Why Do You Hams
 

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.

Why Do You Hams
 

And since radio waves do not respect state or national
boundaries, why is it that you don't believe that Article I,
Section 8, Para 3 of the Constitution doesn't apply?

Rick T.
W7RT


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.

Why Do You Hams
 

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.

nope the supremacy clause applies first

It goes that treaties are the supreme law of the land now prior to the
ITU treaty ( or what ever what is now called the ITU treaty was caled
then) I would agree the 10th likwely applies only the elsatic clause
could apply to Ham radio certainly not the comerece clause (Comerce law
was use to regulate the ARS at first but I beleiev that was legaly
incorrect


but importantly the FCC holds the power of the gun so to speak wether
the FCC is in or out of its constitutional power for the present IT
hold the power to enforce liecnsure of the ARS

Why Do You Hams
 

"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.

.....some people say it also means you don't have to pay Federal Income
Taxes also!

....and look where THAT story landed Irwin Schiff recently!!

: )

Why Do You Hams
 

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

Why Do You Hams
 

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.






Nice try, but no it doesn't.

Why Do You Hams
 

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

Why Do You Hams
 

"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

Why Do You Hams
 

Neither do you, **** eater.

Why Do You Hams
 

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.

Why Do You Hams
 

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.

Why Do You Hams
 

"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

Why Do You Hams
 

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.

Why Do You Hams
 

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

Why Do You Hams
 

"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.

Why Do You Hams
 

"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!

Why Do You Hams
 

"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

Why Do You Hams
 

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

Why Do You Hams
 

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.

Why Do You Hams
 

Cmdr Buzz Corey wrote:
Pure BS.

10-4, CB.

Why Do You Hams
 

Cmdr Buzz Corey wrote:
Pure BS. Senator Hitlery's office doesn't know squat about the FCC rules.

I'd bet she can smell a foul pussy tho...now. lol

Why Do You Hams
 

ARRL and FCC = Partners in the Culture of Corruption

Why Do You Hams
 

"2Test Roger" wrote:
ARRL and FCC = Partners in the Culture of Corruption

corruption junction, what's your function?

Why Do You Hams
 

"Steveo" wrote in message
...
"2Test Roger" wrote:
ARRL and FCC = Partners in the Culture of Corruption

corruption junction, what's your function?

Thanx Steveo, now I can't get that tune out of my head.

Why Do You Hams
 

"DrDeath" wrote:
"Steveo" wrote in message
...
"2Test Roger" wrote:
ARRL and FCC = Partners in the Culture of Corruption

corruption junction, what's your function?

Thanx Steveo, now I can't get that tune out of my head.

Ha! You're showing your age and PBS viewing habits!

Why Do You Hams
 

Steveo wrote:
"DrDeath" wrote:
"Steveo" wrote in message
...
"2Test Roger" wrote:
ARRL and FCC = Partners in the Culture of Corruption

corruption junction, what's your function?

Thanx Steveo, now I can't get that tune out of my head.

Ha! You're showing your age and PBS viewing habits!

some thing wrong with PBS they are too leftist but some of their stuff
is pretty good

but anyway "corruption junction, what's your function" is play
something from school house rock which I think was ABC way back when I
was kid

Why Do You Hams
 

"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.

..Waaal, whutdya 'spect fum them thar fellers that thanks their coax must be
a certain length thar, shore thang thar, mercy me thar. Why, them fellers
went down to Joe Blow's reddio shop thar and got one of them thar reddios
and leenyars and extree channels thar and WHAM! They is them thar rediddio
experts now thar, shore thang thar mercy me, gre't day thar, garr-an-tole ye
thar, mercy sakes alive thar and I heered hit fum the trailer park thar
whirr they is all them trailers and antanners thar. Them CB fellers shore is
got them smarts 'bout reddidios thar........

I'm impressed......................................... .............

N O T! :)

Why Do You Hams
 

"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