Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Ken Smith on 28 Nov 2006 10:07 In article <C18FA54A.4EC82%dbowey(a)comcast.net>, Don Bowey <dbowey(a)comcast.net> wrote: >On 11/26/06 4:59 PM, in article ekdd8p$906$6(a)blue.rahul.net, "Ken Smith" ><kensmith(a)green.rahul.net> wrote: > >> In article <e4ba5$4569fea8$4fe7485$23334(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>> Ken Smith wrote: >>> >>>> In article <C18DE6C3.4E65C%dbowey(a)comcast.net>, >>>> Don Bowey <dbowey(a)comcast.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 11/25/06 9:31 AM, in article ek9uln$lag$9(a)blue.rahul.net, "Ken Smith" >>>>> <kensmith(a)green.rahul.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> In article <MPG.1fd11c17f0518b5a989c65(a)news.individual.net>, >>>>>> krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >>>>>> [.....] >>>>>> >>>>>>> Whether you like it or not, radio is an interstate issue. Perhaps >>>>>>> there should be some local control for ultra=-low power, but other >>>>>>> than that 50 FCCs would be a nightmare. Can you imagine getting 50 >>>>>>> certifications for a piece of gear? >>>>>> >>>>>> I like radio just fine. >>>>>> >>>>>> Is radio "interstate commerce" if the broadcast can't be heard in another >>>>>> state? If not, I don't think the constitution gives the federal >>>>>> government preemptive control. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Since the FCC DOES coordinate and regulate all forms of radio transmission, >>>>> what is the purpose of your post? >>>>> >>>>> Perhaps the problem is with your understanding. >>>> >>>> >>>> No, the question goes to a core issue. A FM station in SanFransisco is >>>> not "interstate" but is controlled by the FCC. Under some peoples reading >>>> of the constitution, it should not be. >>> >>> I'm sure you can make a good case for that, however >>> it belongs to a reguated class, so it is actually the >>> definition of the class that you'd be fighting. It >>> gets to be a hairy battle. >>> >>> OTOH there's also the argument that it affects interstate >>> commerce. >> >> Now to go back to health care. The drugs, the company that makes the >> medical equipment, plagues and individual patients may cross borders >> making the business of providing healthcare as "interstate" as the FM >> radio. This it seems to me would be the basis on which the federal >> government could pass laws about it including a NHS. >> >> I hope to argue that the NHS would be no more unconstitutional than the >> FCC is. > >Apples and Orange. Oh really. Please explain how the logic that applies to one does not to the other. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 28 Nov 2006 10:10 In article <MPG.1fd57546bd40b365989d18(a)news.individual.net>, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: [....] >> And there's also the argument that health care does, too. A pandemic that >> starts in one state will affect the ability of people to travel to and from >> that state, perhpas due to quarantine, perhaps due to simple fear. > >...and you better believe the USG will take over control of that >pandemic, right down to shutting down interstate transport and even >guarantying entire states, if need be. > >At that point it does become an interstate issue. Your sniffles >aren't. That FM station in San Fransisco is not a interstate issue. The FCC has absolutely no right to control it. The entire FCC is completely unconstitutional. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 28 Nov 2006 10:13 In article <ekhdvu$8qk_002(a)s1016.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >In article <ekcs4f$g1o$11(a)blue.rahul.net>, > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>In article <slrnemhs15.5qi.don(a)manx.misty.com>, >>Don Klipstein <don(a)manx.misty.com> wrote: >> >>{... radio FCC and interstate commerce ...] >> >>> In addition, the US has this "Communications Act of 1934" IIRC. IIRC, >>>this one established the FCC and gave it power to regulate radio >>>transmissions. >> >>The question I was posing was: "Is this law constutional because it >>regulates things that are not interstate commerce". Some people would >>argue that it is. > >All of this is going to have to go through a long debate with the >invention and now-common use of new comm technology. No debate is needed. It is either constitutional or it isn't. [.....] >Now consider the fact that packaging is going to have "I am here" >chips in them. Now consider the problem when cereal boxes are >transported across state lines to all grocery stores. > >All of a sudden, you have the FCC, the FTC and all kinds of >other regulatory entities claiming their piece of the grocery >store territory. We already have that so nothing much will have changed. Both regulate that which can be sold in the stores. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 28 Nov 2006 10:15 In article <oAsah.31151$yl4.30751(a)newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: [....] >Terrell makes a good point. The Federal government has the right to enter >into treaties, of which the control over the RF broadcast spectrum is one. >The Federal government also has the responsibility to regulate our >participation in a treaty, so that would give them the authority to regulate >the use of the RF broadcast spectrum. However, since I seriously doubt that >that treaty covers things like decency standards, clearly part of what the >FCC does has nothing to do with treaty enforcement. It is a good point, but I'd bet that the federal government can enter into treaties about medical things too. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Eeyore on 28 Nov 2006 10:18
Ken Smith wrote: > krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: > [....] > >> And there's also the argument that health care does, too. A pandemic that > >> starts in one state will affect the ability of people to travel to and from > >> that state, perhpas due to quarantine, perhaps due to simple fear. > > > >...and you better believe the USG will take over control of that > >pandemic, right down to shutting down interstate transport and even > >guarantying entire states, if need be. > > > >At that point it does become an interstate issue. Your sniffles > >aren't. > > That FM station in San Fransisco is not a interstate issue. The FCC has > absolutely no right to control it. The entire FCC is completely > unconstitutional. That sounds quite convincing to me. Graham |