"do Not Call" List Judge's Phone Number: 405/609-5000

[MRPLUTO]

DeadManFlying,

Sorry to be obtuse; I hate that too.  I didn't think that I was concealing my intent to send lots of disapproving calls the judge's way.  I suppose I could have said, "Everyone one of you 50,000,000 who signed up should call Judge West".  The intent and result would have been the same.

And about "giving him a taste of his own medicine", well yes, there is a certain perverse glee in being able to call him to complain about annoying phonecalls.

*******

I think the government is simultaneously the problem & solution.  It's a yin-yang thing.

*******

miko,

Guess what?  Commercial speech is not protected speech under the first amendment!  The government does have the right to prohibit, limit, and regulate telemarketing.

Reconsidering his ruling is not a "violation of his duty".  He can, and is being encouraged to, put a hold or "stay" on it.


MRPLUTO (aka DWG)

[miko2d]

Dead Man Flying: ...the chances are very good that the Interstate Commerce Clause of the constitution empowers Congress to regulate.

 Which for the writers of Constitution ment "make regular, remove obstacles". How do you regulate something that is banned?

My understanding is that the judge's ruling was much more narrow than what you're indicating here,

 May well be true. Anyway, his ruling was made based on his interpretation of laws - whichever ones. He does not have a power to ignore the laws because some people want to. If people have problems with the laws, they should press the Congress to change, create or revoke them - in accordance with the Constitution, of course.


arguing that the FTC's administrative mandate did not include jurisdiction over telemarketing. Instead, such jurisdiction fell under the FCC which had not issued "Do Not Call" regulations.

 It is not related to the current discussion, but I dare you to show me where in the Constitution does the Congress is granted power to delagate law-making (or taxing) to agencies and unelected officials?
 Only congress has the power to tax and to create laws. Any agency's regulaton that was not voted on on the floor of Congress is unconstitutional. Any judicial order mandating a localty to provide some services (public education) for which taxes should be collected is also unconstitutional.
 Not that anyone seem to care...

 miko

[MRPLUTO]

Miko, these regulations were voted on by Congress and passed.

In January of 2001 Congress enacted the "Do Not Call Implementation Act", authorizing funding for the FTC's "Do Not Call" registry. (AdAge.com)

Previously, in the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Congress had authorized establishment of a national "Do Not Call" registry.

Just type "Congress Do Not Call List" into a Google search and you'll find a bunch of links confirming this.

MRPLUTO

[MRPLUTO]

Leslie--Those people who start talking about your credit card right away are most certainly crooks!  

MRPLUTO

[Dead Man Flying]

Originally posted by miko2d
Which for the writers of Constitution ment "make regular, remove obstacles". How do you regulate something that is banned?

[/B]

Like it or not, the scope of the Interstate Commerce Clause has grown substantially since the 18th century.  The New Deal Supreme Court cases which culminated in the "Switch in Time That Saved Nine" (a misnomer IMO, but whatever) granted sweeping congressional authority over interstate commerce.

Clearly one aspect of regulation includes banning (e.g. banning unsafe meat packing practices), and the telemarketing regulations do not represent an outright ban in any event.  Telemarketing firms may still cold call consumers so long as they have received compliance.  Lately that has meant offering free promotions through the mail (like a free music CD or picnic basket), the acceptance of which then authorizes telemarketing firms to contact that household regardless of its presence on the "Do Not Call" registry.

May well be true. Anyway, his ruling was made based on his interpretation of laws - whichever ones. He does not have a power to ignore the laws because some people want to. If people have problems with the laws, they should press the Congress to change, create or revoke them - in accordance with the Constitution, of course.

[/B]

I agree completely, and this has been the crux of my entire argument in this thread.

Only congress has the power to tax and to create laws. Any agency's regulaton that was not voted on on the floor of Congress is unconstitutional. Any judicial order mandating a localty to provide some services (public education) for which taxes should be collected is also unconstitutional.
 Not that anyone seem to care...

You do realize that Congress voted on and passed "Do Not Call" legislation, right?  Basically, the House and the Senate passed legislation authorizing the FTC to draw up "Do Not Call" guidelines, and then they later passed legislation accepting the FTC's authority to implement such legislation once the guidelines were presented to them.

Go to THOMAS Legislative Information on the Internet for more information on the legislation dealing with the "Do Not Call" registry.  Specifically look up H.R. 395, S. 1654, and H.R. 3161.

-- Todd/Leviathn

[MRPLUTO]

Breaking News:

The House of Representatives has just voted 412 - 8 in favor of some bill making it clear to everyone that they approve of the FTC's "Do Not Call" registry.



MRPLUTO

[miko2d]

You are right, guys, I was speaking speculatively. I did not know the details of the case - which particular law the judge found in conflict with the new one and whether he was honest or influenced or whatever.

 I just wanted to point out that whatever his decision, a judge is not supposed to change it based on public reaction or perceived public welfare.
 The only recourse is to write a better law or appeal his decision in a higher court.

 miko

[Rude]

Originally posted by Dead Man Flying


I know... I was complementing your post, not attacking it.  

-- Todd/Leviathn [/B]

and I was only ribbing you because you steeeel my kills in the MA:)