4 ms·
I think you are looking from the wrong angle. Some court decisions basically said: "based on current Constitution w. amendments, this law fails on constitutiona
by 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 agoThis 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 agoYou 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 agoI 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.