Outdoor Adventure USA

The digressions are far more interesting than the topic (the best comment concerned the misconception that the Constitution is a "living, breathing document" I always tell friends the way to spot a liberal prof that is indoctrinating, not educating, is if they use that concept and they should be immediately FIRED). The Constitution is a contract between the people and their government. If it is a living, breathing thing; subject to change at the whim of either party, then so is your employment agreement, your mortgage, and your marriage vows.

But here's some good (if dated, but I haven't seen any subsequent info) news from eham.net:

NLI Meets with Congressman King Regarding HR 607:
Mike Lisenco (N2YBB) on May 19, 2011
View comments about this article!

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Contact:
Mike Lisenco, N2YBB
n2ybb@...
917-865-3538

May 19, 2011, Massapequa Park, NY - A delegation of Amateur Radio operators from the Long Island / New York City area met this morning with Congressman Peter T. King (R-NY) to discuss his recent proposed legislation, HR 607, and its impact on Amateur Radio.

Congressman King said that he fully understands and appreciates the importance of Amateur Radio and the service it provides to the community, and that he would see to the modification of the bill so that the 420 - 440 MHz band would be excluded from the spectrum to be auctioned. The delegation included Mike Lisenco, N2YBB, ARRL Section Manager for New York City / Long Island (NLI), Peter Portanova, WB2OQQ, NLI Local Government Liaison (LGL), George Tranos, N2GA, NLI State Government Liaison (SGL), and Jim Mezey, W2KFV, NLI ARES Section Emergency Coordinator (SEC).

"The Congressman went on to explain that it was never his intention to remove the 70 centimeter band from Amateur use. He further asked us to `get the word out' and inform the Amateur Radio community that 70 centimeters is not in jeopardy," said Lisenco.

Lisenco, Mezey and Tranos spoke about the importance of Amateur Radio emergency communications while Portanova, who is also the local AMSAT representative, addressed satellite and other amateur use of the 70 centimeter band.

The Congressman was very receptive to the group, who also extended an invitation to attend Field Day locations in his District.

Now that's good news!

Cammo wrote:The digressions are far more interesting than the topic The Constitution is a contract between the people and their government. If it is a living, breathing thing; subject to change at the whim of either party, then so is your employment agreement, your mortgage, and your marriage vows.

On-topic response:

The news about the actual focus of HR607 is excellent for amateurs.




Sub-topic digression:

Regarding your comment about liberals: while "living" and "breathing" are used metaphorically, the constitution has been subject to change (check out the list of amendments next time you get the chance to read it), and so are all of the other documents you cited. The misconception is that this can be done at the "whim" of a party or individual; fortunately for all of us, it takes substantially more effort than that to alter any of the aforementioned contracts - but make no mistake - all can be altered (just ask any lawyer, or even anyone who is divorced, been fired, or been involved in a short sale of a house)

You guys and your political shenanigans.

gon2srf wrote:You guys and your political shenanigans.

Shenanigans! Well, harrumph!

Oh well....................here we go again.

It is clear that the constitution has been amended. It is the attempt to characterize the amendment process as evidence of a living Constitution, which has kept this debate going. A trap has been set here and it's very simple. As soon as enough people can be convinced that the Constitution is a “living document,” meant to be changed with the times, then it is easy to make all of the changes that are consistent with your politics, your morals (or lack thereof) or your desire to redistribute wealth.

The truth however, is that the amendments do not mean that it is living, whether used metaphorically or otherwise. And, more importantly, this discussion over whether the Constitution is a living document, without an understanding of the motives of those who promote such a notion, is meaningless. We can argue all day long what the amendments to the Constitution mean, but until we examine why the left has chosen to create this notion, little can be accomplished.

To no one’s surprise, there is a political reason why so much effort has been put into creating the impression that the Constitution is a living document. To make this point, I would merely suggest that one look at the political flavor of the vast majority of those who promote the idea. Draw your own conclusions.

For those historians in the crowd, let’s see who can guess which political candidate spoke these famous words:

...if elected, I will appoint judges who understand that our Constitution is a living and breathing document, and who grasp that it was intended by our founders to be interpreted in the light of the constantly evolving experience of the American people.

DaveK wrote: For those historians in the crowd, let’s see who can guess which political candidate spoke these famous words:

...if elected, I will appoint judges who understand that our Constitution is a living and breathing document, and who grasp that it was intended by our founders to be interpreted in the light of the constantly evolving experience of the American people.

Al Gore said it when he was running for President in 2000

Good Gawd, this stuff is fun.
Again, I'll defer to my post #33. But, to say that the Constitution can be amended is a bit simplistic. By any nations standards, it's been amended a whole lot of times. Most for good reason, and the changes were brought by both parties.
I'm not really a fan of the terms "living" or "breathing". I can understand the metaphor, but it just seems too simplistic as well. It is not a simple process, but our history has proven that the provision allowing it is completely justified and necessary.
Now for the "redistribution of wealth" comment.....I was listening to Lush Rimjob this morning and as usual, he walked into his own trap while discussing statistics for the issue of "redistribution of wealth" (another contrived and simplistic term). And, after listening to his own statistics, it became apparent to me how much "redistribution of wealth" is systematically taking place on both sides of the aisle. More interesting to me, is which party is systematically more successful at it. Given the statistics and current state of our middle class, it's apparent to me that the right is clearly winning the redistribution game.

OLLIE wrote:

DaveK wrote: For those historians in the crowd, let’s see who can guess which political candidate spoke these famous words:

...if elected, I will appoint judges who understand that our Constitution is a living and breathing document, and who grasp that it was intended by our founders to be interpreted in the light of the constantly evolving experience of the American people.

Al Gore said it when he was running for President in 2000

We have a winner!

There is a years free membership to OAUSA on it's way to you in the mail.

xtatik wrote:Good Gawd, this stuff is fun.

It sure is!

xtatik wrote:.I was listening to Lush Rimjob

Were you, now! I'm sure not camping next to you at Borrego Fest!

xtatik wrote: "redistribution of wealth" (another contrived and simplistic term).

I'm open to suggestions. What else do you want to call it when they take our money and give it to someone else.

xtatik wrote: More interesting to me, is which party is systematically more successful at it. Given the statistics and current state of our middle class, it's apparent to me that the right is clearly winning the redistribution game.

Lay those stats on us.
BTW, what is the state of our middle class.

I'm going to lock this thread if we don't get back to the topic at hand....laughing to myself as I note that 3 out of the 5 board members are participating. Can't you guys just open a new political thread and keep all your POV's there for goodness sake.