Show paragraph

Your article is very good by identifying that the “issue” is “ unrestrained domestic surveillance”. I have read the proposed legislation.

Some other most crucial issues are:

1. Any citizen has absolutely no access to any information based on any activity by any approved corporation that acts for or with the Federal government agencies as authorized by the DHS. All activity is exempt from the Freedom of Information Act.

2. Any citizen affected on any level, because of any surveillance or after effects of any surveillance, or use or misuse of any information from any surveillance, has absolutely no legal process on any level, state or federal. This proposal states specifically that any activity is exempt from any other law.

3. What is most crucial is that this proposed law supersedes any state law. The proposal possibly ends any possibility of any state legislation affecting the internet at all. This is most critical because this is a very sneaky under-the-table way to outmaneuver present FCC(right or wrong) authority, and present limits to a sort of free access status to the internet. Even though it is not, and will never be free access, if commerce is to be “allowed” on local levels, local community, and state rights need to be discussed. This proposal also can eliminate any possibility of drastically essentially needed debate about state rights VS. federal rights about basic internet access, legislation, and especially local access for e-commerce. The electronic media is the E-COMMERCE storefront for all individual citizens. It is essential that local community, county and state legislation domain controls and limits be debated. The issue of “freedom of the press” and any rights to free commercial pursuits starting at the local level must be examined to maintain individual commercial, and individual constitutional rights through e-commerce. State control over internet commerce can actually create revenue streams starting at the local level and eliminate many aspects of the imbalance that has developed by a few internet corporate monopolies.

4. The members of the House that have proposed and voted for this legislation are in fact not representing the citizens of their individual states. The members of the House are in fact trying to take away in a very sneaky and underhanded way, state and individual citizen rights. The members of the House that proposed and voted for this legislation are in fact just using their positions as politicians and are only looking for personal and short term personal profits. The members of the House of representatives should be concerned at their group effort to negate state rights as state legislation can effectively be the means to regain local economic dominance that is necessary to re-establish profits and local US market dominance that is crucially needed to re-balance the US economy. Perhaps the members of the House of Representatives that proposed and voted for this legislation need to be outsourced to another continent. Their positions really are no longer necessary. Individual citizens can easily vote directly and immediately on any necessary proposals using electronic technology most effectively. The House and Senate positions are really redundant positions. Volunteers could easily perform media presentations via local community centers. The Federal Budget could be most effectively cut, and cut drastically, if all salaries for the redundant Congressional positions are eliminated and replaced by local community volunteers, rotating on some regular interval. State referendums could actually allow for major changes in Congress, and individual states, local communities and individual citizens could actually profit, and keep the profits locally and tremendously.

