[number6]

WinTard said:

I believe President Obama believes in the Constitution, believes in the Presidency and also believes in the FCC since he recently personally appointed commissioners into that institution.

Since Also-Known-As has already broken his oath (if you can call it that) to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, what he believes about the Constitution doesn't carry any weight with me.

WinTard said:

Why not communicate your concerns to directly to him or his office? That is his job after all To listen to the concerns of his citizens as President of the USA?

Because I don't think he cares.

WinTard said:

Whereas, I think we should put a stop to these constitutional discussions, and simply accept the facts as they are today. And those unhappy should do something to make their vision, become law, but in the meantime, respect the law as it is, and work legally towards something better.

The Constitution is the law. Any law that violates it is to be null and void.

[number6]

gordon142 said:

Now I'm not a constitutional lawyer, and I don't really want to spend the time to legally justify the existence of the FCC. If you staunchly believe what you're saying, by all means, make a case out of it. Get yourself arrested with a jammer and make the argument that the Federal government has no authority to regulate the airwaves. See how many courts you can get through. Obviously wireless communication is not discussed anywhere in the original documents of the constitution, nor is it something that the founding fathers would have given any thought to. Whether you can consider wireless jurisdiction an over-reach of federal power or not is not a simple issue, although I doubt you will find a lot of supporters for the idea that airwave use should be decided on a state level in general.

Sure, many people get arrested and/or killed defending what they think is right. I'll go to different degrees on different issues. Thousands of people died to get you the freedom you have now. Don't squander it.

gordon142 said:

Failing that, maybe you could start arguing from a pragmatic viewpoint instead of treating this like a libertarian think tank. In other words, what is the logical argument for why it would be a good idea for all airwaves to be regulated on a state-by-state basis?

My arguement is very simple. It's the law. If you don't like the law, change it. Don't ignore it. When we ignore the basic laws of the country, we end up with chaos and an open door to tryanny.


Until the States grant the Federal Government jurisdiction in the matter, it's entirely up to the individual States.


[quote]Amendment 10 to the Constitution of the United States
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

[smax013]

gordon142 said:

I've been pretty annoyed when people use phones in theatres, but I've been far more annoyed by people who laugh and talk constantly, crying children, the guy beside me with horrible BO, the list goes on.

Like the little punk kid who sits behind me and kicks my seat through the whole movie.

[smax013]

number6 said:

Any law that violates it is to be null and void.

You forgot a little part...it is more like:

Any law that the Supreme Court ultimately deems to violate it is to be null and void.

The fact that YOU or I may or may not feel that something is unconstitutional don't mean squat until the Supreme Court agrees with us. So, you can believe the FCC is unconstitutional until you are blue in the face...until you successfully challenge it in a court of law and end up having the Supreme Court rule in your favor, you are SOL. Like it or not, that is reality. And considering the FCC has been in place for a RATHER long time and the Supreme Court has yet to declare it unconstitutional (potentially because no one has ever challenged...feel free to challenge it if you want), I am guessing you would be on the losing end of that battle. Beyond that, it is all academic/theoretical discussion...unless you buy and carry a jammer around, in which case we might be willing to visit you in jail. :-)

[WinTard]

[quote name='smax013']
>

gordon142 said:

> I've been pretty annoyed when people use phones in theatres, but I've been far more annoyed by people who laugh and talk constantly, crying children, the guy beside me with horrible BO, the list goes on.
Like the little punk kid who sits behind me and kicks my seat through the whole movie.

Although I've never had to do this, based on your collective experiences, now I know what I will do next time that happens: I will stand up, and ask the punk to cease and desist. If he/she doesn't, I shall go to the cinema management, ask for a refund, and ask the punk be REMOVED immediately and forcefully if necessary. The refund is necessary for ruining the 'suspense of disbelief' so I can at a later time, come back and enjoy what I paid for.

That is civilized courageous and honorable behavior. Is it worth it? It depends on the level of aggravation I feel at the moment. But for sure, this is a personal oath, I will say something! And I will win satisfaction! Make no doubts about it.

Oh, very well put as to the constitutional debate, I couldn't have said better... But I'm staying away from it, as I feel I've made enough reasonable (and perhaps unreasonable) contributions to this topic already. ;)

But I do respect everyone's opinions. Even if I disagree with their positions, and stated to someone early in this thread they're an outlaw... A question comes to mind: Do others respect mine? But in the end, who cares? It's all good, we're just discussing controversial topics anyway. And unanimity on the issue is not only impossible, it is futile.

~~~~~~~~~~~
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
~ Edmund Burke

When everyone thinks alike not much gets thought.
~ Johan Norberg

Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.
~ Sun-Tzu

[mpheadley]

wow!

i get back inside from shoveling snow and my inbox is flooded with ideas that the fcc is unconstitutional because the 10th amendment says something like anything we forgot about should be left up to the individual states?!

there is one big fat thing wrong with that idea: airwaves know no boundaries! They travel over state borders! How can you regulate something in your state that is coming from another state?!

Silliness! That is only one reason why the FCC is needed!

[number6]

Aye, I think we can settle here with disagreement. To continue I would have to repeat myself.

[WinTard]

I do thank you for enlightening my mind about the potential unconstitutionality of the FCC. It is food for thought, and I need some time to wrap my head around the concept... And I appreciate the principles they come from.

From a practical standpoint however, I firmly believe that (at the moment) someone should have the regulatory jurisdiction and power to propose and implement coherent and fair standards, regardless of individual biases or conflicts of interests.

And also firmly believe any unwanted public airwaves jamming is an intrusion onto MY rights and freedoms... Tyranny in essence.

So we are in agreement: We agree to disagree on this topic.

And we did it amicably with civility and class.

I am proud to be living in a democratic civilized society, where anyone and everyone can express their true opinions, without fear of reprimand or reprisals.

We enjoy the privilege and honor to live in the greatest of possible free and democratic society, and should all be grateful for that.

Cheers to us all!

And all the best my friend!

~~~~~~~~~~
Let's not worry, the best is yet to come! Whatever is wrong, we'll fix it. In time.

Do not impose on others what you yourself do not desire.
~ Confucius

For every minute you remain angry, you give up sixty seconds of peace of mind.
~ Ralph Waldo Emerson

Strive for excellence, not perfection.
~ H. Jackson Brown Jr.

Perfection is not attainable, but if we chase perfection we can catch excellence.
~ Vince Lombardi

The hardest thing to achieve in life, is to meet someone else at 50%.
~ Anonymous

To improve is to change; to be perfect is to change often.
~ Winston Churchill

:)

[mjd420nova]

I would never have believed that this simple question would be so controversial and elicit so many responses. I do know from personal experience that any violation of FCC rules will be greeted with a response from an "Administrative Law Judge" who will impose fines and propose jail time if the case dictates such. Again I will state my belief that sheilding or screening ones property to prevent the "entrance" of signals unto that property is not illegal. No signals are being emanated from this property so no license or laws apply. As we all know, simply posting signs stating that usage of cell phones is prohibited will not stop their usage by those who feel the rules don't apply to them. We see that all the time, as the California law against taking or making handheld phone calls while driving or texting while driving has had no affect evidenced by the number of drivers who still persist in the habit. In the case of the government jamming signals in an area to provide protection for heads of state and military troops, this is simply going to fall under the needs of the country and it's war on terrorism. Homeland Security trumps any and all laws that it deems are needed to protect this nation and its assests, which includes the public in general.

[WinTard]

Actually neither did I think this issue would be so controversial, and elicit so many responses.

mdj420nova, I agree with all you state.

For the record, to clarify and simplify I would like to summarize my position:

1) Public airwaves jamming is wrong. Except in cases of national security or extraordinary circumstances, and never by the public but only officials.
2) The FCC regulates all non-military public communications. I am perfectly alright with any extraordinary measures the Government or Military decides.
3) Not transmitting a signal, but attenuating or filtering it out from reception or transmission is perfectly moral and legal. Hopefully, openly and clearly stated in the first place with full prior public disclosure.
4) I believe the FCC has its use, and if flawed, should fixed through due process.
5) Constitutional issues should be addressed the proper way, while preserving the law-and-order for the time being.
6) Cloaked discretionary jamming is currently illegal and must be prohibited and enforced.
7) Those who disagree can lobby lawmakers to change existing laws through due process.

Nothing more, nothing less...

~~~~~~~~~
If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.
~ Albert Einstein

Process matters...

[Bassoonigator]

There is NO simple answer to this question- it's just too multi-faceted for that. However, logic says that the right to communicate, like Freedom of Speech, is not absolute (crying FIRE! in a crowded theater, for example).
IMHO, common sense says the overriding concern is public safety; prisons and police stations, who deal with dangerous criminals, should be allowed to jam; if they can't prevent the cell phones from getting in, they should at least be able to nullify the threat. The same goes for police raids, except there it should have to be included in the warrant approved by the court; this gives some reasonable limit to the use of jammers in public.
As for airplanes, safety and possible interference with flight instruments are the main concerns; the FAA and FCC should jointly issue guidelines on this. Theaters, where the issue is one of convenience and nuisance, do NOT rise to this level. If someone creates a nuisance, they already have the right to throw the bum out; unfortunately, too many selfish people today have no concern for others, so this is an issue (I'm cheesed at those who keep cell phone ringers on during Mass, too).
If more people would use common sense and consideration for others, we wouldn't even be having most of this problem. As for the jailbirds, they forfeited many of their civil rights when they were convicted- there's ample precedent for this already.
I'm both a Ham Radio operator and a broadcaster, so I'm very concerned about any curtailment of licensed radio communications; however, I also realize there ARE valid public safety concerns.
That's it from here- YMMV, of course.