TheScout

It seems to me that this is a misguided discussion. Why is it important that the Lodge Chief shows off his status. What ever happened to a dose of humility?

Many practicing Catholic pharmacists do not distribute birth control. Many places protect them in that right. California does as long as they notify their employer. I would not expect them to go against their morals.

Ethics can sometimes dictate that we put our morals aside? Interesting.

I like when my congressmen brings money back to my district and hopes he agrees with me on "hot button" issues.

The real question is why are you worrying about this? This is the responsibility of the troop librarian. He should be researching this.

If her beliefs were not in line with the DRP she could not be an Eagle Scout. Whats new?

As a fellow night watchmen statist I voted for George W. Bush once (I wasn't old enough in 2000) because though he has presided over a great expansion of the federal government, I firmly believe it was less of an expansion that Mr. Gore or Mr. Kerry would have brought about.

That seems like a tough assertion to make that religous "based" governments have a worse record concerning the value of human life than secular ones. First of all, it seems to be a rather one sided argument. Most governments throughout history have been "based" on religion in some way or another. It is probably only in the last 200 years, and the last century in particular where we have seen the spread of true secular states. That being said, looking at the history of the 20th century it seems possible that secular state value human life as least as little as religious "based" ones.

"Currently, 89 countries have abolished capital punishment for all offences, 10 for all offences except under special circumstances, and 30 others have not used it for at least 10 years. A total of 68 countries retain it." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment#Global_distribution_of_death_penalty

Acco40, Great point! As a rather recent graduate of the American high school system, you correctly point out that options other than college are totally ignored. The whole time I spent in high school I did not here one mention of the ability to go into the trades or the military, which are all respectable careers, from the counselors or any other school personnel. All one hears is that you have to go to college.

But people have to want to take part in their government. It seems that the spirit of the early repubic has somewhat eclipsed. People just look to their government to see what they can get from it. The 18th Century Scottish legalist, Sir Alex Fraser Tyler wrote an interesting piece on democracy, "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess of the public treasury. From that time on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the results that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.... The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to great courage; from great courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to complacency; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to dependence; from dependency back again to bondage."

Just another example of how one size fits all government programs do not work in this vast country of ours. A shame to see no one realizes this and continues to advocate yet more programs, more taxes, and more spending to solve our problems . . .

I agree with you! On everything you say about the BOR. I know the rules. I know its not a retest. I have never said any such thing. I am not saying the BOR member needs to use the book to ask the scout questions. Before advancing a scout, the BOR member should check to see all the requirements have been signed off. Scout gives BOR member book. BOR member looks at it. Requirement 1 signed off. - Good Requirement 2 signed off. - Good Etc. Scout Spirit signed off. - Good Scoutmaster Conference given - Good Then he thinks to himself. Wow this scout has everything signed off for the rank. Now we can give him a board of review. If the BOR member can not ask for proof, nothing stops a scout who has not have all the requirements done from getting a BOR. Still silly. I was aware of the phrase, "A board can expect a Scout to be neat in appearance and properly uniformed." But "expect" is far different from a requirement. You wrote, "It is the Scouts responsibility to show up to his BOR, neatly attired, & ready to answer questions put to him." To me that says a scout is required to be neatly attired and ready to answer questions? Where in the BSA literature does it say they have to be ready to answer questions anyway? He can answer the questions and still be very unready to do so. But those are all minor points of wording. My main point is if the BOR member asks for proof that the scout has all the requirements SIGNED off. Someone should be able to show him that. Thats being a responsbile BOR member.

"The BOR members do NOT need to be given ANY "proof"." Then how does the Board know a scout has completed the requirements! "No, it is not silly. It is part of the "proper procedures" for a BOR. It is NOT up to the SCOUT to present the BOR with any "PROOF". It is the Scouts responsibility to show up to his BOR, neatly attired, & ready to answer questions put to him." It ha been a while since I read the Advancement Committee Policy and Procedures, but I do not recall a part where a scout has to be "neatly attird" or "ready to answer questions" either. Are you adding requirements? What if a scout is not neatly attired? What if he is not ready to answer questions? "If the BOR members do not know the scouts in their unit, the Troop is not following BSA procedures, the scout is not living by the Scout Oath & Law, & the SM & Troop Advancement Chair are not doing their jobs" I would also say that is not true. If the unit is run correctly, I would say the Committee members would have even less chance to know each scout indivdually. Say a unit is chartered to a Rotary Club. Members of the club should be Committe members. Committee members are not involved in delivery of program. The Rotary members just provide periodic oversight at BORs and attend ceremonies like BORs. Committee members do not have to know the advancement record of each scout to do their job. I think checking to see the requirements are signed off before granting a BOR is doing their job admirably. "What happens if they approve him?" "Then the Troop has lots more problems than simply not understanding what a BOR does." That really doens't answer the question. What happens to the scout who has passed his Life BOR but is actually only a Tenderfoot. You said the BOR members don't need any proof to grant a Life BOR. "It is how THE SCOUT, NOT the BOR, keeps track of what he has accomplished & what he still needs to accomplish." So again, the BOR can not check the Scout to make sure he actually did it. I still am a bit confused. Why do we have the Eagle Application then. Why don't scouts just show up for their Eagle Board and tell the committee that they have done all the requirements?

"It seems a perfectly reasonable expecation to see some proof that the requirements were complete." "Not at a BOR it is not. There is no BSA requirement that the Scout MUST present his Handbook to the BOR." All I stated was that a Board of Review member should be given proof the requirements were complete. If you read the statement I did not say it had to be done in the form of a handbook. I do not see why you are quoting the proper procedures for questions at a BOR. We all know them and this has been discussed many times before. So are you saying that a Scout can show up at a BOR without presenting proof that the requirements were complete? That would be quite silly. A Tenderfoot could just show up and tell a Board he is sitting for Life? What happens if they approve him? You seem to contradict yourself by saying the Boy should keep responsibility for his advancements and use the book as proof that stuff is done instead of having adults to this. So if adults are keeping duplicate records, shouldn't he show the BOR proof the requirements are complete. I am quite confused by your position.

You're funny Merlyn.

It seems a perfectly reasonable expecation to see some proof that the requirements were complete.

True, the "small rules" as you describe them do have the long arm centralizing effect. But I think you can agree for the most part the BSA is actually quite decentralized in delivery of program, though there is that ultimate authority. I think you are correct in your analysis of the relativist/absolutist divide. That is why the debates here go in circles. The ideas are irreconcilable. Some of us will never agree on the morality of homosexuality and atheism. I must honestly say, I do not see the inconsistency in the policy. An obese person can still be in my opinion physical strong, though not in perfect shape. A tobacco smoker can still be, mentally awake. From certain absolutist views homosexuality and atheism is never acceptable. It is an easier line to draw than the others. The other would be nearly impossible. Some rules are harder to enforce then others. You correctly point out the hardship of the BSAs enforcement methods. Same could go for don's ask don't tell. Still a good policy. Hard to regulate, but necesary. I don't see how absolutism puts us in a lie. I hope we as Scouts are stubborn enough to hold to our convictions. I think you could remove the illegal immigrants, all 12 million. Deport criminals. Go after the employers. Cut benefits. Jobs and free stuff dry up they leave. But again, a different argument for a different day . . . Moreover, in practice BSA doesn't REALLY enforce the stated policy. They can't. It's impossible. The same way it is impossible for those of us who want to control the border and eliminate illegal aliens to REALLY get rid of the 12 million or so already here. Reality simply puts the lie to such absolutist positions. Stubbornly (and perhaps stupidly) repeating some mantra amounting to little more than a pout won't change the reality for BSA any more than it will solve the problem of illegal aliens. Reality is messy, solutions will be messy and absolutes will be illusory. You point out how the BSA is fighting a tough battle. It is. However, that doesn't mean it should give up. Some of greatest characters in history have been idealiss. Now for my concern, the BSA waters down its morals, and becomes like any other youth organization, just providing a fun time. We all know scouting's purpose is not for the boys to have fun. That is just a trick. The mission statement tells us the goal is to have scouts make ethical decisions. To the absolutists of the world the requires a set of standards. How else to teach ethics? I think there are more absolutists out there then you realize, and especially in the membership of the BSA. I would say that its constituency is greatly different then the population at large.

Packsaddle, you make an astute point and you deserve an answer. Since I tend to be long winded in such things here is a spin off so I don't hijack another thread. As you correctly point out I do advocate decentralization of our country, expounding on States Rights in particular. Though I feel this is a wise course of action, it is something which the government is bound by contract (the federal constitution) to follow. States have significant protections (or at least used to before the SCOTUS destroyed them) and we must respect that. I admire as great political thinkers of the early republic, Jefferson, Madison, Calhoun, Davis. There was a day when people identify themselves more with their State then they do with the nation. I would say I do as well. Sitting at my desk I have one of those small flag stands. It has a New York and an Army flag. No American. I think of myself as a New Yorker first. I have lived here all my life. New York and its local government creations have educated me, policed my community, provide my utilities, and take care of just about all my government needs. Besides foreign policy, I am hard pressed to think of anything the federal government has ever done for me. I love my State and think it has great promise for the future and wish all its people well. Despite my conservatism I hope we pass a Massachusetts style universal health care system here in New York. I would not like to see my fellow New Yorkers suffer. They all deserve health care. But when it comes to other places, I seem to care far less. The fires in California really affect my life as little as the floods in England do now. New York has a high income tax. Florida doesn't have one. Every year when hurricanes hit Florida in the same places and millions of dollars from New York pours to that State for rebuilding, I question why don't they just introduce an income tax and rebuild their own buildings that they keep building in hurricane zones. One may call such sentiments cold, but I see them as simply localist. That is how this country started. When it comes down to it. I love my crazy blue state with its liberal governor and even more crazy senators. The union is made up of very different parts. I see the genius of the framers of the federal constitution in creating this federal system to allow such diverse places to work together. If Mr. Lincoln and his cohorts would have left the States alone, we would have saved a million lives and many many gallons of blood. If the federal courts would not have heard Roe v. Wade, a health and social issue, we would not have a polarized political atmoshpere like would today. The examples of one size fits all solutions causing problems is numerous. The BSA is quite different. It is a private organization, and not bound by any contract to respect the perogatives of the councils. So the first difference is the BSA is legally allowed to get involved in local matters as it sees fit. Secondly, the goal of the BSA is different. It is not to create a "more perfect union" of different places, but to, as the mission statement says, help young people make ethical decisions. Though I would say different places have different values (again, recognized by the genius of the federal constitution) I am a moral absolutist. Only one set of values is right. If you believe in your heart that atheism is immoral, and the goal of your organization is to help people make ethical decisions, you should not provide them with atheist role models. It is contray to the mission. Though I am not expert on the internal affairs of the BSA it is my understanding that it is rather decentralized. All program, and the vast majority of training is done by the councils. Camps, offices, stores, are run at the council level. National simply provides a few guidelines and supplies. The membership restrictions are important to the mission and are not burdensome on the councils. If the BSA started telling councils which camps to sell, who should be hired as DEs, etc. that (though within their rights) would be quite silly. I don't know how good a job I did at explaining myself in that rant. It is a quite sublte distinction. For example, I am a general proponent of centralization on the State level. You might also be interested to know I am a devout member of the hierarchical Roman Catholic Church. But that those are both different stories for different days . . .

Yes, we have to know what he actually wanted in the book. If he wanted to see the Life record with all the dates and signatures, that seems to be like a responsible Board of Review member. I hope they would check to see all the requirements are duly signed off before approving a scout.

So you are comparing people who are immoral to those who are obese?

packsaddle, Like I said, I do not think the policy is hypocracy. The BSA has standards of what it thinks is immoral. It exludes people that it judges to be immoral. Many other organizations do the same. I am sure the Girl Scouts don't allow child molestors or murderers to be leaders. They violate their standard of morality. Please note I am not equating homosexuality or atheism with murder or molestation. Simply stating that they are among traits different groups think are immoral. Not wanting to associate with people who you think are immoral does not mean one is not tolerant. Hypocracy would be saying one is diverse and tolerant then discriminating for no rationale reason. As for the local option. I say there has to be standards. I think we all would. You have to keep some minimum set of standards to be used across the BSA. Again, for an extreme hypothetical, if there were no national standards, a council could allow released sex offenders to be leaders. Clearly not acceptable. This proves there needs to be some minimum standards. I think the standards the BSA have no are good. I would support the current CO based local option when COs can restrict their membership even more. I honestly believe one of he things that makes the BSA great and so respected among many parts of this country is its perceived stand for traditional values. I think you correctly point out that decentralization is a traditional value. The BSA is quite decentralized. Councils have significant responsibilities as I understand it. However, any decentralized organization must keep a set of standards to unite all. Do you think that would be a bad thing? As it is, the local memberships are dictated to by a central authority. H'mm maybe that IS a traditional value.

Dan, I do not think the BSA is necesarily hypocritical. The BSA does not think certain people are good moral characters to serve as examples for the Scouts. They can still respect peoples differences. They just do not want to associate. That is their right. Many other groups discriminate against people who they deem immoral. I don't think the Girl Scouts lets people they think are immoral be leaders? The BSA just has a different standard of morality. Today's society wants a one size fits all morality, and the BSA doesn't comply. They do what they think is right. Thats what Scouts should do.

Calico, you make interesting points and well reasoned points, but I must disagree in part. You correctly point out how the Framers of the Constitution knowingly intended to restrict the impeachment power as compared to English constitutionalism. However, one must also look at the history of the term "high crimes and misdemenors" as written in the 18th Century English context. High crimes referred mainly to crimes against the state. Also a principal High Misdemenor was public maladministration. It is important to note the first conviction of an impeachment was in 1804 on a judge, John Pickering after President Jeffrson instigated charges against him for drunkenous and bad decisions. A decision invalidating the 1st Amendment would not simply be a judicial opinion people could disagree with. Such a rampant disregard for the constitution might be construed as a high crime? It is not any worse constitutionalism that unilaterally invalidated parts. You correctly point out that in certain cases Congress can not remove jurisdiction, when ministers, consuls, states, and ambassadors are a party. As such, the Courts original jurisdiction is extremly limited. You also point out, correctly that Congress can only make exceptions to appellate jurisdiction. I think you get off base when you write, "They can change, without constitutional amendment, on a law by law basis, which law that would normally be an Appellate Jurisdiction for the SC to Original Jurisdiction for the SC." You miss a point from the crown jewel of American cases, Marbury v. Madison. The Juridiciary Act of 1789 expanded the jurisdiction of the SCOTUS. That is where Mr. Marshal found his fault writing, "If it had been intended to leave it in the discretion of the legislature to apportion the judicial power between the supreme and inferior courts according to the will of that body, it would certainly have been useless to have proceeded further than to have defined the judicial power, and the tribunals in which it should be vested. The subsequent part of the section is mere surplusage, is entirely without meaning, if such is to be the construction. If congress remains at liberty to give this court appellate jurisdiction, where the constitution has declared their jurisdiction shall be original; and original jurisdiction where the constitution has declared it shall be appellate; the distribution of jurisdiction, made in the constitution, is form without substance. Affirmative words are often, in their operation, negative of other objects than those affirmed; and in this case, a negative or exclusive sense must be given to them or they have no operation at all. It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and, therefore, such a construction is inadmissible, unless the words require it." To me, this reads that Congress can not swap original or appellate jurisdiction or add to the original jurisdiction. Therefore, The Exclusion Clause must have another meaning. They can change, without constitutional amendment, on a law by law basis, which law that would normally be an Appellate Jurisdiction for the SC to Original Jurisdiction for the SC. As to further regulations, this means that Congress can tell the Court that should they accept a case to review such a law, that the Court must rule on it within a certain period of time, or that it may only accept briefs from the two original parties (no friends of the court briefs) or other such items. Ex Parte Mccardale, the Reconstruction case involving habeous corpus, the SCOUTS shows that it Congress does have the power to regulate its appellate jurisdiction as it said, "The source of that jurisdiction, and the limitations of it by the Constitution and by statute, have been on several occasions subjects of consideration here. In the case of Durousseau v. The United States,12 particularly, the whole matter was carefully examined, and the court held, that while 'the appellate powers of this court are not given by the judicial act, but are given by the Constitution,' they are, nevertheless, 'limited and regulated by that act, and by such other acts as have been passed on the subject.' The court said, further, that the judicial act was an exercise of the power given by the Constitution to Congress 'of making exceptions to the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.' 'They have described affirmatively,' said the court, 'its jurisdiction, and this affirmative description has been understood to imply a negation of the exercise of such appellate power as is not comprehended within it.' The principle that the affirmation of appellate jurisdiction implies the negation of all such jurisdiction not affirmed having been thus established, it was an almost necessary consequence that acts of Congress, providing for the exercise of jurisdiction, should come to be spoken of as acts granting jurisdiction, and not as acts making exceptions to the constitutional grant of it. The exception to appellate jurisdiction in the case before us, however, is not an inference from the affirmation of other appellate jurisdiction. It is made in terms. The provision of the act of 1867, affirming the appellate jurisdiction of this court in cases of habeas corpus is expressly repealed. It is hardly possible to imagine a plainer instance of positive exception. We are not at liberty to inquire into the motives of the legislature. We can only examine into its power under the Constitution; and the power to make exceptions to the appellate jurisdiction of this court is given by express words." In this spirit there have been other measures over the years to strip courts of powers to rule on gay marriage, school prayer, pornography, etc. These of course have not been able to make it through Congress. Meanwhile, Congress is given the exclusive right to create inferior courts, and hence creates their jurisdiction. Therefore, but not giving lower courts jurisdiction in areas where the SCOTUS only has appellate power it seems in my humble opinion that Congress can effectivly strip courts of jurisdiction. It is a very vague clause, and there are many other arguments involved which I won't get into as I have already probably been too long winded. Regardless, I also feel your proposed solution of waiting out justices or passing amendments is not proper. Under the example, the SCOTUS invalidating the 1st Amendment, would the Executive be forced to restrict such rights in accordance with the SCOTUS decision until a justice or two dies, or until the lengthy amendment process is passed. I don't think so. The Executive must not enforce such a ruling, and he wishes to Congress must not fund such activities. Lacking federal protection of liberties, its time for State action. Interposition, nullification, or secession, but those are another argument for another day . . .(This message has been edited by TheScout)

Eagledad, I think you make good points. Adult involvement in the PLC only leads to problems. It does not let the boys make decisions on their own which is presumably the goal of the PLC. I must confess I have never read the SPL Handbook. However with nobody from our PLC reading it when I was a scout, I think we ran successful PLC meetings for many years. Running a meeting is not hard. If you have a troop of say 30 boys with 4 Patrol Leaders and an SPL. Between those 5 and the ASPL, there should be at least enough talent, initiative, and leadership ability to run a simple meeting! I do not know what is expected of the PLC in other troops, but as a Scout our meetings were nothing fancy. We sat down for a few minutes and talked about what we wanted to do for at the camping trip the upcoming month and how we would d food. Or we would get a bunch of brochures from summer camps and throw them on the table and talk about where we wanted to go next year. Other times we would plan COHs so we would dig out our big "Woods Wisdom" Book and page through the COH scripts and pick one and assign people to get the supplies. None of these tasks are that hard. The most capable 6 out of any group of 30 should be able to figure this out. The problem I see is deeper. As I scout, the core of junior leaders were older. 14, 15, 16. We all had several years of experience in scouting and cared enough about it to stick with it as we got older. It seems that many troops lose these older scouts, which I think is the real key to junior leadership. Scouts are not kept interest, they are rushed to Eagle and quit, or they are moved to Venturing Crews. All of which takes leadership away from the troop. From my experience the 12 and 13 year old PLs and SPLs don't have it. The difference in maturity between a 13 year old and a 16 year old is quite big. And then there is the problem of boys not elected the most capable to lead them. But that is a different story for a different day . . .