Replies

Hold on, now. Just because a regulatory commission issued a regulation doesn't mean that it can legally do so. Think of all the regulations you've been GLAD to see overturned.

The issue here may simply be that this has to go though the legislature, not the executive branch. If this came before Congress as a bill, voting against it could be a career-ender.

Of course, one regulation I'd like to see would deny the option of masking one's phone number from Caller ID to anyone but a private residence. All corporate phone numbers would have to be seen via Caller ID. Once people start identifying what blocks of numbers belong to telemarketers, you could just start blocking them. That would include political solicitors, too.

"Of course, one regulation I'd like to see would deny the option of masking one's phone number from Caller ID to anyone but a private residence. All corporate phone numbers would have to be seen via Caller ID."

Implementation of "regulation(s)" takes money from those who are regulated.

Justice Stevens, in a concurring opinion, Nixon v Shrink, 2000, states,

"...I make one simple point. Money is property;"

Regulations are inacted and implemented for the public use.

Amendment V

"...nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."

Such a regulation you propose would be unconstitutional unless a corresponding tax was imposed to collect the appropriate amount of revenue needed to compensate the private property owners for the taking of their property for public use.

Has anyone slamming the court's decision actually read it? (Be honest.) If not, then they're no better than the liberal liars who slammed Ann Coulter's book before reading it, and have called Mel Gibson's movie about the death of Christ anti-semetic even though the movie isn't finished and won't be released for months.

I haven't read the court's decision yet either. And even though I detest telemarketing (I've already signed on to the "do not call list"), the seperation of powers doctrine in the Constitution prohibits executive agencies such as the FTC from regulating beyond the scope of their authority as delegated by Congress. If the FTC lacks the authority to regulate in this particular area (and I don't know the answer either way), then we should be applauding the Federal District Court judge for what he did no matter how popular the regulation at issue, and hope that more judges will follow suit when reviewing the legality of bureaurocratic initiatives.

From the article: "The court reportedly found that statutory jurisdiction for such a list rested with the Federal Communications Commission rather than the FTC."

Hold on, now. Just because a regulatory commission issued a regulation doesn't mean that it can legally do so.

But we're not talking about the FCC issuing a regulation relating to safety rules for plucking chickens or OSHA regulating the manner in which funeral directors distribute casket pricing information. We're talking about the FTC issuing a rule to protect a large group of consumers from being adversely impacted by telemarketers who - as an industry - have a long and well-documented history of significant incidences of illegal or unethical actions. This type of government prohibition or regulation is exactly within the purview of the FTC.

I think the court has erred. Yes, there may exist statuatory language defining telecommunications as being subject to FCC rules. But there's also statuatory language defining consumer protection as subject to FTC rules. There is no such thing as exclusive jurisdiction for any one executive branch agency.

What this court has done is to rule on a chicken and the egg argument. Is this a telecommunications issue affecting consumers? Or is this a consumer issue affecting telecommunications? This court has, in my view, arbitrarily decided on the former.

The larger question - the one being glossed over in this discussion - is how can the judicial branch interfere in an executive branch action, if it does not violate the Constitution?

Sounds to me like a violation of the separation of powers clause.