FCC and Obama Claims Federal Supremacy to Regulate Internet

Canada Free Press ^ | 0/14/15 | Douglas V. Gibbs

[Sean_Anthony]

Increased taxation and regulation until the freedom or growth of the internet is choked into submission

When it comes to actions by the federal government, people get caught up in the myth that the federal government has legal supremacy over everything. If the federal government does it, we are convinced, the States must get out of the way. There is nothing you can do about it, the federal government is legally supreme in all cases, making the federal government king and ruler over all.

However, when reading the Supremacy Clause in Article VI. of the United States Constitution, despite the erroneous and politically motivated opinions of judges, we come to understand that what we believe is not quite so.

The language of the Supremacy Clause reads: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

[2ndDivisionVet]

“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”

― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

[FrankR]

Depending the details, I will go absolutely internet-free if this law, er, proclamation, goes into effect. It’s based on an old telephony law from 1921.

We need to be burning up the phones to our reps. The old law can be updated, or repealed by congress?

[DownInFlames]

Piss off the young Internet crowd and things will change rapidly.

[lowbridge]

Just days ago on facebook I was in an argument with a liberal who thinks this is a good thing. The government in shining armor riding to our rescue from the big, bad for profit corporations.

What a friggin idiot.

[MtnClimber]

Will this be the last straw for free people?

[NewHampshireDuo]

I’ve been following the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s position on “net neutrality” for a while. Their latest is at

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/02/fccs-latest-net-neutrality-proposal-pros-cons-and-question-marks

While they have been ardent supporters of the concept, it seems that they are starting to see that the feds might not be so generous. For example:

“No Blocking: broadband providers may not block access to legal content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices.

“No Throttling: broadband providers may not impair or degrade lawful Internet traffic on the basis of content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices.

“No Paid Prioritization: broadband providers may not favor some lawful Internet traffic over other lawful traffic in exchange for consideration – in other words, no “fast lanes” – including fast lanes for affiliates.

“These are all good ideas. If net neutrality means anything, it means no unfair discrimination based on application or service, and these rules seem aimed at just that. But there’s at least one worrisome bit: the repeated reference to “lawful content.” Does the FCC intend to suggest that throttling unlawful content is OK? How are ISPs to determine what is and is not lawful without snooping on their users? Can an ISP block access to the Pirate Bay without fear of violating open internet rules?”

Aha! Who determines “legal” content? Is it porn? Or is it anything that someone claims to be objectionable? Or is it something that the government doesn’t like? Or something like commentary on FR that mocks a NYT article?

[Amendment10]

Since Al Gore wasn’t even alive to invent the Internet when the Constitution was ratified, the states have never delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate the Internet.

So if Obama and the FCC really want to regulate the Internet then they must do the following. Obama and the non-elected federal bureaucrats who run the FCC must encourage Congress to propose an Internet amendment to the Constitution. And if the states choose to ratify the amendment then Congress will have the constitutional authority that it needs to regulate the Internet and Obama and FCC bureaucrats will be heroes.

Of course Congress will not be able to delegate its new legislative / regulatory power to regulate Internet to Obama or the FCC because the Founding States had made the first numbered clauses in the Constitution, evidently a good place to hide them from Obama and the FCC, to clarify that all federal legislative powers are vested in the elected members of Congress, not in the executive or judicial branches or in constitutionally undefined federal agencies like the FCC.

And for a safety net, patriots need to work with state lawmakers to repeal the 17th Amendment so that state lawmaker-elected federal senators don’t pass a bill from the House to unconstitutionally delegate federal legislative powers to third parties like the FCC.

[Charles Martel]

Dial-up BBS, anyone?

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Actually the liberal hipster types won’t get pissed. Obama’s objective is to eliminate conservative dissent.

[jsanders2001]

> “These are all good ideas. If net neutrality means anything, it means no unfair discrimination based on application or service, and these rules seem aimed at just that. But there’s at least one worrisome bit: the repeated reference to “lawful content.” Does the FCC intend to suggest that throttling unlawful content is OK? How are ISPs to determine what is and is not lawful without snooping on their users? Can an ISP block access to the Pirate Bay without fear of violating open internet rules?”

Has Obama ever told the truth or what his orignal intent is on any issue? No. He will use it whatever advantage that he can against us. I can almost assure that he will be able to log your history, your keystrokes, and halt or slow down your bandwith or service IF he wants to.

[jsanders2001]

I see a good opportunity for someone to build an underground broadbrand network that’s completely off the grid...

[W.]

Team Internet vs. Big Cable. That’s how this crap is being sold to the milennials, and Team Internet is 0bama & his cronies in Congress and the FCC. So friggin’ stupid, these kids, weren’t taught anything in school except how to be led...

[Logical me]

We need to be burning up the phones to our reps. The old law can be updated, or repealed by congress?

What's the use. We have nothing if we depend on the GOP. King Obama is a complete dictator and cannot be stopped. He is using the very bloated Federal Government and needs nothing from Congress.

[bicyclerepair]

That’s a good reason to keep a modem around.

[NewHampshireDuo]

Of course Obama’s never told the truth and anyone who takes him at his word is a fool.

[ronnie raygun]

Free speech is thier target

[TurboZamboni]

Team red vs team blue... and we all lose again.

[W.]

It’s disgusting seeing how the left lies to win, but if they told the truth, they wouldn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell.