Support NeoGAF

[werks]

Metaphoreus: Would love to hear your thoughts on the FAA and it's authority to regulate the skies. Afterall, only congress has the authority to regulate trade.

Can't wait for emergency airworthiness directives to be filibustered by congressman funded by the airlines.

 

[PhoncipleBone]

Metaphoreus: Would love to hear your thoughts on the FAA and it's authority to regulate the skies. Afterall, only congress has the authority to regulate trade.

Can't wait for emergency airworthiness directives to be filibustered by congressman funded by the airlines.

But don't the airlines need money to fund the politicians?

 

[Chumly]

It isn't our "current system." The US has always been a republic. What the FCC is doing isn't democratic, its american.

A democratically elected congress passed the Communications Act of 1934.
A democratically elected president signed the bill into law.
The law created the FCC and gave it the ability to reclassify ISPs.

The FCC is taking the plain meaning of the law and reclassifying the internet, something that is well under its authority.

The "democratic" answer for opponents of the law should be to have the Communications Act amended or repealed and have ISPs codified as Title 1 or remove the FCC's ability to reclassify the internet.

They just tried... and failed.

So now we get this weird argument that the federal law (passed by congress and signed by the president) is undemocratic.

The only conclusion I can get from his argument is that he is trying to redefine the democratic process to suit his argument. Who is going to define what needs to be democratically voted on? Metaphoreus? People think our government is slow now. I can only imagine how slow it would be if he had his way.

 

[Tesseract]

bangbros

 

[JetBlackPanda]

Ewok celebration time!!

 

[Fathead]

If Congress didnt delegate to rule making agencies we would never get any damn thing done. Ever. I dont know what fantasy land Metaphoreus lives in where congress has the time and expertise to create every rule for every federal agency.

 

[Link]

I may have missed it, but has this thread covered tipping yet?

I think we have to argue about circumcision first.

 

[Fathead]

I think we have to argue about circumcision first.

How much due to you tip the doc performing the circumcision?

 

[Metaphoreus]

Passive aggression, sarcasm, and an ad hominem attack in one sentence.

Beautiful.

This would be passive aggression: "I'm not persuaded kess knows the meaning of ad hominem."

Okay, so it's 322 pages of something or other. How are regulations made in accordance with a pre-existing law legislation?

Because the regulations change the law governing the industry on the basis of policy preferences, not Constitutional requirement.

It's kind of surreal to watch this argument continue for so long and not see a Christina Hendricks avatar anywhere in the mix.

What? You don't like my dog?

Metaphoreus: Would love to hear your thoughts on the FAA and it's authority to regulate the skies. Afterall, only congress has the authority to regulate trade.

Can't wait for emergency airworthiness directives to be filibustered by congressman funded by the airlines.

My argument isn't restricted to one agency or area of law. But since this isn't a thread about the FAA, you'll just have to use your imagination.

The only conclusion I can get from his argument is that he is trying to redefine the democratic process to suit his argument. Who is going to define what needs to be democratically voted on? Metaphoreus? People think our government is slow now. I can only imagine how slow it would be if he had his way.

I suggest we let the Constitution define that. If new law is needed, Congress (in which all legislative powers granted by the Constitution are vested) must act. In the absence of Congressional action, there can be no new law.

I think we have to argue about circumcision first.

I thought the circumcision argument was the tipping argument?

 

[Team Filler]

Does Congress have the authority to designate a separate body of qualified experts the regulatory oversight of funding for research into the benefits of circumcision?

What? You don't like my dog?

Oh no, the dog is fine, I'm just used to seeing these levels of brick-wall argument conducted by KHarvey.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Oh no, the dog is fine, I'm just used to seeing these levels of brick-wall argument conducted by KHarvey.

You should see my PoliGAF posts.

 

[aliengmr]

If Congress didnt delegate to rule making agencies we would never get any damn thing done. Ever. I dont know what fantasy land Metaphoreus lives in where congress has the time and expertise to create every rule for every federal agency.

I'm going with Magic. It doesn't take anymore mental gymnastics than even entertaining the notion of allowing the only other entities that have a worse reputation than Congress control the Internet.

 

[Branduil]

Because the regulations change the law governing the industry on the basis of policy preferences, not Constitutional requirement.

Actually it's on the basis that the internet is a telecommunication service.

 

[werks]

Wow, I give up. What next, supreme court doesn't have the ability to do a judicial review since it isn't written in the constitution?

 

[Fathead]

I suggest we let the Constitution define that. If new law is needed, Congress (in which all legislative powers granted by the Constitution are vested) must act. In the absence of Congressional action, there can be no new law.

Article 1 section 8. Congress has the authority to make necessary laws. Congress deemed it necessary to give rule making authority to the FCC (US Code Title 47 Chapter 5 Subchapter 1).

 

[Metaphoreus]

I'm going with Magic. It doesn't take anymore mental gymnastics than even entertaining the notion of allowing the only other entities that have a worse reputation than Congress control the Internet.

I don't see what's so impossible about these agencies proposing their regulations as bills for Congress and the president to enact. If they don't want to debate them beyond ensuring the agencies did their due process before proposing them to Congress, then fine: they can enact them without further debate, but at least they've then put their necks on the line. As it is, they can push the task of enacting unpopular legislation onto the unelected (and therefore unaccountable) agencies, pointing the fingers at them when things go wrong.

 

[kess]

This would be passive aggression: "I'm not persuaded kess knows the meaning of ad hominem."

Well, you're the one saying we should drop the pretense of democracy.

I'd defer to your expert judgement but delegation of powers and all that

 

[Fathead]

I don't see what's so impossible about these agencies proposing their regulations as bills for Congress and the president to enact. If they don't want to debate them beyond ensuring the agencies did their due process before proposing them to Congress, then fine: they can enact them without further debate, but at least they've then put their necks on the line. As it is, they can push the task of enacting unpopular legislation onto the unelected (and therefore unaccountable) agencies, pointing the fingers at them when things go wrong.

Its not unusual to have 4000 rules made/changed in a year. Thats 4000 votes congress would have to have. In both chambers. Add in the new legislation, and the fact that if we are going to follow your strict interpretation we have to send these changes to the president for his signature, and we have nothing but chaos.

 

[werks]

I don't see what's so impossible about these agencies proposing their regulations as bills for Congress and the president to enact. If they don't want to debate them beyond ensuring the agencies did their due process before proposing them to Congress, then fine: they can enact them without further debate, but at least they've then put their necks on the line. As it is, they can push the task of enacting unpopular legislation onto the unelected (and therefore unaccountable) agencies, pointing the fingers at them when things go wrong.

Where does it say that in the constitution?

 

[Metaphoreus]

Its not unusual to have 4000 rules made/changed in a year. Thats 4000 votes congress would have to have. In both chambers. Add in the new legislation, and the fact that if we are going to follow your strict interpretation we have to send these changes to the president for his signature, and we have nothing but chaos.

I have faith in them. Why else would we keep paying them if not to make our laws for us?

But there's no reason to assume Congress would need 4,000 votes to enact 4,000 new rules. Proposed rules could be bundled into a single bill based on the title of the US Code to which they refer, for instance.

Where does it say that in the constitution?

The first "that" appears in Art. I, sec. 2. It does make a number of repeat appearances, however.

EDIT: Serious response: the very first operative provision of the Constitution: "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."

Article 1 section 8. Congress has the authority to make necessary laws. Congress deemed it necessary to give rule making authority to the FCC (US Code Title 47 Chapter 5 Subchapter 1).

Let's say Congress made a law permitting the president to exercise what's known as a line-item veto, because they believed it was necessary to some legitimate Constitutional end. Valid?

 

[aliengmr]

I don't see what's so impossible about these agencies proposing their regulations as bills for Congress and the president to enact. If they don't want to debate them beyond ensuring the agencies did their due process before proposing them to Congress, then fine: they can enact them without further debate, but at least they've then put their necks on the line. As it is, they can push the task of enacting unpopular legislation onto the unelected (and therefore unaccountable) agencies, pointing the fingers at them when things go wrong.

Sorry but you seem to be arguing about a world that does not exist. That in this world lobbyists weren't a thing. That groups like the NRA weren't drafting their own legislation.

Fuck, Congress wouldn't even debate going to war. What exactly is the debate going to be with the ISPs throwing money everywhere?

Then there's the Senate which requires 60 votes just to pass anything and can be filibustered by anyone looking to make a buck for their next campaign.

The governing body you are speaking of does not exist in this reality.

I have faith in them. Why else would we keep paying them if not to make our laws for us?

But there's no reason to assume Congress would need 4,000 votes to enact 4,000 new rules. Proposed rules could be bundled into a single bill based on the title of the US Code to which they refer, for instance.

This can't be real, damn, you had me going there.

 

[Neuromancer]

And Republicans on Capitol Hill, who once criticized the plan as “Obamacare for the Internet,”

What the fuck does this even mean in relation to anything?!

 

[Metaphoreus]

Sorry but you seem to be arguing about a world that does not exist. That in this world lobbyists weren't a thing. That groups like the NRA weren't drafting their own legislation.

Fuck, Congress wouldn't even debate going to war. What exactly is the debate going to be with the ISPs throwing money everywhere?

Then there's the Senate which requires 60 votes just to pass anything and can be filibustered by anyone looking to make a buck for their next campaign.

The governing body you are speaking of does not exist in this reality.

Then let's just be rid of Congress. After all, without campaigns to worry about financing, there's no risk that industry groups would come to hold sway among the unelected legislators we'll install, right?

 

[The Llama]

Daily reminder that this will all be lost in ~3 years if a Republican president is elected after Obama.

 

[BSsBrolly]

What the fuck does this even mean in relation to anything?!

It's a headline that will get ignorant Republicans riled up and guarantee they'll be against net neutrality. We all know they don't read or watch real news.

 

[danm999]

Then let's just be rid of Congress. After all, without campaigns to worry about financing, there's no risk that industry groups would come to hold sway among the unelected legislators we'll install, right?

Maybe there's a solution in between abolishing Congress and having them micromanage every single piece of Federal governance?

 

[Branduil]

Then let's just be rid of Congress. After all, without campaigns to worry about financing, there's no risk that industry groups would come to hold sway among the unelected legislators we'll install, right?

Regulatory agencies can be corrupted by special interests, therefore democratically elected officials should pass laws written by special interests.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Daily reminder that this will all be lost in ~3 years if a Republican president is elected after Obama.

Another disadvantage of bureaucratic legislation. Senator Thune's bill--which he now concedes cannot pass--would have enacted the old 2010 FCC net neutrality rules as part of the US Code, subject to change only by a later act of Congress. In contrast, to undo the rulemaking that Obama is having Wheeler engage in, it will only take one bad presidential election for Democrats.

Maybe there's a solution in between abolishing Congress and having them micromanage every single piece of Federal governance?

But, of course! That's what I've been saying. The agencies can figure out the nitty gritty, but Congress has to vote on imposing that nitty gritty on Americans.

 

[BSsBrolly]

Another disadvantage of bureaucratic legislation. Senator Thune's bill--which he now concedes cannot pass--would have enacted the old 2010 FCC net neutrality rules as part of the US Code, subject to change only by a later act of Congress. In contrast, to undo the rulemaking that Obama is having Wheeler engage in, it will only take one bad presidential election for Democrats.

Thune's bill had tons of loop holes in it. Fuck that shit.

Edit: it never crossed your mind as to why ISPs would back Thune's Bill while opposing net neutrality? You really think it does the same thing?

 

[Fathead]

I have faith in them. Why else would we keep paying them if not to make our laws for us?

But there's no reason to assume Congress would need 4,000 votes to enact 4,000 new rules. Proposed rules could be bundled into a single bill based on the title of the US Code to which they refer, for instance.

We pay them to create the general laws. I dont pay them to be experts in everything. Representatives and Senators do not have the time or ability to experts in every field. I do not expect them to be able to intelligently decide what level of air particulates are acceptable or how radio spectrum should be allocated and used. I do expect them to delegate that authority to people who are qualified, with oversight. Congress can exercise its oversight authority at any time. It can, by legislation, undo any rule made by an agency it has created. Or even dissolve the agency itself.

Let's say Congress made a law permitting the president to exercise what's known as a line-item veto, because they believed it was necessary to some legitimate Constitutional end. Valid?

We have a mechanism for changing the president's veto authority. Its called a constitutional amendment.

 

[Branduil]

Another disadvantage of bureaucratic legislation. Senator Thune's bill--which he now concedes cannot pass--would have enacted the old 2010 FCC net neutrality rules as part of the US Code, subject to change only by a later act of Congress. In contrast, to undo the rulemaking that Obama is having Wheeler engage in, it will only take one bad presidential election for Democrats.

Why is it bad when congress delegates rulemaking to a regulatory agency but not bad when they delegate writing their own bills to corporations?

 

[werks]

I have faith in them. Why else would we keep paying them if not to make our laws for us?

But there's no reason to assume Congress would need 4,000 votes to enact 4,000 new rules. Proposed rules could be bundled into a single bill based on the title of the US Code to which they refer, for instance.



The first "that" appears in Art. I, sec. 2. It does make a number of repeat appearances, however.

EDIT: Serious response: the very first operative provision of the Constitution: "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."

1. The constitution does not allow OR disallow the creation of federal agencies.

2. Congress will regulate trade.

3. Congress will make necessary laws.

4. Congress created the FCC to regulate telecommunications according to federal law.

5. Congress passed the communications act (necessary law), which explicitly allows the FCC to reclassify services.

6. FCC used this existing legislation, to reclassify ISPs in 2002 to Title 1.

7. FCC issued open internet order.

8. Verizon sued because the FCC lacks the authority for certain parts of open internet order under title 1.

9. Judiciary agrees with verizon. Tells the FCC to reclassify ISPs to Title 2 if it wants that authority under federal law.

10. FCC again used this existing legislation to reclassify ISPs to Title 2.

11. If the FCC lacks the authority to reclassify ISPs under the communications act (it doesn't), then affected parties can go back to the judiciary for remedy.

I don't understand your argument. The FCC isn't legislating. The legislation already exists.

 

[RoninChaos]

Are you one of those people who believes that businesses should be able to refuse service to African Americans for whatever reason they choose, on the grounds that businesses should have "freedom from government?"

This isn't an intentionally obtuse analogy, by the way. Rand Paul has literally advocated for exactly this when speaking out against the Civil Rights Act in the past.

I will never understand the extreme Republican/Libertarian insistence that "freedom" for corporations to fuck over citizens should take precedence over the idea that maybe citizens shouldn't have to be fucked.

I'll be shaking your hand at final round.

 

[Link]

People still haven't learned not to bother arguing with Metaphoreus?

What the fuck does this even mean in relation to anything?!

They know their base is full of idiots that will lap it up and be against their own interests.

 

[Muppet of a Man]

People, we the people, will vote with our wallets.


Look at Sling TV...finally we get cable TV without a fucking contract to cable TV.

I would never want govt to dictate anything in the private sector.

You do realize that we have a Mixed Economy here in the US? It is not full-on Laize-Faire Capitalism like some right-wing idealogues like to think it is and it never has been. Most mature and maturing industries are regulated by the government to some extent because otherwise markets stagnate when dominated by a handful of powerful, large corporation who start merging and monopolizing, resulting in anticompetitive, anticonsumer behavior.

 

[Blader]

Another disadvantage of bureaucratic legislation.

Funny that you'd put these two words in the same sentence together while simultaneously arguing for an extra level of bureaucratic review be placed upon every action ever taken by a federal agency.

 

[kess]

While we're on the subject of regulatory capture, Michael Powell was the chairman of the FCC back in 2002, and he is currently the president of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association.

The National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA) is the principal trade association for the US cable television industry, representing more than 90% of the US cable market,[2] more than 200 cable program networks, and equipment suppliers and providers of other services to the cable industry.

...

NCTA is a vocal opponent of net neutrality, urging the FCC not to codify its Net Neutrality rules in 2010.[19] In 2014, after the 2010 rules were thrown out in court, the NCTA ran ads in news media opposing reclassifying internet service under title II of the 1996 Telecomunications Act.[20] In 2014, ProPublica reported that NCTA were privately behind the "Onward Internet" campaign, which advocates an internet as free from rules.[21]

 

[RoninChaos]

I don't want a cable company dictating which sites get more speed and such, but I still do not like the idea of government needing to step in to "manage" things.

EDIT: Govt forcing companies to actually pay salary employees their hours worked over 40 though, that's a solid idea. Companies making people work over time yet not paying them for it is complete bs.

I see people say this shit all the time and the thing that gets me is there is no alternative here. If the government doesn't tell them not to do this shit, who will? People can't vote with their wallets in a monopoly. So who steps in? It has to be the government.

 

[PhantomHound]

So people are for govt control of the internet....great.....

Can't fathom why people are for this.

Because, there's no competition in the sector. Crony capitalism is used to keep the power in the hands of the few in the telecom industry. I'd rather have government take over at this point, there's been such stagnant innovation in our internet infrastructure.

I'd love to vote with my wallet, but the only company in my area is verizon. Verizon, and other telecoms, use their political influence to block new comers into the area anyway. Look at google fiber, telecom companies have been trying to block a competitor into entering into certain areas and have been successful.

I see people say this shit all the time and the thing that gets me is there is no alternative here. If the government doesn't tell them not to do this shit, who will? People can't vote with their wallets in a monopoly. So who steps in? It has to be the government.

Right, the only other solution would be to break up the telecom companies again to create more competition.

 

[Alchemy]

Considering the way ISPs currently operate in the US, its hard to understand why anyone wouldn't support additional government regulation that isn't drafted by said ISPs.

 

[Eos]

harper, you know what to do
do at least 1 good thing before you go out

 

[The Llama]

Another disadvantage of bureaucratic legislation. Senator Thune's bill--which he now concedes cannot pass--would have enacted the old 2010 FCC net neutrality rules as part of the US Code, subject to change only by a later act of Congress. In contrast, to undo the rulemaking that Obama is having Wheeler engage in, it will only take one bad presidential election for Democrats.

Admittedly I'm not familiar with that bill, but surely what I'm referring to is a disadvantage of any political system in which leaders change.

 

[Piecake]

Read the link I added discussing the dispute. The people who challenged him on his 322-page claim acknowledge that that's the thing. They don't dispute that; they only dispute that it's all "regulations."



No doubt there is a human element to judging, since the judges are human. But given that their role is not legislative, they should adopt analytical paradigms that minimize the opportunities for their own biases to creep in (e.g., originalism and textualism, which both seek to ascertain what the enactors of a text did, not what the interpreters want them to have done). It's no answer to say that since they are flawed and biased, they should just accept their biases, throw caution to the wind, and assume the legislative power.

http://theusconstitution.org/text-history/2727

http://volokh.com/2012/10/10/the-si...rish-originalism-vs-living-constitutionalism/


Man, originalism and textualism sure does change over the years and has a variety of viewpoints. And what a coincidence that originalism and textualist legal thinkers mostly have conservative viewpoints, biases, and beleifs. But hey, that just means they are more impartial, right?

how to reach a more impartial and less personally prejudiced conclusion isn't to look at what the text says. People read what they want to read into passages and 'think' its the original or 'textual' meaning. It is to examine and reflect on all aspects of that thought, from facts, fallacies, assumptions, etc to the outcomes of that thought. Basically, have the ability to critically examine and reflect on all of the components of your thoughts and ideas. If your analytical paradigms just try to find out what the text originally says, it does a piss poor job of taking into account of the judges' biases, prejudices and beliefs.

Frankly, I think the vast majority of that way of thinking is putting a fancy gloss over people's beliefs, bias, and views as evidenced by a whole host of decisions. I mean, doesn't Scalia's 'new-textualism' say no to value judgements when it is pretty obvious his homophobia is coloring is opinion on gay marriage?

Your conclusion doesn't follow. If sovereignty resides in the people, and they have vested "all legislative powers [granted in the Constitution]" to Congress (and they have), then it follows no one else has such powers. The "approval of the people" to which you refer must be approval through Constitutional enactment; otherwise it's ignoring the people's will, not enacting it. Even ignoring that point, that a power has been delegated does not imply that it can be delegated again. That is, if I give a power of attorney to Person X, that power doesn't necessarily grant Person X the power to assign the power of attorney to Person Y.

They granted all legislative powers to Congress who legislated an agency to make sure that our modern society can function. Why would we need an amendment when it is constitutional? As for approval of the people, I was clearly referring to polls and popular will. The discussion of a constitutional amendment is a solution to a problem that doesnt exist.

 

[Unknown One]

I may have missed it, but has this thread covered tipping yet?

It has to cover circumcision first.

 

[Sobriquet]

Is there any source/proof for this "322 pages of regulations" stuff besides right wing crank sites because that's all a google search turns up.

Pai admitted that it's only 8 pages.

 

[TheSeks]

People, we the people, will vote with our wallets

Yes, let's vote with our wallets for better speed--OH WAIT.

 

[Link]

Pai admitted that it's only 8 pages.

"The claim that President Obama's plan to regulate the Internet does not include rate regulation is flat-out false," Pai said. "Indeed, the only limit on the FCC's discretion to regulate rates is its own determination of whether rates are 'just and reasonable,' which isn't much of a restriction at all."

Only a Republican would see this as a bad thing.

 

[danm999]

But, of course! That's what I've been saying. The agencies can figure out the nitty gritty, but Congress has to vote on imposing that nitty gritty on Americans.

So you think Congress needs to approve every single measure a Federal Agency proposes even if they've already passed statutes to give that Federal Agency the power to enact those measures?

That can't seriously be your argument. It makes no practical sense.

 

[Piecake]

So you think Congress needs to approve every single measure a Federal Agency proposes even if they've already passed statutes to give that Federal Agency the power to enact those measures?

That can't seriously be your argument. It makes no practical sense.

I'm convinced he lives in a theoretical world rather than our existing one.

 

[Poodlestrike]

It has to cover circumcision first.

Or, the piece de resistance of GAF thread derails:

Americans don't use electric kettles.