All in favor of deregulating the radio spectrum, say "aye!"
m...@home.org
taking. I think the FCC should be abolished, and technical standards set
by the free market.
In my opinion, the very existence of a Federal Communications Commission is
illegal and violates the Bill of Rights, particularly the First and Tenth
Amendments. The First Amendment states,
"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press; or of the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and
to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
and the Tenth Amendement plainly says,
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or
to the people."
We have seen in other parts of the world, where dissident groups are not
allowed to control television or radio broadcasts. We have seen even in
the United States, where Sarah Palin jokes about having NBC's license
revoked. In fact, the most disturbing example of FCC abuse of power exists
in the pages of broadcasting history.
Once upon a time, all radio broadcasts used amplitude-modulation, or AM,
technology. Sound quality left something to be desired. So a brilliant
inventor named Edwin Armstrong found a way to make radio sound better; he
invented frequency-modulation technology. The big broadcasters of the time
did not like that; so they convinced the FCC to give them control of the
frequencies Mr. Armstrong was using. Armstrong's radio equipment was
rendered useless; Mr. Armstrong was ruined. He later killed himself.
Says Wikipedia:
"RCA began to lobby for a change in the law or FCC regulations that would
prevent FM radios from becoming dominant. By June 1945, the RCA had pushed
the FCC hard on the allocation of electromagnetic frequencies for the
fledgling television industry. Although they denied wrongdoing, David
Sarnoff and RCA managed to get the FCC to move the FM radio spectrum from
(42-50 MHz), to (88-108 MHz), while getting new television channels
allocated in the 40 MHz range.
"This single FCC action rendered all Armstrong-era FM receivers useless
overnight, and protected RCA's AM-radio stronghold. Armstrong's radio
network did not survive the frequency shift up into the high frequencies;
most experts believe that FM technology was set back decades by the FCC
decision. This change was strongly supported by AT&T, because loss of FM
relaying stations forced radio stations to buy wired links from AT&T."
kb9...@yahoooo.com
the authority for the FCC is the ITU treay and the spremcay cluase
treaties are the supreme law of the land
that BTW was why the FCC HAD to yeild on Morse Code when the treaty
was changed by
"one useless man is disgrace 2 become a law firm 3 or more become a congress"
adams
woger you are a Congress all in your own head
"http://www.3ix.org/sys/aff.php?aff=7439" target="_blank"
altopia is never used by KB9RQZ
http://kb9rqz.cc.cc
http://kd8ctl.com
nor is Kons...@hotmail.com ever
btw i can be found at
17366 N River Rd
Chassel Mi
but the cowards asking lack the gut to act
Nickname unavailable
the problem with libertarians, and many conservatives, is that so far
they have been successful in eluding the butterfly net.
further deregulation will either lead to more concentration, or
complete chaos. the 10th amendment is but a joke. it states that
states do have some rights, they are those the federal government does
not have at the moment. but the supremacy clause states the the
constitution shall reign supreme. so the fcc is a federal regulation,
that no state law can usurp.
and we know that you cannot shout fire in a crowed theater either, so
there is some regulation of speech. you need permits to assemble, etc.
and the airwaves are owned by the american people, so its a
nationwide law, a federal law. and the constitution shall reign
supreme.
THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE
Article. VI.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be
made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be
made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme
Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby,
any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary
notwithstanding.
The preemption doctrine derives from the Supremacy Clause of the
Constitution which states that the "Constitution and the laws of the
United States...shall be the supreme law of the land...anything in the
constitutions or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
This means of course, that any federal law--even a regulation of a
federal agency--trumps any conflicting state law.
Strabo
So the feds could pass a law declaring commercial slavery legal. It did
this for prisoner and military slavery in the 13th A.
Nickname unavailable
it could never pass constitutional muster today. that was a silly
response. read the constitution, its really simple and easy to
understand.
Strabo
Yes it is.
You're the one who says "...that any federal law--even a regulation of a
federal agency--trumps any conflicting state law". I offered a
possibility.
Amendment XIII [Proposed 1865; Ratified 1865]
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a
punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted,
shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their
jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by
appropriate legislation.
If it's not called slavery, voluntary servitude is constitutional.
It's a matter of semantics.
Nickname unavailable
what a crock. its not me that says it, its the constitution. every
crank i argue with on this point will not acknowledge the supremacy
clause, its in the constitution, read it. besides, congress has the
right to legislate, its in the very first article of the constitution,
and if the supreme court rules its constitutional, such as limiting
free speech, then its legal.
m...@home.org
> what a crock. its not me that says it, its the constitution. every
> crank i argue with on this point will not acknowledge the supremacy
> clause, its in the constitution, read it. besides, congress has the
> right to legislate, its in the very first article of the constitution,
> and if the supreme court rules its constitutional, such as limiting
> free speech, then its legal.
You don't get it. The Bill of Rights is the highest law of the land, and
any violation against the Bill of Rights at the federal or state level is
illegal. So the "Supremacy Clause" does not apply.
So let's look at the First Amendment again:
"Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to
petition the government for a redress of grievances."
And the Tenth Amendment:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or
to the people."
Now, how can anyone think the the existence of the Federal Communications
Commission is legal?
Michael Price
> On Jul 8, 6:09 pm, m...@home.org wrote:
>
> the problem with libertarians, and many conservatives, is that so far
> they have been successful in eluding the butterfly net.
Ok, so you start off with an unsupported personal attack, not
exactly a
surprise but let's give you the benefit of the doubt, you might just
be irritated
this morning.
> further deregulation will either lead to more concentration, or
> complete chaos.
And you follow up with an unsupported claim about the future. Why
would
allowing anyone to broadcast concentrate ownership? The current
concentration
happened in a regime of intense regulation where any industry player
had to
please the government. Why would the opposite cause concentration of
ownership?
> the 10th amendment is but a joke. it states that
> states do have some rights, they are those the federal government does
> not have at the moment. but the supremacy clause states the the
> constitution shall reign supreme.
Which means that the 10th amendment rules supreme and the powers
reserved to the states cannot be usurped.
kb9...@yahoooo.com
except fot eh ITU treaty any treaty trumps the constitution of the us
and the powers of the sattes
Michael Price
is the supreme law of the land. Otherwise it wouldn't be the
constitution would it?
> "one useless man is disgrace 2 become a law firm 3 or more become a congress"
> adams
>
> woger you are a Congress all in your own head
> "http://www.3ix.org/sys/aff.php?aff=7439" target="_blank"
>
> altopia is never used by KB9RQZhttp://kb9rqz.cc.cchttp://kd8ctl.com
> nor is Konst...@hotmail.com ever
George Dance
> On Jul 8, 6:09 pm, m...@home.org wrote:
>
> the problem with libertarians, and many conservatives, is that so far
> they have been successful in eluding the butterfly net.
> further deregulation will either lead to more concentration, or
> complete chaos. the 10th amendment is but a joke. it states that
> states do have some rights, they are those the federal government does
> not have at the moment. but the supremacy clause states the the
> constitution shall reign supreme. so the fcc is a federal regulation,
> that no state law can usurp.
> and we know that you cannot shout fire in a crowed theater either, so
> there is some regulation of speech. you need permits to assemble, etc.
> and the airwaves are owned by the american people, so its a
> nationwide law, a federal law. and the constitution shall reign
> supreme.
>
Yabut ... the Constitution itself says the federal government has no
powers other than those the Constitution delegates it; and the
Constitution does not delegate to the federal government the power to
regulate airwaves. So if the constitution reigns supreme, then there
shouldn't be any federal law regulating airwaves, right?
> THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE
> Article. VI.
> This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be
> made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be
> made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme
> Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby,
> any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary
> notwithstanding.
Amendment. X.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people.
> The preemption doctrine derives from the Supremacy Clause of the
> Constitution which states that the "Constitution and the laws of the
> United States...shall be the supreme law of the land...anything in the
> constitutions or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
> This means of course, that any federal law--even a regulation of a
> federal agency--trumps any conflicting state law.
But only if it's a constitutional law or regulation -- one delegated
to the federal government by the Constitution.
kb9...@yahoooo.com
again you over look te ITU traety and the supremacy cause
all power in the USA to regulate the airwave comes from the treaty
"one useless man is disgrace 2 become a law firm 3 or more become a congress"
adams
woger you are a Congress all in your own head
"http://www.3ix.org/sys/aff.php?aff=7439" target="_blank"
altopia is never used by KB9RQZ
http://kb9rqz.cc.cc
http://kd8ctl.com
nor is Kons...@hotmail.com ever
Nickname unavailable
On Jul 10, 12:15 am, Michael Price <nini_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 9, 12:12 pm, Nickname unavailable <Vide...@tcq.net> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 8, 6:09 pm, m...@home.org wrote:
>
> > the problem with libertarians, and many conservatives, is that so far
> > they have been successful in eluding the butterfly net.
>
> Ok, so you start off with an unsupported personal attack, not
> exactly a
> surprise but let's give you the benefit of the doubt, you might just
> be irritated
> this morning.
>
its not a attack, its a fact.
> > further deregulation will either lead to more concentration, or
> > complete chaos.
>
> And you follow up with an unsupported claim about the future. Why
> would
> allowing anyone to broadcast concentrate ownership? The current
> concentration
> happened in a regime of intense regulation where any industry player
> had to
> please the government. Why would the opposite cause concentration of
> ownership?
>
its why i consider you a crank. the concentration happened after
further deregulation of the media in the mid 1990's.
> > the 10th amendment is but a joke. it states that
> > states do have some rights, they are those the federal government does
> > not have at the moment. but the supremacy clause states the the
> > constitution shall reign supreme.
>
> Which means that the 10th amendment rules supreme and the powers
> reserved to the states cannot be usurped.
>
nope, if it was not for the supremacy clause, no state would
recognize the rights of other states. you are a crank.
> > so the fcc is a federal regulation,
> > that no state law can usurp.
> > and we know that you cannot shout fire in a crowed theater either, so
> > there is some regulation of speech. you need permits to assemble, etc.
> > and the airwaves are owned by the american people, so its a
> > nationwide law, a federal law. and the constitution shall reign
> > supreme.
>
> > THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE
> > Article. VI.
> > This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be
> > made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be
> > made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme
> > Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby,
> > any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary
> > notwithstanding.
>
> > The preemption doctrine derives from the Supremacy Clause of the
> > Constitution which states that the "Constitution and the laws of the
> > United States...shall be the supreme law of the land...anything in the
> > constitutions or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
> > This means of course, that any federal law--even a regulation of a
> > federal agency--trumps any conflicting state law.
you can read correct? are you impervious to facts logic, and reason.
Nickname unavailable
did you even bother to read the supremacy clause. i can even give you
the url to the american constitution online. the supremacy clause is
clearly stated.
Nickname unavailable
> On Jul 8, 10:12 pm, Nickname unavailable <Vide...@tcq.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 8, 6:09 pm, m...@home.org wrote:
>
> > the problem with libertarians, and many conservatives, is that so far
> > they have been successful in eluding the butterfly net.
> > further deregulation will either lead to more concentration, or
> > complete chaos. the 10th amendment is but a joke. it states that
> > states do have some rights, they are those the federal government does
> > not have at the moment. but the supremacy clause states the the
> > constitution shall reign supreme. so the fcc is a federal regulation,
> > that no state law can usurp.
> > and we know that you cannot shout fire in a crowed theater either, so
> > there is some regulation of speech. you need permits to assemble, etc.
> > and the airwaves are owned by the american people, so its a
> > nationwide law, a federal law. and the constitution shall reign
> > supreme.
>
> Yabut ... the Constitution itself says the federal government has no
> powers other than those the Constitution delegates it;
and article one of the constitution clearly states that we have a
legislation, that can legislate laws, regulations, and treaties. the
constitution also clearly states that the federal government has the
right to regulate the states, and commerce.
and the
> Constitution does not delegate to the federal government the power to
> regulate airwaves.
it sure does. read the supremacy clause that is part of the
constitution, that clearly states that any law, regulation, or treaty
that the federal government legislates, is the supreme law of the
land, and any federal law, regulation, or treaty trumps state law.
So if the constitution reigns supreme, then there
> shouldn't be any federal law regulating airwaves, right?
>
are you that dense? are you impervious to facts, logic, and reason?
if the constitution reigns supreme, which means federal law, then its
the law of the land.
TuringAI
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Don't be a retard. You're throwing 'supremacy clause' around as if
putting it into a word salad somehow validates your argument.
Don't you realize the context of the supremacy clause? If you can't
answer the question as to what context the supremacy clause is in,
then you are a fucking retard and should get off of my internet.
Nickname unavailable
are you that dense to. you just soiled yourself in public. you would
think even a idiot that can just barely cling to life, would not have
posted what you just did. the supremacy clause gives the federal
government its authority stupid. other wise the states would simply
ignore the federal government, its laws, regulations, its treaties.
TuringAI
> On Jul 12, 1:00 am, TuringAI <gemruinskee...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 10, 9:50 pm, Nickname unavailable <Vide...@tcq.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 10, 1:15 pm, George Dance <georgedanc...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jul 8, 10:12 pm, Nickname unavailable <Vide...@tcq.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jul 8, 6:09 pm, m...@home.org wrote:
>
> > > > > the problem with libertarians, and many conservatives, is that so far
> > > > > they have been successful in eluding the butterfly net.
> > > > > further deregulation will either lead to more concentration, or
> > > > > complete chaos. the 10th amendment is but a joke. it states that
> > > > > states do have some rights, they are those the federal government does
> > > > > not have at the moment. but the supremacy clause states the the
Context not a word in your personal dictionary, eh?
Michael Price
> On Jul 10, 12:15 am, Michael Price <nini_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 9, 12:12 pm, Nickname unavailable <Vide...@tcq.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 8, 6:09 pm, m...@home.org wrote:
>
> > > the problem with libertarians, and many conservatives, is that so far
> > > they have been successful in eluding the butterfly net.
>
> > Ok, so you start off with an unsupported personal attack, not
> > exactly a
> > surprise but let's give you the benefit of the doubt, you might just
> > be irritated
> > this morning.
>
> its not a attack, its a fact.
>
evidence. It's an
ad hom.
> > > further deregulation will either lead to more concentration, or
> > > complete chaos.
>
> > And you follow up with an unsupported claim about the future. Why
> > would allowing anyone to broadcast concentrate ownership? The current
> > concentration happened in a regime of intense regulation where any industry player
> > had to please the government. Why would the opposite cause concentration of
> > ownership?
>
> its why i consider you a crank. the concentration happened after
> further deregulation of the media in the mid 1990's.
>
It happened after certain regulations specifically limiting
concentration of ownership were abandoned, but as I stated the
industry was still highly regulated. The concentration did indeed
happen in a regime of intense regulation where any industry player had
to please the government. Indeed with the government able to grant
(or deny) expansion that highly profitable due to economies of scale
pleasing the government became even more important.
> > > the 10th amendment is but a joke. it states that
> > > states do have some rights, they are those the federal government does
> > > not have at the moment. but the supremacy clause states the the
> > > constitution shall reign supreme.
>
> > Which means that the 10th amendment rules supreme and the powers
> > reserved to the states cannot be usurped.
>
> nope, if it was not for the supremacy clause, no state would
> recognize the rights of other states. you are a crank.
>
You have no idea what you're talking about. The supremacy clause
doesn't nullify the 10th amendment nor could it. Otherwise the
constitution would be inactive. It's an AMENDMENT, that means it
overrides the previous sections of the constitution.
>
> > > so the fcc is a federal regulation,
> > > that no state law can usurp.
> > > and we know that you cannot shout fire in a crowed theater either, so
> > > there is some regulation of speech. you need permits to assemble, etc.
> > > and the airwaves are owned by the american people, so its a
> > > nationwide law, a federal law. and the constitution shall reign
> > > supreme.
>
> > > THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE
> > > Article. VI.
> > > This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be
> > > made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be
> > > made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme
> > > Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby,
> > > any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary
> > > notwithstanding.
>
> > > The preemption doctrine derives from the Supremacy Clause of the
> > > Constitution which states that the "Constitution and the laws of the
> > > United States...shall be the supreme law of the land...anything in the
> > > constitutions or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
> > > This means of course, that any federal law--even a regulation of a
> > > federal agency--trumps any conflicting state law.
>
> you can read correct? are you impervious to facts logic, and reason.
I can read and you've not presented any logic or reason and present
facts
that are irrelevant. The 10th is an AMENDMENT.
Nickname unavailable
but you have not refuted the supremacy clause, which clearly states
that federal law, trumps state law. could i have expected anything
less out of a person who has a low performing brain. its not out of
context, its the law.
Nickname unavailable
> On Jul 11, 2:43 pm, Nickname unavailable <Vide...@tcq.net> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 10, 12:15 am, Michael Price <nini_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 9, 12:12 pm, Nickname unavailable <Vide...@tcq.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jul 8, 6:09 pm, m...@home.org wrote:
>
> > > > the problem with libertarians, and many conservatives, is that so far
> > > > they have been successful in eluding the butterfly net.
>
> > > Ok, so you start off with an unsupported personal attack, not
> > > exactly a
> > > surprise but let's give you the benefit of the doubt, you might just
> > > be irritated
> > > this morning.
>
> > its not a attack, its a fact.
>
> No it's an attack, it's a claim of irrationality without any
> evidence. It's an
> ad hom.
>
ROTFLOL!!!!!!! if you have such a low functioning brain that cannot
understand facts logic, and reason, then do not be surprised if
someone points that put to you.
> > > > further deregulation will either lead to more concentration, or
> > > > complete chaos.
>
> > > And you follow up with an unsupported claim about the future. Why
> > > would allowing anyone to broadcast concentrate ownership? The current
> > > concentration happened in a regime of intense regulation where any industry player
> > > had to please the government. Why would the opposite cause concentration of
> > > ownership?
>
> > its why i consider you a crank. the concentration happened after
> > further deregulation of the media in the mid 1990's.
>
> It happened after certain regulations specifically limiting
> concentration of ownership were abandoned, but as I stated the
> industry was still highly regulated. The concentration did indeed
> happen in a regime of intense regulation where any industry player had
> to please the government. Indeed with the government able to grant
> (or deny) expansion that highly profitable due to economies of scale
> pleasing the government became even more important.
>
yes, i am sure in your world, there is a elaborate construction of
mole hills, that became mountains.
> > > > the 10th amendment is but a joke. it states that
> > > > states do have some rights, they are those the federal government does
> > > > not have at the moment. but the supremacy clause states the the
> > > > constitution shall reign supreme.
>
> > > Which means that the 10th amendment rules supreme and the powers
> > > reserved to the states cannot be usurped.
>
> > nope, if it was not for the supremacy clause, no state would
> > recognize the rights of other states. you are a crank.
>
> You have no idea what you're talking about. The supremacy clause
> doesn't nullify the 10th amendment nor could it. Otherwise the
> constitution would be inactive. It's an AMENDMENT, that means it
> overrides the previous sections of the constitution.
>
>
ROTFLOL!!!!!!!! you do not even understand what the supremacy clause
is do you. you just admitted it. without the supremacy clause, the
10th amendment would be ignored by all of the states. the supremacy
clause states that the constitution, and all laws, regulations, and
treaties are the supreme law of the land idiot.
the 10th amendment says states have some rights, but, if a state law
conflicts with a federal law, federal law trumps state law.
you simply are ignoring facts, facts that do not fit into your low
brow world.
yes it is. but, federal law trumps state law, clearly stated in the
constitution. other wise we would have 50 different countries, and we
do not idiot.
Michael Price
> On Jul 16, 11:26 pm, Michael Price <nini_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 11, 2:43 pm, Nickname unavailable <Vide...@tcq.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 10, 12:15 am, Michael Price <nini_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jul 9, 12:12 pm, Nickname unavailable <Vide...@tcq.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jul 8, 6:09 pm, m...@home.org wrote:
>
> > > > > the problem with libertarians, and many conservatives, is that so far
> > > > > they have been successful in eluding the butterfly net.
>
> > > > Ok, so you start off with an unsupported personal attack, not
> > > > exactly a
> > > > surprise but let's give you the benefit of the doubt, you might just
> > > > be irritated
> > > > this morning.
>
> > > its not a attack, its a fact.
>
> > No it's an attack, it's a claim of irrationality without any
> > evidence. It's an ad hom.
>
> ROTFLOL!!!!!!! if you have such a low functioning brain that cannot
> understand facts logic, and reason, then do not be surprised if
> someone points that put to you.
>
to back up that
claim.
>
> > > > > further deregulation will either lead to more concentration, or
> > > > > complete chaos.
>
> > > > And you follow up with an unsupported claim about the future. Why
> > > > would allowing anyone to broadcast concentrate ownership? The current
> > > > concentration happened in a regime of intense regulation where any industry player
> > > > had to please the government. Why would the opposite cause concentration of
> > > > ownership?
>
> > > its why i consider you a crank. the concentration happened after
> > > further deregulation of the media in the mid 1990's.
>
> > It happened after certain regulations specifically limiting
> > concentration of ownership were abandoned, but as I stated the
> > industry was still highly regulated. The concentration did indeed
> > happen in a regime of intense regulation where any industry player had
> > to please the government. Indeed with the government able to grant
> > (or deny) expansion that highly profitable due to economies of scale
> > pleasing the government became even more important.
>
> yes, i am sure in your world, there is a elaborate construction of
> mole hills, that became mountains.
>
media was highly regulated in ways that tended to concentrated
ownership, specifically the government granting of exclusive
licenses. I pointed that out. You tried to claim that deregulation
that allowed anyone to set up a radio station would concentrate
ownership by pointing to an entirely different form of
"deregulation".
>
> > > > > the 10th amendment is but a joke. it states that
> > > > > states do have some rights, they are those the federal government does
> > > > > not have at the moment. but the supremacy clause states the the
> > > > > constitution shall reign supreme.
>
> > > > Which means that the 10th amendment rules supreme and the powers
> > > > reserved to the states cannot be usurped.
>
> > > nope, if it was not for the supremacy clause, no state would
> > > recognize the rights of other states. you are a crank.
>
> > You have no idea what you're talking about. The supremacy clause
> > doesn't nullify the 10th amendment nor could it. Otherwise the
> > constitution would be inactive. It's an AMENDMENT, that means it
> > overrides the previous sections of the constitution.
>
> ROTFLOL!!!!!!!! you do not even understand what the supremacy clause
> is do you. you just admitted it. without the supremacy clause, the
> 10th amendment would be ignored by all of the states.
The tenth amendment overrides the supremacy clause because it's an
AMENDMENT, which means it AMENDS the previous consitution and
therefore overrides it. Why would the states ignore a provision that
specifically gives them powers and prevents the Feds from infringing
them? You obviously have no idea what the tenth is or does.
> the supremacy clause states that the constitution, and all laws, regulations, and
> treaties are the supreme law of the land idiot.
> the 10th amendment says states have some rights, but, if a state law
> conflicts with a federal law, federal law trumps state law.
No it says nothing of the kind. Try reading it some time.
> you simply are ignoring facts, facts that do not fit into your low
> brow world.
>
And yet you're the one claiming that an amendment that says nothing
about the Feds being supreme (and in fact says the exact opposite)
establishes such a thing. You're the one ignoring facts.
And just as clearly overruled by the tenth.
> other wise we would have 50 different countries, and we
> do not idiot.
You really have no argument other than abuse do you?
Nickname unavailable
> On Jul 18, 2:03 am, Nickname unavailable <Vide...@tcq.net> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 16, 11:26 pm, Michael Price <nini_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Jul 11, 2:43 pm, Nickname unavailable <Vide...@tcq.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jul 10, 12:15 am, Michael Price <nini_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jul 9, 12:12 pm, Nickname unavailable <Vide...@tcq.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Jul 8, 6:09 pm, m...@home.org wrote:
>
> > > > > > the problem with libertarians, and many conservatives, is that so far
> > > > > > they have been successful in eluding the butterfly net.
>
> > > > > Ok, so you start off with an unsupported personal attack, not
> > > > > exactly a
> > > > > surprise but let's give you the benefit of the doubt, you might just
> > > > > be irritated
> > > > > this morning.
>
> > > > its not a attack, its a fact.
>
> > > No it's an attack, it's a claim of irrationality without any
> > > evidence. It's an ad hom.
>
> > ROTFLOL!!!!!!! if you have such a low functioning brain that cannot
> > understand facts logic, and reason, then do not be surprised if
> > someone points that put to you.
>
> But you haven't "pointed it out" you've just claimed it and failed
> to back up that
> claim.
>
see, that's why i am able to call you a idiot. the supremacy clause
is in the constitution, and its why the federal government is the
supreme law of the land. i cut and pasted the supremacy clause right
out of the constitution.
>
>
> > > > > > further deregulation will either lead to more concentration, or
> > > > > > complete chaos.
>
> > > > > And you follow up with an unsupported claim about the future. Why
> > > > > would allowing anyone to broadcast concentrate ownership? The current
> > > > > concentration happened in a regime of intense regulation where any industry player
> > > > > had to please the government. Why would the opposite cause concentration of
> > > > > ownership?
>
> > > > its why i consider you a crank. the concentration happened after
> > > > further deregulation of the media in the mid 1990's.
>
> > > It happened after certain regulations specifically limiting
> > > concentration of ownership were abandoned, but as I stated the
> > > industry was still highly regulated. The concentration did indeed
> > > happen in a regime of intense regulation where any industry player had
> > > to please the government. Indeed with the government able to grant
> > > (or deny) expansion that highly profitable due to economies of scale
> > > pleasing the government became even more important.
>
> > yes, i am sure in your world, there is a elaborate construction of
> > mole hills, that became mountains.
>
> What has that ridiculous claim got to do with what I said? The
> media was highly regulated in ways that tended to concentrated
> ownership, specifically the government granting of exclusive
> licenses. I pointed that out.
nope, concentration soared after deregulation in the 1990's. its a
matter of public record.
You tried to claim that deregulation
> that allowed anyone to set up a radio station would concentrate
> ownership by pointing to an entirely different form of
> "deregulation".
>
>
never said anyone could set up a station. deregulation simply allowed
a few huge corporations to buy concentration.
>
>
>
> > > > > > the 10th amendment is but a joke. it states that
> > > > > > states do have some rights, they are those the federal government does
> > > > > > not have at the moment. but the supremacy clause states the the
> > > > > > constitution shall reign supreme.
>
> > > > > Which means that the 10th amendment rules supreme and the powers
> > > > > reserved to the states cannot be usurped.
>
> > > > nope, if it was not for the supremacy clause, no state would
> > > > recognize the rights of other states. you are a crank.
>
> > > You have no idea what you're talking about. The supremacy clause
> > > doesn't nullify the 10th amendment nor could it. Otherwise the
> > > constitution would be inactive. It's an AMENDMENT, that means it
> > > overrides the previous sections of the constitution.
>
> > ROTFLOL!!!!!!!! you do not even understand what the supremacy clause
> > is do you. you just admitted it. without the supremacy clause, the
> > 10th amendment would be ignored by all of the states.
>
> The tenth amendment overrides the supremacy clause because it's an
> AMENDMENT, which means it AMENDS the previous consitution and
> therefore overrides it. Why would the states ignore a provision that
> specifically gives them powers and prevents the Feds from infringing
> them? You obviously have no idea what the tenth is or does.
>
the 10th amendment cannot override the supremacy clause. the
supremacy clause is called the supremacy clause because it means
federal law, federal regulation, and treaties are the supreme law of
the land.
break federal law, then tell a judge it was state rights. there are
those that stupid, they are in jail now.
> > the supremacy clause states that the constitution, and all laws, regulations, and
> > treaties are the supreme law of the land idiot.
> > the 10th amendment says states have some rights, but, if a state law
> > conflicts with a federal law, federal law trumps state law.
>
> No it says nothing of the kind. Try reading it some time.
>
i did. all judges are subject to the supremacy clause, local, state
or federal.
> > you simply are ignoring facts, facts that do not fit into your low
> > brow world.
>
> And yet you're the one claiming that an amendment that says nothing
> about the Feds being supreme (and in fact says the exact opposite)
> establishes such a thing. You're the one ignoring facts.
>
you are impervious to facts, logic and reason, its why you are a
idiot.
Michael Price
point. I don't know
how many ways I can tell you that.
>
> > > > > > > further deregulation will either lead to more concentration, or
> > > > > > > complete chaos.
>
> > > > > > And you follow up with an unsupported claim about the future. Why
> > > > > > would allowing anyone to broadcast concentrate ownership? The current
> > > > > > concentration happened in a regime of intense regulation where any industry player
> > > > > > had to please the government. Why would the opposite cause concentration of
> > > > > > ownership?
>
> > > > > its why i consider you a crank. the concentration happened after
> > > > > further deregulation of the media in the mid 1990's.
>
> > > > It happened after certain regulations specifically limiting
> > > > concentration of ownership were abandoned, but as I stated the
> > > > industry was still highly regulated. The concentration did indeed
> > > > happen in a regime of intense regulation where any industry player had
> > > > to please the government. Indeed with the government able to grant
> > > > (or deny) expansion that highly profitable due to economies of scale
> > > > pleasing the government became even more important.
>
> > > yes, i am sure in your world, there is a elaborate construction of
> > > mole hills, that became mountains.
>
> > What has that ridiculous claim got to do with what I said? The
> > media was highly regulated in ways that tended to concentrated
> > ownership, specifically the government granting of exclusive
> > licenses. I pointed that out.
>
> nope, concentration soared after deregulation in the 1990's. its a
> matter of public record.
>
exactly
the sort of regulations that I said led to concentration. The idea
that because
one type of regulation leads to slightly less concentration all
regulation lowers
concentration is moronic.
> > You tried to claim that deregulation that allowed anyone to set up a radio
> > station would concentrate ownership by pointing to an entirely different form of
> > "deregulation".
>
> never said anyone could set up a station. deregulation simply allowed
> a few huge corporations to buy concentration.
>
You made a claim about what I was proposing, and what I was
proposing was
that anyone be allowed to set up a radio station. You claimed that it
would lead
to greater concentration, to support this you stated that a completely
different type
of regulatory change led to increased concentration. So it did but so
what?
>
> > > > > > > the 10th amendment is but a joke. it states that
> > > > > > > states do have some rights, they are those the federal government does
> > > > > > > not have at the moment. but the supremacy clause states the the
> > > > > > > constitution shall reign supreme.
>
> > > > > > Which means that the 10th amendment rules supreme and the powers
> > > > > > reserved to the states cannot be usurped.
>
> > > > > nope, if it was not for the supremacy clause, no state would
> > > > > recognize the rights of other states. you are a crank.
>
> > > > You have no idea what you're talking about. The supremacy clause
> > > > doesn't nullify the 10th amendment nor could it. Otherwise the
> > > > constitution would be inactive. It's an AMENDMENT, that means it
> > > > overrides the previous sections of the constitution.
>
> > > ROTFLOL!!!!!!!! you do not even understand what the supremacy clause
> > > is do you. you just admitted it. without the supremacy clause, the
> > > 10th amendment would be ignored by all of the states.
>
> > The tenth amendment overrides the supremacy clause because it's an
> > AMENDMENT, which means it AMENDS the previous consitution and
> > therefore overrides it. Why would the states ignore a provision that
> > specifically gives them powers and prevents the Feds from infringing
> > them? You obviously have no idea what the tenth is or does.
>
> the 10th amendment cannot override the supremacy clause. the
> supremacy clause is called the supremacy clause because it means
> federal law, federal regulation, and treaties are the supreme law of
> the land.
Yes amendments override what they amend. Otherwise they'd just be
waffle.
> break federal law, then tell a judge it was state rights. there are
> those that stupid, they are in jail now.
>
> > > the supremacy clause states that the constitution, and all laws, regulations, and
> > > treaties are the supreme law of the land idiot.
> > > the 10th amendment says states have some rights, but, if a state law
> > > conflicts with a federal law, federal law trumps state law.
>
> > No it says nothing of the kind. Try reading it some time.
>
> i did. all judges are subject to the supremacy clause, local, state
> or federal.
>
You obviously didn't read it right. What you describe is an
amendment with no
effect, which is absurd both legally and in commonsense terms.
> > > you simply are ignoring facts, facts that do not fit into your low
> > > brow world.
>
> > And yet you're the one claiming that an amendment that says nothing
> > about the Feds being supreme (and in fact says the exact opposite)
> > establishes such a thing. You're the one ignoring facts.
>
> you are impervious to facts, logic and reason, its why you are a
> idiot.
>
> THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE
> Article. VI.
> This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be
> made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be
> made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme
> Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby,
> any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary
> notwithstanding.
>
And it's all amended by the tenth and so irrevelent.
> The preemption doctrine derives from the Supremacy Clause of the
> Constitution which states that the "Constitution and the laws of the
> United States...shall be the supreme law of the land...anything in the
> constitutions or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
> This means of course, that any federal law--even a regulation of a
> federal agency--trumps any conflicting state law.
>
Not if the state has the power to make that type of law.
Poetic Justice
You are right, that is what the amendments do.... You can't cut anything
from the constitution. You have to add an amendment that strikes down
any part of that you want and then replace it.
We only need to look at
AMENDMENT XVIII
Passed by Congress December 18, 1917. Ratified January 16, 1919.
Repealed by amendment 21.
Section 1.
After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture,
sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation
thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all
territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is
hereby prohibited.
Section 2.
The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to
enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Section 3.
This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as
an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several
States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the
date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.
AMENDMENT XXI
Passed by Congress February 20, 1933. Ratified December 5, 1933.
Section 1.
The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United
States is *hereby repealed* .
Section 2.
The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or
Possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of
intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby
prohibited.
Section 3.
This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as
an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States,
as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the
submission hereof to the States by the Congress.
--
Nickname unavailable
ROTFLOL!!!!!!!!!!! except, that the supremacy clause WAS THE REASON
BOTH AMENDMENTS WERE RECOGNIZED BY THE STATES. you are impervious to
facts, logic, and reason. the tenth amendment did not over turn the
supremacy clause. the supremacy clause is the sole reason that the
constitution is enforced in all 50 states and territories.
break federal law, then tell the judge it was states rights, go
ahead, there are those who have, and are sitting in a nice federal
cell. some are in padded cells, and rightly so.
TuringAI
> that federal law, trumps state law. could i have expected anything
> less out of a person who has a low performing brain. its not out of
>
> - Show quoted text -
Go away, kid. This board is for those 13 and older.