How does Net Nutrality affect SE/XIV?

[Roth_Trailfinder]

Individual states are suing because the FCC has said that the federal government does not have the right to regulate ISPs, but has ALSO said that it is not something that a state may regulate, either.

This is blatantly unconstitutional, because all powers not explicitly granted to the government are reserved for the states (10th Amendment.)

So either the FCC is wrong about the federal government having no authority to regulate ISPs, or they are wrong about states having no authority to regulate ISPs. The authority has to rest in at least one of them.

Unfortunately, precedent suggests it will be with the Federal, not a State, government. The 10th Amendment is ignored in so many cases, it is effectively treated as non-existent and meaningless. Don’t get me wrong - I think that it should be applied far more often than it is (which is easy enough, if it was applied ONCE it would be applied more often than it is). But things like Obamacare (impossible to do with the 10th Amendment, though Massachusetts’ Romneycare was perfectly legit) and the blatant misuse of the Interstate Commerce clause indicate that its not going to be up to the States.

Some places are suing to take power from the federal government (cities and states do not have the constitutional authority to rewrite American immigration policy, yet cities sued to stop any kind of Federal defunding for their Sanctuary City policies) and in many cases the Federal government has blatantly usurped power that belongs to the States, or to no Government at all (the saving of General Motors comes to mind here). In all of these, I see the 10th Amendment being blatantly ignored and trampled upon.

We never should have ratified the Amendment that gave individuals direct voting rights for their Senators. That was a tipping point against States Rights (though it was not the starting point against States Rights).