The issue is not if the fund is needed or not, it is that congress never specified how much the Universal Service Fund tax would be. The FCC keeps raising the tax rate. 10% of your mobile phone bill now goes to this fund that seems was decided by bureaucrats at the FCC and not by Congress. If the court strikes it down, then Congress will have to step in, which seems appropriate.
> The issue is not if the fund is needed or not, it is that congress never specified how much the Universal Service Fund tax would be.
Congress could, if they didn't like the regulators' chosen amount, set a new fixed amount with a couple lines of legislation and a vote. Done in a day.
If Congress chose not to specify it and therefore delegate the decision, shouldn't it be up to them to pass a new law to specify it if needed if they think the executive branch has raised it too much?
Why is this a situation where the supreme court should step in?
The legal question is identified in the original reporting on the lower court's ruling:
> Oldham said the USF funding method unconstitutionally delegates congressional taxing authority to the FCC and a private entity tapped by the agency, the Universal Service Administrative Company, to determine how much to charge telecommunications companies. Oldham wrote that “the combination of Congress’s broad delegation to FCC and FCC’s subdelegation to private entities certainly amounts to a constitutional violation.”
This certainly seems to me like an important question for the Court to weigh in on. The power to tax is clearly Congress's, but it's not clear that we should want Congress to have the power to delegate that power to anyone they choose.
And the FCC is empowered by Congress to act on their behalf.
It's the same top-down approach used all over the business world and organizations like the military. The people at the top make high level decisions and empower those below them to handle the fine details.
I don't go to the board of directors of my company to approve every decision I make. They outline strategic goals, hand those to the CEO, who gives plans to the heads of departments, who hand them down to me.
It's so weird to see people latch onto this idea that Congress needs to handle the minutia of governing when we know that top-heavy, leaders-make-every-decision form of governing doesn't work. Imagine a drive thru operator needing board approval to substitute mayonnaise for ketchup on an order because the Article 1 Section 8 of the corporate charter says the board has sole responsibility over the menu, and mayonnaise on a burger is not on the current menu.
Neither is overturning one as unconstitutional that Congress explicitly created and the President signed into law, especially on the sole basis of "well we're not certain Congress still wants it, even though they could get rid of it easily if they cared".
I believe the argument is that Congress is not constitutionally allowed to delegate determination of the amount of that tax because the first words in the US Constitution are "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States" and specifying the amount of that tax is clearly "legislation"? The executive branch is granted little or no legislative power.
From a practical standpoint at least some voters know who their US Senators and US Representative are and a few of those will actually look up how they voted on a tax hike or cut and include that information into their decision making process on who to vote for every two to six years. Very few voters know who the unelected bureaucrats in administrative agencies are, those bureaucrats change without the direct consent of voters, and they never stand for election.
The linked article says "Liberal and conservative justices alike said they were concerned about the potentially devastating consequences of eliminating the fund that has benefited tens of millions of Americans". It's fine that the court is "concerned" about this, however it is not something the court should consider in the slightest in their decision this case - those are the effects of policy decisions which should be left to elected legislators in a properly functioning democracy. If the court finds in favor of the plaintiffs, Congress is free to go do their job and pass legislation that specifies the amount of the tax just as they do with Federal income tax (showing they have the _ability_ to do so).
> I believe the argument is that Congress is not constitutionally allowed to delegate determination of the amount of that tax because the first words in the US Constitution are "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States" and specifying the amount of that tax is clearly "legislation"?
The powers "herein granted" include "To provide and maintain a Navy", but that doesn't mean they can't delegate aspects of running the Navy to the Executive. We don't have to pass a new law every time the Navy sails a ship to Australia.
That's because you changed what's actually happening to something way bigger, so then you can immediately say it's not minutiae.
This isn't taxes, this is one very specific and small tax. And this isn't levied by the FCC, it's levied by Congress. The FCC just gets to say what percentage of this specific tax is applicable.
So the FCC gets the power to change what percentage of phone bills should go towards universal telephony access. Put this way, you know, the thing that's actually happening, it does seem like minutiae.
I doubt Congress has any idea what percentage of phone bills should go towards universal access because they're not telecommunications experts. They don't know how hard, or easy, it may be to run rural lines. They don't know what lines are still needed. They don't know where they're needed. In fact, they don't even know what phone bills should cost!
the rollout of this program has gone badly.. when there is a button to push for more money, that seems to be the one thing that always does happen. Pure theory does not deal with the actual implementation of this national program.
entertaining and skilled - recommend Princeton University, Center for Information Technology Project, "No WANs Land: Mapping US Broadband Coverage" .. you might be surprised!
It's probably not, but the current administration doesn't want to pay any of the bills for the people producing their food. A penny spent on the less fortunate is one that doesn't go into their pockets.
these pennies do power the inernet and phones of your libraries though. And compared to the overall budget, calling these costs pennies is a magnitude too large.
I was making a point that they are only trying to steal and hoard money, which when they are the only ones with money, money will have no value and you can't eat them.
My complaint with presidential nominees having extensive power is that it moves too much policy to hinge on a single, nationwide election. As we've seen, that can lead to extreme instability versus congressional legislation.
The COP for a heat pump drops as the temperature decreases. The climate should have a large impact on the choice of technology. Here in Florida it is a no brainer, everyone has a heat pump for the cool winter days. In Minnesota, it is a non starter.
It depends on what else you have available. If you have natural gas available at your house then a heat pump is probably not the most economical choice. Here in New Hampshire though NG is not available at many homes and a cold weather heat pump ends up being the cheapest option versus heating oil or propane.
We have no meetings at all, other than one weekly a 30-minute standing meeting. Email or slack and no expectation on response time. Been doing that for 5 years with no problems.
The running time of the CD-ROM was designed to play Beethoven's 9th symphony in its entirety. You would have thought Apple would plan the battery life to allow you to watch all of Avengers: Endgame, or maybe Oppenheimer, without pausing to swap the battery.
I have to wonder about a device that won't allow you to watch a 2-hour movie without running out of battery and having to plug it in. I guess Oppenheimer is a no-go.
OMG, those barstools with the flat bottoms. Painful after 10 minutes. Who does this? I see this in co-working spaces all the time. Whoever designed them does not actually do any deep work. I just want a great chair and 3 monitors.
It baffles me too. They're for perching, not for sitting. Compare that with something like an upmarket Korean internet café, where all the chairs are supremely comfortable and the monitors are a gorgeous 4k 120Hz. It's really a lesson in the designers being the users. Internet Café owners in Korea generally grow up using them too. Tech offices are made by the same people who design hipster cafés, wealthy homes, and restaurants interiors for a living. They don't understand the demands, and go for aesthetics over function.
And the giant open-plan workspace, with no dividers or anything between all the people.
I just want a great chair and a very large 4K monitor, in a peaceful and quiet environment. If I want noise and hubbub, I can play something through my headphones.
The lawyer should lose his license. Imagine they had turned in this brief and follow up and ChatGPT had not been involved. Instant disbarment. ChatGPT is not an excuse for a professional to produce nonsense in front of the court. Bye bye.
Yeah, interestingly, being bad at lawyering isn't a typical reason for discipline. Discipline is integrity and process-based, things like stealing client funds and failing to communicate promptly and reasonably with the client.
Arguably the leading goof was using a technology the lawyer didn't understand and failing to inform the client of the risks of using it. Between that and citing garbage precedent-- half the bar might be eligible for discipline on any given day. The judge might issue sanctions but bar discipline is a different ball of wax.
The way I see it, AI cannot claim legal ownership of the output produced, it belongs to the human that generated it (e.g., an example of someone using generative AI to produce a painting that can be copyrighted by them).
Which makes me think that this case should be treated just as if the lawyer wrote it on their own. If the lawyer enters output of chatGPT they generated into court records as if it was their own, it was their own. The lawyer wrote those made up cases into the documents, and the entire matter should be treated as such.
It blows my mind the lawyer didn't double-check the fake cases cited by chatGPT, but had the idea to ask chatGPT whether those citations were legit (and then got his concern satisfied with a simple "yes").
