4 ms·

Current laws are not fit for purpose but that gets to the heart of what worries me about the US: we can't pass laws any more. I mean, that's an exaggeration, b

Current laws are not fit for purpose but that gets to the heart of what worries me about the US: we can't pass laws any more. I mean, that's an exaggeration, but major decisions like this being decided by the courts is fundamentally wrong. If the majority of the population disagree with this court ruling we ought to very simply head to congress and pass a new law to overturn it. But we won't and everyone knows it. Not to draw too many parallels but it feels similar to the recent overturn of Roe v Wade. It feels like we, as a population, are powerless to do something the majority wants.

AdrianB1 2y ago
I think you are looking from the wrong angle. Some court decisions basically said: "based on current Constitution w. amendments, this law fails on constitutional grounds". If change is needed, the people can always amend the Constitution, then laws can be passed. What you are saying is similar to "I am in the pool and I cannot swim because there is no water, so swimming pools are bad" when the answer is "fill it with water".
- blasphemers 2y ago
  This doesn't require a constitutional amendment. It requires a law granting the FCC the ability to regulate isp's in this way or a law instituting net-neutrality. These "net-neutrality" regulations were always in a legal gray area and a wasted effort by the activists pushing them without understanding anything besides "net-neutrality good".
  - AdrianB1 2y ago
    You know that the Constitution limits the powers of the Federal government versus State powers. If this is what is the problem with the net neutrality, then you need an amendment. Several states have net neutrality laws, that suggests there is a debate on where the regulation can be implemented.
- afavour 2y ago
  I don’t think this is a different angle at all. > the people can always amend the Constitution My point is that the people cannot do that. Yes, the technical ability exists, but the chances of getting anything passed is very low. So we exist in a limbo where everything gets decided by the courts.

AdrianB1 2y ago

I think you are looking from the wrong angle. Some court decisions basically said: "based on current Constitution w. amendments, this law fails on constitutional grounds". If change is needed, the people can always amend the Constitution, then laws can be passed. What you are saying is similar to "I am in the pool and I cannot swim because there is no water, so swimming pools are bad" when the answer is "fill it with water".

blasphemers 2y ago
This doesn't require a constitutional amendment. It requires a law granting the FCC the ability to regulate isp's in this way or a law instituting net-neutrality. These "net-neutrality" regulations were always in a legal gray area and a wasted effort by the activists pushing them without understanding anything besides "net-neutrality good".
- AdrianB1 2y ago
  You know that the Constitution limits the powers of the Federal government versus State powers. If this is what is the problem with the net neutrality, then you need an amendment. Several states have net neutrality laws, that suggests there is a debate on where the regulation can be implemented.
afavour 2y ago
I don’t think this is a different angle at all. > the people can always amend the Constitution My point is that the people cannot do that. Yes, the technical ability exists, but the chances of getting anything passed is very low. So we exist in a limbo where everything gets decided by the courts.