Ernest W Block wrote:
"Dr CB Nomore" wrote in message
...

why do you hams bother with a license?
the Tenth Ammendment clearly allows anyone to operate any
radio without a license on any frequency at anytime or place.




I posed this question to U.S. Senator Hillary Clinton's office
and was told that a "blanket license" covered channels 1-40.
All channels above 40 are unassigned and no license is required
to operate there. The same thing applies to all channels below
channel one. However, hams operating below channel one
are limited to 500 watts, while hams operating above channel
40 can run unlimited power.

7 thirds,

Ernie




Pure BS. Senator Hitlery's office doesn't know squat about the FCC rules.

"Cmdr Buzz Corey" wrote in message
m...
Ernest W Block wrote:
"Dr CB Nomore" wrote in message
...

why do you hams bother with a license?
the Tenth Ammendment clearly allows anyone to operate any
radio without a license on any frequency at anytime or place.




I posed this question to U.S. Senator Hillary Clinton's office
and was told that a "blanket license" covered channels 1-40.
All channels above 40 are unassigned and no license is required
to operate there. The same thing applies to all channels below
channel one. However, hams operating below channel one
are limited to 500 watts, while hams operating above channel
40 can run unlimited power.

7 thirds,

Ernie




Pure BS. Senator Hitlery's office doesn't know squat about the FCC rules.


Well of course her *office* doesn't know squat about FCC rules, but
her FCC specialist staff member did and does know about FCC rules,
especially since she is in contact with one of the commissioners. You
really need to take a look at your aggressive attitude. I think Roger
can help you.


7 thirds,

Ernie

Ernest W Block wrote:
"Cmdr Buzz Corey" wrote in message
m...

Ernest W Block wrote:

"Dr CB Nomore" wrote in message
...


why do you hams bother with a license?
the Tenth Ammendment clearly allows anyone to operate any
radio without a license on any frequency at anytime or place.




I posed this question to U.S. Senator Hillary Clinton's office
and was told that a "blanket license" covered channels 1-40.
All channels above 40 are unassigned and no license is required
to operate there. The same thing applies to all channels below
channel one. However, hams operating below channel one
are limited to 500 watts, while hams operating above channel
40 can run unlimited power.

7 thirds,

Ernie




Pure BS. Senator Hitlery's office doesn't know squat about the FCC rules.



Well of course her *office* doesn't know squat about FCC rules, but
her FCC specialist staff member did and does know about FCC rules,
especially since she is in contact with one of the commissioners. You
really need to take a look at your aggressive attitude.


7 thirds,

Ernie



Her staff member obviously doesn't know squat either. The frequencies
below and above cb channels 1-40 *are* allocated to other services and
to operate on those frequencies without the proper permit or license is
illegal. Hams can only operate on frequencies allocated to the amateur
radio service and are not limited to 500 watts. Sounds like her staff
member is as stupid as you are.

I think Roger can help you.

Poor 2test wogie can't even help himself.

Leland C. Scott wrote:
On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 19:40:27 -0800, an old friend wrote:


Dr CB Nomore wrote:
why do you hams bother with a license?
the Tenth Ammendment clearly allows anyone to operate any
radio without a license on any frequency at anytime or place.

The USA signed the ITU treaty thus we have internationally agreed to it's
requirements, one of which is to prove that anybody operating an Amateur
Radio Station meets the minimum proficiency requirements as outlined in
that treaty. The US congress ratified the the agreement, making it
official and legally binding, and they have delegated the authority to
enforce the treaty requirements to a federal agency, a.k.a FCC, by an act
of congress.

By requiring the operator to have a license shows they meet
the treaty minimum requirements by passing tests before they are issued
the license. The FCC can impose higher standards but the minimum is set by
the ITU treaty agreement. As any body who should have taken government
class in grade school the first thing you learn is the rights granted in
the Constitution are not absolute, i.e. they have bounds.

OTOH prior to signing the treaty his analys would have merit he is just
50-75 years out of date must on a realy long propagation path is all

BTW the FCC can impose hgher standard than the treaty requires but the
treaty does not empoer the FCC to violate other tenensts of the law or
US constitution (not saying YOU were imping it could making the general
stament)

Regards,
Leland C. Scott
KC8LDO

"Cmdr Buzz Corey" wrote in message
...
Ernest W Block wrote:
"Cmdr Buzz Corey" wrote in message
m...

Ernest W Block wrote:

"Dr CB Nomore" wrote in message
...


why do you hams bother with a license?
the Tenth Ammendment clearly allows anyone to operate any
radio without a license on any frequency at anytime or place.




I posed this question to U.S. Senator Hillary Clinton's office
and was told that a "blanket license" covered channels 1-40.
All channels above 40 are unassigned and no license is required
to operate there. The same thing applies to all channels below
channel one. However, hams operating below channel one
are limited to 500 watts, while hams operating above channel
40 can run unlimited power.

7 thirds,

Ernie




Pure BS. Senator Hitlery's office doesn't know squat about the FCC rules.



Well of course her *office* doesn't know squat about FCC rules, but
her FCC specialist staff member did and does know about FCC rules,
especially since she is in contact with one of the commissioners. You
really need to take a look at your aggressive attitude. 7 thirds,

Ernie



Her staff member obviously doesn't know squat either. The frequencies
below and above cb channels 1-40 *are* allocated to other services and to
operate on those frequencies without the proper permit or license is
illegal. Hams can only operate on frequencies allocated to the amateur
radio service and are not limited to 500 watts. Sounds like her staff
member is as stupid as you are.

I think Roger can help you.

Poor 2test wogie can't even help himself.



Two things come to mind. One, you have resorted to name calling, which
means you have lost the argument. Two, Democrats always resort to
name calling when they are losing an argument, so it would appear you
are a Democrat. Lastly, your whole premise is moot, since the
Tenth Ammendment trumps all regulation of radio frequencies, thereby
making the FCC an outlaw agency, with no basis in our Constitution.
BTW, Roger is a Democrat, and a very liberal one too. He's on SSI,
so that is not surprising.

"Cmdr Buzz Corey" wrote in message
...
Ernest W Block wrote:


Two things come to mind. One, you have resorted to name calling, which
means you have lost the argument.

Really? What name calling?

Two, Democrats always resort to
name calling when they are losing an argument, so it would appear you
are a Democrat.


And you are incorrect again, but then what's new about that?

Lastly, your whole premise is moot, since the
Tenth Ammendment trumps all regulation of radio frequencies, thereby
making the FCC an outlaw agency, with no basis in our Constitution.

Wanna bet? Your ignorance knows no bounds.

BTW, Roger is a Democrat, and a very liberal one too. He's on SSI,
so that is not surprising.

No it isn't.


You enjoy arguing with Roger more, so go for it!

"an_old_friend" wrote in message
ups.com...
BTW the FCC can impose hgher standard than the treaty requires but the
treaty does not empoer the FCC to violate other tenensts of the law or
US constitution (not saying YOU were imping it could making the general
stament)

And that's why we have a Supreme Court to decide such issues. Making sure
that we have competent judges to make the interpretations of the
Constitution is a real concern and one reason why the current nominee is
being looked at so closely.

Regards,
Leland C. Scott
KC8LDO

Leland C. Scott wrote:
"an_old_friend" wrote in message
ups.com...
BTW the FCC can impose hgher standard than the treaty requires but the
treaty does not empoer the FCC to violate other tenensts of the law or
US constitution (not saying YOU were imping it could making the general
stament)

And that's why we have a Supreme Court to decide such issues. Making sure
that we have competent judges to make the interpretations of the
Constitution is a real concern and one reason why the current nominee is
being looked at so closely.

soory I can agree with you on all after one reason

the reason for that fight is one word Politics not concern for the
future

Regards,
Leland C. Scott
KC8LDO

Ernest W Block wrote:


Two things come to mind. One, you have resorted to name calling, which
means you have lost the argument.

Really? What name calling?

Two, Democrats always resort to
name calling when they are losing an argument, so it would appear you
are a Democrat.


And you are incorrect again, but then what's new about that?

Lastly, your whole premise is moot, since the
Tenth Ammendment trumps all regulation of radio frequencies, thereby
making the FCC an outlaw agency, with no basis in our Constitution.

Wanna bet? Your ignorance knows no bounds.

BTW, Roger is a Democrat, and a very liberal one too. He's on SSI,
so that is not surprising.

No it isn't.

Cmdr Buzz Corey wrote:
Pure BS.

10-4, CB.