Replies

That is something not contemplated in the First Amendment, and which should never pass constitutional muster if applied to the literal press.

I don't dispute that some form of government regulation over the EMF spectrum is necessary; if there were no such regulation, radio transmission of any form would be just about useless for any purpose. On the other hand, the fact that legislation may be a good idea (or even "necessary") does not make it constitutional. What should have happened prior to the creation of the FCC would have been passage of a constitutional amendment explicitly authorizing its existence and defining its powers. Unfortunately, courts find it much easier to let such statutes 'slide' than to insist that legislators follow the Constitution.

some form of government regulation over the EMF spectrum is necessary; if there were no such regulation, radio transmission of any form would be just about useless for any purpose. On the other hand, the fact that legislation may be a good idea (or even "necessary") does not make it constitutional. What should have happened prior to the creation of the FCC would have been passage of a constitutional amendment explicitly authorizing its existence and defining its powers.

People who could pass the 17th Amendment without blinking an eye would almost inevitably have gotten it wrong, so I'm glad that they didn't. At least we have the principle on our side, as things stand.

Unfortunately, courts find it much easier to let such statutes 'slide' than to insist that legislators follow the Constitution.

Aye, there's the rub, beyond peradventure. We have one SCOTUS justice who doesn't imbibe broadcast journalism's bile. And the FCC et al would be demanding that he recuse himself! I'd almost like to see them try it; the argument that all the others should do so is sounder. Imagine a 1-0 Supreme Court ruling!! LOL!