4 ms·

> Worse yet, it forbids the agency from passing any “substantially similar” regulations in the future, so the FCC would be forbidden from ever trying to regulat

• darawk 10y ago
  The constitution / bill of rights is one fairly successful example of that.
  • alehul 10y ago
    The purpose of that is to ensure that certain fundamental rights of citizens are protected, though, whereas this is the banning of future similar legislation in a way that I only see as being favorable to companies, not citizens.
    • darawk 10y ago
      Ya, but then you're just disagreeing with the content of the decision (which is fine, and I agree with you) and not its structure (regulation that precludes future regulation).
    • maxerickson 10y ago
      Congress can't ban future legislation. The bill bans FCC rulemaking. Future legislation could give the power back to the FCC. A couple people mentioned the Constitution. It can be modified. The modifications can be taken out (see Prohibition in the US).
      • dragonwriter 10y ago
        > Congress can't ban future legislation It regularly does, but such bans have no force beyond that of tradition.
        • maxerickson 10y ago
          Which is also true of the Constitution and law and so on.
          • dragonwriter 10y ago
            Well, yes but on a different level; Congressional laws that purport to restrain future legislation have no authority even in legal theory. It's true that all law is a fiction that only has authority to the extent that people choose to treat it as if it had authority, though, you are correct.
• intopieces 10y ago
  >Is there any case in which a permanent ban on future legislation would be, or has been, productive or reasonable? Not to be pedantic, but the US Constitution contains a few pretty big permanent bans on future legislation. Government limiting governments power is a hallmark of the American system.
  • alehul 10y ago
    Interesting! I didn't know that actually. It seems like those bans on future legislation can be traced back to fundamental parts of the Constitution, though, right? Parts that aim to protect the citizenry. The constitution is also supposed to be the highest power in the land, however these are simply legislators banning future legislators.
    • dragonwriter 10y ago
      No, they are legislators banning regulators. Regulators are executive branch officials whose rulemaking power comes from legislative grants of power and can be removed or limited by the legislative branch. This is, of course, aside from the question of whether a particular legislative limit on rulemaking is desirable or not.
  • vacri 10y ago
    It's important to note that the US constitution is just law like any other; it's just harder to change. Get enough people agreeing (hard in the current climate) and you can change provisions in the constitution. It's been altered 27 times so far, and #21 was rolling back the changes in #18.
• spullara 10y ago
  Regulations are not legislation. The FCC was created through legislation which defines its power and scope. This would be part of that definition.
• rhino369 10y ago
  Congress can't ban itself from doing something in the future. Well it could, but it could always repeal the law. But federal administrative regulations aren't legislation created by congress. They are rule created by agencies. However, the agency must be granted that power by congress specifically. The FCC can make rules about telecommunication because congress gave them the power to regulate telecommunications and it gave them guidelines for the type of rules they can make. This proposed change would edit the scope of the agencies authority. Completely legal.
  • tclancy 10y ago
    >Congress can't ban itself from doing something in the future. You'd like to think that, but then you discover the Congressional Review Act: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Review_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Review_Act. 'Once a rule is thus repealed, the CRA also prohibits the reissuing of the rule in substantially the same form or the issuing of a new rule that is substantially the same, "unless the reissued or new rule is specifically authorized by a law enacted after the date of the joint resolution disapproving the original rule" (5 U.S. Code § 801(b)(2)). Congress has a window of time lasting 60 legislative days (i.e., days that the U.S. Congress is actually in session, rather than calendar days) to disapprove of any given rule; otherwise the rule will go into effect at the end of this period.' It had been used once prior to this administration/ Congress.
    • d0lph 10y ago
      To go further though, couldn't you repeal that bit?