TheScout

I was taught in a Catholic school - very recently, not decades ago, that God created men and women differently, that men and women have different roles in society, and they were mutually complementing. One is not better than the other. Only different. I think it would serve us all well to remember that.

I agree. Frankly, the kid doesn't sound good. I can't even fathom losing my workbook back in the day. There are some things you just keep care of, and don't just leave in the mess of your room. Even when you're a teen.

$70,000? Wow. I didn't get anything a few years back when I work several summers at a scout camp. That probably helps a good deal getting and keeping a quality staff.

To me America is great because of the liberty it provides to all. Many countries ban Neo-Nazi movements, "cult" religions, among other things. In the United States such movements are protected and sometimes even flourish. Americans are so free that they have the right to be prejudiced and vote accordingly. If a citizen votes for a person for a reason. It is not up to me to judge them. That is American liberty.

I don't live in a flood plain.

I went the officer way - took the Constitution oath. I suppose I was being picking with the enlistment oath. But I would still contend there is a large symbolic difference in the difference between following the orders of the officers appointed by the President in our republican society, and swearing loyalty to the Queen in a monarchy. Our republican head of state remains a transient figure representing a political party and has never come closes to being the sovereign owner and personification of the state as a monarch does.

"How many Scouters would have a problem pledging to any of, say, the last 3 Presidents? Or would you see it as pledging to the Office rather than the man as people in our Armed Forces do?" I don't know of such pledge members of our armed services take. I never took such an oath to the "Office." Anyway the monarchy is quite different from our transient republican head of state. The monarch technically owns the state, and the government is his/hers. She is the living symbol of the values, heritage, and traditions of the state.

Oh its not about the individual, but the institution.

Some would say much more than a symbol.

The son could never be the royal consort as if he marries and woman in the line of succession, she would lose her place.

Calico, I don't have the Advancment manual with me but I'm pretty sure there are certain procedures for getting awarded a rank postumously but this would not necesarily apply. If my memory serves me the scout must have already completed all the requirements for the rank besides the BOR.

I was commenting to Venividi who it seems missed the point that it was not about politicians.

Dude, did you even read the article?

Lisa, Obama has a lot of baggage, some of it fair some of it not, but it is all baggage. His father is Kenyan, he's African-American, he went to school in Indonesia as a child, he has the long-term association with a church must Americans would frankly say is "out there", the not wearing the flag pin, the not saluting the flag, his wife saying that for the first time she has been proud of America this season. Most of these are rather minor issues, but together they are enough to allow many people to question his character.

None to the extent of Obama. And we all know he has a higher hurdle to cross than anyone ever has.

Obama and his wife have a history of statements, associations, and acts which could lead to a questioning of his character.

I like GWs idea. That is how it originally was and how I believe the majority of the framers wished it to be.

Older son will enjoy NCS. It is a great time.

Sorry that should have been "arrested."

I came across a quote from Lord Baden Powell, written in his diary in 1939: "Lay up all day. Read Mein Kampf. A wonderful book, with good ideas on education, health, propaganda, organization etc.and ideals which Hitler does not practice himself." From The Boy-Man:The Life of Lord Baden Powell by Tim Jeal. On another note Baden Powell was also in the "Black Book" of individuals to be interested upon a successfull invasion of the United Kingdom.

Well its nice that a clever decision by the SCOTUS, it can give itself powers. It appears you have been snookered by Mr. Marshall too. LOL

So is it Marbury or Section III which gives the SC its power. You just changed. LOL. I'm suprised you picked the clause you did. It recognizes the great Congressional power of federal courts (especially in appellate jurisdiction). It also doesn't grant the SC exclusive power and says nothing of the other branchs? The framers of the constitution envisioned a limited role for the SC. Madison's Notes wrote of the clause you mentioned, ''The motion of Docr. Johnson was agreed to nem : con : it being generally supposed that the jurisdiction given was constructively limited to cases of a Judiciary nature--'' Important to note the "judical" nature of the powers you point out. The convention debated this issue and clearly wanted the SC's power limited to "judical" quesions and not constitutional ones. Recall Madison originally wanted to create a Council of Revision including the Supreme Court justices to determine the constitutionality of federal legislation, something that was rejected 4 times. You like to envison the SC as a passive insturment. It used to be. But look recently. After Brown it ordered integration across the country. Federal courts have ordered school busing. Courts have drawn and reviewed judical districts. We could have just stuck with the British monarch if this was our dream for the Republic.

So Marbury v. Madison is the best you can come up with to the idea that the SCOTUS has the exclusive right to interpret the federal constitution. No clause in the constitution itself? Its nice that the SCOTUS can give itself such powers in one of its own written opinions. LOL. "Which powers would that be, exactly? It doesn't list any. You seem to be against the supreme court having unlisted powers, but eager for states to have unlisted powers. Why are you in favor of one but not the other?" Because the whole purpose of the 10th Amendment is to give the States (or the people) the unlisted powers! Duh. No such device exists for the SCOTUS. It lives on usurptation . . . You also write "Because the 10th says that states do NOT have powers that the US constitution prohibits to them, and the 14th amendment prohibits states from infringing on 1st amendment rights of the people." Those are all more questionable decisions made by the SCOTUS. Again this comes down to you holding the 1st Amendment above every other part of the federal Constitution and using the SCOTUS to ram your views down the throats of the American people. In your little world we should apparently just stop holding elections and let the SCOTUS make all the decisions. Since it is the ultimate arbiter of anything anyway under your perverted theories. No, this comes from the 14th amendment applying the 1st amendment to the states. Before that, states could have official state religions.

Well Merlyn since you can't tell us where the SCOTUS gets the exclusive right to interpret (or whatever phrase you want to use) the federal Constitution, where does it come from? Clearly there must be some basis. I do not understand your interpretation of the 10th Amendment. It appears to give the states great powers, but you wish to curtail them. The 1st Amendment is very vague. What exactly is the "establishment of religion? The 10th is not. All powers not delegated to the federal government are left to the states. Why not just defer to the states on school prayer. This comes down to you holding the 1st Amendment above every other clause of the Constitution. OGE, But this would be the same problem as the Prohibition amendment, using constitutional amendments to subsitute for ordinary legistlation is not an answer and fill the constitution with many additions. Plus school prayer, something so ingrained in the history and fabric of the country should not have to go through the rigorous amendment process for it again to be recognized as constitutional.

Merlyn, please supply the clause which gives the SCOTUS the exclusive right to interpret the federal constitution. Recall, President Jefferson said, "[T]he opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves, in their, own sphere of action, but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch." -Thomas Jefferson Was he wrong? Also, I did not understand your opinion on the 10th Amendment? Does it exist? What does it mean in your opinion? I still know you hate that one . Its too bad. Its probably my favorie amendment. But apparently you do not give a damn about any other than the 1st.