3 ms·

> Hilarious, but not really surprising to read, as a non US-ian. Why is it hilarious? It's hard to argue that net neutrality isn't about commerce, because most

> Hilarious, but not really surprising to read, as a non US-ian. Why is it hilarious? It's hard to argue that net neutrality isn't about commerce, because most of the common talking points in favor of it explicitly refer to commercial activity ("paid lanes", etc.). While I dislike the implications of this argument for net neutrality, legally, it's actually a pretty solid argument. The Supreme Court has already ruled - many, many, many times - that states have very little power to restrict interstate commerce. These cases all happened around the turn of the last century, so the precedents are pretty well-established. And the ability of the federal government to regulate interstate commerce is an enumerated power, so there's pretty much no way to deny it. Conversely, the Supreme Court has also expanded the scope of the Commerce Clause so far over the course of the 20th century that it's basically given the federal government the authority to regulate absolutely anything that happens in the states, because anything has the potential to impact interstate commerce. To give you an idea of how new this idea is: at the time Prohibition [of alcohol] was enacted in 1919, it was a Constitutional amendment enforced via the prohibition of "manufacture, sale, or transportation" rather than posession, because it was believed that the federal government did not have the power to outlaw possession of a substance. Similarly, the original ban on marijuana wasn't even a ban at all - it was a cleverly-worded tax act which made it illegal to possess marijuana that hadn't been taxed, but also made it impossible to prove that you'd paid the tax.

dragonwriter 9y ago
> Why is it hilarious? Because the AEI is a right-libertarian propaganda mill (or, if you prefer, “think tank”) that generally (though there are some prior exceptions, too) is in lockstep with the general right-libertarian minimalist interpretation of Commerce Clause authority. > To give you an idea of how new this idea is: at the time Prohibition [of alcohol] was enacted in 1919, it was a Constitutional amendment Prohibition was first passed in 1918 as a statute law (the Wartime Prohibition Act.) > enforced via the prohibition of "manufacture, sale, or transportation" rather than posession, because it was believed that the federal government did not have the power to outlaw possession of a substance. Thst makes no sense; since the Constitution defines the power and obligations of the federal government, in adopting an Amendment they could have just added possession. Prohibition—both in it's statutory and Constitutional forms—addressed only manufacturer and trade and not possession or consumption not because of any concern about fundamental limits of federal power, but as a simple policy priorities decision.
- chimeracoder 9y ago
  > Because the AEI is a right-libertarian propaganda mill (or, if you prefer, “think tank”) that generally (though there are some prior exceptions, too) is in lockstep with the general right-libertarian minimalist interpretation of Commerce Clause authority You'd be hard-pressed to find an ideologically libertarian person well-versed in Constitutional law who wouldn't concede that regulating interstate commerce at the federal level is covered under the Commerce Clause. There are other grounds on which to have the discussion about net neutrality besides the Commerce Clause - and proponents of net neutrality would be well-advised to shift the discussion to those terms, because if we're strictly talking about the Commerce Clause, it's about as clear-cut as things get: the federal government has the power to regulate explicitly-interstate commercial activity.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    The issue is not whether the federal government has the authority to regulate the activity in question (which net neutrality advocates obviously agree with, since they argue that the federal government should do so in a particular way), but whether the States are preempted from regulating in this area. It's clear and not in dispute that Congress has the authority to regulate in this field. It's more controversial (though, ironically in the context of this piece, it's a large subset of neutrality opponents who dissent from the AEI position here) that the FCC has authority to regulate here, but the AEI claim is stronger than that, and it is that not only does the federal government in general and the FCC in particular have authority to regulate internet service, but that that authority is exclusive of any state authority to regulate internet service provided within the state.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
throwawayjava 9y ago
> Why is it hilarious? Because the internet is a global network and China/Canada/etc. aren't under the auspices of the FCC.

dragonwriter 9y ago

> Why is it hilarious? Because the AEI is a right-libertarian propaganda mill (or, if you prefer, “think tank”) that generally (though there are some prior exceptions, too) is in lockstep with the general right-libertarian minimalist interpretation of Commerce Clause authority. > To give you an idea of how new this idea is: at the time Prohibition [of alcohol] was enacted in 1919, it was a Constitutional amendment Prohibition was first passed in 1918 as a statute law (the Wartime Prohibition Act.) > enforced via the prohibition of "manufacture, sale, or transportation" rather than posession, because it was believed that the federal government did not have the power to outlaw possession of a substance. Thst makes no sense; since the Constitution defines the power and obligations of the federal government, in adopting an Amendment they could have just added possession. Prohibition—both in it's statutory and Constitutional forms—addressed only manufacturer and trade and not possession or consumption not because of any concern about fundamental limits of federal power, but as a simple policy priorities decision.

chimeracoder 9y ago
> Because the AEI is a right-libertarian propaganda mill (or, if you prefer, “think tank”) that generally (though there are some prior exceptions, too) is in lockstep with the general right-libertarian minimalist interpretation of Commerce Clause authority You'd be hard-pressed to find an ideologically libertarian person well-versed in Constitutional law who wouldn't concede that regulating interstate commerce at the federal level is covered under the Commerce Clause. There are other grounds on which to have the discussion about net neutrality besides the Commerce Clause - and proponents of net neutrality would be well-advised to shift the discussion to those terms, because if we're strictly talking about the Commerce Clause, it's about as clear-cut as things get: the federal government has the power to regulate explicitly-interstate commercial activity.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  The issue is not whether the federal government has the authority to regulate the activity in question (which net neutrality advocates obviously agree with, since they argue that the federal government should do so in a particular way), but whether the States are preempted from regulating in this area. It's clear and not in dispute that Congress has the authority to regulate in this field. It's more controversial (though, ironically in the context of this piece, it's a large subset of neutrality opponents who dissent from the AEI position here) that the FCC has authority to regulate here, but the AEI claim is stronger than that, and it is that not only does the federal government in general and the FCC in particular have authority to regulate internet service, but that that authority is exclusive of any state authority to regulate internet service provided within the state.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

throwawayjava 9y ago

> Why is it hilarious? Because the internet is a global network and China/Canada/etc. aren't under the auspices of the FCC.