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.

Regards,
Leland C. Scott
KC8LDO

ARGH!!! now you are going to confuse them with facts!

"Leland C. Scott" wrote in message
. ..
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.

Regards,
Leland C. Scott
KC8LDO

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

"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

"an_old_friend" wrote in message
oups.com...
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

Yup, that too!

Regards,
Leland C. Scott
KC8LDO