Thread: Obama's Choice for the Supreme Court

Originally Posted by MotoZ

Blake,

You're talking economics. I'm talking the law.

The Supreme Court has said that the Fairness Doctrine is constitutional. It has not said, however, that the Fairness Doctrine is mandatory for over-the-air broadcasts. That means the FCC has discretion under current law.

Was constitutional the FCC no longer has this rule. What is talked about now is making it law rather than an FCC rule.

In August 1987, the FCC abolished the doctrine by a 4-0 vote, in the Syracuse Peace Council decision, which was upheld by a different panel of the Appeals Court for the D.C. Circuit in February 1989.[12] The FCC and suggested because of the many media voices in the marketplace, the doctrine be deemed unconstitutional and that:
“ The intrusion by government into the content of programming occasioned by the enforcement of [the Fairness Doctrine] restricts the journalistic freedom of broadcasters ... [and] actually inhibits the presentation of controversial issues of public importance to the detriment of the public and the degradation of the editorial prerogative of broadcast journalists. ”

Recent talk of the 'fairness doctrine' are from politicians and I am of the belief that they have more interest in it as a political tool rather than true 'free time'. You won't see libertarian, green party, communist party, neo nazi or other non 'two party' ideal sets presented under this, it is just to get equal time for the two party system...

Originally Posted by Captain Coors

Originally Posted by Highstakes72

Should be a state matter.

This is always a flake out answer to important matters our country has to deal with. For example if we left civil rights to the states instead of the federal government becoming involved such as with the civil rights act, we might still have separate but equal in the south.

Some states need to be dragged kicking and screaming into reality by the others via the federal government.

Civil rights is a constitutional matter and thus would be federal anyway. This is why it was such a hot button topic at the time. You posted one instance of the fed stepping in when they are allowed to by law, start posting many more.

The federal government oversteps it's bounds on many other things. States rights are a matter of the constitution.

Originally Posted by Captain Coors

Actually its pretty liberal interpretation to say civil rights is a constitutional matter.

The power vested to Congress to pass the civil rights act itself lays in the commerce clause and when you read the clause, its a far reach at first glance to think it gives Congress that power.

The Congress shall have power . . . To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes

Thank goodness it became one though.

The fourteenth amendment of the constitution helps define some of the civil rights. The fact that the racism remained in effect for 100 years after that was in place is bad, but it is now made right.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourtee...s_Constitution

States have the rights to decide things for themselves. Some have motorcycle helmet laws, some do not. States having more power than the fed can be a good thing, as you are more able to affect things for your own areas rather than having to have billion dollar lobbyist do it for you in DC.