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

To: palmer
It sounds like you are agreeing that telemarketers can call you since their contract allow them to call anyone. Likewise your contract allows calls from anyone. Then you claim the telemarketers are doing something illegal

Barring the existence of a law to the contrary, their actions are legal. There is now a law to the contrary. Besides the tautology that you have lobbied to have calls from telemarketers made illegal, what was actually illegal about them?

Um, how else is something supposed to be illegal other than through the passing of a constitutional law that makes it illegal? Your question doesn't make sense.

You claim trespass, but your contract specfically allows the action that you claim to be trespass

The terms of my contract have been limited by the passage of a law. Laws trump contracts.

The protection of interstate commerce would point to the opposite conclusion, that the Feds should overrules all State DNC lists.

State DNC lists are constitutional becuase they only regulate calls from telemarketers in-state to other people in-state. That is intra-state commerce.

358 posted on 11/12/2003 1:17:50 PM PST by Modernman (What Would Jimmy Buffet Do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 355 | View Replies ]


To: Modernman
I'm glad we've finally cut to the chase. You lobbied to have a law passed to restrict an activity that you don't approve of. You can't ban it since it is obviously not illegal. So instead you got a list where you can sign up for protection against commercial calls. Am I right so far?

Well, my friend, that's an entitlement. The market is able to provide phone service without commercial calls. My cell phone company for example sued a commercial spammer who misused their network. But you want a cheaper land line service with the same feature that I pay more for. So you lobbied and had it given to you.

I understand your hypocrisy, those calls got on everybody's nerves (including mine), so why not make an exception to your anti-state principles in this one case? I made an exception myself when I approved of the FL legislature intervening between a husband and wife in a "right-to-die" case. I decided that her life outweighed the negative effects of such legislation. We all have to make decisions like that and we need to understand and accept them and not try to rationalize it with tortured analogies and applications of law.

360 posted on 11/12/2003 1:39:18 PM PST by palmer (They've reinserted my posting tube)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 358 | 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