Some Questions and Answers about Section 301
n9...@my-deja.com
Hello Again, I decied to continue my campain against the unjust Federal
Communication Commission and their side kicks the National Association
of Broadcaster. Today little post is about the legal questions be asked
by the Pirate community; questions the NAB and the commercial operator
say on a whole stack of bible are legal. The regulations i'm refering to
is the famous Section 301. Section 301 stated "the purpose of this act
is to maintain control over all channels of interstate and foreign
communication via radio." Anyone wishing to uses such channels had to
apply for a license. In 1982 the law; as most of you know was changed
not only to give the FCC juridiction over all channels of interstate and
foreign communication by radio but juridiction over intrastate
communication. The FCC and the NAB says that the new section 301 is
legal and offen in court argue such with some legal cases. Two of which
come to mind National Broadcasting Company Vs FCC (1943) and Red Lion
Brodcasting Vs FCC (1969). To Start neither case had anything to do with
the legal juridiction of the FCC. NBC vs FCC (1943) had to do with Chain
regulation while Red Lion Broadcasting (1969) had to do with the
constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine. Second any case the fcc
argues besides those two are mainly refering back to those two cases.
Finally both of those cases was under old version of Section 301 and
therefor are invaild to bring to court. It would be the same thing of a
legal court case during proabition, which deals with the legal ownership
of alcohol begin fought today. The question also is brought up about the
legality, or I should say Constitutionality of section 301 under the
commerce clause. (Art I section 8 Clause 3) which states "The congress
shall have the power to regulate Interstate and Foreign commerce and
commerce with indian tribes. Radio has and always will be a form of
commerce orginally regulated by the Radio Commission under the Commerce
Department it is now under the juridiction of the FCC and the senate
subcommittee of commerce, science and technology. The FCC was created in
1934 under the Communication Act of 1934 for the purpose of "regulating
interstate and foreign commerce via wire or radio." (section 151) The
FCC has no power over intrastate communication. in Lopez Vs the United
States the Supreme court stated "that the police power of the states
have juridiction over intrastate commerce" One thing that was brought up
in one copy of the opinion I got was something on the lines of this. If
congress was to give the power over a intrastate fuction, which is left
to the states what's to stop the chain reaction to give the federal
goverment the juridiction over everything. There is in fact a line in
which the congress has power and a line in which the states maintain
their power. By allowing the Federal Communication Commission to
regulate all fuctions of communication via radio what's to stop the DEA
or any other federal agency to create a law and do the same thing. The
FCC does have juridiction over intrastate communication if it "affects"
interstate or foreign communication and in my opinion they most prove
it. Not all radio signal would cross the state line nor, "affect"
interstate commerce. all the FCC has in it's cases is that a person talk
on the Intrastate radio without a license which aslong as it doesn't
affect interstate or foreign commerce via wire or radio they can't
license that is in fact the fuction of the state.
Todd O'Dochartaigh N9OGL
Amateur /Commercial Operator
WLPS TV Taylorville's #1 Pirate TV station
channel 14
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
JJ
>
> Hello Again, I decied to continue my campain against the unjust Federal
> Communication Commission and their side kicks the National Association
<blah, blah, blah deleted>
I see you are still writing at a third grade level.
> The > FCC does have juridiction over intrastate communication if it "affects"
> interstate or foreign communication and in my opinion they most prove
> it.
But your opinion dosen't mean squat.
**************************************
* cird...@alltel.ne *
* nuf...@server.virtual.net.au *
* tr...@liquidinformation.com *
* da...@maloney.com *
* makelotso...@usa.net *
* 36...@earthlink.ne *
* sa...@advancedmachine.com *
* mrbi...@bustamail.com *
* ab1...@aol.com *
* bb8...@ausi.com *
* tes...@tin.it *
* af...@earthlink.net *
* sabbat...@hotmail.com *
* frau...@psinet.com *
* ju76...@surfree.com *
* cyber...@bigfoot.com *
* dfghrwt...@earth.iaonline.com *
* 2Fs9...@surfree.com *
* jcch...@uspis.gov *
* jqu...@fcc.gov *
* sn...@fcc.gov *
* rch...@fcc.gov *
* rhu...@fcc.gov *
* tra...@fbi.gov *
**************************************
n9...@my-deja.com
United States Vs Lopez__US__(1995) which I find very intresting. So
enjoy.
The Constitution not only uses the word "commerce" in a narrower sense
than our case law might suggest, it also does not support the
proposition that Congress has authority over all activities that
"substantially affect" interstate commerce. The Commerce Clause [n.2]
does not state that Congress may "regulate matters that substantially
affect commerce with foreign
Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." In
contrast, the Constitution itself temporarily prohibited amendments that
would "affect" Congress' lack of authority to prohibit or restrict the
slave trade or to enact unproportioned direct taxation. U. S. Const.,
Art. V. Clearly, the Framers could have drafted a Constitution that
contained a "substantially affects interstate commerce" clause had that
been their objective.
Put simply, much if not all of Art. I, §8 (including portions of
the Commerce Clause itself) would be surplusage if Congress had been
given authority over matters that substantially affect interstate
commerce. An interpretation of cl. 3 that makes the rest of §8
superfluous simply cannot be correct. Yet this Court's Commerce Clause
jurisprudence has
endorsed just such an interpretation: the power we have accorded
Congress has swallowed Art. I, §8. [n.3]
Indeed, if a "substantial effects" test can be appended to the Commerce
Clause, why not to every other power of the Federal Government? There is
no reason for singling out the Commerce Clause for special treatment.
Accordingly, Congress could regulate all matters that "substantially
affect" the Army and Navy, bankruptcies, tax collection, expenditures,
and so on.
In that case, the clauses of §8 all mutually overlap, something we
can assume the Founding Fathers never intended.
In short, the Founding Fathers were well aware of what the principal
dissent calls " `economic . . . realities.' " See post, at 11-12
(Breyer, J.) (citing North American Co. v. SEC, 327 U.S. 686, 705
(1946)). Even though the boundary between commerce and other matters may
ignore "economic reality" and thus seem arbitrary or artificial to some,
we must nevertheless respect a constitutional line that does not grant
Congress power over all that substantially affects interstate commerce.
We pause to consider the implications of the Government's arguments. The
Government admits, under its "costs of crime" reasoning, that Congress
could regulate not only all violent crime, but all activities that might
lead to violent crime, regardless of how tenuously they relate to
interstate commerce. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 8-9. Similarly, under the
Government's "national
productivity" reasoning, Congress could regulate any [activity that it
found was related to the economic productivity of individual citizens:
family law (including marriage, divorce, and child custody), for
example. Under the theories that the Government presents in support of
922(q), it is difficult to perceive any limitation on federal power,
even in areas such as criminal law enforcement or education where States
historically have been sovereign. Thus, if we were to accept the
Government's arguments, we are hard-pressed to posit any activity by an
individual that Congress is without power to regulate.
For instance, if Congress can, pursuant to its Commerce Clause power,
regulate activities that adversely affect the learning environment,
then, a fortiori, it also can regulate the educational process directly.
Congress could determine that a school's curriculum has a "significant"
effect on the extent of classroom learning. As a result, Congress could
mandate a federal curriculum for local elementary and secondary schools
because what is taught in local schools has a significant "effect on
classroom learning," cf. post, at 9, and that, in turn, has a
substantial effect on interstate commerce.
UNITED STATES Vs LOPEZ,___US___(1995)
U.S. Supreme Court
n9...@my-deja.com
it. It federal Suckup like you who infringe on peoples constitutional
right not only when it comes to busting Pirates but infringe on
peoples right who wish to voice their point of view on the internet.
It is people like you that have no life instead spend most of their
time on the net bad mouthing how people write or their opinion. I
really feel sorry for someone like you. It is in fact people like you
who are turning this from a constitutional system to a dictatorship.
As for my write I do have a disability and in that your lucky I don't
get you on discrimination. The FCC is also lucky if they think like you
that I don't them on it to. That All i have to say to you.
Todd O'Dochartaigh N9OGL
WLPS TV CHANNNEL 14
Taylorville Illinois #1 Pirate TV station
In article <37C711...@no.net>,
JJ
>
> First of you moron, it is my opinion and I have the right to express
> it.
I did not say anywhere you did not have the right to express your
opinion, I just said it doesn't mean squat, and it doesn't.
Support LPFM
>> it.
>
>I did not say anywhere you did not have the right to express your
>opinion, I just said it doesn't mean squat, and it doesn't.
>
Rodney King