Posted on 06/01/2019 6:54:12 AM PDT by yesthatjallen
Let me guess, you were also mad when McConnell got all those judges confirmed by scrapping the Senate rules.Actually the senate rules were scrapped by Harry Reid. McConnell reinstated the rules scrapped by the Democrats.
How long have you been working for GOOGLE?
So that’s how Kavanaugh got confirmed by a simple majority then?
McConnell also ditched it for District judges months ago too, by the way. The sake with blue slips. I’m sure everyone was outraged over this.
That's called a crime. There are legitimate laws to deal with force and fraud. I'm not willing to sanction Leviathan to bust up FR and Fox and Google because people are scared of some servers and wire that are used VOLUNTARILY.
Then let’s put some people in jail. They had another meeting in April or May to solidify their election goals.
they may tell that to the employees but the top people are determined to have political power other than by making campaign contributions.
As for States setting their own laws, well, yea...9th and 10th. As such, if you don't like Google, then contact your State reps.
Scalia said it in an oral argument when a lawyer was lamenting how HARD it was to get something done...Scalia effectively said "government is supposed to be inefficient. It is supposed to be hard to make big changes." He's right, and in line with Jefferson/The Declaration's warning about moving fast and hard on light and transient causes.
Many a despot seeks to enslave the nation via scare-mongering, shortcuts and expediency. Indeed, even ex-Sen Franken wanted to bust up/regulate these internet firms. Some people may side with Senator Groper...I'll stick with Jefferson and Scalia and find legitimate ways to battle these horrible firms...became the Invisible Hand dealt firmly with Kodak and other large firms.
“Appears that Barr has more than 1 entrée on his plate.”
It’s a Vegas buffet.
“Appears that Barr has more than 1 entrée on his plate.”
It’s a Vegas buffet.
If Congress has the power to regulate commerce, then tell us why the Sherman Act bastardized the Commerece Clause?
Government allowing monopolies and a tight oligopoly to run wild is inefficient and hazardous to the free market.
Careful when mentioning Scalia concerning the Commerce Clause, that was the area where his “looseness” of Constitutional dictates resided. His work in the private sector during the late 1960’s stuck with him a little.
Tariff Act of 1789 opened up competition with the *London* based East India Company. Plenty of smaller privately US owned trading companies operated and competed against that foreign giant.
Great question. Let's ask Madison about the intent of the CC. We have his answer per Federalist #42:
The defect of power in the existing Confederacy to regulate the commerce between its several members, is in the number of those which have been clearly pointed out by experience. To the proofs and remarks which former papers have brought into view on this subject, it may be added that without this supplemental provision, the great and essential power of regulating foreign commerce would have been incomplete and ineffectual. A very material object of this power was the relief of the States which import and export through other States, from the improper contributions levied on them by the latter. Were these at liberty to regulate the trade between State and State, it must be foreseen that ways would be found out to load the articles of import and export, during the passage through their jurisdiction, with duties which would fall on the makers of the latter and the consumers of the former. We may be assured by past experience, that such a practice would be introduced by future contrivances; and both by that and a common knowledge of human affairs, that it would nourish unceasing animosities, and not improbably terminate in serious interruptions of the public tranquillity. To those who do not view the question through the medium of passion or of interest, the desire of the commercial States to collect, in any form, an indirect revenue from their uncommercial neighbors, must appear not less impolitic than it is unfair; since it would stimulate the injured party, by resentment as well as interest, to resort to less convenient channels for their foreign trade. But the mild voice of reason, pleading the cause of an enlarged and permanent interest, is but too often drowned, before public bodies as well as individuals, by the clamors of an impatient avidity for immediate and immoderate gain.
The necessity of a superintending authority over the reciprocal trade of confederated States, has been illustrated by other examples as well as our own. In Switzerland, where the Union is so very slight, each canton is obliged to allow to merchandises a passage through its jurisdiction into other cantons, without an augmentation of the tolls. In Germany it is a law of the empire, that the princes and states shall not lay tolls or customs on bridges, rivers, or passages, without the consent of the emperor and the diet; though it appears from a quotation in an antecedent paper, that the practice in this, as in many other instances in that confederacy, has not followed the law, and has produced there the mischiefs which have been foreseen here. Among the restraints imposed by the Union of the Netherlands on its members, one is, that they shall not establish imposts disadvantageous to their neighbors, without the general permission.
Thus, the linchpin of the Founders' intent behind the Commerce Clause is found in Madison's phrases of "relief of the States which import and export through other States," and "In Switzerland, where the Union is so very slight, each canton is obliged to allow to merchandises a passage through its jurisdiction into other cantons, without an augmentation of the tolls."
Madison et al weren't talking about anti-trust, breaking up monopolies or limiting tarrifs...this was about States obstructing commerce. That is a far cry from the statist frenzy being unleashed by normally free-market conservatives. Because...where does this end? How long before FR is broken up? Fox?
By the way, monopolies are not bad...some businesses given the huge costs are most efficiently run by one entity, such as electric power generation. We can quarrel over the "proper" regulation of monopoly power, but monopolies and oligopolies are not ipso factohazardous.
.....They were going to pull Fox’s broadcasting license and throw people like Hannity and Alex Jones in jail.
What law?
The Communications Deceny Act 0f 1996.
I don’t see where that requires cable to have a license or to submit to the FCC in any way. Could you be more specific?
And if you mean facebook and google, how are they violating the Decency act?
The law gave ISPs and tech companies immunity from content because they are impartial safe harbors, they’re not “publishers” like Newspapers are. This is why they aren’t liable for what people write just like the phone company isn’t liable for what you say on the phone.
The problem is by now engaging in censorship, they are curating and acting like a publisher, which means they should now be held liable for content because they’re violating the provisions. They cannot have it both ways.
Oh, I quite agree the censoring of speech is immoral. But only government censorship is illegal. If you don’t like what a commercial company is doing, either start your own or go elsewhere. Putting someone in jail for it is ... not gonna happen.
I’m just telling you what the law is.
The law can even be changed, too.
But I am a capitalist and treasure
keeping government out of commerce
as much as possible.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.