And yes, this probably dies in the House, but also becomes a tremendous issue for Dems in rural areas to run on.
Would love to see what close House races could be flipped by strong youth turnout for an issue like this.
Democrats in certain areas will be running more and more on: legalization and net neutrality.
And Medicare for all. SOCIALISM ALL THE THINGS!
Hows that Trump bribe money working out for you now AT&T?
The bill, S.B. 822, authored by Sen. Scott Wiener (D–San Francisco), was introduced in March and passed through three committees, all along party-lines.
Oh Republicans, we can always rely on you to do the wrong thing.
States cannot pre-empt federal net neutrality regulations. It’s a violation of the Supremacy Clause, and regardless of what side of the issue you are on, illegal, pandering bills like this aren’t the answer. (And can’t be the answer, anyway, since they’ll be struck down).
Background reading for anyone interested: Can States Reimpose Net Neutrality?
Oh dear god, another Trumpster.
I assume this is just one of our previously banned right wing loonies under a new alias?
Ad hominems really start right off the bat here, which is disappointing. What I said is accurate, and I encourage anyone interested in the net neutrality debate (even people who think the Internet is crumbling each day) to keep fundamental constitutional principles in mind. The same principle, by the way, prevents states from coming up with their own immigration policies, or foreign policies, etc.
States’ rights! States’ rights! What we control all three branches of the federal government? Federal rights!
The beauty of principled positions is they do not change depending on what party holds power. Plenty of conservative legislatures ignore the Supremacy Clause too. Under Obama, many GOP state houses passed laws making it illegal for federal law enforcement agents to operate in their states to enforce gun control laws. Those were flagrant violations of the Supremacy Clause, too, and were overturned.
Example of one such illegal overreach: SC bill would exempt state militia from federal gun rules | The Daily Caller
We’ve always believed in the Supremacy Clause. Freedom is slavery. War is Peace. Ignorance is Strength.
Ok…
The problem is that net neutrality isn’t overturning or lack of enforcement of federal law, but rather a reaction to the vacating and absence of such. Net neutrality rules weren’t made unlawful, but rather what federal rules there were have been castrated and removed.
So California making such a law is not stepping into Federal politics to agitate illegal overturning federal rules. It’s making laws because there is no longer federal rules about such things.
This is a good point, but there are different kinds of pre-emption to consider – implied and explicit. With the net neutrality regulations, the FCC (with authority of Congress) has chosen to expressly preclude state intervention in net neutrality policy, because of its interstate effects. (This is literally written into the FCC’s order). That’s explicit prevention. Further, there’s a good argument for implied pre-emption here too, because California’s law would clearly frustrate the federal intent.
Note that the FCC’s regulation, while perhaps a negative one in theory (ie, it lifts some regulations), is still demonstrative of federal intent/a federal objective, and does impose a new rule on states, so pre-emption rules do apply. The question is – what is the scope of the pre-emption?
From some legal site, which effectively restates basic pre-emption doctrine:
https://www.wneclaw.com/conlaw/typesofpreemption.html
Well, I guess all the states should give up on their lawsuits. Internet guy* has spoken.
-
- gender presumption based on “man” in name
If you think no one should discuss laws on this site, just say so. It’s incredibly frustrating for people to claim that no one can disagree with anything said on this site, or any state policy. I cited experts who agree with me. I am sorry if that bothers you so much.
Bothers me so much? Not at all. A simple google search gets experts who disagree with your experts. I don’t mind people who I disagree with. Heck, half my family is that way. I just dislike the “This is the truth of it all” approach on a subject that apparently doesn’t seem to be a settled matter.
To be clear, this is not a settled matter. And there are possible contours/lines of argument for California to try to argue here and there where pre-emption does not imply. The scope of FCC’s pre-emption is important to consider. But I think it’s journalistic malpractice for The Verge to write an article like the one quoted above, without really discussing the very real possibility that California’s law is pre-empted in two different ways. It rewards pandering politicians. There’s too many of those in statehouses.
It’s no surprise that Reason.com, a Libertarian website, would make the argument that regulations are bad and/or illegal. That they could find someone at a think tank to agree with them is also unsurprising.
Here is an Ars article on the topic, which points out:
(A) states might have a novel argument that FCC waived pre-emption (questionable, since they literally pre-empt in the text of their order, but this seems like their best defense to the pre-emption problem); but even if so
(B) dormant commerce clause (another fundamental constitutional principle) would probably preclude states from just unilaterally regulating an interstate issue like net neutrality.
Again, it’s malpractice and rah-rah cheerleading for The Verge to just ignore these legal issues. And keep in mind, again – no matter who you think is “right” in the net neutrality debate, the principles are important for the government to work. If states could affect/stymie federal interstate policy willy-nilly, federalism would simply not work…