Skip to comments.
Second U.S. Judge Blocks 'Do-Not-Call' List
Fox News ^
| http://www.foxnews.com/
Posted on 09/25/2003 4:10:17 PM PDT by Hotdog
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260, 261-280, 281-300 ... 401-408 next last
To: Fledermaus
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.
To: aristeides
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
262
posted on
09/25/2003 9:22:25 PM PDT
by
Criminal Number 18F
(Support Billybob! >>>>========>>> http://www. ArmorForCongress.com/)
To: m1-lightning
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.
To: Calpernia
Thank you very much.
To: massadvj
It would pass faster than gas. But then so would complete abolition of the second amendmentI 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.
265
posted on
09/25/2003 9:26:50 PM PDT
by
m1-lightning
(A charge to keep I have, a God to glorify, a never-dying soul to save, and fit it for the sky.)
To: Hotdog
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.
To: Concentrate
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.
267
posted on
09/25/2003 9:28:55 PM PDT
by
Calpernia
(Innocence seldom utters outraged shrieks. Guilt does.)
To: m1-lightning
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.
To: Graybeard58
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?
To: Held_to_Ransom
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
270
posted on
09/25/2003 9:33:19 PM PDT
by
m1-lightning
(A charge to keep I have, a God to glorify, a never-dying soul to save, and fit it for the sky.)
To: Concentrate
Neither politicians nor charities should be allowed to call. What makes them special?It would be unconstitutional.
271
posted on
09/25/2003 9:35:58 PM PDT
by
m1-lightning
(A charge to keep I have, a God to glorify, a never-dying soul to save, and fit it for the sky.)
To: Calpernia
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.
To: Shermy
Second U.S. Judge Blocks 'Do-Not-Call' List Who benefits?
273
posted on
09/25/2003 9:43:17 PM PDT
by
HAL9000
To: Hotdog
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!"
To: Hotdog
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.
275
posted on
09/25/2003 9:46:37 PM PDT
by
Congressman Billybob
(Everyone talks about Congress; I am doing something about it.)
To: m1-lightning
It would be unconstitutional. What would be unconstitutional? Be specific, if possible.
To: Concentrate
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.
277
posted on
09/25/2003 9:59:54 PM PDT
by
m1-lightning
(A charge to keep I have, a God to glorify, a never-dying soul to save, and fit it for the sky.)
To: HAL9000
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?
278
posted on
09/25/2003 10:00:03 PM PDT
by
Shermy
Comment #279 Removed by Moderator
To: massadvj
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).
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260, 261-280, 281-300 ... 401-408 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson