet

Also one legitimate use of government (in general) is managing limited resources. For example, recognition of land ownership and water rights. If you have different groups claiming ownership and no one to decide who owns the land or protect the property rights of the owner or of water, then we do have anarchy.

So in telecom, you have all those issues. With land lines you have interstate issues and with wireless even more complicated because bandwidth and frequencies are limited resources, a legitimate role of government.

In all these trying to have States regulate them is impractical. How can you have any kind of efficient phone system with 50 sets of rules? Or no right to frequencies, the powerful could just drown out the weak or competitors could just jam each other's signals rendering them both useless.

And what about Constitutional Authority? Are they covered by that? I totallly agree it's a legitimate question. And I'm not sure where I draw the line. In my view Federal government involvement in some of these things is reasonably the intent of granting the Federal Government the power to regulate interstate trade. On the other hand, the Federal government obviously goes way beyond reasonable regulation.

So where should the line be drawn?

I'm not so much questioning the necessity of government involvement in certain areas as I am questioning the involvement in all areas and the need for the FCC. I am also questioning the Constitutional authority. Just because something is needed doesn't mean the government can arbitrarily create an agency. The government has to have Constitutional authority. Period. In this case, they don't. Their stated reasons for the FCC do not hold water. If there was a need for such an agency, it should have been a matter left to The People in a general election ballot. If We The People didn't vote for it, it means either we didn't want it or we were not given an option. Taxation without Representation.

The problem is that we can't change our views when it suits our needs. Either we want literal interpretation, conservative interpretation or liberal interpretation. If we accept one type of interpretation, we have to accept it across the board. That is why I remain a strict constructionist. There is much less margin for government error without any interpretation.

GSPODS wrote:I'm not so much questioning the necessity of government involvement in certain areas as I am questioning the involvement in all areas and the need for the FCC. I am also questioning the Constitutional authority.

So when the Constitution says: "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."

So let's look at the creation of the phone system and AT&T. Or the creation of the Internet. I'm not going to defend how the FCC ran either, it did a terrible job. Just did they have the "Constitutional Authority" to do so. Without an FCC, how exactly do the states hook up a national (and international) phone system or a national (and international) Internet? And isn't it covered by regulating commerce between the States? To me it seems it would be. As I said, I am not advocating everything the FCC has done, only that it does have a role.

BTW, with crazyhorse here, we know the "and with the Indian Tribes" was included too!

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

GSPODS wrote:I'm not so much questioning the necessity of government involvement in certain areas as I am questioning the involvement in all areas and the need for the FCC. I am also questioning the Constitutional authority.

So when the Constitution says: "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."

So let's look at the creation of the phone system and AT&T. Or the creation of the Internet. I'm not going to defend how the FCC ran either, it did a terrible job. Just did they have the "Constitutional Authority" to do so. Without an FCC, how exactly do the states hook up a national (and international) phone system or a national (and international) Internet? And isn't it covered by regulating commerce between the States? To me it seems it would be. As I said, I am not advocating everything the FCC has done, only that it does have a role.

BTW, with crazyhorse here, we know the "and with the Indian Tribes" was included too!

"To regulate Commerce" requires the definition of commerce.
- 1. an interchange of goods or commodities, esp. on a large scale between different countries (foreign commerce) or between different parts of the same country (domestic commerce); trade; business.

Communications is neither a good nor a commodity. It would be best defined as a service, in my opinion. Phone service. Cable service. Internet service. Nobody reasonably order phone goods. "Yes, I'd like to have one phone good and two phone commodities installed on Friday." Or, "Yes, I'd like to have phone service installed on Friday."

A question of semantics? Perhaps. But even the "Elastic Clause" of the Constitution only allows laws to uphold the enumerated powers. And the specific enumerated power is interstate commerce.

We had a national phone company at one time. If you're old enough to remember, MaBell used to have the entire phone company. A monopoly, yes, but also better phone service than we have today. The government broke up MaBell into several companies to encourage competition rather than a monopoly. Funny how they haven't done that to MicroSoft, isn't it?

The FCC has every right to exist with regard to foreign nations.
What do the Indian Tribes need communciations for? To spread their left-wing liberal conspiracy theories? Or is that only CH1, and not necessarily the entire Indian nation?

GSPODS wrote:"To regulate Commerce" requires the definition of commerce.
- 1. an interchange of goods or commodities, esp. on a large scale between different countries (foreign commerce) or between different parts of the same country (domestic commerce); trade; business.

Communications is neither a good nor a commodity. It would be best defined as a service, in my opinion. Phone service. Cable service. Internet service. Nobody reasonably order phone goods. "Yes, I'd like to have one phone good and two phone commodities installed on Friday." Or, "Yes, I'd like to have phone service installed on Friday."

A question of semantics? Perhaps. But even the "Elastic Clause" of the Constitution only allows laws to uphold the enumerated powers. And the specific enumerated power is interstate commerce.

We had a national phone company at one time. If you're old enough to remember, MaBell used to have the entire phone company. A monopoly, yes, but also better phone service than we have today

Phone service is clearly commerce. Clearly my argument covered both pre and post Ma Bell Breakup. In both cases we have interstate phone networks and including long distance even still national networks. Somehow you dropped States from the FCC without an actual reason. What was it? I am saying phone service is a service, services are part of commerce, they are actually enumerated in the Constitution. I prefer to focus on getting rid of the 90% of the Federal government that isn't enumerated, not arguing that the 10% that is somehow isn't. Again, I'm not arguing for all FCC actions, just that it's existence and primary function is Constitutional. No doubt if you get into their individual actions a lot of it isn't.

GSPODS wrote:We had a national phone company at one time. If you're old enough to remember, MaBell used to have the entire phone company. A monopoly, yes, but also better phone service than we have today.

How on earth do you figure that? Ma Bell was better then what we have today? I am in fact old enough to remember and I can't think of any possible way it was better. Unless you like high cost (long distance is still cheaper then it was even in nominal dollars), horrible service and no advancement of technology at all. Can you imagine mobile phones, PDAs, even the Internet being what it is if Ma Bell were today unfettered? There is no way.

GSPODS wrote:The government broke up MaBell into several companies to encourage competition rather than a monopoly. Funny how they haven't done that to MicroSoft, isn't it?

I am arguing the FCC's existance. This statement is a bundle of issues that as presented totally miss any meaning. There were a lot of components to the Ma Bell breakup and it's hard to compare Microsoft to Ma Bell as there is no integrated national network that Microsoft runs alone.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

GSPODS wrote:"To regulate Commerce" requires the definition of commerce.
- 1. an interchange of goods or commodities, esp. on a large scale between different countries (foreign commerce) or between different parts of the same country (domestic commerce); trade; business.

Communications is neither a good nor a commodity. It would be best defined as a service, in my opinion. Phone service. Cable service. Internet service. Nobody reasonably order phone goods. "Yes, I'd like to have one phone good and two phone commodities installed on Friday." Or, "Yes, I'd like to have phone service installed on Friday."

A question of semantics? Perhaps. But even the "Elastic Clause" of the Constitution only allows laws to uphold the enumerated powers. And the specific enumerated power is interstate commerce.

We had a national phone company at one time. If you're old enough to remember, MaBell used to have the entire phone company. A monopoly, yes, but also better phone service than we have today

Phone service is clearly commerce. Clearly my argument covered both pre and post Ma Bell Breakup. In both cases we have interstate phone networks and including long distance even still national networks. Somehow you dropped States from the FCC without an actual reason. What was it? I am saying phone service is a service, services are part of commerce, they are actually enumerated in the Constitution. I prefer to focus on getting rid of the 90% of the Federal government that isn't enumerated, not arguing that the 10% that is somehow isn't. Again, I'm not arguing for all FCC actions, just that it's existence and primary function is Constitutional. No doubt if you get into their individual actions a lot of it isn't.

GSPODS wrote:We had a national phone company at one time. If you're old enough to remember, MaBell used to have the entire phone company. A monopoly, yes, but also better phone service than we have today.

How on earth do you figure that? Ma Bell was better then what we have today? I am in fact old enough to remember and I can't think of any possible way it was better. Unless you like high cost (long distance is still cheaper then it was even in nominal dollars), horrible service and no advancement of technology at all. Can you imagine mobile phones, PDAs, even the Internet being what it is if Ma Bell were today unfettered? There is no way.

GSPODS wrote:The government broke up MaBell into several companies to encourage competition rather than a monopoly. Funny how they haven't done that to MicroSoft, isn't it?

I am arguing the FCC's existance. This statement is a bundle of issues that as presented totally miss any meaning. There were a lot of components to the Ma Bell breakup and it's hard to compare Microsoft to Ma Bell as there is no integrated national network that Microsoft runs alone.

So, to attempt to get back on topic on my part, you would agree that 90% or more of the federal government, FCC excepted, is unnecessary, however you and I disagree on the definition of commerce.

If you do me the service of providing free business advice, would that be considered commerce? If I did you the service of giving you Redskins tickets would that be considered commerce? And if you consider those to be commerce, suppose I were to do you a disservice of some type. Would that be interference with interstate commerce?

I don't see how a non-tangible service can be construed by anyone as commerce. Commerce would seem to require a tangible good of some value beyond intrinsics. If I sold my soul to the devil, would that be interstate commerce?

With regards to MaBell, what I meant by "better" was that you didn't have to be concerned with things like PIC codes, NID wiring, Jack issues, etc.
MaBell also covered all of the equipment, both outside and inside the home, including the phone(s) and all of the wiring.

What is fair to say is that Federal regulation of the Cost of phone service affects interstate commerce, but cost, rates, pricing are not a good, nor a commodity, nor a service. Cost is regulated by free enterprise and the laws of supply and demand.

The actual problem is that the Federal government has no Constitutional authority to create interstate communications networks, and so their only option is regulation. If anyone can find "cost regulation" or anything similar or remotely close in the Constitution, even with the most liberal interpretation, let me know. I don't think it exists. And I consider it to be fencepost politics to have free enterprise on one hand and government regulation on the other hand, depending solely upon what suits the needs of the Feds at any given time. No bid contracts and pork-barrel spending are OK, but damned if the phone, cable, and internet providers are entitled to free enterprise.

Every time the government wants to get their hands into anything, they find some way to claim it affects interstate commerce. If I take a crap here in New York, and the sewage pipes carry it to New Jersey (where all the country's crap ends up), does that also affect interstate commerce?

GSPODS wrote:So, to attempt to get back on topic on my part, you would agree that 90% or more of the federal government, FCC excepted, is unnecessary, however you and I disagree on the definition of commerce.

So I agree with the definition you posted and you disagree with it?

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

GSPODS wrote:So, to attempt to get back on topic on my part, you would agree that 90% or more of the federal government, FCC excepted, is unnecessary, however you and I disagree on the definition of commerce.

So I agree with the definition you posted and you disagree with it?

What I read looked like you think communications is, in fact, commerce.
I do not think communications is commerce.
Did I misread your post?

GSPODS wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

GSPODS wrote:So, to attempt to get back on topic on my part, you would agree that 90% or more of the federal government, FCC excepted, is unnecessary, however you and I disagree on the definition of commerce.

So I agree with the definition you posted and you disagree with it?

What I read looked like you think communications is, in fact, commerce.
I do not think communications is commerce.
Did I misread your post?

I said interstate phone service is commerce. A service is provided for $. In what possible way is that NOT commerce?

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

GSPODS wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

GSPODS wrote:So, to attempt to get back on topic on my part, you would agree that 90% or more of the federal government, FCC excepted, is unnecessary, however you and I disagree on the definition of commerce.

So I agree with the definition you posted and you disagree with it?

What I read looked like you think communications is, in fact, commerce.
I do not think communications is commerce.
Did I misread your post?

I said interstate phone service is commerce. A service is provided for $. In what possible way is that NOT commerce?

Commerce, as defined by the Constitutional definition, involves the trade of tangible goods or commodities. We know this from the Articles Of Confederation.

Article IV. "The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different States in this Union, the free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States; and the people of each State shall free ingress and regress to and from any other State, and shall enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and commerce... subject to the same duties, impositions, and restrictions as the inhabitants thereof respectively, provided that such restrictions shall not extend so far as to prevent the removal of property imported into any State, to any other State, of which the owner is an inhabitant."

While communications equipment is tangible, the actual communication itself is not. One cannot move communications between states. It cannot be packed, moved, shipped, stored. One cannot even take the phone number across different exchanges, to say nothing of state lines.

A service provided for money is not necessarily commerce. If the service is labor without parts, or professional advice, that is called business, not commerce.

Our disagreement seems to be in that you define commerce and business as one and the same. I see a distinct difference between the two. All commerce may be defined as business, but not all business may be defined as commerce by the intended definition.

Modern interpretation of the definition of "Commerce" is a liberal stance. Not to say that conservatives haven't also distorted the meaning, but using the modern definition simply because it suits the government's needs is unacceptable.

The Constitution was never intended to be a "Living, Changing" document merely by changing the interpretation of certain words and clauses. The Constitution was written with brevity and clarity with the specific intention of not allowing room for interpretation. The document says what it means and means what it says. Interpretation of any kind, even of dated terminology in the original wording, is gross misuse and abuse of the purpose of the document. Proposed changes to the document itself are specifically enumerated in the Who, How, Where, What, and Why.