Constitutional problems with HR 4969

The ARRL is telling us to support
HR 4969 ("Amateur Radio Parity Act of 2014") HR 1301 ("Amateur Radio Parity Act of 2015") that would forcibly compel PRB-1 (47 CFR 97.15(b) upon "all types of land-use regulation, including deed restrictions and restrictive covenants":

Except as otherwise provided herein, a station antenna structure may be erected at heights and dimensions sufficient to accommodate amateur service communications. (State and local regulation of a station antenna structure must not preclude amateur service communications. Rather, it must reasonably accommodate such communications and must constitute the minimum practicable regulation to accomplish the state or local authority's legitimate purpose.

Not so fast. The ARRL, Congress and the FCC faces constitutional obstacles before they can impose their will upon private contracts.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
(United States Constitution, Amendment 12)

“No State shall … pass any … Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts … “
(United States Constitution, Article I, Section 10)

According to the ARRL website, there is an exemption for Digital Broadcasting Service and terrestrial television antennas already in law:

Private land use regulation of Amateur antennas is not preempted by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, but most private land use regulation of DBS dishes and TV antennas is. Congress was interested in promoting competition (and thus lowering costs and improving service) in video delivery services.

Is the exemption for DBS and TV antennas itself unconstitutional? Does it not also impair the the contract obligations between two private parties? Answer: yes it does. The proposed legislation would add another unconstitutional provision to the current law. This calls into question the legitimacy of the ARRL's request - to forcibly compel a private party, by government action, to abrogate a private contractual agreement. It is one thing to restriction government action - it is another to restrict lawful private contracts.

Don't want to live under the rules of a homeowners association? Don't buy property or move into a house under their control. Don't commend government to violate or ignore the constitution or the law for your self-interest.

We already have enough of that.

Update: introduction of HR 1301, restate PRB-1.