midrange.com -- CPF0000 -- Re: Subsidizing Internet access (was RE: A Modern Fairy Tale)

Yes, intriguing.
===========================
| >Does the fact that the government subsidized the
development of the internet obligate the government to
subsidize access to the internet?  Clearly, the answer is
no.

==> On the specific point of the sentence, if the government
were obligated to subsidize access to all the technology it
develops to all citizens, we would all be astronauts.

==================================
| I believe it's Constitutionaslly mandated that the federal
government subsidize Internet access for U.S. citizens and
businesses.

| And that brings us to Article I, Section 8., "Congress
shall have power... To establish post offices and post
roads;".
|
| If the Internet isn't a system of information delivery --
in effect a postal system -- I don't know what it is.

==> A stretch. There is already a United States Postal
Service, and they will provide you a free e-mail address. Do
you think that clause empowers Congrss to give to the USPS
the entire Internet infrastructure, because that is the
implication. The empowerment of providing postal service
also is *not* an empowerment to subsidize the means of all
citizens to use it, anyway.

By the way, as a de facto, almost all libraries in the
country now have Internet-connected computers available to
the public. And this is already subsidized through a tax
that appears every month on your phone bill with an obscure
acronym.

Also, here is how the relevant pieces of the Constitution
read: "Section 8. The Congress shall have power to...(a
list)...To establish post offices and post roads;..."

Is Congress is mandated (obligated, required) to subsidize
even the Post Office? In the same Section 8 where "Congress
shall have power to..", it also lists the power to borrow
money. I don't think anyone can assert that they are
*required* to keep the nation in debt.

By the way, I once saw a guy at the Post Office sending a
bunch of roosters by mail, and I am not making it up.
Another guy was disgusted with moving company's quote, moved
everything by post (disassembled a lot). It's a great
service, and I think we should keep it forever. The postman
("snail mail") kind. Try sending that by email! Ha!
===================================
| I think it would be easy to argue that the federal
government should indeed subsidize the Internet.

==> That's different from arguing that the Constitution
mandates it, but it's certainly clear to me that it is not
an "easy" argument.

| And I have no doubt that Congress could be swayed in favor
based upon Article I, |Section 8. And on that same basis, I
have no doubt that it would be upheld in the |face of a
court challenge.

==> Sure, you can sway them to do just about anything
nowadays, seems like. Based on anything.
=================================
| We have no problem extending Constitutional
interpretations to accomodate technological advances. There
is certainly no strict Constitutional requirement for the
federal government to seek a court order for phone taps. We
decided it should be so by a modern interpretation of the
Fourth Amendment which implies "papers, and effects" as well
as "houses" should include conversations of any form where
there is an expectation of privacy.

I have a *big* problem with the Court (and plenty others
today) playing fast and loose with the Constitution,
whatever the excuse. If it doesn't mean strictly what it
says, then it is not even good toilet paper. I mean, why
bother even writing it down? Why even bother having one?

Amendment IV: "The right of the people to be secure in their
persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable
searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no
warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause..."

The "..right to be secure..in their persons". _clearly_
covers wiretaps. E-mail. Your bank account. Purchase
histories. Web logs are already public, and to me, don't
complain if the local district attorney or your Navy
commander goes looking for such public declarations. The 4th
is not applicable. God bless the Founders for including
"persons", "effects". If I'm having a conversation with my
neigbor over the fence, ergo over the wire, at the property
line, you have to get a warrant first to listen in.
==============================
| But the power is Congresses; and because Article I,
Section 8, does grant a power, the Tenth Amendment
technically restricts both the States and the People from
it.

==> Read it again. That clause restricts the U.S., not the
states. In fact, it's easier to use it to make the case that
subsidies for the arts, research, milk prices, tobacco
prices, personal subsidies, etc., are prohibited to the US
government. For example, the granting of patents and
copyrights have nothing to do with subsidizing your
research.
===============================