←back to thread

295 points AndrewDucker | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.261s | source
Show context
ggm ◴[] No.45047804[source]
The USA has a F(ederal) CC. Not S(tate) CC.

I appreciate that not all modern post 1776 democracies are the same, but in Australia, whose constitution was informed hugely by the US constitution, Federal communications law takes supremacy over states, and states laws cannot constrain trade between the states. There are exceptions, but you'd be in court. "trade" includes communications.

So ultimately, isn't this heading to the FCC, and a state-vs-federal law consideration?

-Not that it means a good outcome. With the current supreme court, who knows?

replies(2): >>45047963 #>>45047989 #
Manuel_D ◴[] No.45047963[source]
In theory, the US constitution forbids states from interfering with interstate commerce too.
replies(2): >>45047990 #>>45048029 #
1. ggm ◴[] No.45047990[source]
<insert Yogi Berra quote about theory and practice here>