Thats the entire purpose of Agency Law - They're organizations with a singular purpose dedicated to the achievement of a specified task. In Law School, it was taught to be "the fourth branch of government." (Fyi, BATFE isn't an agency. Its a law enforcement organization.) Agencies have their own systems for appeal, and their own courts which are appealable to non-ALJ headed courts.
WHERE exactly in the constitution of the united states does it list that "fourth branch of government" Right, it doesn't.. also if the FCC is in fact
[your quote]They're appointed by the President who indirectly has influence upon them. Moreover, they are responsive to popular public opinion (See again http://www.regulations.gov/) wherein they provide a notice and comment period for pending rulemaking [end quote]
Appointed by the executive branch, and indirectly "wink wink" , if I remember correctly, the Executive branch can't write laws.. so, a bunch of unelected blow hards appointed by the executive branch, can not EITHER..
oh, ya, "they are responsive to popular public opinion.. " Do you really believe the crap you are posting,, because the FCC, and EPA among others have never been responsive to popular public opinion..
You might want to go back and study the constitution of the US of A, and then question what your college law school fed you..
[This message has been edited by E.Furgal (edited 03-01-2015).]
Mr. Arbin... you say you a are a lawyer right? Isn't that eight years of indoctrination to get a degree? Republican is just a label and nothing more. You sir are what is called a "progressive." It is apparently clear you are for big government. Unelected officials writing laws above congress is treason no matter how you slice it.
Originally posted by E.Furgal:WHERE exactly in the constitution of the united states does it list that "fourth branch of government" Right, it doesn't..also if the FCC is in fact
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives. Article I of the Constitution. The Congress shall have Power ... To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. Id. See also McCullock v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819) (affirming that Congress may enact laws that are necessary and proper to carry out their enumerated powers).
The above lays the groundwork for Congressional authority. Pursuant to the Constitution's necessary and proper clause, and affirmed in McCullock v. Maryland, Congress has the authority to enact laws it sees as necessary and proper to the United States. Leveraging this power, Congress enacted the Telecommunications Act of 1934. 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154. Realizing that the scope of the federal agencies it was creating were getting unwieldy, it followed up a decade later with the Administrative Procedures Act. The APA governs the way administrative agencies of the federal government of the United States propose and establish regulations. It developed a process wherein United States federal courts directly reviewed agency decisions. 5 U.S.C. 5.
Accordingly, Congress created the FCC in its full authority. Everything doesn't have to be in the Constitution to be valid. Note also, the same authority above that gave rise to the FCC, also gave rise to the IRS.
quote
Originally posted by E.Furgal:
Appointed by the executive branch, and indirectly "wink wink" , if I remember correctly, the Executive branch can't write laws.. so, a bunch of unelected blow hards appointed by the executive branch, can not EITHER..
oh, ya, "they are responsive to popular public opinion.. " Do you really believe the crap you are posting,, because the FCC, and EPA among others have never been responsive to popular public opinion..
You might want to go back and study the constitution of the US of A, and then question what your college law school fed you..
The executive has authority to appoint officials with the advice and consent of the Senate. Perhaps you should take your own advice.
"Everything doesn't have to be in the Constitution to be valid. Note also, the same authority above that gave rise to the FCC, also gave rise to the IRS."
"Everything doesn't have to be in the Constitution to be valid. Note also, the same authority above that gave rise to the FCC, also gave rise to the IRS."
This is exactly what a progressive thinks...
No. This is what established law shows. Consider the example of the right to privacy. I challenge you to find those exact words in the constitution. Go ahead. I'll wait a (long) time while you try to look for it. While you're looking, also look for the separation of church and state. Here's a tip: You won't find them. Why? Because they've evolved from case precedent. Simple examples of many thousands more, but enough to give you an idea.
I think you should also look up the definition of the word, Progressive. I'm certainly not, nor have I ever been a champion for social reform. In any event, I've argued the intricacies and nuances of the law for far too long here. </out>
Originally posted by ArbinShire: In Law School, it was taught to be "the fourth branch of government". Agencies have their own systems for appeal, and their own courts, which are appealable to non-ALJ headed courts.
ALJ headed courts. Administrative law judge ? Is administrative law lawful ? You make the case that it is. Let me ask you. Should it be ? I say not. I have no smancy legal sheepskin. I am a high school drop out. I think I can make the case that it should not be.
Administrative law enables what are called "dispensing powers". We have seen glaring examples of these with NobamaCare. Where law was changed, by the regime in power, to favor "specific" sects of society. What good is a law if it can be changed administratively ? Regime to regime.
Dispensing powers have had a long and storied history, dating back to the beginnings of prostitution. ( I made that up but I bet I am right, . ) It does date back to medieval and early English traditions of royal prerogative. Simply put, dispensing power — which is much discussed in English constitutional history — was a form of exercise of royal prerogative under which the king could excuse himself or his favored subjects from complying with particular laws enacted by Parliament. Either excuse, or grant, or deny special privileges. These are precisely the types of powers our Founding Fathers wished to eliminate.
This FCC action will no doubt lead to even more than the usual special interest pleading at the FCC, as Internet companies try to advantage themselves and disadvantage their competitors by seeking favored regulatory treatment. Seeking and receiving waivers of FCC rules (regardless of the precise name applied to such administrative dispensations) is an established part of the commission's practice.
I have to wonder. Is the regulating of the internet gonna impact content providers ? Should it ? Should "search engine utilities" be required to present results by an other than a "pay to show first" method ?
Notably, the order does not place regulations on interconnect points, which are what Netflix has been arguing with internet providers about for the last year. Instead, the order simply states that the FCC has the authority to hear complaints regarding interconnect, which will seemingly be addressed on an individual basis. "While we have more than a decade’s worth of experience with last-mile practices, we lack a similar depth of background in the internet traffic exchange context," the order says. "Thus, we find that the best approach is to watch, learn, and act as required, but not intervene now, especially not with prescriptive rules."
*another big snip*
So apparently, the rules are only being applied to "last mile" ISPs between the ISP and the user, not the backend between the backbone and the ISP. So if the last mile carrier is throttling the traffic as it hits their network, and not while the traffic is actually on their network, they can still throttle the bandwidth, they just limit how much they let on the network from the backbone.
I pay for my bandwidth. as does everyone else. be it to many sites or just one site - the bandwidth is payed for. if the providor is unable to deliver - who's fault is that? it most certianly is NOT the fault of the site
FCC Cites Soros-Funded, Neo-Marxist-Founded Group 46 TIMES In New Regs
New internet regulations finally released by the Federal Communications Commission make 46 references to a group funded by billionaire George Soros and co-founded by a neo-Marxist.
The FCC released the 400-page document on Thursday, two weeks after it passed new regulations,...
So, whether you agree with Soros' personal agendas or not, are you happy with all that funding from one person having that large an impact on the regs? If the name Koch was inovolved, there would be prime time outrage on here as well as the evening news.
As I've maintained from the beginning, the "idea" of net neutrality is great. My concern is what the "regulation" called "Net Neutrality" will do.
[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 03-13-2015).]
So, whether you agree with Soros' personal agendas or not, are you happy with all that funding from one person having that large an impact on the regs? If the name Koch was inovolved, there would be prime time outrage on here as well as the evening news.
As I've maintained from the beginning, the "idea" of net neutrality is great. My concern is what the "regulation" called "Net Neutrality" will do.
To be completely fair, the Net Neutrality documentation was released in the normal timeline of the FCC. Only very rarely do regulations see the light of day before they're voted on. From what I can tell, that's been the SOP of the FCC since it was first implemented.
To be completely fair, the Net Neutrality documentation was released in the normal timeline of the FCC. Only very rarely do regulations see the light of day before they're voted on. From what I can tell, that's been the SOP of the FCC since it was first implemented.
There are a lot of things that are SOP that should be changed, but your point is well taken. Still not a step an administration wanting to be "transparent" would take, even if it is the status quo. I guess "Change We Can Believe In™" has been replaced with "We've Always Done It That Way™."
. ) It does date back to medieval and early English traditions of royal prerogative. Simply put, dispensing power — which is much discussed in English constitutional history — was a form of exercise of royal prerogative under which the king could excuse himself or his favored subjects from complying with particular laws enacted by Parliament. Either excuse, or grant, or deny special privileges. These are precisely the types of powers our Founding Fathers wished to eliminate.
