posted
I'm of the opinion that if the Constitution were written today, Congress WOULD have the power to regulate transmissions, at least to some degree. They'd have the power to regulate air traffic and space exploration, too. It's on my "to ammend" list, and really should have been taken care of decades ago. The only current excuse I can figure for the existence of the FCC would be either interstate commerce or general welfare, neither of which legitimately applies to the situation. At best, with the Constitution as written, the federal government might be able to regulate transmissions of sufficient power to cross a state boundry, which strongly depends on your reception equipment.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
How long before they try to regulate the Internet as well? There has already been serious talk on taxing sales made online....it's just one step away from them taxing internet useage as well.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Qualification by censorship of content is impermissible, but the First Amendment does not prevent a governmental insistence that a licensee ''conduct himself as a proxy or fiduciary with obligations to present those views and voices which are representative of his community and which would otherwise, by necessity, be barred from the airwaves.'' Further, said Justice White, ''[b]ecause of the scarcity of radio frequencies, the Government is permitted to put restraints on licensees in favor of others whose views should be expressed on this unique medium. But the people as a whole retain their interest in free speech by radio and their collective right to have the medium function consistently with the ends and purposes of the First Amendment. It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Has anyone ever actually watched a party election broadcast anyway? There're usually filled with exactly the same figures, just manipulated in a different way, followed by shots of the party leader pretending to talk to members of the public. Except the BNP ones, which mainly consist of incitement to racial hatred...
-------------------- "I am an almost extinct breed, an old-fashioned gentleman, which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-bitch when it suits me." --Jubal Harshaw
Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
"Unlike Brits, some Americans feel that porno is wrong and all. (...) Note that these Americans are a distinct minority."
Please. Half of the US was in uproar over ONE EXPOSED NIPPLE for three months. I don't know where you're from, but that's just a teensyweensy bit more than a distinct minority over here.
"...the First Amendment does not prevent a governmental insistence that a licensee ''conduct himself as a proxy or fiduciary with obligations to present those views and voices which are representative of his community and which would otherwise, by necessity, be barred from the airwaves.''"
"...the Government is permitted to put restraints on licensees in favor of others whose views should be expressed on this unique medium."
So, in other words, if the government thinks that what you're broadcasting isn't representative of your community (read: government), it can "insist" that you present different (read: governmental) views or bar you from the airwaves. Great.
And why do people believe that four years of a man who doesn't have ideas but isn't Bush could ever be MORE disastrous than another four years of a man who does have ideas but IS Bush, anyway?
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Because there are a limited number of broadcast frequencies for radio and non-cable television use, the Federal Government licenses access to these frequencies, permitting some applicants to utilize them and denying the greater number of applicants such permission. Even though this licensing system is in form a variety of prior restraint, the Court has held that it does not present a First Amendment issue because of the unique characteristic of scarcity.
Lovely, how the court "interprets" the Constitution based on what they think it SHOULD say instead of what it actually says. Very comforting.
And why do people believe that four years of a man who doesn't have ideas but isn't Bush could ever be MORE disastrous than another four years of a man who does have ideas but IS Bush, anyway?
Better the airhead you don't know than the airhead you do, perhaps? I don't find either one that appealing, at this point.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I don't really find Kerry appealing, either. But I find Bush so utterly repulsive in every way, that I don't have to.
What's up with that comic, anyway? Does that guy think he's Tom Tomorrow?
"Half of the US was in uproar over ONE EXPOSED NIPPLE for three months."
Not true. Most people didn't care. It's just that the people who did care are very very very loud. And we have a disturbingly large number of sheep who heard them.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I wish some people would do a modicum of reading about Constitutional law and process before feeling the need to write about it.
At any rate, moving on.
quote:Originally posted by TSN: I don't really find Kerry appealing, either. But I find Bush so utterly repulsive in every way, that I don't have to.
Regarding that:
quote:Why Is George W. Bush President?
I've been thinking a bit about this whole "John Kerry is a Douchebag" phenomenon. A lot of this is driven, I think, by the perfectly correct assessment that Kerry isn't really the best man for the job of president of the United States. During his primary campaign, he didn't even really claim that he was the best man for the job. Instead, he said he was the best man for the job of running against Bush. So folks aren't going to agree as to who was the best man on the merits (I liked Clark) but an awful lot of us can be legitimately disappointed that the best man won't get it.
But then you need to step back and put it in context. Kerry is at least in the neighborhood of being the best man for the job in my perspective. One of a handful of Democrats who could plausibly become president of the United States. Maybe number 2 or maybe number 6 on my list, but up there.
Compare George W. Bush to the list of potential GOP nominees, however, and you'll see that he's nowhere close. Leave aside the Senate moderate whom I'd prefer for ideological reasons. Consider folks like Sens. McCain, Hagel, Lugar, and even the very orthodox John Warner, all of whom have the great virtue of knowing what they're talking about. Tommy Thompson (currently HHS secretary), Tom Ridge (currently DHS secretary), and George Voinovich (currently a Senator) were all governors of big states during the 1990s, much like GWB. But the states weren't Texas -- they got re-elected by much less ideologically friendly electorates, faced real responsibilities, and accomplished some real things. Even Jeb Bush is (and was at the time and always has been) regarded as the smarter, sharper, more substantive Bush brother whose political accomplishments (again, Florida vs. Texas) were much more impressive than GWB's.
One could go on-and-on like this and push it even further back in time. There was no reason whatsoever back in 1994 to think that George W. Bush was the best choice the Republicans had to run for governor of Texas -- he was totally unqualified. His entire political career has been utterly devoid of real accomplishments, he's just a kind of inept loafer relying on his father's name and connections, and the assistance of more competent people willing to humble themselves by working for him. See also Weisberg on a related subject. It's totally appalling.
Then again, maybe we should choose our president by deciding which candidate we would prefer to eat barbecue with.
Seems to be the level of political discourse in the United States.
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I like McCain. He speaks well, has a record of sticking to decisions (even if I dont always agree with them) and he's pretty smart in a common-sense kinda way that I like to see. He's impressive in an interview and can even make fun of the position of Vice President (on Jay Leno's show).
I'd feel happier voting for Lurch...er...Kerry if Mccain was in the ticket as well. Think of it: a split party ticket for the first term in....years.
Who know when the last time was?
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
I think that one where the VP and the other candidate had a duel...Thomas Jefferson's election, IIRC.
'twould be nice, yes.
Don't forget, McCain is just as expedient as all the other politicians, he just feels that his interests are best served by being a maverick, not a yes-man. And it appears to work.
-------------------- Fell deeds await. Now for Wrath... Now for Ruin... and a Red Dawn... -Theoden, TTT
Lord Vorkosigan does not always get what he wants!
Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
posted
Actually, (as I recall) the rule used to be that the runner-up for President became VP. It's also how the VP position became a do-nothing post: the ruling party had no intrest in their political rivals having any power.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
