(Steve Robeson K4YZ) wrote in message ...
Subject: Get your Trophy US Extra Callsign (A KH0x call would be nice!)
From: Robert Casey
Date: 11/23/2004 12:13 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id: .net


At least the FCC did do something about club calls. They took 42 of
them away from a JA few years back :-) But for some strange reason,
they let him keep his primary station license, a W9 extra class U.S.
call.

73, Jim KH2D


Maybe they should get calls like WJ#XXX, or KJ#XXX...
If the FCC decides that it's proper for foriegners to
get American ham licenses.....

Perhaps you'd consider a Constitutional Amendment that restricts US rights
and privileges to US citizens or persons legally landed here.

The FCC has already decided that it's proper for foreign nationals to have
US license if they complete the prerequisites for that license and exercise it
within the parameters of Part 97.
Citizenship is not one of them.

Specific callsigns would be discriminatory under present US
interpretations of the Constitution.

73

Steve, K4YZ


Inneresting. Steve has pushed Phil Kane aside as our resident
communications attorney.

"You miss the point, Steve. The purpose of r.r.a.p. is no longer
discussion of policy, or learning something, or study of
communications
theory.

The purpose is to FIGHT and to denegrate the dignity of all who do not
agree with you! Any other post is off topic and is not welcome here.

Get with the program. No one is "mistaken" or "partially correct" on
r.r.a.p. They either 100% totally agree with you, or they are "a
lying,
scum sucking, bottom feeding no-code beeper." There is no in between,
and there must be at least one of each in every conversation here.
Anything which resembles a rational exchange of ideas and useful
information will either be ignored, or some enterprising induhvidual
will hijack the thread and turn it into an argument about Morse. No
other "Policy" conversation is allowed to survive unmolested.

72, de Hans, K0HB"

(William) wrote in
m:

(Steve Robeson K4YZ) wrote in message
...
Subject: Get your Trophy US Extra Callsign (A KH0x call would be
nice!) From: Robert Casey
Date: 11/23/2004 12:13 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id: .net


At least the FCC did do something about club calls. They took 42 of
them away from a JA few years back :-) But for some strange reason,
they let him keep his primary station license, a W9 extra class
U.S. call.

73, Jim KH2D


Maybe they should get calls like WJ#XXX, or KJ#XXX...
If the FCC decides that it's proper for foriegners to get American
ham licenses.....

Perhaps you'd consider a Constitutional Amendment that restricts
US rights
and privileges to US citizens or persons legally landed here.

The FCC has already decided that it's proper for foreign
nationals to have
US license if they complete the prerequisites for that license and
exercise it within the parameters of Part 97.
Citizenship is not one of them.

Specific callsigns would be discriminatory under present US
interpretations of the Constitution.

73

Steve, K4YZ


Inneresting. Steve has pushed Phil Kane aside as our resident
communications attorney.

"You miss the point, Steve. The purpose of r.r.a.p. is no longer
discussion of policy, or learning something, or study of
communications
theory.

The purpose is to FIGHT and to denegrate the dignity of all who do not
agree with you! Any other post is off topic and is not welcome here.

Get with the program. No one is "mistaken" or "partially correct" on
r.r.a.p. They either 100% totally agree with you, or they are "a
lying,
scum sucking, bottom feeding no-code beeper." There is no in between,
and there must be at least one of each in every conversation here.
Anything which resembles a rational exchange of ideas and useful
information will either be ignored, or some enterprising induhvidual
will hijack the thread and turn it into an argument about Morse. No
other "Policy" conversation is allowed to survive unmolested.

72, de Hans, K0HB"


Steve is right, though.

Discrimination against resident aliens has been prohibited since Yick Wo v
Hopkins, which relied on the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.

The facts of the case related to legislation against laundries being
constructed from wood in downtown San Fancisco. This law was overturned as
it was held that it was written only to discriminate against laundries
owned and operated by Chinese citizens.

Arguably, the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment only applies to
the states, but there are cases invoking the due process clause of the 5th
amendment, which is applicable to the federal government.

I beleive there was a Puerto Rican case in federal district court that
relied on either the 5th or the 14th in the alternative, allowing aliens to
become registered as professional engineers. I don't have the citation for
that one.

This is a little way off Phil Kane's speciality of communications law,
although no doubt the FCC can't discriminate against aliens. Maybe Phil
knows of some case law regarding aliens and the FCC?

I am not a lawyer, just an alien.

73 de Alun, N3KIP, G8VUK

Subject: Get your Trophy US Extra Callsign (A KH0x call would be nice!)
From: Alun
Date: 11/23/2004 7:07 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(William) wrote in
om:

(Steve Robeson K4YZ) wrote in message
...
Subject: Get your Trophy US Extra Callsign (A KH0x call would be
nice!) From: Robert Casey
Date: 11/23/2004 12:13 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id: .net


At least the FCC did do something about club calls. They took 42 of
them away from a JA few years back :-) But for some strange reason,
they let him keep his primary station license, a W9 extra class
U.S. call.

73, Jim KH2D


Maybe they should get calls like WJ#XXX, or KJ#XXX...
If the FCC decides that it's proper for foriegners to get American
ham licenses.....

Perhaps you'd consider a Constitutional Amendment that restricts
US rights
and privileges to US citizens or persons legally landed here.

The FCC has already decided that it's proper for foreign
nationals to have
US license if they complete the prerequisites for that license and
exercise it within the parameters of Part 97.
Citizenship is not one of them.

Specific callsigns would be discriminatory under present US
interpretations of the Constitution.

73

Steve, K4YZ


Inneresting. Steve has pushed Phil Kane aside as our resident
communications attorney.

"You miss the point, Steve. The purpose of r.r.a.p. is no longer
discussion of policy, or learning something, or study of
communications
theory.

The purpose is to FIGHT and to denegrate the dignity of all who do not
agree with you! Any other post is off topic and is not welcome here.

Get with the program. No one is "mistaken" or "partially correct" on
r.r.a.p. They either 100% totally agree with you, or they are "a
lying,
scum sucking, bottom feeding no-code beeper." There is no in between,
and there must be at least one of each in every conversation here.
Anything which resembles a rational exchange of ideas and useful
information will either be ignored, or some enterprising induhvidual
will hijack the thread and turn it into an argument about Morse. No
other "Policy" conversation is allowed to survive unmolested.

72, de Hans, K0HB"


Steve is right, though.

Thanks, Alun. Not a single word about the use of Morse Code in any of the
original posts, yet PuppetBoy cites one of Hans' trolls responses arguing about
hijacking a thread about Morse Code use.

He wonders why I call him an idiot.

Discrimination against resident aliens has been prohibited since Yick Wo v
Hopkins, which relied on the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.

"Yick Wo"...?!?!

This is a little way off Phil Kane's speciality of communications law,
although no doubt the FCC can't discriminate against aliens. Maybe Phil
knows of some case law regarding aliens and the FCC?

I am not a lawyer, just an alien.

Alf would be proud! (J/K ! ! !)

Alf's "host" was a Ham, BTW!

73

Steve, K4YZ

"Steve Robeson K4YZ" wrote in message
...

Alf would be proud! (J/K ! ! !)

Alf's "host" was a Ham, BTW!

73

Steve, K4YZ

Steve,

Do you mean the character or the actor? I ask because, IMHO, there is a
fairly well-known Ham who bears a striking resemblance to that character.

--
Vy 73 de Bert
WA2SI
FISTS #9384
QRP ARCI #11782

Subject: Get your Trophy US Extra Callsign (A KH0x call would be nice!)
From: "Bert Craig" OSPAM
Date: 11/23/2004 8:48 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:


"Steve Robeson K4YZ" wrote in message
...

Alf would be proud! (J/K ! ! !)

Alf's "host" was a Ham, BTW!

73

Steve, K4YZ

Steve,

Do you mean the character or the actor? I ask because, IMHO, there is a
fairly well-known Ham who bears a striking resemblance to that character.

Hey Bert!

The character, actually...I am afraid I don't remember the "family's" name,
but there were a couple episodes where his "station" was part of the scene. I
don't remember a "callsign" ever being mentioned.

73

Steve, K4YZ

(Steve Robeson K4YZ) wrote in
:

Subject: Get your Trophy US Extra Callsign (A KH0x call would be
nice!) From: Alun
Date: 11/23/2004 7:07 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(William) wrote in
. com:

(Steve Robeson K4YZ) wrote in message
...
Subject: Get your Trophy US Extra Callsign (A KH0x call would
be nice!) From: Robert Casey
Date: 11/23/2004 12:13 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id: .net


At least the FCC did do something about club calls. They took 42
of them away from a JA few years back :-) But for some strange
reason, they let him keep his primary station license, a W9 extra
class U.S. call.

73, Jim KH2D


Maybe they should get calls like WJ#XXX, or KJ#XXX...
If the FCC decides that it's proper for foriegners to get American
ham licenses.....

Perhaps you'd consider a Constitutional Amendment that
restricts US rights
and privileges to US citizens or persons legally landed here.

The FCC has already decided that it's proper for foreign
nationals to have
US license if they complete the prerequisites for that license and
exercise it within the parameters of Part 97.
Citizenship is not one of them.

Specific callsigns would be discriminatory under present US
interpretations of the Constitution.

73

Steve, K4YZ


Inneresting. Steve has pushed Phil Kane aside as our resident
communications attorney.

"You miss the point, Steve. The purpose of r.r.a.p. is no longer
discussion of policy, or learning something, or study of
communications theory.

The purpose is to FIGHT and to denegrate the dignity of all who do
not agree with you! Any other post is off topic and is not welcome
here.

Get with the program. No one is "mistaken" or "partially correct" on
r.r.a.p. They either 100% totally agree with you, or they are "a
lying, scum sucking, bottom feeding no-code beeper." There is no in
between, and there must be at least one of each in every conversation
here. Anything which resembles a rational exchange of ideas and
useful information will either be ignored, or some enterprising
induhvidual will hijack the thread and turn it into an argument about
Morse. No other "Policy" conversation is allowed to survive
unmolested.

72, de Hans, K0HB"


Steve is right, though.

Thanks, Alun. Not a single word about the use of Morse Code in
any of the
original posts, yet PuppetBoy cites one of Hans' trolls responses
arguing about hijacking a thread about Morse Code use.

He wonders why I call him an idiot.

Discrimination against resident aliens has been prohibited since Yick
Wo v Hopkins, which relied on the equal protection clause of the 14th
amendment.

"Yick Wo"...?!?!

One of the Chinamen charged with running a wooden laundry in downtown SF.
His case was actually joined with someone else's. Can't remember the other
name, a Chinese one, obviously. Hopkins was probably the mayor, or someone
like that.


This is a little way off Phil Kane's speciality of communications law,
although no doubt the FCC can't discriminate against aliens. Maybe Phil
knows of some case law regarding aliens and the FCC?

I am not a lawyer, just an alien.

Alf would be proud! (J/K ! ! !)

Alf's "host" was a Ham, BTW!

73

Steve, K4YZ







I once saw a plaque with a picture of Alf and the caption "Never
underestimate the power of an alien". It was designed to go on a desk. I
always kicked myself for not buying it. I didn't know about the link
between Alf and ham radio. The show was on when I first moved to this
country.

On 23 Nov 2004 13:07:17 GMT, Alun wrote:

Arguably, the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment only applies to
the states, but there are cases invoking the due process clause of the 5th
amendment, which is applicable to the federal government.

Do not forget that holding an amateur license does not convey any
civil rights - _Howard v City of Burlingame_

I beleive there was a Puerto Rican case in federal district court that
relied on either the 5th or the 14th in the alternative, allowing aliens to
become registered as professional engineers. I don't have the citation for
that one.

This is a little way off Phil Kane's speciality of communications law,

Not really. I am also a Registered Professional Engineer (by exam,
not waiver) and I have to keep up with such things.

although no doubt the FCC can't discriminate against aliens. Maybe Phil
knows of some case law regarding aliens and the FCC?

We all know that an alien can unilaterally cause a change in FCC
rules without a public hearing - JY1 and the Medical Code Waiver.

Seriously, about 20 years ago The Congress amended Section 318 of
the Comm Act - the section that required US citizenship to be
allowed to hold an operator license. This was part of the Ronald
Reagan privitization move to enable non-citizens to seek employment
as radio broadcast DJs which at that time required a Radiotelephone
Third Class Permit (or better). The citizenship requirement for an
amateur operator license was swept away at the same time.

I am not a lawyer, just an alien.

I hope not as bad as some of the space-aliens who post here...

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

"Phil Kane" wrote in
et:

On 23 Nov 2004 13:07:17 GMT, Alun wrote:

Arguably, the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment only
applies to the states, but there are cases invoking the due process
clause of the 5th amendment, which is applicable to the federal
government.

Do not forget that holding an amateur license does not convey any
civil rights - _Howard v City of Burlingame_

I'm not sure what implications that has. I think I'd better try and find
that case and read it.

I've never actually researched any case law on ham radio. I already had
other reasons to have looked up Yick Wo, etc.


I beleive there was a Puerto Rican case in federal district court that
relied on either the 5th or the 14th in the alternative, allowing
aliens to become registered as professional engineers. I don't have the
citation for that one.

This is a little way off Phil Kane's speciality of communications law,

Not really. I am also a Registered Professional Engineer (by exam,
not waiver) and I have to keep up with such things.

although no doubt the FCC can't discriminate against aliens. Maybe Phil
knows of some case law regarding aliens and the FCC?

We all know that an alien can unilaterally cause a change in FCC
rules without a public hearing - JY1 and the Medical Code Waiver.

Seriously, about 20 years ago The Congress amended Section 318 of
the Comm Act - the section that required US citizenship to be
allowed to hold an operator license. This was part of the Ronald
Reagan privitization move to enable non-citizens to seek employment
as radio broadcast DJs which at that time required a Radiotelephone
Third Class Permit (or better). The citizenship requirement for an
amateur operator license was swept away at the same time.

I am not a lawyer, just an alien.

I hope not as bad as some of the space-aliens who post here...

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane




I think there has been a move generally away from requiring citizenship for
ham radio licences. Very few countries do anymore.

BTW, did you now that citizenship restrictions for lawyers were swept away
by In Re Griffiths, which in turn relied on Yick Wo (Rehnquist dissented in
Griffiths, on an officer of the court line of argument). My interest is
that as a patent agent and an alien I can be disbarred for simply ceasing
to reside in the US. This is not the case with any state bar. The
difficulty in applying this line of authority (Griffiths and Yick Wo) is
that the equal protection clause of the 14th is directed to the states, and
the patent agent licence is federal.

This is definitely getting a bit OT!

On 24 Nov 2004 01:27:16 GMT, Alun wrote:

Do not forget that holding an amateur license does not convey any
civil rights - _Howard v City of Burlingame_

I'm not sure what implications that has. I think I'd better try and find
that case and read it.

_Howard v City of Burlingame_, 937 F2nd 1376, (9th Cir., 1991)

"Uncle Vern" Howard got into a dispute with the city about getting
a permit for his tower as against neighbor complaints. (In the
meanwhile he put up a 65 foot tower where the original dispute was
over a 51 foot tower).

The District Court held that under the "reasonable accommodation"
factor in PRB-1 the permit had to be granted but it denied Vern's
claim for damages under 42 U.S.C. s. 1963 which awardss damages
where a local government (but not Federal) violates an individual's
civil rights "under color of law" and for attorney fees under 42 U.S.C.
s. 1988.

The parties cross-appealed to the 9th Circuit , the city appealing
the PRB-1 preemption and Vern appealing to reinstate his claim
for a declaration of protected rights and therefore eligibility for
1963 damages and 1988 fee award.

The 9th Circuit upheld the lower court but also ruled that holding
an amateur license did not confer any protected right (such as First
Amendment rights) to the licensee, and specifically the right to put
up any antenna of choice - the jurisdiction must still consider those
factors specified in PRB-1 to reach a "reasonable accommodation":

"In fact, the most significant section of the [Communications
Act] forecloses rather than supports Howard's claim: "no such
license shall be construed to create any right, beyond the terms,
conditions, and periods of the license." 47 U.S.C. Sec. 301. Such
language is evidence that no enforceable right exists under Sec.
1983, and that Congress intended to foreclose claims such as
Howard's. See Golden State, 110 S. Ct. at 449; Wilder, 110 S. Ct.
at 2523. Cf. Wright, 479 U.S. at 430. The Act thus grants no Sec.
1983 right to licensees to erect antennas."

Vern was getting up in years and didn't want to carry this to the
SCOTUS - it was a shot in the dark, as he said - so there it stands.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

"Phil Kane" wrote in
et:

On 24 Nov 2004 01:27:16 GMT, Alun wrote:

Do not forget that holding an amateur license does not convey any
civil rights - _Howard v City of Burlingame_

I'm not sure what implications that has. I think I'd better try and find
that case and read it.

_Howard v City of Burlingame_, 937 F2nd 1376, (9th Cir., 1991)

"Uncle Vern" Howard got into a dispute with the city about getting
a permit for his tower as against neighbor complaints. (In the
meanwhile he put up a 65 foot tower where the original dispute was
over a 51 foot tower).

The District Court held that under the "reasonable accommodation"
factor in PRB-1 the permit had to be granted but it denied Vern's
claim for damages under 42 U.S.C. s. 1963 which awardss damages
where a local government (but not Federal) violates an individual's
civil rights "under color of law" and for attorney fees under 42 U.S.C.
s. 1988.

The parties cross-appealed to the 9th Circuit , the city appealing
the PRB-1 preemption and Vern appealing to reinstate his claim
for a declaration of protected rights and therefore eligibility for
1963 damages and 1988 fee award.

The 9th Circuit upheld the lower court but also ruled that holding
an amateur license did not confer any protected right (such as First
Amendment rights) to the licensee, and specifically the right to put
up any antenna of choice - the jurisdiction must still consider those
factors specified in PRB-1 to reach a "reasonable accommodation":

"In fact, the most significant section of the [Communications
Act] forecloses rather than supports Howard's claim: "no such
license shall be construed to create any right, beyond the terms,
conditions, and periods of the license." 47 U.S.C. Sec. 301. Such
language is evidence that no enforceable right exists under Sec.
1983, and that Congress intended to foreclose claims such as
Howard's. See Golden State, 110 S. Ct. at 449; Wilder, 110 S. Ct.
at 2523. Cf. Wright, 479 U.S. at 430. The Act thus grants no Sec.
1983 right to licensees to erect antennas."

Vern was getting up in years and didn't want to carry this to the
SCOTUS - it was a shot in the dark, as he said - so there it stands.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane



Thanks for the info. I couldn't find the case on FindLaw.com, but I didn't
know which circuit to look under. I will try searching it under the 9th.

Getting somewhat back on topic, we were discussing civil rights of foreign
hams in the US. I beleive that someone suggested that we be given
distinctive calls.

As I understand it, Howard v Burlingame said that a ham licence didn't
cause any protected civil right to arise, on the ground that the
Communications Act foreclosed that possibility by it's statutory language.

That seems to be correct, but it doesn't seem to rule out the application
of due process rights (for example) in obtention of a licence.

BTW, do you think the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment could
ever be applied to the feds, or do you think that as it says the states it
can only be applied to the states? The due process clause of the 5th
amendment seems to be the fallback position that can be used against the
federal govt., as it doesn't contain that language.

These two clauses have been held to apply to aliens, as they don't use the
word 'citizen', even though other clauses within the 14th amendment do.

Alun