Re: History of radio regulation; scrutiny of elected officials

[<garbanzo@worldnet.att.net>]

>
>Which gave us the predecessor of today's FCC. The question, of course, is
>if the justification for the FCC was to eliminate chaos, why did the
>agency not just stop there? Why the indecency rules, must-carry regs,
>fairness doctrine, overseeing network-station relationships, and so on?
>
>-Declan
>
This is the nature of regulatory agencies.  The FDA for example was 
originally just supposed to make sure that foods and drugs were labeled 
properly and did what they were supposed to do. Now it wants to ban 
cloning and tobacco.

> Decency, security, and liberty alike demand that
> government officials shall be subjected to the same
> rules of conduct that are commands to the citizens.
> In a government of laws, existence of the government
> will be imperilled if it fails observe the law
> scrupulously. Our government is the potent,
> omnipresent teacher. For good or ill, it teaches the
> whole people by example. Crime is contageous. If
> the government becomes a lawbreaker; it invites
> every man to become a law unto himself; it invites
> anarchy. To declare that in the administration of
> the criminal law the end justifies the means --
> to declare that the government may commit crimes
> to secure the conviction of a private criminal
> -- would bring terrible retribution. Against that
> pernicious doctrine this Court should resolutely
> set its face.
>
> Olmstead v. US (1928)
>
>You remember Brandeis. He's the person who argued for
>the *right* of privacy. Hardly a surprise, therefore,
>that he would be so outspoken on the abuse of government
>authority.
>
Jeez...expecting government officials to *obey* the *law*? Where do you 
think you live? So long as the economy is good you can do pretty much 
anything you want it seems.