With California’s recent passage of a state net neutrality law, the federal government has decided to intervene. While I normally side with the Trump administration on most issues, I just don’t see their case holding up. Although Attorney General Jeff Sessions may claim that this new set of laws is an attempt to frustrate federal policy, this simply isn’t true. As of now, no laws have been passed on the federal level saying that net neutrality cannot exist. When the FCC repealed their net neutrality regulations, they did not then pass a regulation saying that states can’t implement new rules regarding net neutrality.
To be as fair as possible, I really don’t understand the net neutrality issue all that well. Even though I have read a number of articles that detail what would happen if there is no net neutrality law, I still don’t know the other side of the argument. If there is no net neutrality, what’s the benefit? Fewer regulations on internet service providers? What would it cost these providers to comply with these regulations? What would cost be on a national versus state level? I have so many unanswered questions, so I can’t form a perfect understanding of the issue. However, what I do understand is the Constitution and states’ rights.
The Tenth Amendment is of critical importance to the way state and federal governments interact, as is Article 1 Section 8, which details the powers of Congress. So let’s deal with this one at a time. The Tenth Amendment essentially states that Congress is limited to what has been defined in the Constitution and the states have the power to write their own laws pertaining to those powers not given to Congress. Obviously, the Founding Fathers had no clue that the internet would ever exist. So the Tenth Amendment should just give states the right to pass laws regarding net neutrality, right? Not exactly. Article 1 Section 8 establishes that Congress can use implied powers. Implied powers are basically those that can be derived from the responsibilities of Congress, but are not explicitly stated. So Congress has the power to pass net neutrality law? Well, not exactly — the states can argue that it is their right to create these laws instead.
So where do I stand on the issue? I think the states have the right to make their own laws as long as Congress does not pass any law stating, on a federal level, that no laws can be made about net neutrality. As of now, Congress has passed no laws regarding net neutrality. Therefore, California is well within its rights to pass these laws, as are other states. I generally oppose regulation of any kind because it usually limits the ability of the American people to live their lives as they see fit. But if, as California claims, this law is actually expanding the rights of the consumer, then I have no problems here. I wish that I could sound more concrete in my answer to this, but the truth is that I simply have more homework to do before I can really decide where I fall on this issue as a conservative.
Be First to Comment