OT - No-Call list

[Wardad]

Federal Goverment does have the right to regulate interstate commerce.
The FCC does regulate wireless communications to prevent transmitters interfering with one another.
The FCC also helps regulate the phone system.
So there are legal precedants.

Where in the constitution were they given the right to restrict the freedoms of buisness?
WRONG QUESTION!!!
Where in the constitution were businesses given any rights?

"A Nation of the people, by the people and for the people.." I do not see business or corporations mentioned there.

It is true that a business or corporation can be viewed as an extension of a persons or persons. And in fact, they do enjoy some limited rights and liabilties under the law.

"Promote the common welfare"
The FEDS can bend this line a long way. It could justify the FDA, Monopoly busting, and regulation over vital infrastructure(s).

yawn, enough rant for now....

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by Krsqk:
And has anyone actually bought one of those Telezapper things? Do they actually work? If they really make the telemarketers get that stupid look like they do on the commercials, it might just be worth it for that.

I haven't, but they do work. But the vultures are already developing new techniques that get around it. Like anything else it's a never ending race between those wanting to harras us and the technology to prevent it.

Geoschmo

[Will]

My family just goes for the caller ID option. It's only something like $1/month extra, and we can not pick up if the ID shows as "Unknown Name / Unknown Number" (almost always telemarketers), or a certain family member that always asks for money we don't have...

I don't think creating and maintaining the list will be as much government bloat as some of you have been saying, either. Everything I've seen about it involves those wanting to telemarket to buy the list every quarter, and paying enormous fines if they call a number on it. That should be more than enough to pay for the list's maintainance. And if the exemption thing that was mentioned below is true (I truly hope it isn't...), then that would be more government income from Someone Else, meaning (in theory) less taxes (or more money to some politician's pet (pork) project).

Originally posted by Krsqk:
I envision something like most neighboring states have worked out with each other regarding state income taxes. It's a fairly complicated system, but it shows that states can actually work together and get something accomplished with the proper motivation. Unfortunately, the proper motivation in that example is money, and lots of it. Maybe if we pushed the fines high enough, we could make it worthwhile to get along (and even see a tax cut here and there--yeah, right ).

There's one small problem with this... the arrangements between neighboring states are between neighboring states. So one state only really has to deal with a few other nearby states in that situation. With telemarketers, it's each state making deals with every other state (that's 49), not to mention US Territories (don't know how many here), and foreign countries. I'm sorry, but the individual states are not capable of handling that, and the conflicting rules and regulations will be a nightmare. The lawyers will love it, of course...

Telemarketing to cell phones is a big problem too. It would definitely make me very angry to be charged for someone else to have the privledge to advertise their crappy product over my cell. That hasn't happened to me (yet)... but I think I'll look into my service plan and see if there's a (simple) way to charge the caller for unsolicited calls.

[teal]

U.S. Constitution. Article I, Section 8: The Congress shall have the power to... ...regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

If somone calling me from one state with the purpose of conducting commerce with me in another state is not "commerce among the several states" I don't know what is. The Federal donot call list is perfectly constitutional (except perhaps in the case where both telemarketer and telemarketee are in the same state).

[teal]

Originally posted by Mathias_Ice:
What the framers of the U.S. Constitution were worried about was limiting the size of the Federal government. Of course this fact has been all but ignored by both major political parties in the United States.

I always thought the constitution was a compromise between the Federalists (as much founding fathers as anyone else) and the Anti-Federalists (whom you seem to be claiming represent all the framers.

But then again when you have Supreme Court judges who believe the U.S. Constitution should be discarded, insist on imposing a "seperation of church and state" (definitalty NOT in th U.S. Constitution,)

U.S. Constitution, Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Yes the phrase "seperation of church and state" is not in the U.S. Constitution. However it is impossible for a state to become religious and at the same time avoid creating a law which respects an establishment of religion. Thus, unless someone can create a religious state which has no religious laws, the constitution effectively forbids the combining of church and state.

[mac5732]

I dislike Telemarketers immensley. I get at least 4-5 a day, and I'm UNLISTED. Its bad enough, but they start at 8:00 am, NOW THATS TO DARN EARLY ESPECIALLY IF ITS MY DAY OFF We have freedom of speech, but where does it say they have the freedom to harrass. They pay good and I know some people need the work, but a large proportion of them go beyond the limit and this ruins it for the few good ones....

just my 2 cents Mac

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by mac5732:
They pay good and I know some people need the work, but a large proportion of them go beyond the limit and this ruins it for the few good ones....

There is no such thing as a good telemarketer.

Geoschmo