Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Modernman
any government has a right to pass ordinances against noise etc. So long as the ordinance is content neutral- i.e., the noise ordinance is directed at noise, rather than at your 2nd amendment rights, it passes constitutional muster. Has this been an issue for you in the past?

You're wrong about the "any". The Federal government has only enumerated powers, regulating noise is not one of them even if my noise travelled across state lines.

More accurate would be a situation where you, as a homeowner, give the power company an easement to run lines onto your property (if you own a home, your property is subject to such an easement) and to repair them as necessary. You then proceed to put a non-trespassing sign on the property. A third-party, such as a door-to-door salesman, could not argue that the easement to the power company allows him to trespass onto your property.

That's tortured and wrong. The service from the phone company specifically allows calls from all parties including commercial calls. You are correct that it does not allow illegal calls, but you haven't shown what causes commercial calls to be illegal.

356 posted on 11/12/2003 1:07:37 PM PST by palmer (They've reinserted my posting tube)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 354 | View Replies ]


To: palmer
You're wrong about the "any". The Federal government has only enumerated powers, regulating noise is not one of them even if my noise travelled across state lines.

I'm not really sure where this whole noise issue came from- it wasn't my example. My only point is that your exercise of constitutional rights does not protect you from charges of violating other, constitutionally-neutral, laws. For example, your 2nd amendment rights don't allow you to get away with murdering somebody becuase you used a shotgun as the murder weapon.

The service from the phone company specifically allows calls from all parties including commercial calls.

And I agree with you- it's just, legally-speaking, that contract is irrelevant when the person trying to enforce its provisions is not party to the contract.

359 posted on 11/12/2003 1:23:41 PM PST by Modernman (What Would Jimmy Buffet Do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 356 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson