Re: [CPF0000] RE: Subsidizing Internet access (was RE: A Modern FairyTale)

["Alan E." <steelville@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Comments in-line.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Liotta"

| Wish I had more time but there isn't enough for topics in
CPF0000 recently.

==> Yeah, me too.
-----------------------------------------------------------
| Amendment X explicitly covers two categories of powers:
|
|   a) "powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution"
|   b) and "nor [powers] prohibited by it to the states"

| | It then states that such rights are reserved
(respectively):
|   a) "to the states"
|   b) "to the people"
|
| The definition of "respectively" in context is easy since
clearly powers 'prohibited' to the states could never also
be 'reserved' for the states.

==> All this is true. But the wording in Amendment X simply
says that any powers not specifically mentioned in the
Constitution are "reserved to the states". It says
absolutely _nothing_ about _what_ powers are either (a)
delegated to the U.S. or (b) prohibited to it by the states.

For that matter, it doesn't even address the issue of
prohibiting _anything_ to the states. The wording permits a
mention in the Constitution and this conditional clause only
applies if that mention prohibits it to the states. There is
explicit language toward the end of Article I for
example"..No state shall..."
------------------------------------------------------------

| Now, because the power to create a postal system *is*
granted Congress, it cannot be a power categorized as (a) or
(b). Hence, such power belongs only to Congress; it is for
neither the states nor the people.

==> Amendment X does not address the issue of restricting
anything to the states. There _might_ be a case for a
restriction on the states doing postal services. There are
Articles that grant the US the power to levy certain taxes,
with the states not prohibited from doing so. My previous
comments did not mean to defend the states being able to set
up postal services or provide Internet for the masses,
actually.

--------------------------------------------------

I?). Obligation is irrelevant.

=> To what? My comments were to address the apparent
assertion that the US is obligated to provide universal
Internet service, and the reference to Amendment X to
support this. To recap. (1) It is a round peg in a square
hole to say the Internet is a postal service; (2) empowering
Congress to do X is _not_ the same as obligating it.

(3) On a now different point, Amendment X is a restriction
on the United States _only_, and does not prohibit anything
to the states (though it refers to _other_ clauses that do).

-----------------------------------------------

| At least, that's insofar as a lawyer would argue in front
of a court. And there is no other _practical_ definition of
law except what courts are persuaded to rule as such. No?

==> And just imagine, this is the kind of thinking they
teach in the best law schools in the country, too!

Imagine fighting an underdog's war in 1776-plus against the
number one superpower of the world. There is victory,
there's a big struggle, they finally agree, and Patrick
Henry and Gubernor Morris, et.al., extract promises for the
Bill of Rights. And they sign their names. The states all
ratify.

And it obligates the courts to rule however they are
"convinced"?

Some judges have actually said they won't stick to the
letter of the Constitution.

Judges should be impeached when they violate the
Constitution, period. Won't happen. We've been de-educated.
Was it Thomas Jefferson who said he feared that the Judicial
branch was the most dangerous?

- alan