Net-Neutrality Vs Federalism

961 Words4 Pages
Net-neutrality is the principle that providers of Internet services enable access to all contents with no prejudice or discrimination against sites or products regardless of the source. In December, the U.S. government repealed the national regulations that prevented “Internet Service Providers from blocking legal content, throttling traffic or prioritizing content on their broadband networks” in favor of a “looser set of requirements that ISPs disclose any blocking or prioritization of their own content.” In summary, the government has decided to change net-neutrality and make it easier to profit from. The government’s want, and subsequent success, to change the strict guidelines by which net-neutrality operated with is supported by the Chairman…show more content…
The government, as stated in the Constitution, has inherent powers that are “few and defined” constitutionally only for the federal government to exercise. Within the government’s inherent powers are two categories, express and implied powers. The express powers of the government can be found in Article I, section eight and can be simplified down to: the ability to print money; regulate interstate trade; borrow money on the credit of the national government; establish bankruptcy, immigration, counterfeiting, copyright, and piracy laws; declare war; and raise the army and naval forces . In relation to the news article about Net-neutrality, the government has no express powers that pertain to the allowance of them over-turning the FCC’s old rules for the creation of new rules that benefit them and a select few more than the people of the U.S. In contrast, the government’s actions, for those that disagree with the decision that had been made, might attempt to persuade the people that the government’s use of their implied powers gives them the right to make such a change to the Net-neutrality rules. The implied…show more content…
By splitting up the types of power the government and states hold, the citizens’ rights are afforded, as noted by James Madison, “double security” from tyranny by either the states or the government. All other political power remains with the states as a result of the 10th Amendment which also states that the federal government may only exercise the powers as defined within the Constitution. Unless the people want the federal government to execute a power, then the government can not take such individual actions like they have with the Net-neutrality rules. As Madison wrote in Federalist #45 of the Federalist Papers “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.” This statement of Madison’s serves as a reference that helps to further justify the state of Washington’s actions to pass a law to retain the original Net-neutrality rules that the government had no authority to change in the first place. In addition, the people were, and remain, oppose to the new rules and the passing vote for their removal went against their direct wishes. Therefore, many other states in the U.S. have started pass laws or bills like Washington state pertaining to the original Net-neutrality rules in answer to the displeasure that the citizens have expressed at the government’s
Open Document