Second U.S. Judge Blocks 'Do-Not-Call' List

Fox News ^ | http://www.foxnews.com/

[Hotdog]

War of the laws?...whats next?

[FreeReign]

And I pulled out my Constitution again and I found nothing in it that guarantees the right to a telephone.

Put in back inside.

The right to call somebody on the phone, when that person says "don't call me" can't be found either.

The right to freely associate on one's own private property can.

[Criminal Number 18F]

Mere Act of Congress

That means the scam artists of the Direct Marketing Association are really targeting the money they have shaken down from their mostly elderly victims. They can't afford to buy Congress, but they have found a couple of judges for sale.

No one reputable sells by telephone cold calls. No one conducting normal business is alarmed to be told his database does not contain the contact information for people who do not want his products.

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F

[Held_to_Ransom]

Why shouldn't you have the right to limit calls from politicians and Greenpeace if you wanted to?

The Constitution doesn't allow Congress the authority to legislate that.

oh, I see. But it does have the right to limit an citizen's right to earn a living doing the same thing? Can you cite the part of the Constitution is particular that allows interference with a citizen's means of making a productive living? The bottom line is this. There would be no telemarketing at all if it didn't produce a decent income for a lot of citizens.

In any case, the worst offenders, the ones that annoy most, are the large telemarket outfits that employ the dregs of the workers on the market, usually with appreciable tax incentives for the IRS. These companies will not be stopped from calling you with the DNC lists because they will just negotiate calling lists from your credit card company, or they will take their offices overseas and employ foreigners. Only the small business man who is legit will really bear the brunt of this. Wonderful.

[Concentrate]

Thank you very much.

[m1-lightning]

It would pass faster than gas. But then so would complete abolition of the second amendment

I hardly doubt that since the most liberal states have trouble getting support for passing specific gun bans.

That doesn't make it right. Yes it does. That's why the Constitution has that difficult provision.

The constitution is there precisely to protect the minority from the tyrrany of the majority.

You mean the Bill of Right specifically. When one right is violated by one's exercise of another right, the offender loses.

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

Fifty million people vote and one on-the-take "judge" tells them to f*ck off? Time for the tar and feathers, if not the hangman's noose, IMO.

[Calpernia]

Don't be too quick to thank me. A freeper just told me that thread was about the first judge that ruled on the DNC list - Lee R. West. This thread is about Edward Nottingham, another judge who did the same thing.

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

Another good point but I can't remember the last time somone from out of country ever called me.

With modern telephonics and routers you would have no way of knowing. Most SW support lines are routed overseas these days.

[Concentrate]

I don't see how telemarketers can be singled out and let politicians and charities continue to call anyone they please with their solicitations.

You're right. Neither politicians nor charities should be allowed to call. What makes them special?

[m1-lightning]

But it does have the right to limit an citizen's right to earn a living doing the same thing?

The guy down the street sells pictures of nude 8 year olds. Can the government legislate his right to earn a living?

Can you cite the part of the Constitution is particular that allows interference with a citizen's means of making a productive living?

Article I, Section 8

[m1-lightning]

Neither politicians nor charities should be allowed to call. What makes them special?

It would be unconstitutional.

[Concentrate]

Thanks for the names. It's always ... a Federal judge this, and a state judge that...

Let's out these guys. Let the public know what's going on.

Everyone has a right to know who is ruling upon the laws that affect them.

[HAL9000]

Second U.S. Judge Blocks 'Do-Not-Call' List

Who benefits?

[The Jabberwock]

When the will of the people, whether it involves California's Proposition 187 or Colorado's Amendment 2 or telemarketing or prayer in schools or election laws, can be so easily overturned at the whim of someone in a black robe, then it's no longer a nation of, by and for the people.

I wish someone had the guts to tell these judges, "No!"

[Congressman Billybob]

The Denver judge's decision is more dangerous than the Oklahoma judge's decision was. In OK the judge ruled that Congress had not given authority to the FTC to create the "No Call" list. Even if that judge was right, the law that Congress passed in a mere 24 hours -- the bill went through Congress like sh*t through a goose -- solves the problem.

The Denver decision is more of a problem. That judge ruled that the list violates the First Amendment because it bans some speech, but not other speech. That it bars commercial calls that are selling something, but not charitable calls. This is a problem that cannot be solved by the law passed by Congress. It must be solved by reversal on appeal.

Even though judges are not elected, the voters and taxpayers can conduct an "election" to affect the judges. Every judge who touches this case but fails to rule in favor of the "No Call" list MUST be bombarded with phone calls. Normally I would say, don't call people at home. But given the subject, these judges should be called at home. What better way to provide them with the "evidence" to know that they are wrong?

Congressman Billybob

Latest column, "Lessons for Iraq from General Washington, Major Andre, and Der Fuhrer Adolf Hitler," discussion thread on FR. Article is also on ChronWatch.

[Concentrate]

It would be unconstitutional.

What would be unconstitutional? Be specific, if possible.

[m1-lightning]

What would be unconstitutional? Be specific, if possible.

Congress doesn't have that express authority to regulate organizations, only commerce. Again, Article I, Section 8. The primary definition of Commerce is the sale of goods.

[Shermy]

Second U.S. Judge Blocks 'Do-Not-Call' List

Who benefits?

Who's juiced enough that when they see the first attack pushed back by congress, can order up a different judge to make a second attack?

[not_apathetic_anymore]

My number is NOT publically listed. I PAY extra to have a non-listed, non-published number. That doesn't stop the calls. They use sequencial dialers.

Caller ID doesn't solve it. They call from out of area places (unfortunately so does my mother)

Once the phone rings, I'm awakened... I wish I could just roll over and go back to sleep, but I can't. Again, this seems to be hard for some to understand, turning a ringer off is NOT an option if you need to be available to family members. Do those who sleep at night turn the ringer off when they go to bed? Why not? There's an expectation that you don't get interrupted during sleep by non-urgent calls. You're still able to have the phone on in case someone does need to reach you.

Maybe we should remove all restrictions from the telemarketers and see how understanding people are about the "freedom of speech" argument when they start calling in the middle of the night. Because that's what they do to me.

They have the right to call until I actively take a step to tell them they don't. (I see this as equivalent to posting a no trespassing sign). I'm not keeping them from talking to others, they are still free to do that. But after I've indicated that I'm not EVER going to be interested in their opportunities, I don't think they have the right to bother me. (Clearly a ringing phone doesn't bother others, but I define "bother" as a ringing phone. It interrupts me from doing something else - having a conversation, sleeping, watching TV).