TheScout

Your contention that the death of King George III would have changed things dramatically is highly speculative. The Kings mental health did not deteriorate until the late 1780s afer the war was over. At that point his son, later George IV became the regent for him. George IV was a famously stubborn King and clung to the perogatives of the Crown like his father and I can not imagine that his early accession would bring a great change in British imperial policy. Now if the speculative assasination took place before 1780 it would get more interesting. George would still accede to the throne, but due to the fact that he would not yet be 18, his mother would automatically become Regent for him until he reached the age of majority by previous act of Parliament. The Queen, Charlotte, had known Tory sympathies. To me it seems unlikely that either George or Charlotte who haved drastically altered their father's/ Charlottes government (which did enjoy the confidence of the House of Commons). Either way, the assassination of the King would have been a cowardly and deceitful act. It would not have been a noble and honorable way to start a new Repulic, nor would it have been consistent with the Scout Oath and Laws.

The BSA represents traditional American values. There seem to be some in this society who want to replace those with radical "progressive" measures.

The King was not a dictator. The King did not run a totalitarian state. Killing the King would have not changed the nature of the United Kingdom. Though the King aided in passing unjust laws. I do not think he was evil. Hitler was a dictator. He ran an evil totalitarian state. He repeatedly violated the German constituion. Killing Hitler would have dramatically changed the nature of the evil Nazi German state. Your history of Nazi Germany seems a little faulty. Hitler was not elected to the office he held in the war, Fuhrer. He took this title after the offices of President and Chancellor were illegally merged as it was contrary to the German Constitution. Even the Enabling Act made it a necesity to keep the office of President unchanged. Hitler was never elected to any office. The only office Hitler ever ran for, President, in 1932, he lost. In 1933 Hitler was APPOINTED, not elected Chancellor of Germany. I am not saying the method of choosing a leader matters, I just felt the need to correct your error (which is a common misconception, so it is not your fault)

I said Major Ferguson did an honorable thing not shooting Washington. I do not think it would have been immoral to do so. I am sure you can see that just because something is not immoral does not make it honorable. There is no degree of totalitarianism in the example. I am not sure if you really know what totalitarianism means . . . King George III was a constitutional ruler. He signed laws passed by the elected Parliament of the United Kingdom and let his responsible ministers enforce them. George wasn't a dictator in any since. I am sure you can also see that there is a differnce in passing unjust laws and being a totalitarian. For instance, the antebellum South had in the opinon of many, unjust laws passed against them by the United States. I do not think the US was totalitarian . . . Your argument about Franklin is again silly. King George could have sent an assassin to take him out. Franklin had no protection. He didn't. Civilized people don't believe in assassinations to solve problems.

Not necesarily . . . The majority of the citizens can enforce their views of the Constitution through the power of their elected representatives. Thats how civil disobedience works, individual citizens decide laws are wrong and act. Individuals must decide laws are wrong before groups. Sam Adams, Patrick Henry and the likes of them had to convince the rest of the colonists of the inherent wrong of the British colonial legislation.

Merlyn, there was a large difference between Hitler and George III. Hitler was the centerpiece of a vast totalitarian state. George III was the head of an already much weakened British monarchy. Though he had more discretion than modern monarchs, the government was still largely run by his ministers. The monarchy had already de facto given up the right to veto and and independent right to appoint ministers. Most of the colonists quarrels were with the Parliament anyway. I would not oppose shooting civilian leaders on a battlefield. Thats much different from sending asassins to sneak into the heart of a country. That is a cowardly deceitful action. This all started when you said you wanted to shoot justices. That is much farther removed from either circumstance. There is not even a war! Gern, If the Supreme Court rules in defiance of the Constitution, its decisions are not valid. Each branch of government, every State, every citizen, has a DUTY to interpret the federal constitution. Recall, Mr. Jefferson wrote, "[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 The real problem with your scenario is it should not even exist. Federal courts should not be making rulings on abortion for or against. It was not the dream of the founders of this country that an all powerful court would sit in Washington and a small group of men would make social policy for the entire. nation.

Merlyn, there was a large difference between Hitler and George III. Hitler was the centerpiece of a vast totalitarian state. George III was the head of an already much weakened British monarchy. Though he had more discretion than modern monarchs, the government was still largely run by his ministers. The monarchy had already de facto given up the right to veto and and independent right to appoint ministers. Most of the colonists quarrels were with the Parliament anyway. I would not oppose shooting civilian leaders on a battlefield. Thats much different from sending asassins to sneak into the heart of a country. That is a cowardly deceitful action. This all started when you said you wanted to shoot justices. That is much farther removed from either circumstance. There is not even a war! Gern, If the Supreme Court rules in defiance of the Constitution, its decisions are not valid. Each branch of government, every State, every citizen, has a DUTY to interpret the federal constitution. Recall, Mr. Jefferson wrote, "[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 The real problem with your scenario is it should not even exist. Federal courts should not be making rulings on abortion for or against. It was not the dream of the founders of this country that an all powerful court would sit in Washington and a small group of men would make social policy for the entire. nation.

I am a young man and was an SPL just a few years ago. I actually ended up doing it for 3 years so I can tell you how we did it. We always had the scouts play games for the last half hour of the meeting. We didn't have regularly scheduled meetings. The weeks when I, as the SPL felt we needed to plan something, we called the PLC out of the game and had the meeting in a room by ourselves. It was very informal. I would lead the meeting and we would discuss what we needed to get done. Not votes were taken. We worked by consensus. We ddn't do an opening, closing, or kept minutes. As the SPL I would keep simple notes and report to the Scoutmaster what we decided. The meetings would last as long as it took to finish the business. Each summer, we would have a "planning conference." We would meet at the house of one of the PLC members, the troop would buy us pizza, and we would sit down with the calender and draw up the plan for the year. In my opinion, our troop was quite boy run. I thought our leaders did an excellant job with that. So I guess the point is, it seems to me that the form of the meeting is not important, its the substance. If you have talented scouts who want to lead and are willing to do it, they will get the job done. Just my two cents.

I hope you are not comparing Hitler and King George III. If you are one should study up on their history and the role of each in their government. This thread started when I said it would be inappropriate to assasinate Supreme Court justices and then I added civilian leaders. I do not think I ever said it was wrong to shoot military officers on the field of battle.

scottteng, Do not understand my sentiments as a dislike for the people's right to bear arms. There is no bigger fan of the 2nd Amendment than myself. I was just stating that there are better means to resolve the problem of an out of control SCOTUS than Merlyn's violent proposals. I am quite sure as a Senator, Jefferson Davis could have had an audience with Mr. Lincoln after his election. With no security checks back in the day, and epecially not on a sitting Senator and ex-Secretary of War, Davis could have easily walked up to Lincoln with a revolver and shot him. Such would have been a horrible cowardly act. Extremely unscoutlike. Instead Mr. Davis resigned his office, went home, met with his constituents, heeded their call to lead them, and attempted to lead his home out of the Union to redress its differences. Failing that, he led a conventional war to help promote what he thought was his people's rights. Two courses of actions. One ghastly and cowardly, one honorable and courageous.

War is not necesarily hell. Like anything else, it was people make of it. Sherman, who first called war hell, was one of those who set about making war miserable for the civilian population and destroying non-military property. The ancient Greeks would meet on a field and in one day conduct all their fighting, leaving civilians and property intact. In the 18th Century, European officers practiced the concept of a limited war. The United Kingdom and France fought many wars which were very limited in civilian casualties and destruction. Surrendering garrisons who offered valiant resistance were allowed to march away with weapons and flags. War like anything else is what we make of it. Scouts can even strive to go to war with the ideals of the Scout Oath and Law.

The questions involved the Supreme Court going outside of its bounds on its own. A hypothetical, but the Supreme Court has been known to answer questions that are not even brought to it, Dred Scott immediatly comes to mind. Even in the President and Congress are similarly warped, there are other avenues to avoid bloodshed. 3. State governors and local executives could not use their forces to enforce such a decision 4. State legislatures could cut off funding to state and local agencies charged with enforcing a bad decision 7. People could commit acts of civil disobedience and ignore the ruling. 8. States could decide the federal contract is broken and secede from the union All I think would be better than sporadic killing of government officials in my opinion. There was a British officer in the Revolution, Major Patrick Ferguson. He was a rifle officer and invented his own rifle. At one point he came across Gen. Washington alone on horseback and in easy range. He didn't fire, thinking it ungentlemenly to snipe an officer. A true gentlemen. I am not aware of any ungentlemanly threat to kidnap Gen. Washington. I think an American hit squad would have had a high chance of success killing King George III or Lord North. Especially Lord North. Personal security attaches did not exist like they did today. It was easy to get into England at the time. It would have been even easier to kill royal governors. Patriots could have easily infiltrated loyalist units and got very close to top British offiers and kill them. None did. When wars are fought, they can be fought by the standards of the Scout Oath and Law in a gentlemanly and civilized fashion. That is why we have Geneva Conventions and the Hague Laws of War.

Nobody is arguing with that fact. All I am saying that if the SCOTUS makes a clearly erroneous decision, there are more peaceful ways to fix it then killing justices! I hope you would agree. So since you are so intent on killing leaders, how should we have fought the tyranny in the Revolution. Should Washington have sent a hit squad to kill King George III and Lord North, the Prime Minister. That does not seem a gentlemanly way to conduct a war. Targeted sporadic terrorist killings do not seem consistent with the Scout Law.

It is absurd how you compare violence against the SCOTUS with that against Hitler. The point is if the SCOTUS makes a bad desision, you do not need to kill them! I like to avoid violence. Lets think of all the other ways the Supreme Court can be stopped if it makes a horrible decision invalided the 1st Amendment. 1. The President could not enforce the Supreme Court's erroneous decision 2. Congress could cut off funding to agencies charged with enforcing such a warped decision 3. State governors and local executives could not use their forces to enforce such a decision 4. State legislatures could cut off funding to state and local agencies charged with enforcing a bad decision 5. Congress could impeach and remove the Justices involved. 6. Congress could use its Article III, Section 2 power to limit the Courts jurisdiction in such cases and pass a new law. 7. People could commit acts of civil disobedience and ignore the ruling. 8. States could decide the federal contract is broken and secede from the union. In all these cases the decision could be rejected without violence. Merlyn, your problem is that you put the Supreme Court on such a high pedestal that you do not think any other branch or level of government should check them. Therefore, your only resort to an erroneous decision is violence. That is a shame. Recall, Mr. Jefferson also said, "At the establishment of our constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions, nevertheless, become law by precedent, sapping, by little and little, the foundations of the constitution, and working its change by construction, before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life, if secured against all liability to account." All that being said, I would have supported the removal of Hitler. If there were no peaceful means available, death would have been necesary. Luckily, there are peaceful means of fixing our squables, or at least I think so.

The US has a policy against assasinating foreign heads of states. Wars can not be waged in a civilized fashion without leaders. But this whole argument is moot, or at least should be. You immediatly want to jump to extremem measures when the Supreme Court makes a wrong ruling, such as invalidating the 1st Amendment. Instead of violence, wouldn't it be better for Congress or the President to simply not enforce the Court's dicatates. Or your state seceding from the Union to be free out of it.

Sporadic assasination of government officials is little less than terrorism. Clearly wrong. Even the Patriots of '75 never advocated killing King George III. The Confederates resisted tyranny for 4 years in a civilized fashion before Lincoln was shot. Most were reviled by the act. It comes down to how one wishes to fight. Does one wish to act without regard to accepted principles of fighting, or does one wish to resort to barbaric notions like al Qaeda terrorists or the Indian savages. The army that Mr. Jefferson supported fought a brave an honourable war against the UK for 7 years to gain our independence. The colonists could have easily killed all British officials in the colonies. However their actions set this country on the way to a civilized society.

I don't have copies of the Lodge Advisers Guide or the Elections Guide. Did this Lodge's bylaws violate them? Just because we don't like what they are doing does not mean they can not do it.

Aren't local lodges allowed to make by-laws? Is there anything in their bylaws which contradicts national OA policy?

I loved doing Soil and Water Conservation. Discussions can branch off into such a large range of topics almost everything is related in some way.

Though I greatly dislike my Senator, I think the commercial was cute.

Sporadically shooting government officials could terrorize others. It is interesting to note that your destruction of any center of opposition to the Supreme Court leads you to such an extreme chance. My ideas would provide two ways to halt a tyranny of the Supreme Court without violence. The President and the Congress could exercise their right to examine the constitutionality of measures. Or, States could interpose themselves to protect their citizens. You instead want to give the Congress and the Presdent no power to look at the constitutionality of any measures and want to deprive the States of any powers to protect their people.

Jefferson was part of a revolution sanctioned by elected colonial assemblies that fought a regular war for independence. What you are advocating is nothing less than terrorism.

Not just advocating violence, but the assasination of sitting government officials! It is one thing to advocate a revolt against a government wrong like the Patriots of 1775, but quite another to speak of shooting your own government officials. To think the Patriots did not even try to kill King George III.

I have never seen a Patrol get it.

The SCOTUS should make rulings to settle disagreements over laws. If it makes a decision that disregards the text and intent of the federal constitution, it is the duty of other officials to not follow it. Hence, if the SCOTUS completly invalidates the 1st Amendment, I think the President should not enforce it. (This message has been edited by a staff member.)