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.

In 1976 the FCC changed the rules for Type Acceptance of CB radios.
Any radio that met type acceptance prior to that date was allowed to
be used but their sale was made illegal.

yes, I remember the sale of 23 channels being made illegal.

However, I'm still not sure that it was even legal for the FCC to do
so.

Although they did so, anyways.

From what I learned in school, which was before that happened, it's
illegal for the FCC to do so.

Or the mandatory transition to digital tv (although it was a past
Congress who decided to do that instead of the FCC)

Or them busting the CB shops for selling 10 meter radios today they
bbought before the new FCC rules prohibiting selling them went into
effect.

You can still legally get scanners wih cell phone coverage, if you can
find one, as long as they were manufactured before a certain date.

So the salee of those are still legal. So why not the sale of 23
channel CBs?

I thought all analog tv had to be shut off next year, but last night,
I seen the tv station run a crawl explaining thatonly full power tv
stations have to switch, and
explained that low power tv stations and tv translators are both
allowed to continue broadcasting in analog after that date.

We don't have any LPTV we can pick up over the air here, so over the
air tv will effectively be gone from here, since indoor antennas,
stationary roof antennas,
roof antennas with rotors all didn't work to get clear digital tv
reception. Digital tv reception didn't even work through the cable tv
company even though they
have the best reception equipment and location allowed around here. It
still frequently breaks up into blocks with audio cutting out when it
does so.

Unwatchable.

And neighbors with a lot better lot more expensive equipment than we
can afford who also had digital tv capability couldn't get any
watchable digital tv reception,
even though there's several digital tv stations around here.

The analog versions of those same stations are completely fine around
here.

And other people than just me also noticed the analog cable tv
breaking up into blocks since the cable company picks up the cable tv
stations' digitally and
retransmits them as analog.

Once all the full power broadcast stations switch over to digital,
they'll be unwatchable even on analog cable tv from the digital signal
breaking up at the cable tv
companiy's reception point and retransmitting it over analog cable tv.

From what I learned in school, obviously before it ever happened, the
FCC's busting of the CB shops for selling today 10 meter radios they
bought before the
FCC changed the rules is completely illegal.

If it's legal, then ham radios have to be certified by the FCC to
legally be used on the ham bands.

And hams say ham radios don't have to be certified to be used on the
ham bands.

But if those hams are correct, then the 10 meter radios are perfectly
legal.

however, the FCC says they aren't legal

And if they are not legal,

then ham radios do have to be certified by the FCC before they're
allowed to be used on the ham bands.

Which makes almost every ham radio that exists today completely
illegal to use on the ham bands.

Beccause according to what the FCC has been doing recently, it doesn't
matter how old those radios are.

According to the FCC rules, old ham radios are illegal since they're
channelized radios which can easily be used on the cb band.

On Apr 18, 2:05*pm, wrote:
In 1976 the FCC changed the rules for Type Acceptance of CB radios.
Any radio that met type acceptance prior to that date was allowed to
be used but their sale was made illegal.

yes, I remember the sale of 23 channels being made illegal.

However, I'm still not sure that it was even legal for the FCC to do
so.

Although they did so, anyways.

From what I learned in school, which was before that happened, it's
illegal for the FCC to do so.

Or the mandatory transition to digital tv (although it was a past
Congress who decided to do that instead of the FCC)

Or them busting the CB shops for selling 10 meter radios today they
bbought before the new FCC rules prohibiting selling them went into
effect.

You can still legally get scanners wih cell phone coverage, if you can
find one, as long as they were manufactured before a certain date.

So the salee of those are still legal. So why not the sale of 23
channel CBs?

I thought all analog tv had to be shut off next year, but last night,
I seen the tv station run a crawl explaining thatonly full power tv
stations have to switch, and
*explained that low power tv stations and tv translators are both
allowed to continue broadcasting in analog after that date.

We don't have any LPTV we can pick up over the air here, so over the
air tv will effectively be gone from here, since indoor antennas,
stationary roof antennas,
*roof antennas with rotors all didn't work to get clear digital tv
reception. *Digital tv reception didn't even work through the cable tv
company even though they
have the best reception equipment and location allowed around here. It
still frequently breaks up into blocks with audio cutting out when it
does so.

Unwatchable.

And neighbors with a lot better lot more expensive equipment than we
can afford who also had digital tv capability couldn't get any
watchable digital tv reception,
*even though there's several digital tv stations around here.

The analog versions of those same stations are completely fine around
here.

And other people than just me also noticed the analog cable tv
breaking up into blocks since the cable company picks up the cable tv
stations' digitally and
retransmits them as analog.

Once all the full power broadcast stations switch over to digital,
they'll be unwatchable even on analog cable tv from the digital signal
breaking up at the cable tv
companiy's reception point and retransmitting it over analog cable tv.

From what I learned in school, obviously before it ever happened, the
FCC's busting of the CB shops for selling today 10 meter radios they
bought before the
FCC changed the rules *is completely illegal.

If it's legal, then ham radios have to be certified by the FCC to
legally be used on the ham bands.

And hams say ham radios don't have to be certified to be used on the
ham bands.

But if those hams are correct, then the 10 meter radios are perfectly
legal.

however, the FCC says they aren't legal

And if they are not legal,

then ham radios do have to be certified by the FCC before they're
allowed to be used on the ham bands.

Which makes almost every ham radio that exists today completely
illegal to use on the ham bands.

Beccause according to what the FCC has been doing recently, it doesn't
matter how old those radios are.

According to the FCC rules, old ham radios are illegal since they're
channelized radios which can easily be used on the cb band.

From the way I learned it, which was ven before the FCC prohibited the
sale of 23 channel CB radios.

The FCC is allowed to prohibit the sale of 23 channel cb radios and 10
meter radios

But they're not allowed to prevent the sale of 23 channel cb radiosd
and 10 meter radios if those radios were bought before the new FCC
laws went into effect.

If the FCC says "no 10 meter radios allowed for sale after january 1,
2005"

they are not legally allowed to bust a shop for selling any 10 meter
radio after that date if the shop had bought all of their 10 meter
radios before that date.

Only if the shop continued to buy those radios after January 1, 2005

The above dates are only examples. I don't know what real date was
set, if any. I don't think any was in the case of 10 meter radios,
just in the case of 23 channel
cb radios).

But as I recall, the 23 channel CBs were gone from the shops by the
date the FCC said.

What a waste throwing all of those good CB radios out.

Off course, any company or store who tries to defend their legal
rights in such cases ends up paying a lot of money in legal fees which
they shouldn't have to
in that case since they weren't breaking any laws anyway.

The FCC claiming that it's breaking the law just goes to show that
either 1. The FCC doesn't know the law. o 2. The FCC is purposely
ignoring the law.

Since it's clearly a violation of the ex-post-facto provisions of the
U.S. Constitution.

No one can legally be found guilty today or tomorrow for a crime they
comitted yesterday or before that was not a crime yesterdasy or
before, at the time it was
comitted.

As I understand it from what I read, the FCC has been busting and
fining some places and people for mere "posession" of those radios
even if the people bought them before their new rules defining them as
"illegal" were made and went into effect.

I don't own one anyways.




their new rules defining them as illegal went into effect.

On Apr 18, 11:57*am, an_old_friend wrote:
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

not according to the constitution- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

correct.

If the U.S. Constitution is only interpretation and not law, then the
things about ex-post-facto in it are not law either which means you as
U.S. citizens have no
guarantee that you won't be put in jail tomorow for something that is
a crime tomorrow but not a crime today when you commit it.

Nor even have the right to not be put in jail tomorrow for doing
somethinng today that is a crime tomorrow but not a crime today

This means that if the FCC decides in 2011 to give thee 27 mhzCB band
back to the ham operators and says that non-hams aren't allowed to
transmit anywhere
in what was the 27 mhz CB band, they can legally put you, a non-ham in
jail in 2012 for transmitting on CB channel 19 in 2008 even if you
never transmitted there after 2008.

Think that can't happen? As recently as last year (2007), I seen some
posts by some hams wanting and trying to get the FCC to give back the
27 mhz CB band
that the CBers "stole" from them.

And they would also be able to legally put you, a ham, in jail in 2008
for transmitting on the 11 meter band in 1955 with more power than is
allowed to be transmitted on the
11 meter band in 2008.

If the U.S. Constitution is law, which it is, and not interpretation,
then you as U.S. citizens are guaranteed that you can't legally be put
in jail or fined tomorrow for
doing today something that is a crime tomorrow but not a crime today
at the time you do it.


The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the U.S.

On Apr 18, 5:13*pm, wrote:
On Apr 18, 11:57*am, an_old_friend wrote:





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

not according to the constitution- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

correct.

If the U.S. Constitution is only interpretation and not law, then the
things about ex-post-facto in it are not law either which means you as
U.S. citizens have no
guarantee that you won't be put in jail tomorow for something that is
a crime tomorrow but not a crime today when you commit it.

Nor even have the right to not be put in jail tomorrow for doing
somethinng today that is a crime tomorrow but not a crime today

This means that if the FCC decides in 2011 to give thee 27 mhzCB band
back to the ham operators and says that non-hams aren't allowed to
transmit anywhere
in what was the 27 mhz CB band, they can legally put you, a non-ham in
jail in 2012 for transmitting on CB channel 19 *in 2008 even if you
never transmitted there after 2008.

Think that can't happen? As recently as last year (2007), I seen some
posts by some hams wanting and trying to get the FCC to give back the
27 mhz CB band
that the CBers "stole" from them.

And they would also be able to legally put you, a ham, in jail in 2008
for transmitting on the 11 meter band in 1955 with more power than is
allowed to be transmitted on the
11 meter band in 2008.

If the U.S. Constitution is law, which it is, and not interpretation,
then you as U.S. citizens are guaranteed that you can't legally be put
in jail or fined tomorrow for
doing today something that is a crime tomorrow but not a crime today
at the time you do it.

The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the U.S.

*.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Besides what was mentioned in this thread, this in my opinion also
explains why beer advertising is still allowed on tv after cigarette
advertising was no longer
allowed.



http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 11:05:01 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

|yes, I remember the sale of 23 channels being made illegal.
|
|However, I'm still not sure that it was even legal for the FCC to do
|so.
|-------------------

Yes it was perfectly legal. The standards for type acceptance changed.
Therefore, the older units no longer met type acceptance.

james

We are a nation of Statutes and Regulations that use the Constitution
as a guide for what can and cannot be written into those statutes. We
passed into Statutory Law a long time ago.

Break a law and they don't cite the Constitution. They cite Statutes.
It is for lawyers and judges to determine if statutues meet
Constitutional merit and thus legal.

Again, the Constitution is there to provide a means of whether
Statutes and Regualtions meet the intent of the COnstitution. The
Constitution perse is not Law but rather the Supreme guideline in
which Regulations and Statutes are deemed permissable.


james

On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 14:13:48 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

|On Apr 18, 11:57*am, an_old_friend wrote:
| 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
|
| not according to the constitution- Hide quoted text -
|
| - Show quoted text -
|
|correct.
|
|If the U.S. Constitution is only interpretation and not law, then the
|things about ex-post-facto in it are not law either which means you as
|U.S. citizens have no
|guarantee that you won't be put in jail tomorow for something that is
|a crime tomorrow but not a crime today when you commit it.
|
|Nor even have the right to not be put in jail tomorrow for doing
|somethinng today that is a crime tomorrow but not a crime today
|
|This means that if the FCC decides in 2011 to give thee 27 mhzCB band
|back to the ham operators and says that non-hams aren't allowed to
|transmit anywhere
|in what was the 27 mhz CB band, they can legally put you, a non-ham in
|jail in 2012 for transmitting on CB channel 19 in 2008 even if you
|never transmitted there after 2008.
|
|Think that can't happen? As recently as last year (2007), I seen some
|posts by some hams wanting and trying to get the FCC to give back the
|27 mhz CB band
|that the CBers "stole" from them.
|
|And they would also be able to legally put you, a ham, in jail in 2008
|for transmitting on the 11 meter band in 1955 with more power than is
|allowed to be transmitted on the
|11 meter band in 2008.
|
|If the U.S. Constitution is law, which it is, and not interpretation,
|then you as U.S. citizens are guaranteed that you can't legally be put
|in jail or fined tomorrow for
|doing today something that is a crime tomorrow but not a crime today
|at the time you do it.
|
|
|The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the U.S.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| .

On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 14:32:40 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

|On Apr 18, 5:13*pm, wrote:
| On Apr 18, 11:57*am, an_old_friend wrote:
|
|
|
|
|
| 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
|
| not according to the constitution- Hide quoted text -
|
| - Show quoted text -
|
| correct.
|
| If the U.S. Constitution is only interpretation and not law, then the
| things about ex-post-facto in it are not law either which means you as
| U.S. citizens have no
| guarantee that you won't be put in jail tomorow for something that is
| a crime tomorrow but not a crime today when you commit it.
|
| Nor even have the right to not be put in jail tomorrow for doing
| somethinng today that is a crime tomorrow but not a crime today
|
| This means that if the FCC decides in 2011 to give thee 27 mhzCB band
| back to the ham operators and says that non-hams aren't allowed to
| transmit anywhere
| in what was the 27 mhz CB band, they can legally put you, a non-ham in
| jail in 2012 for transmitting on CB channel 19 *in 2008 even if you
| never transmitted there after 2008.
|
| Think that can't happen? As recently as last year (2007), I seen some
| posts by some hams wanting and trying to get the FCC to give back the
| 27 mhz CB band
| that the CBers "stole" from them.
|
| And they would also be able to legally put you, a ham, in jail in 2008
| for transmitting on the 11 meter band in 1955 with more power than is
| allowed to be transmitted on the
| 11 meter band in 2008.
|
| If the U.S. Constitution is law, which it is, and not interpretation,
| then you as U.S. citizens are guaranteed that you can't legally be put
| in jail or fined tomorrow for
| doing today something that is a crime tomorrow but not a crime today
| at the time you do it.
|
| The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the U.S.
|
| *.- Hide quoted text -
|
| - Show quoted text -
|
|Besides what was mentioned in this thread, this in my opinion also
|explains why beer advertising is still allowed on tv after cigarette
|advertising was no longer
|allowed.
|
|
|
|http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
|---------------

Again you fail to see. The Constitution was setup in order to provide
guidelines on how teh government must be ran. The Bill of Rights, the
first ten amdendments are inalienable rights that Government can not
take away. Thus no government shall pass Statutes and Regulations that
remove the right spelled out in the Bill of Rights.


james

On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 09:47:21 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

|There IS a difference.
|
|-----------------------

Yes in your mind and limited understanding there is more than likely a
difference.

james

"james" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 14:32:40 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

|On Apr 18, 5:13 pm, wrote:
| On Apr 18, 11:57 am, an_old_friend wrote:
|
|
|
|
|
| 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
|
| not according to the constitution- Hide quoted text -
|
| - Show quoted text -
|
| correct.
|
| If the U.S. Constitution is only interpretation and not law, then the
| things about ex-post-facto in it are not law either which means you as
| U.S. citizens have no
| guarantee that you won't be put in jail tomorow for something that is
| a crime tomorrow but not a crime today when you commit it.
|
| Nor even have the right to not be put in jail tomorrow for doing
| somethinng today that is a crime tomorrow but not a crime today
|
| This means that if the FCC decides in 2011 to give thee 27 mhzCB band
| back to the ham operators and says that non-hams aren't allowed to
| transmit anywhere
| in what was the 27 mhz CB band, they can legally put you, a non-ham in
| jail in 2012 for transmitting on CB channel 19 in 2008 even if you
| never transmitted there after 2008.
|
| Think that can't happen? As recently as last year (2007), I seen some
| posts by some hams wanting and trying to get the FCC to give back the
| 27 mhz CB band
| that the CBers "stole" from them.
|
| And they would also be able to legally put you, a ham, in jail in 2008
| for transmitting on the 11 meter band in 1955 with more power than is
| allowed to be transmitted on the
| 11 meter band in 2008.
|
| If the U.S. Constitution is law, which it is, and not interpretation,
| then you as U.S. citizens are guaranteed that you can't legally be put
| in jail or fined tomorrow for
| doing today something that is a crime tomorrow but not a crime today
| at the time you do it.
|
| The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the U.S.
|
| .- Hide quoted text -
|
| - Show quoted text -
|
|Besides what was mentioned in this thread, this in my opinion also
|explains why beer advertising is still allowed on tv after cigarette
|advertising was no longer
|allowed.
|
|
|
|http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
|---------------

Again you fail to see. The Constitution was setup in order to provide
guidelines on how teh government must be ran. The Bill of Rights, the
first ten amdendments are inalienable rights that Government can not
take away. Thus no government shall pass Statutes and Regulations that
remove the right spelled out in the Bill of Rights.


james

Dubya Bush did so with an executive order.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/rights...beuscorpus.htm