Damn those Telemarkerters!!!

[Kuciwalker]

Congress DIDN'T authorize them to write laws. They wrote a law that said "do what they say". It's just like a law (at least in Virginia, probably everywhere in the US) that says, regardless of the law, you must obey a police officer directing traffic.

[Berzerker]

Freedom of speech is not freedom to be heard. You have no constitutionally guaranteed right to call me.

That's true, and you can hang up the phone if you don't want to listen. Now, this will be an interesting question for the SCOTUS since this isn't a case of someone standing in the public square or publishing a newspaper, telemarketers have a way into our homes which other free speech venues lack and if I stood outside your house shouting my message into your home, that would constitute a nuisance so the telemarketers might eventually lose based on that.

[Kuciwalker]

That's true, and you can hang up the phone if you don't want to listen.

The telephone network is a privately funded, privately run system. It is just like Poly - it can be regulated regardless of the constitution. Also, merely by calling me they are FORCING me to listen to them, even if for only a bit. They are bothersome and the vast majority of people don't want it. This isn't a case of restricting someone's rights - it's a case of keeping people from abusing them.

[Nubclear]

Exactly. No one is forcing you to sign the Do Not Call list.

[Imran Siddiqui]

And the restraint does matter, it's always nice when bureaucrats are reminded that even under the "modern" Constitution there are limits to their power...

Because that worked so well that Congress passed the bill another way within a day of the ruling .

Now a second judge (I understand) has reminded Congress it doesn't have the authority either because the 1st Amendment

Easily reversed on Appeal.

[Berzerker]

Congress DIDN'T authorize them to write laws. They wrote a law that said "do what they say". It's just like a law (at least in Virginia, probably everywhere in the US) that says, regardless of the law, you must obey a police officer directing traffic.

Most regulations are written by bureaucrats based on intentionally vague congressional legislation. Do you guys realise that most of these bureaucracies are under the executive branch given the power to "enforce" laws, not write them? Your example of the traffic cop is not analogous because we are dealing with the federal Constitution, not the state's constitutions.

I'm still waiting for you guys to show me where in the Constitution Congress is authorised to empower other people to write laws.

[Kuciwalker]

They AREN'T WRITING LAWS!!!!

They are ENFORCING the law "do what they say".

And the cop analogy does work, because state laws are subject to the federal constitution.

[Berzerker]

sky -

The telephone network is a privately funded, privately run system. It is just like Poly - it can be regulated regardless of the constitution. Also, merely by calling me they are FORCING me to listen to them, even if for only a bit. They are bothersome and the vast majority of people don't want it. This isn't a case of restricting someone's rights - it's a case of keeping people from abusing them.

If it's private, why can Congress instruct bureaucrats to eliminate voices from the network? Wouldn't that power belong to the people who own the network - the telephone companies? Your second argument is a good reason for consumers to ask the owners to create a no-call list, not an argument for bureaucrats or Congress to create that list. And you really think bureaucrats/Congress can legally shut down speech on the internet?

Imran -

Because that worked so well that Congress passed the bill another way within a day of the ruling .

Easily reversed on Appeal.

Perhaps it will be, I don't know.

[Imran Siddiqui]

They AREN'T WRITING LAWS!!!!

They are ENFORCING the law "do what they say".

Yep... Congress says this is the law, then the adminstrative departments creates regulations in order for the enforcement of the law.

There is no reason for an exective branch if it cannot create regulations for executing the law passed by the legislature.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Let's see, it's the "Direct Marketing Association" calling people to get them to buy stuff. Sounds like Interstate Commerce Clause to me, except undoubtedly commerce means something special and uniqute in the Liberterarium, distinct from it's meaning in the world at large.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

They AREN'T WRITING LAWS!!!!

They are ENFORCING the law "do what they say".

Yep... Congress says this is the law, then the adminstrative departments creates regulations in order for the enforcement of the law.

There is no reason for an exective branch if it cannot create regulations for executing the law passed by the legislature.

Better get some ice and vicodin for your head, Imran. You're pounding it against a brick wall.

[Kuciwalker]

[Imran Siddiqui]

Better get some ice and vicodin for your head, Imran. You're pounding it against a brick wall.

Don't worry, I'm through .

Berz might disagree, but he can't change the fact that that is how it is and the precedent ain't changing anytime soon .

[Berzerker]

sky -

They AREN'T WRITING LAWS!!!!

They are ENFORCING the law "do what they say".

And the cop analogy does work, because state laws are subject to the federal constitution.

First, bureaucracies do write regulations with the force of law. I don't know where you're getting this from but it isn't accurate.
Second, the cop analogy doesn't work because the states have powers the Congress lacks. Besides, a cop directing traffic does so because of a law empowering him to enforce safety/traffic laws, not write them. Now, what happens if a cop tells you to run a stop sign and you comply and then he writes you a ticket? Will the court uphold the ticket? Ostensibly, no. Why? Because the cop was empowered to direct traffic, not entrap people by writing his own laws.

Where in the Constitution have you found a congressional power to authorise other people to write laws? Telling me bureaucrats don't write laws ignores reality...

[Imran Siddiqui]

, a cop directing traffic does so because of a law empowering him to enforce safety/traffic laws, not write them.

There is no law in any state, that I am aware of, that allows a cop to write a traffic ticket. Does that mean he can't because if he does so he is 'writing law'?