Dee:

HELLO!

You are quite correct (and unalienable is used.) I am guilty of "clumping"
all of these together, including the amendments also ... I am guilty of
being "pro-for-the-people" and quite lax about maintaining confines when it
comes to their rights.

Warmest regards,
JS

"Dee Flint" wrote in message
. ..

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
"Slow Code" wrote in message
...

The way I understand our constitution, a man creates a debt to society
with
crime, once he pays this debt he is to have his rights restored; this
keeps
society from creating dangerous and dark forces through abuses of its'
citizens. While I do believe special arguments can be made of the type
of
crime a criminal commits, child molestation, premeditated murder, rape,
etc., in most instances the above should be followed. I think one clue
is
the statement in our constitution, paraphrased here, " ... endowed with
unalienable rights by
his creator ..." This is best seen when one applies thought and sees
that any tampering with such rights immediately infringes upons ones
rights to the "pursuit of happiness", freedom and access to those
resources granted us by our creator.


That is in the Declaration of Independence not the Constitution.

Dee, N8UZE

In article ,
"John Smith" wrote:

Dee:

HELLO!

You are quite correct (and unalienable is used.) I am guilty of "clumping"
all of these together, including the amendments also ... I am guilty of
being "pro-for-the-people" and quite lax about maintaining confines when it
comes to their rights.

But the rights flow only from the Constitution legally and otherwise.

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
Dee:

HELLO!

You are quite correct (and unalienable is used.) I am guilty of
"clumping" all of these together, including the amendments also ... I am
guilty of being "pro-for-the-people" and quite lax about maintaining
confines when it comes to their rights.

Warmest regards,
JS

"Dee Flint" wrote in message
. ..

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
"Slow Code" wrote in message
...

The way I understand our constitution, a man creates a debt to society
with
crime, once he pays this debt he is to have his rights restored; this
keeps
society from creating dangerous and dark forces through abuses of its'
citizens. While I do believe special arguments can be made of the type
of
crime a criminal commits, child molestation, premeditated murder, rape,
etc., in most instances the above should be followed. I think one clue
is
the statement in our constitution, paraphrased here, " ... endowed with
unalienable rights by
his creator ..." This is best seen when one applies thought and sees
that any tampering with such rights immediately infringes upons ones
rights to the "pursuit of happiness", freedom and access to those
resources granted us by our creator.


That is in the Declaration of Independence not the Constitution.

Dee, N8UZE



Still it is an important distinction that it is in the Declaration of
Independence but not in the Constitution. And is it important to understand
the differences in their purposes.

The Declaration was designed to explain to the world why the colonies wished
to separate themselves from England. It was intended to elicit sympathy and
support from the enemies of England and to convince England's allies to stay
out of it. The majestic rhetoric of "unalienable rights" and "life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" were geared towards those goals.

On the other hand, the Constitution was designed to define how we were
actually going to govern ourselves. The rhetoric of the Declaration is
inappropriate

Let us take liberty as a very simple example. If that were included in the
Constitution as an "unalienable" right, we wouldn't be able to lock up
serial killers.

Let's also take that "pursuit of happiness" in terms of radio spectrum
resources. If each of us could operate whenever, where ever, and however we
pleased because we had the right to pursue happiness, it would be utter
chaos and very few would actually be happy. In the early days of radio,
that very situation existed and it caused problems and thus was born the
predecessor to the FCC.

In every group or society, some type of structure is necessary to enable the
group or society to survive and thrive. This means that there are rules and
regulations in almost everything we do affecting our daily lives. That by
its very nature limits people's rights.

Dee, N8UZE

Dee:

"Dee Flint" wrote in message Still it is an
important distinction that it is in the Declaration of
Independence but not in the Constitution. And is it important to
understand
the differences in their purposes.


Yes indeed. There are two (in fact more) documents protecting our
rights and agreeing people are the true power, and NOT governments.

The Declaration was designed to explain to the world why the colonies
wished
to separate themselves from England. It was intended to elicit
sympathy and


Yes, and they did a very fine job of it. Indeed, I have not seen many
papers which make humanity the reason for its arguments, and individual
rights in particular. Some now wish to find reasons to weaken these
premises and arguments, strange how societies can never rid themselves
of fools destined to repeat the same mistakes ...

On the other hand, the Constitution was designed to define how we were
actually going to govern ourselves. The rhetoric of the Declaration is
inappropriate


Absolutely NOT, while kings, rulers, dictators, powerful corporations,
the wealthy, and the mentally challenged might confuse rights with
rhetoric, those whose ancestral line runs back to these time, and the
traditions carried forth to this time have no such confusions. There is
no rhetoric in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. There is not
rhetoric in "God given rights." There is no rhetoric in being secure in
person and property. You give me nightmares in the type of world you
would allow to come. I only hope you never run for office, even dog
catcher would worry me in your case! (however, you are probably a nice
person)

Let us take liberty as a very simple example. If that were included
in the
Constitution as an "unalienable" right, we wouldn't be able to lock up
serial killers.


Preposterous, that is like arguing liberty = murder. We all have
absolute liberty, granted by our creator, we govern ourselfs in its use.
The people have that right, the government does not, unless it serves
as only a tool of the people in doing so. There is much confusion here,
laws do NOT give us rights and/or liberty, they only serve to remove or
control those. Before we apply law, we are only governed by our
creator, and he has given us all free will.

Let's also take that "pursuit of happiness" in terms of radio spectrum


We all also have unlimited rights to the pursuit of happiness, limits on
those pursuits are simply when they deprive another of exercising their
rights to such pursuits. A child learns this early in school, a finer
tutoring includes sharing ... if we deny others what we have,
especially though little tests and requirements as a policy of picking
and choosing "who we want to play with", we are NOT maintaining order,
we are screwing people, plain and simple, in fact only a simple person
would have difficultly seeing through that rubbish.

No Dee, you are simply another, "The sky is falling!", decrier. No Dee,
the sky is not falling, some are simply made a prisoner to their own
fears, fears which lead them into depriving other Americans of their
rights--in so doing, the "champions of justice" end up becoming the evil
which controls, deprives, and punishes people who do not think as they
do. These groups have come and gone through our history.

Open your eyes, todays world is much different than the one which you
were born into. Today you can call anywhere in the world from anywhere,
if you are even in most remote areas a cell phone allows you such
access; if that fails, there are satellite phone. Today, the internet
will let you converse to anyone anywhere in the world, allow you to view
and access materials anywhere in the world or share any such materials
to anyone, anywhere in the world.

In this world, amature radio tries to keep itself isolated as an island,
a religious club of fanatic devotes with far too many decrying the sky
is falling ... the sky is not falling ... radio is dying.

The good news is, much awaits amateur radio's future from its' ashes.
From those ashes will spring forth a service which will bear little
resemblance to the old, antique and outdated practices of the past.

It is an exciting time to be alive ...

Warmest regards,
JS

"John Smith" wrote in message
...

Dee:

"Dee Flint" wrote in message Still it is an
important distinction that it is in the Declaration of
Independence but not in the Constitution. And is it important to
understand
the differences in their purposes.


Yes indeed. There are two (in fact more) documents protecting our rights
and agreeing people are the true power, and NOT governments.

The Declaration was designed to explain to the world why the colonies
wished
to separate themselves from England. It was intended to elicit
sympathy and


Yes, and they did a very fine job of it. Indeed, I have not seen many
papers which make humanity the reason for its arguments, and individual
rights in particular. Some now wish to find reasons to weaken these
premises and arguments, strange how societies can never rid themselves of
fools destined to repeat the same mistakes ...

On the other hand, the Constitution was designed to define how we were
actually going to govern ourselves. The rhetoric of the Declaration is
inappropriate


Absolutely NOT, while kings, rulers, dictators, powerful corporations, the
wealthy, and the mentally challenged might confuse rights with rhetoric,
those whose ancestral line runs back to these time, and the traditions
carried forth to this time have no such confusions. There is no rhetoric
in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. There is not rhetoric in
"God given rights." There is no rhetoric in being secure in person and
property. You give me nightmares in the type of world you would allow to
come. I only hope you never run for office, even dog catcher would worry
me in your case! (however, you are probably a nice person)

Let us take liberty as a very simple example. If that were included
in the
Constitution as an "unalienable" right, we wouldn't be able to lock up
serial killers.


Preposterous, that is like arguing liberty = murder. We all have absolute
liberty, granted by our creator, we govern ourselfs in its use. The people
have that right, the government does not, unless it serves as only a tool
of the people in doing so. There is much confusion here, laws do NOT give
us rights and/or liberty, they only serve to remove or control those.
Before we apply law, we are only governed by our creator, and he has given
us all free will.


No I'm saying that all our rights do have limits and that it is for a very
good reason. If our rights were absolute, they would have no limits and we
could indeed kill each other to attempt to insure those rights. Society has
decided (and rightly so) that doesn't work too well for the survival of
society. The moment society decides that some rules are required to make
that society work, then our rights are limited.

Let's also take that "pursuit of happiness" in terms of radio spectrum


We all also have unlimited rights to the pursuit of happiness, limits on
those pursuits are simply when they deprive another of exercising their
rights to such pursuits. A child learns this early in school, a finer
tutoring includes sharing ... if we deny others what we have, especially
though little tests and requirements as a policy of picking and choosing
"who we want to play with", we are NOT maintaining order, we are screwing
people, plain and simple, in fact only a simple person would have
difficultly seeing through that rubbish.

Again if it were an absolute right, one could pursue that at the expense of
others. Again society has decided that doesn't work too well and of
necessity puts some limits on it. Then it becomes a matter of opinion
whether those limits are appropriate.

It so happens that I think code is a basic of radio and should be required
at a basic level. I do not consider it a filter, right of passage or other
such nonsense.


No Dee, you are simply another, "The sky is falling!", decrier. No Dee,
the sky is not falling, some are simply made a prisoner to their own
fears, fears which lead them into depriving other Americans of their
rights--in so doing, the "champions of justice" end up becoming the evil
which controls, deprives, and punishes people who do not think as they do.
These groups have come and gone through our history.


I haven't predicted any major catastrophe so I think you've tagged the wrong
person with your Chicken Little reference. I have discussed what others
seem to fear but I do not fear it.

Open your eyes, todays world is much different than the one which you were
born into. Today you can call anywhere in the world from anywhere, if you
are even in most remote areas a cell phone allows you such access; if that
fails, there are satellite phone. Today, the internet will let you
converse to anyone anywhere in the world, allow you to view and access
materials anywhere in the world or share any such materials to anyone,
anywhere in the world.


That is irrelevant to amateur radio.

In this world, amature radio tries to keep itself isolated as an island, a
religious club of fanatic devotes with far too many decrying the sky is
falling ... the sky is not falling ... radio is dying.


Again, I'm not the one worried about it. I see people every month joining
our ranks. If you look at the statistics, it is quite obvious that amateur
radio is not dying. It has its ups and downs but the numbers are quite
robust.

The good news is, much awaits amateur radio's future from its' ashes. From
those ashes will spring forth a service which will bear little resemblance
to the old, antique and outdated practices of the past.


Since it's not dying, there won't be any ashes. I've seen the proposals so
far and there is nothing exciting in them. Digital voice? Ho-hum, I've got
that on my cell phone. And it can be implemented any time hams want to spend
money on new equipment New digital modes? Sure but they're just new
flavors of the same old thing. Hooking to the internet? Already been done
and that's not terribly exciting either. Once upon a time, radio led
technology (i.e. linked repeater systems with phone patches pre-date cell
phones). Now it doesn't and there is nothing exciting in emulating
commercial implementations in amateur radio.

Basically, radio is a mature field. As with any mature field, improvements
can be made but that's about it.

The excitement comes in the personal growth and development and in helping
others to discover those for themselves.

Dee, N8UZE

"Dee Flint" wrote in message

NO! The sky is NOT falling!

No Dee, "the people" are the gov't. Let me give you an example.

No one in his or her right mind would ever trust any president,
representive, or group of them to decide whether an individual dies or not
(or any other group of bueraucrats either!) We would only allow citizens to
do that. It is called a jury and there are 12 of them to make sure they get
it right (yes, I know, there are still far too many mistakes and DNA
evidence has released a sizeable number from death row--perhaps with DNA
evidence we can increase our accuracy a bit.)

Well, the FCC is just like that. And we should never trust them to make a
really important decision for us. The FCC can only do its' job correctly if
all 350 million of us are looking over their shoulders and telling them what
to do. Trouble is, my president, senators and reps look a bit raggy around
the edges, even to the point of making me think they are corrupt criminals.
I am trusting they will get around to fix that soon ... straight face

If someone is a lazy ass laying around trusting their gov't to do it for
them or for the other citizens, he or she is far from a great Amerian. A
great American is always active in making sure the peoples voice is heard.

What makes America great is everyones' right to free speech, activism,
protests, etc. It will all shake out in the end, any one mans/womans
opinion, or even any one group of men and women is unimportant in the much
larger picture.

In the final say, only the people have a right to place limits and they only
need to place limits to keep one from infringing on another, but you already
know that, our founding fathers documents could serve as no better example,
they need no "interpretation" on what anyone person thinks they either are
or are not--that is difficult enough.

Regards,
JS

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
"Dee Flint" wrote in message

NO! The sky is NOT falling!


You are getting very confused. I'm not the one that is panicking over
changes. I've already said several times that I'm am not worried about the
changes.

No Dee, "the people" are the gov't. Let me give you an example.


I've not said anything to the contrary. I've repeatedly said that society
(i.e. the people) find it necessary to have rules to insure the health of
the society.

No one in his or her right mind would ever trust any president,
representive, or group of them to decide whether an individual dies or not
(or any other group of bueraucrats either!) We would only allow citizens
to do that. It is called a jury and there are 12 of them to make sure
they get it right (yes, I know, there are still far too many mistakes and
DNA evidence has released a sizeable number from death row--perhaps with
DNA evidence we can increase our accuracy a bit.)

Well, the FCC is just like that. And we should never trust them to make a
really important decision for us. The FCC can only do its' job correctly
if all 350 million of us are looking over their shoulders and telling them
what to do. Trouble is, my president, senators and reps look a bit raggy
around the edges, even to the point of making me think they are corrupt
criminals. I am trusting they will get around to fix that soon ...
straight face

If someone is a lazy ass laying around trusting their gov't to do it for
them or for the other citizens, he or she is far from a great Amerian. A
great American is always active in making sure the peoples voice is heard.


I've never advocated that. Each person has a right to be heard. But you
forget that each person has their own opinion. Should your opinion have any
more weight than mine or vice versa?

What makes America great is everyones' right to free speech, activism,
protests, etc. It will all shake out in the end, any one mans/womans
opinion, or even any one group of men and women is unimportant in the much
larger picture.

In the final say, only the people have a right to place limits and they
only need to place limits to keep one from infringing on another, but you
already know that, our founding fathers documents could serve as no better
example, they need no "interpretation" on what anyone person thinks they
either are or are not--that is difficult enough.

Regards,
JS


It's already been pointed out to you that our founding fathers included the
Supreme Court for the very purpose of "interpreting" the Constitution.

Dee, N8UZE

"Dee Flint" wrote in message

Dee:

When I said, "NO! The sky is NOT falling!" I meant we have firmly decided
that! I caught that you were stepping away from other amateurs decrying the
death of ham radio due to changes ... it was satire and I see how it could
be taken much differently ...

I read over you text much too quickly and was quick to take a much different
spin on it that the one I see now.

Yes. The supreme courts whole reason for existence is to enforce the
constitution to the letter, you are, again, correct, strange no one is seems
more upset by the gross inability of it to have done so in recent decades
....

The crux is this, I see citizens playing much more into their self gov't.
Let me give you an example of just how much so:
ALL police officers and sheriffs should be drafted, and go through a "boot
camp." At the end of 12 weeks of boot, we press them into service for a
four year term. The pay scale is fair and adjusted for special cases. But,
we all accept this as our duty. With this one change we could just about
completely remove corruption and restore respect to law enforcement. Plus,
the added benefit would probably be an overall reduced cost to the tax
payer.

But, this is only one change in a sea of changes I would make. Many I see
are disenfranchised by gov't playing a mother/father role for them, this was
never meant to be. I don't need a president, senator or rep "with a plan",
I simply need them to be honest and upfront with the people, then represent
the peoples wishes--this seems almost opposite from what I am experiencing.
If I can trust 12 men with my life on a jury, then I can darn well trust 350
million governing ourselves beside me ...

Regards,
JS

"Dee Flint" wrote in message
...

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
"Dee Flint" wrote in message

NO! The sky is NOT falling!


You are getting very confused. I'm not the one that is panicking over
changes. I've already said several times that I'm am not worried about
the changes.

No Dee, "the people" are the gov't. Let me give you an example.


I've not said anything to the contrary. I've repeatedly said that society
(i.e. the people) find it necessary to have rules to insure the health of
the society.

Snipped

Hi All,
If you read the Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments to the U.S.
Constitution) there are 2 distinct groups ie "The People" and "Congress" . I
paraphrase - Congess shall make no law regarding the peoples right to
..................... etc. etc.
Ace - WH2T

Dee Flint wrote:
"John Smith" wrote in message
...

Preposterous, that is like arguing liberty = murder. We all have absolute
liberty, granted by our creator, we govern ourselfs in its use. The people
have that right, the government does not, unless it serves as only a tool
of the people in doing so. There is much confusion here, laws do NOT give
us rights and/or liberty, they only serve to remove or control those.
Before we apply law, we are only governed by our creator, and he has given
us all free will.


No I'm saying that all our rights do have limits and that it is for a very
good reason. If our rights were absolute, they would have no limits and we
could indeed kill each other to attempt to insure those rights. Society has
decided (and rightly so) that doesn't work too well for the survival of
society. The moment society decides that some rules are required to make
that society work, then our rights are limited.

in many cases we CAN indeed kill those that inpinge on our rights

Here in Michigan I can as can you Kill to defend yourself or your
property the laws inhibiting were pared back effective around the first
of OCT of this year

in other case we may indeed argue some form of justifaction for even
the act of homocide in defense of our right