On Apr 18, 7:47*am, james wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 12:51:52 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

|Whether they were part 15 or full power, since they were completely
|legal at the time they were sold, not
|allowing them to be used on the legal 40 cb channels is a violation of
|the ex-post-facto laws of the
|U.S. Constitution, the supreme law of the land.
|
|----------------------

Boy did you flunk Civics 102.

The Supreme Law of the Land is the US Cde of Federal regulations. The
Constitution is there as a guideline for making laws and determining
whather laws violate or follow its intent. Then again intent is all
based on interpretation.

james


No, the "everything in the U.S. cconstitution is only interpretation"
is promoted by extreme liberals who want to destroy the U.S.
Constitution for their own
purposes.


You probably fell for that line, as so many people today do.

When I was in school, decades ago, we were definitely taught that it
is the supreme law of the land and not interpretation.

Such as all the powers that the U.S. constitution does not list as
being given to the federal government is reserved to the states.

The first and second amendments, and the rest of them, are also law,
not interpretation.

Although the U.S. Supreme Court has the right to interpret the laws in
how they think what it means..

But even in that remark, it was called "laws", not interpretation.

However, the U.S. Supreme Court does not have the right to make laws,
only the right to interpret what laws are already there.

There IS a difference.