Its So Sad Its Comical, 2nd Judge Has Blocked Congress " Do No Call" Vote

If the states can have do not call policies, then why can't the
federal government? Same issues.

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 15:51:14 GMT, "127.0.0.1"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"RJ" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 17:47:24 -0400, "John" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >There's a distinction that I think you're missing. *You* have every
>right
>> >to put up a "no calling" sign on your home phone, just like a "no
>> >soliciting" sign. You can also put up a "no calling if you sell stuff
>minus
>> >X exceptions" sign if you want. That's all fine.
>>
>> Please explain how to do that.
>>
>> ---
>> Bob
>
>check your state laws for state run DNC policies...
>http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/edcam...statelist.html
>
>florida has a state DNC, why can't each state have their own?
>http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/ind...19.HTM&Title=->2001->Ch0501->Section%20619
>
>please read penalties for violating florida DNC. if you are on that state
>DNC and a telemarker calls you, you can be awarded up to $10k. isn't that a
>much better plan than a no reward federal DNC?
>
>unfortunately, not everyone knows about state DNC.
>

---

› See More: Its So Sad Its Comical, 2nd Judge Has Blocked Congress " Do No Call" Vote

On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 00:52:04 GMT, <[email protected]> wrote:

> If the states can have do not call policies, then why can't the
> federal government? Same issues.

States must generally honor Federal Constitutional protections, by the
14th Amendment:

" No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges or
immunities of citizens of the United States;"

However, with respect to free speech, the Constitution does not guarantee
a right to citizens, it specifically proscribes the Federal government:

"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the
press;"

Note that this is significantly different that saying "The right of the
people to
freedom of speech shall not be abridged..."

Likewise with the establishment of religion, hence the argument given by
the
Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice, recently in the news. There is
nothing in the
US Constitution which prevents States from curtailing free speech or
establishing
religion. (Many States have their own Constitutional proscriptions,
however)
Federal Courts have, however, often produced rulings which say that
"red is blue," so in a pragmatic sense, the plain language of the
Constitution
is often ignored, and indeed violated. The 2nd Amendment is a particularly
egregious example, as is the frequent abuse of the commerce clause to
justify
Federal interventions in myriad areas not otherwise allowed by the
Constitution.

--
Mark

"127.0.0.1" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> i'm glad to see a few people understand the DNC problem.
> do you want to put the no soliciting sign on your door, or do you want the
> government to do it for you?

Sorry, I don't see your argument- the government isn't putting up the sign,
they're maintaining the list of "signed" phones, since phones themselves
can't be signed. Sure, the government is also acting as the enforcer, but
that's their job- if a door-to-door salesman knocks on your door despire
your "no solicitors" sign, you call the "government" (i.e. the police) to
enforce the law.

Arguably I supose you could make the phone companies "keepers" of the
list insteead of the states/feds, but one cenralized database will be easier
for telemarketers to comply with.

Although I can see why TM companies are panicking, I really think they
blew it- "we the people" want this DNC list to happen, and it will. It
would've happened with the exemptions, allowing TMs to keep 20% of
their market (the estimate was that the law would block 80% of TM calls.)
Now, this last ruling will likely force lawmakers to kill all exemptions, virtually
gutting the TM market entirely. Instead of settling for a small piece of the
pie, they're going to force Congress to ban pie!

Mark Allread <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 00:52:04 GMT, <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > If the states can have do not call policies, then why can't the
> > federal government? Same issues.
>
> States must generally honor Federal Constitutional protections, by the
> 14th Amendment:
>
> " No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
> privileges or
> immunities of citizens of the United States;"
>
> However, with respect to free speech, the Constitution does not guarantee
> a right to citizens, it specifically proscribes the Federal government:
>
> "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the
> press;"
>
> Note that this is significantly different that saying "The right of the
> people to
> freedom of speech shall not be abridged..."
>
> Likewise with the establishment of religion, hence the argument given by
> the
> Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice, recently in the news. There is
> nothing in the
> US Constitution which prevents States from curtailing free speech or
> establishing
> religion. (Many States have their own Constitutional proscriptions,
> however)
> Federal Courts have, however, often produced rulings which say that
> "red is blue," so in a pragmatic sense, the plain language of the
> Constitution
> is often ignored, and indeed violated. The 2nd Amendment is a particularly
> egregious example, as is the frequent abuse of the commerce clause to
> justify
> Federal interventions in myriad areas not otherwise allowed by the
> Constitution.


I believe that your interpretation is too narrow. The sole purpose of
the constitution is to limit government not to grant priviledges.
Priviledges are impied in the constitution. Your srtict
interpretation makes the 14th admendment meaningless. Why would they
add an admendment that was intentionally meaningless?