3 ms·

the difference is the communication act of 1934 essentially lets the FCC create laws whereby the police etc don't have that power. the power to create laws shou

the difference is the communication act of 1934 essentially lets the FCC create laws whereby the police etc don't have that power. the power to create laws should be held by elected officials imo. the 5 leaders of the FCC get to unilaterally make regulations (laws) that affect every single citizen in america. everything from tv broadcasts to net neutrality

Frogolocalypse 10y ago
No, it allows them to create regulations within the framework of the act of their constitution. They can't create laws that stop someone fishing for tuna, now can they? This is the same as road/highway authorities being able to set traffic speed zones, food authorities for setting health quality regulations, health bodies regulating medicines, or any other regulatory body. You don't like it? Get you politician to change/repeal the act. That's how democracy works.
- thomasthomas 10y ago
  except speed limits are enforced by police. huge administrative authorities have executive, law making, and judicial power. The [Federal Trade] Commission promulgates substantive rules of conduct. The Commission then considers whether to authorize investigations into whether the Commission’s rules have been violated. If the Commission authorizes an investigation, the investigation is conducted by the Commission, which reports its findings to the Commission. If the Commission thinks that the Commission’s findings warrant an enforcement action, the Commission issues a complaint. The Commission’s complaint that a Commission rule has been violated is then prosecuted by the Commission and adjudicated by the Commission. This Commission adjudication can either take place before the full Commission or before a semi-autonomous Commission administrative law judge. If the Commission chooses to adjudicate before an administrative law judge rather than before the Commission and the decision is adverse to the Commission, the Commission can appeal to the Commission. If the Commission ultimately finds a violation, then, and only then, the affected private party can appeal to an Article III court. But the agency decision, even before the bona fide Article III tribunal, possesses a very strong presumption of correctness on matters both of fact and of law. http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/hlr107&div=63&id=&page= http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/h...

Frogolocalypse 10y ago

No, it allows them to create regulations within the framework of the act of their constitution. They can't create laws that stop someone fishing for tuna, now can they? This is the same as road/highway authorities being able to set traffic speed zones, food authorities for setting health quality regulations, health bodies regulating medicines, or any other regulatory body. You don't like it? Get you politician to change/repeal the act. That's how democracy works.

thomasthomas 10y ago
except speed limits are enforced by police. huge administrative authorities have executive, law making, and judicial power. The [Federal Trade] Commission promulgates substantive rules of conduct. The Commission then considers whether to authorize investigations into whether the Commission’s rules have been violated. If the Commission authorizes an investigation, the investigation is conducted by the Commission, which reports its findings to the Commission. If the Commission thinks that the Commission’s findings warrant an enforcement action, the Commission issues a complaint. The Commission’s complaint that a Commission rule has been violated is then prosecuted by the Commission and adjudicated by the Commission. This Commission adjudication can either take place before the full Commission or before a semi-autonomous Commission administrative law judge. If the Commission chooses to adjudicate before an administrative law judge rather than before the Commission and the decision is adverse to the Commission, the Commission can appeal to the Commission. If the Commission ultimately finds a violation, then, and only then, the affected private party can appeal to an Article III court. But the agency decision, even before the bona fide Article III tribunal, possesses a very strong presumption of correctness on matters both of fact and of law. http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/hlr107&div=63&id=&page= http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/h...