Blocking state laws (was: We need a drone law similar to this one in Montana)

[mavic3usa]

Because so many computer and internet related elements are coming under control fire from different government agencies whether it's access to social media, political censorship, age verification, the use of AI, throttling, censorship, pirating and the use of VPNs, net neutrality, and so much more efforts to block and control the citizens rights to access information. This law doesn't solve it but it helps fight back against the age-old saying "You don't have a right to it" argument therefore we (the government) or allow to prohibit it as much as we please; there was no "internet" when the Constitution was drafted; it's not covered. Well, now you have a "right" to it and a leg to stand on in Montana. We need a drone bill of rights.

Montana Becomes First State to Enshrine ‘Right to Compute’ Into Law - Montana Newsroom

Montana has made history as the first state in the U.S. to legally protect its citizens’ right to access and use computational tools and artificial intelligence technologies. Governor Greg Gianforte signed Senate Bill 212, officially known as the Montana Right to Compute Act (MRTCA), into law...

montananewsroom.com

 

[mavic3usa]

Does anyone see a problem with this? Do you want the federal government to be the sole decision-maker on how AI is implemented across the country including in your drones? This works both ways. If the WH says "No AI in drones....prohibited" are you ok with the decision that doesn't go your way and not only impacts the every state directly but also impacts the products sold in those states?

As you know, generally when California passes a state law, being the biggest market usually "encourages" manufacturers to build to at least that level meaning most states build and label products spec'd to Cali regulations. Such products generally cost more and usually have less functionality although these days, it's a lot easier to customize particularly electronics.

Think about issues like online age verification, civil lawsuits, transparency and accountability, the global impact to such decisions. Do you really want your federal government to dictate this (right now the People don't really have a voice when Congress is paralyzed so it's the WH calling the shot particularly with EOs)? Last I checked the Constitution, I didn't see controlling worldwide AI powers as part of their duties.

This is a matter for the courts to decide: https://www.politico.com/news/2025/...ecutive-order-to-block-state-ai-laws-00660719

 

[AnzacJack]

straight from the horse's mouth

There are a few clear ways the U.S. Constitution shapes, limits, or informs how lawmakers approach rules around artificial intelligence. Here’s a straightforward breakdown:

1. Free Speech (First Amendment)​

Many A.I. issues bump straight into free-speech protections.
Examples:

• Regulating deepfakes or synthetic media must be balanced against protected expression.
• Rules that restrict A.I. model output or training data can raise questions about censorship or prior restraint.
• Even copyright-training disputes sometimes get framed as a speech issue because training data can be treated as a form of information use.

2. Privacy and Data Use (Fourth Amendment)​

The Constitution doesn’t explicitly mention privacy, but the Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches. Courts have used it to decide:

• Whether government use of A.I.-based surveillance, facial recognition, or predictive tools is lawful.
• What level of “digital surveillance” counts as a search—e.g., mass data collection enhanced by A.I. could be judged unconstitutional without warrants.

3. Due Process (Fifth & Fourteenth Amendments)​

A.I. systems used by government must meet standards of fairness. This matters in:

• Automated decision-making (e.g., welfare decisions, risk assessments in courts).
• Ensuring people can challenge or appeal A.I.-generated decisions that affect their rights.
  If a government relies on an opaque A.I. system, courts may find the process unconstitutional.

4. Equal Protection (Fourteenth Amendment)​

If government agencies use A.I. that produces biased outcomes, they may breach equal-protection guarantees.
Examples:

• Predictive policing models disproportionately targeting certain groups.
• Biased hiring or school-admissions algorithms used by government bodies.

5. Separation of Powers​

A.I. regulation raises questions about:

• How much power Congress can delegate to regulatory agencies (like the FTC) to oversee A.I.
• Whether executive agencies can create A.I. rules without explicit direction from Congress.
  Recent Supreme Court decisions limiting agency power make this particularly relevant.

6. Intellectual Property & the Constitution (Article I, Section 8)​

Congress is empowered to create copyright and patent laws.
Key questions influenced by this include:

• Whether A.I. can be an inventor or author.
• Whether training A.I. on copyrighted works is lawful.
• How to balance innovation with creators’ rights.

7. Commerce Clause​

This allows federal regulation of interstate commerce—and A.I. is inherently cross-state and international.
It gives Congress the authority to:

• Set nationwide A.I. standards.
• Regulate companies developing or deploying A.I. systems that affect multiple states.

---

In short​

The Constitution doesn’t mention A.I., but it acts as the backbone for what A.I. laws can and cannot do. Any national rules must respect free speech, privacy, due process, equal protection, and limits on government power. Most future A.I. laws in the U.S. will end up being tested against these constitutional principles.

 

[mavic3usa]

Not asking to allow states to make all the rules and the federal government stay out. I am suggesting the federal government step in when the states get out of line. This EO pretty much says "states, stay out it; it's our job, we'll decide." But it's not and yes I believe in uniformity and fairness and consistency and equality and all those good things and we've done it before when it comes to driver's license for example. Each state issues their own DL, under their own rules....it works. Why? Because nowhere does it says the federal government issues driver's license. Everything on the planet is related in some way to commerce but that shouldn't mean the federal government runs "everything" and that state runs "nothing" because everything in the 21st century is all about commerce and the economy. States can set their rules on credit card fees is another example. Gas prices. Emission standards. Number of terms in office. Unless the Constitution says so explicitly, federal government you don't have it. Federal government stay in your lane.

So what's a good example: Let's say Montana doesn't like AI and they want to charge a $20/month AI fee for anyone who wants to use AI? Not cool. But let's say Texas says you can go to war at age 18, you can use AI at age 18; should they be able to forgo a federal minimum AI age set to 21? We have this fight all the time with guns, voting, etc.

See, I don't trust the federal government as I mentioned (mostly the executive branch no matter who is in office). When I think of the People, I think of states and state's rights. Congress is the People but unfortunately, they don't work for the people, never have. But ok, we'll take them but only for federal things, not everything and not the Internet and not AI. I don't want the federal government to decide with Google is too big or when Apple dominates wireless too much or when the Internet is too fast or too slow. Here's a good article on the topic that should help keeps states under control, we don't need a ridiculous EO to muck it up:

The Commerce Clause in the Age of AI | Andreessen Horowitz

The dormant Commerce Clause isn’t an obstacle to all state AI regulation, but a guidepost for effective AI governance. States should regulate harmful in-state uses of AI, like fraud or discrimination, where regulation can actually protect residents while supporting innovation and American...

a16z.com