Turning down the volume on TV commercials

[Ravi]

It's absurd to realize that the Constitution doesn't give the federal government authority to do this? If it's absurd then perhaps you can find for us where in the Constitution this authority is given.

Airwaves cross state borders. The commerce clause applies.

Not to mention ample precedent that you conveniently ignore.

Except the commerce clause was never intended to mean that the federal government could regulate anything it wants in any way it sees fit just because something crosses a state border. It simply means that the federal government can stop the states from enacting protectionist policies against one another. This was put in the Constitution because the framers saw this as one of the failures of the Articles of Confederation.

Unconstitutional precedent is no precedent at all.

You totally overlook the fact that the airwaves are vital to national security.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Airwaves cross state borders. The commerce clause applies.

Not to mention ample precedent that you conveniently ignore.

Except the commerce clause was never intended to mean that the federal government could regulate anything it wants in any way it sees fit just because something crosses a state border. It simply means that the federal government can stop the states from enacting protectionist policies against one another. This was put in the Constitution because the framers saw this as one of the failures of the Articles of Confederation.

Unconstitutional precedent is no precedent at all.

You totally overlook the fact that the airwaves are vital to national security.

You overlook the fact that you have not shown how regulating the volume of commercials has anything to do with national security.

 

[manifold]

Except the commerce clause was never intended to mean that the federal government could regulate anything it wants in any way it sees fit just because something crosses a state border. It simply means that the federal government can stop the states from enacting protectionist policies against one another. This was put in the Constitution because the framers saw this as one of the failures of the Articles of Confederation.

Unconstitutional precedent is no precedent at all.

So you'd have no issue with state governments regulating commercial volume?

That would be the way to properly get government involved, though I'm sure that would require an amendment to the state constitutions as well. But no, I would not support an amendment to my state's constitution giving them that authority.

Since it's a given that unregulated airwaves are unusable, who should regulate them?

Or should we just not use them at all so that we can be sure we don't run afoul of your 1830's academic states rights argument?

 

[Ravi]

Except the commerce clause was never intended to mean that the federal government could regulate anything it wants in any way it sees fit just because something crosses a state border. It simply means that the federal government can stop the states from enacting protectionist policies against one another. This was put in the Constitution because the framers saw this as one of the failures of the Articles of Confederation.

Unconstitutional precedent is no precedent at all.

You totally overlook the fact that the airwaves are vital to national security.

You overlook the fact that you have not shown how regulating the volume of commercials has anything to do with national security.

It doesn't. I know you aren't this stupid.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

So you'd have no issue with state governments regulating commercial volume?

That would be the way to properly get government involved, though I'm sure that would require an amendment to the state constitutions as well. But no, I would not support an amendment to my state's constitution giving them that authority.

Since it's a given that unregulated airwaves are unusable, who should regulate them?

Or should we just not use them at all so that we can be sure we don't run afoul of your 1830's academic states rights argument?

How are unregulated airwaves unusable? Would the equipment radio and television stations use suddenly malfunction if the government didn't regulate airwaves? All we need are property rights. Someone owns the frequency they broadcast on, and they use it in whatever way they want.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You totally overlook the fact that the airwaves are vital to national security.

You overlook the fact that you have not shown how regulating the volume of commercials has anything to do with national security.

It doesn't. I know you aren't this stupid.

Then what is your point?

 

[manifold]

That would be the way to properly get government involved, though I'm sure that would require an amendment to the state constitutions as well. But no, I would not support an amendment to my state's constitution giving them that authority.

Since it's a given that unregulated airwaves are unusable, who should regulate them?

Or should we just not use them at all so that we can be sure we don't run afoul of your 1830's academic states rights argument?

How are unregulated airwaves unusable? Would the equipment radio and television stations use suddenly malfunction if the government didn't regulate airwaves? All we need are property rights. Someone owns the frequency they broadcast on, and they use it in whatever way they want.

And when two parties broadcast on the same frequency, who arbitrates?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Since it's a given that unregulated airwaves are unusable, who should regulate them?

Or should we just not use them at all so that we can be sure we don't run afoul of your 1830's academic states rights argument?

How are unregulated airwaves unusable? Would the equipment radio and television stations use suddenly malfunction if the government didn't regulate airwaves? All we need are property rights. Someone owns the frequency they broadcast on, and they use it in whatever way they want.

And when two parties broadcast on the same frequency, who arbitrates?

The courts.

 

[Ravi]

You overlook the fact that you have not shown how regulating the volume of commercials has anything to do with national security.

It doesn't. I know you aren't this stupid.

Then what is your point?

You claim that it unconstitutional for the government to regulate the airwaves. It isn't...because the airwaves are vital to national security.

And since they have the right to regulate them...they may do as they see fit as long as they aren't violating anyone's civil rights.

In this case they are not violating anyone's civil rights, no matter how much you insist that advertisers have a right to volume level.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

It doesn't. I know you aren't this stupid.

Then what is your point?

You claim that it unconstitutional for the government to regulate the airwaves. It isn't...because the airwaves are vital to national security.

And since they have the right to regulate them...they may do as they see fit as long as they aren't violating anyone's civil rights.

In this case they are not violating anyone's civil rights, no matter how much you insist that advertisers have a right to volume level.

Advertisers don't have rights?

 

[Ravi]

Then what is your point?

You claim that it unconstitutional for the government to regulate the airwaves. It isn't...because the airwaves are vital to national security.

And since they have the right to regulate them...they may do as they see fit as long as they aren't violating anyone's civil rights.

In this case they are not violating anyone's civil rights, no matter how much you insist that advertisers have a right to volume level.

Advertisers don't have rights?

Not at the expense of others' rights.

 

[Anguille]

You claim that it unconstitutional for the government to regulate the airwaves. It isn't...because the airwaves are vital to national security.

And since they have the right to regulate them...they may do as they see fit as long as they aren't violating anyone's civil rights.

In this case they are not violating anyone's civil rights, no matter how much you insist that advertisers have a right to volume level.

Advertisers don't have rights?

Not at the expense of others' rights.

You mean like smokers?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You claim that it unconstitutional for the government to regulate the airwaves. It isn't...because the airwaves are vital to national security.

And since they have the right to regulate them...they may do as they see fit as long as they aren't violating anyone's civil rights.

In this case they are not violating anyone's civil rights, no matter how much you insist that advertisers have a right to volume level.

Advertisers don't have rights?

Not at the expense of others' rights.

Except your rights are not being violated. You have the means to alter the volume of the commercials at the push of a single button.

 

[Ravi]

Advertisers don't have rights?

Not at the expense of others' rights.

You mean like smokers?

Smokers don't have a right to come into your house and smoke, silly.

 

[Zoom-boing]

How can you tell me that's not true??????

You said that the programs don't get as loud as the damn commercials:

Of course some programs get a little louder at times, but still not as loud as the damn commercials.

Yes, shows DO get as loud as the damn commercials . . . . how do I know this is true? I thought I made that pretty clear. Again, because Nip/Tuck got louder than the damn commercials when I was watching it last night. I didn't specifically say the History channel got louder nor was I calling you a liar. You also weren't specific that the History Channel does or doesn't get louder than commercials. Was I to assume that you were just talking about the History Channel? Cause I didn't. Just saying that shows DO, in fact, get just as loud or louder than some commercials, as it happened on Nip/Tuck. Last night. When I was watching it.

I watched soaps years ago when my kids were little and I put them down for a nap. lol, of course I probably always fell asleep because I was tired from being a mom to little kids.

 

[California Girl]

Cut Paulie some slack here Ravs. It's perfectly reasonable to be of the opinion that this is an unnecessary waste of time. I might disagree, but at least that position is defensible. It's the idea that it's somehow unconstitutional that is absurd. I guess I might have missed it, but so far I haven't seen Paulie make that claim.

Where in the Constitution does it give government the power to regulate it?

 

[Care4all]

Cut Paulie some slack here Ravs. It's perfectly reasonable to be of the opinion that this is an unnecessary waste of time. I might disagree, but at least that position is defensible. It's the idea that it's somehow unconstitutional that is absurd. I guess I might have missed it, but so far I haven't seen Paulie make that claim.

Where in the Constitution does it give government the power to regulate it?

fyi


The Commerce Clause is an enumerated power listed in the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3). The clause states that the United States Congress shall have power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes". Courts and commentators have tended to discuss each of these three areas of commerce as a separate power granted to Congress. It is common to see the Commerce Clause referred to as "the Foreign Commerce Clause," "the Interstate Commerce Clause," and "the Indian Commerce Clause," each of which refers to a different application of the same single sentence in the Constitution.

 

[Ravi]

Cut Paulie some slack here Ravs. It's perfectly reasonable to be of the opinion that this is an unnecessary waste of time. I might disagree, but at least that position is defensible. It's the idea that it's somehow unconstitutional that is absurd. I guess I might have missed it, but so far I haven't seen Paulie make that claim.

Where in the Constitution does it give government the power to regulate it?

fyi


The Commerce Clause is an enumerated power listed in the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3). The clause states that the United States Congress shall have power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes". Courts and commentators have tended to discuss each of these three areas of commerce as a separate power granted to Congress. It is common to see the Commerce Clause referred to as "the Foreign Commerce Clause," "the Interstate Commerce Clause," and "the Indian Commerce Clause," each of which refers to a different application of the same single sentence in the Constitution.

And here:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_United_States_Constitution#cite_note-0 promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

 

[Yurt]

Where in the Constitution does it give government the power to regulate it?

fyi


The Commerce Clause is an enumerated power listed in the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3). The clause states that the United States Congress shall have power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes". Courts and commentators have tended to discuss each of these three areas of commerce as a separate power granted to Congress. It is common to see the Commerce Clause referred to as "the Foreign Commerce Clause," "the Interstate Commerce Clause," and "the Indian Commerce Clause," each of which refers to a different application of the same single sentence in the Constitution.

And here:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_United_States_Constitution#cite_note-0 promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

:facepalm:

wrong

 

[BridgieBridge]

How can you tell me that's not true??????

You said that the programs don't get as loud as the damn commercials:

Of course some programs get a little louder at times, but still not as loud as the damn commercials.

Yes, shows DO get as loud as the damn commercials . . . . how do I know this is true? I thought I made that pretty clear. Again, because Nip/Tuck got louder than the damn commercials when I was watching it last night. I didn't specifically say the History channel got louder nor was I calling you a liar. You also weren't specific that the History Channel does or doesn't get louder than commercials. Was I to assume that you were just talking about the History Channel? Cause I didn't. Just saying that shows DO, in fact, get just as loud or louder than some commercials, as it happened on Nip/Tuck. Last night. When I was watching it.

I watched soaps years ago when my kids were little and I put them down for a nap. lol, of course I probably always fell asleep because I was tired from being a mom to little kids.

Oh my goodness..... i'm not sure how many times i must explain this. Yes some show's like Nip Tuck and others get louder at times during the program. I do not watch loud and exciting and entertaining shows to fall asleep to! I put on something boring and mild and quiet. In most cases it remains the same volume while the program is on, yes occasionally a women who just found out she got the house of her dreams on hgtv, might get a little excited, when she gets the news, but still even then it's not as loud as the commercial that follows it. I can handle the women who yell's i got the house, or else i would'nt put the show on. And is if she yell's " i got the house!" it's very briefly, not several minutes of loud commercials. I cannot name you every channel that does or does not get louder during commercials bc i don't watch every channel. I do not watch alot of tv, other then to fall asleep to. Sometimes i don't even use the tv for that , sometimes i just read a book till i can no longer keep my eyes open. And actually in all honesty, not every single commercial during the break get's loud. Sometimes it's a loud one, then a regular one, and then another loud one. But i feel that the one's that do get louder should be quiet like other normal commercials, that stay the same volume as the show i'm watching. Are you understanding me yet, or must i babble on?

Lol , it was probably just bc you were tired from being a mom to little kids! I have a daughter but unfortuately i also have mild insomnia. It's difficult most of the time for me to go to sleep. That's why i get so aggravated when i start to fall asleep and..... BAM, BUY SHAM WOW!