SeattlePioneer

Hello Scout Nut, > I thought that might be the case after I saw the designated COR registered as a CM. But that was just a guess on my part. Thank you for the reference. Just another example of very complicated membership rules which even experienced leaders are unable to administer properly. In these cases, it probably doesn't matter. In other cases they might be very critical.

> Exactly. It's a grant of power to the CONGRESS. Nothing would be more expected than for the Congress to grant itself additional power as part of it's own legislation. > It wasn't a grant of additional power to the courts. The Congress has the power to declare war, to coin money and appropriate money to spend too. That doesn't mean the courts can use these powers should they choose to do so. The basic problem is that the courts do what they wish and as a practical matter it's been difficult for the Congress and President to act against them. Of course, there have been examples when just that has happened. The impeachment of Salmon Chase was an example of that. Lincoln' ignored numerous Supreme Court decisions. Jackson famously refused to recognize a Supreme Court decision. Franklin Roosevelt's court packing plan proposed to deal with the issue of an activist court. Unfortunately, elite groups have defended aristocratic rule by the courts and prevented the political branches from taking effective action to curb that activism which both liberals and conservatives have engaged in when they had majorities on the court. Bush v Gore and the Citizens United decision has created a backlash by liberals against judicial power, but not a readiness to take effective action to curb judicial arrogance. But perhaps that will come. Too bad the court didn't Obamacre was illegal and that affirmative action illegal recism. Decisions like that might cause liberals and conservatives to unite to curb judicial power. Judicial power can be moderated without destroying judicial independence. That would encourage judicial turnover and reduce the high stakes game of Supreme Court nominations, which is clearly unhealthy. The Supreme Court has reformed many institutions in this country. No reason why it shouldn't be their turn.

Hello NJ, > Section 5 rather unabiguously says that the CONGRESS has authority to enforce the 14th amendment by going through the rather elaborate means of passing a law. It's a grant of power to the CONGRESS which the CONGRESS uses if and when it chooses to do so. For the courts to take and use that power themselves is outrageous.

> Unfortunately, BSA has a highly complex system of registering Scouts and Scouters, but the system is too complex, with too many fallible people involved for it to work reliably. Make some small error in an application and it will be rejected, but the people submitting the application frequently wont be informed of that. Or perhaps they will lose the form or just give up on processing it as not being worthwhile. There are MANY places where errors can be introduced or the system can break down, and no routine way to be informed when a failure occurs. It's a poorly designed management system.

During this past year, I had occasion to attempt to register a new Chartered Organization Rep for each of two units. In both cases this was after a COR had been appointed during rechartering, so this amounted to a change in the person occupying that position. In both cases I followed the normal process for appointing a new adult leader, with the existing COR signing the adult leader application for the new COR. In both cases, the new person wound up being registered as a Committee Member. Is there a special procedure needed to appoint a new COR? I'm wondering in particular if the Institutional Head needs to sign the application appointing a COR rather than the old COR.

> It doesn't of course.

> When the Federal Courts use the authority granted the Congress for themselves, that's an EXCELLENT example of tyranny.

> Supposed to, but this year the new DE has delegated that to the Unit Commissioner or another volunteer. I'm not impressed.

The Supreme Court enforces the 14th amendment through it's opinions and court orders of course.

Hello BSA24, Your comments above are meaningless. Try answering the concrete example of judicial abuse of power I already gave: >

Sure, BSA 24. We are making huge changes in our culture but you claim that will have no effect on the culture. Much the same thing was claimed about making divorce more available. The result has been that the culture has been transformed. Your claim that such things aren't happening in other countries could also be said to support BSA's child molestation issues thirty years ago --- BSA could look with pride at the methods used to keep child molesters out of Scouting. American families have been radically transformed by divorce in recent decades, and will no doubt continue to be tranformed by gay marriage, lesbian marriage, plural marriage and whatever else comes down the pike. But thank you for your report, Pollyanna.

I'll just point out that the 14th Amendment has the following provision: Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. The same goes for most or all the amendments adopted since the Civil War. I would say that not surprisingly, the Congress adopted an amendment which gave THE CONGRESS new powers. I don't see anything about the Supreme Court getting the power to enforce the 14th amendment or other amendments which gave THE CONGRESS the power to enforce those amendments. The 14th amendment gave THE CONGRESS wide new additional powers, which it could use by the process of passing laws with the usual checks and balances. It's outrageous that the Supreme Court usurps the power of Congress to enforce that and other amendments by a 5-4 decision.

For some reason, I imagine Basement's Scout Executive and Field Director getting together to decide, "Well, I guess we tortured Basement with that current DE about as much as possible. But there's this real LOSER who came in for an interview the other day. I bet if we assign him to Basement's district he'll find NEW ways to torture Basement!"

Ummm. You might want to consider the concept represented by the term LUG --- Lesbian Until Graduation. This refers to high school or college women who have found that lesbianism has social cachet or feel pressured into adopting a lesbian persona while in school. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesbian_until_graduation I suspect heterosexual men are, so far, more resistant to such pressure, but I also wouldn't be at all surprised to find students increasingly pressured to adopt a homosexual persona as homosexual influence gains greater social power and influence. No reason why Scout troops would be immune from that, either, if you had openly gay Scoutmasters leading units. No reason that homosexual social and cultural groups wouldn't become chartered organizations if Scouting dropped their objections to homosexuality either --- indeed, I would expect it. Homosexual social power has been growing rapidly for several decades. There is no reason to suppose that will stop. Families should be expected to face a pervasive homosexual culture in the future from which they will be able to find little or no refuge.

Hello infoscouter, First, I'm not familiar with a requirement that units have some kind of official flag. Do you have a reference for that? Even if there were a dumb rule like that someplace, it would be among the BSA rules I'd ignore in the interest of having a better quality program by making your own unit flag.

First, pat yourself on the back: things could be a LOT worse.

Hello blw, > Unfortunately, there are few checks on the ability of the Supreme Court to abuse its power. No Presidential veto, no concurrent votes by the Senate and House. Get a 5-4 majority and you can re write the constitution, which has been done repeatedly by the Supreme Court. So I suggest that if you want to avoid the ills of willful majorities, we need a check of judicial rule, judicial oligarchy, judicial aristocrats and judicial tyranny, whatever you might want to call it. If we want a Democratic Republic as you suggest we need a check on the power of an arrogant judiciary. I again point out that in 1803 the Supreme Court declared an act of Congress unconstitutional for the first time in Marbury vs Madison, choosing an issue where there were no means for the political branches to oppose their decision. The second time the USSC declared an act of Congress unconstitutional was in 1857 with the Dredd Scott decision, which took a LOOONG steps towards starting the Civil War. That was 54 years without the court declaring an act of Congress unconstitutional. These days, the littlest Federal judge stands eagerly ready to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional. I suggest that the courts have spent 200+ years expanding their power and have been displacing the proper role of the political branches. These days THEY are the ones who routinely abuse their power. They should be checked. Reasonable term limits would merely make them more accountable to Congress and promote a healthy turnover of judges. It's past time for some reform of the judiciary, in my view.

Hello Calico,

PETA is the silliest of political organizations. In Washington State they got an initiative passed a few years ago banning hunting of bears and mountain lions with dogs. "Cruel" they said. Foolish voters passed it. After a few years, mountain lions were expanding in number and range right into suburban areas, with dogs and cats being taken out of the back yards of people's homes. Were the dogs and cats that were killed the cruel victims of PETA policies? I'd say so. When the mountain lions began stalking children, the state legislature repealed the PETA law, and the problem went away. I just walked by the squashed body of a possum and a squirrel when I was out walking yesterday --- killed by cars. Perhaps PETA should be out there gently keeping the wildlife from crossing the road. They are often fools, in my opinion.

I'm guessing that if district did all the things Fred describes, Basement might be inclined to cooperate with the district leadership. Normally I'm a supporter of working with your district. But if your truly have lousy district leadership, I'd probably adopt Basement's methods too. Basement, What are you going to do next time if the DE shows up univited expecting to do a FOS presentation? Maybe you need a bouncer!(This message has been edited by seattlepioneer)

Hello Fred, We disagree. Personally, I never recall seeing a district activity limited to units in the district. I hear there are some DEs and district officers that are a pain in the neck to deal with. If that's the case, I think there's a reasonable argument for finding another district for services. Life is too short, and I would MUCH rather have leaders go to a neighboring district than quit Scouting. Not ideal. Not something that I would like to see. But perhaps better than struggling in a district with district leaders who are a pain in the neck.

Lifetime appointments have certainly made judges independent all right. independent to the point of arrogance and abusing their authority. The judiciary was certainly not intended to be the most powerful branch of government. That was supposed to be the legislative branch. But judges rewrite the constitution these days with impunity, by a simple 5-4 majority. The Congress doesn't bother amending the constitution any more --- a job left to the courts these days. With a twenty, thirty or forty year term, judicial nominations become a high stakes activity for the President. If judges needed to be confirmed again after twelve years or so, there might be more turnover and greater accountability. The high stakes on judicial appointments would be reduced. While the Supreme Court claims to be the defender of the constitution, in fact it has done more to subvert the constitution than the other branches. The courts have had a 200+ year history of awarding themselves more and more political power at the expense of the elected branches of government. The Supreme Court awarded itself the power to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional in 1803. It was 1857 in the Dredd Scott decision before they did that a second time. Fifty four years. These days I doubt that 54 days go by without laws being declared unconstitutional. These days, Federal courts minutely supervise not only the laws passed by the Congress but the actions of the President as well. Any Federal judge feels empowered to declare the Congress or President to be violating the constitution, and they do so regularly. But WHO REVIEWS THE SUPREME COURT? They act with impunity. I would say they make at least as many errors as the Congress or President. Making judges subject to reconfirmation after a term of years seems perfectly reasonable to me.

I'd go ahead and complete your recharter. Don't include unpaid Scouts on it. Nothing wrong with sending families another note. I'd tell them that because the dues haven't been paid, their Scout's membership has not been renewed for 2013 so far. If payment is not made by XXXX date, a new Scout membership application will need to be completed to renew the membership.

Sleigh Racing for the December pack meeting! During December den meetings, each den makes and decorates it's own sleigh from a large corrugated paper box. A rope is inserted through the box for pulling. At the pack meeting, it's a relay race. One Scout from each den in the box is pulled around the race course by the other Scouts in the den, and then the boy in the box is switched and the race course run again until all the Scouts have been pulled around the race course. I usually run the race twice. It's a great picture taking opportunity and parents enjoy it.

Personally I think there might be a good deal to recommend a policy of scaling back billion dollar Scouting Disneyland projects being built around the country. I prefer funding local Scout camps myself.