TheScout

If the Supreme Court makes an unconstitutional ruling, all other officials have a DUTY to ignore it. They all swear to support the constitution. Not to support whatever the Supreme Court says. Your answer to an out of control court is just absurd. I would prefer the other two branches ignoring warped decisions to individuals shooting crazy judges. (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

Merlyn, you didn't answer my question either. I asked what should the President and Congress do if the SCOTUS ruled that the First Amendment does not apply any more in any cases. If they completly invalidate it. The Supreme Court does not have less power then the other branches. It has the same. All branches have the duty to judge the constitutionality of any measure. You try to raise the Supreme Court up as a super branch which can audit the rest of the government with no appeal. That was not the intent of the constitution. Recall Mr. Jefferson wrote, "[T]he opinion which gi

Merlyn, you didn't answer my question either. I asked what should the President and Congress do if the SCOTUS ruled that the First Amendment does not apply any more in any cases. If they completly invalidate it. The Supreme Court does not have less power then the other branches. It has the same. All branches have the duty to judge the constitutionality of any measure. You try to raise the Supreme Court up as a super branch which can audit the rest of the government with no appeal. That was not the intent of the constitution. Recall Mr. Jefferson wrote, "[T]he opinion which gi

Meryln, Your position that the Supreme Court can never act in an unconstitutional manner doesn't make sense either. Someone above pointed out that checks and balances depend on mutual respect. The Supreme Court, more than any other branch depends on this. It can only gain this by well reasoned decisions based on the text and the intent of the federal constitution within the proper zone of its authority. The reasons why their are so many criticisms of the Supreme Court and the federal judiciary today is that they have long this respect over the last half century. The SCOTUS has

I think Brown vs. Board of Education was unconstitutional. The 14th Amendment says all must treated equal. If there is an equal white school next to an equal black school, that passes muster. Seperate is not inherently unequal. I would have just ignored the decision like many Southern schools did at the time. So Merlyn, what if the SCOTUS stated in a decision tomorrow that the First Amendment did not apply anymore. What should Congress and the President do? I would hope they would say the Courts actions are unconstitutional and not enforce the effects of such a decision.

OGE, Your recourse to impeachment is problematic. The Constitutional Convention considered allowing impeachment for inability but instead decided on the current wording which applies only to criminal behavior. "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." Hence I would say a judge could not be removed for faulty rulings. The logical result would then be members of Congress removed for voting on unconstitutional measures I p

It is a shame that most people forget the most important check is that each branch of the government must judge the constitutionality of the acts of the others. Or can the Supreme Court do no constitutional wrong?

The people of the State of Georgia have the right to make rules for any local government in their land. At the time tribal sovereignty was not widely accepted. (It was just imposed by the Supreme Court in another judicial overstretch). Indians were considered wards of the government and not part of the political community.

Jackson is mostly regarded as one of the finest presidents. His face dots the $20 bill to this day. Resistance to illegal government actions has a long history in the United States. From the 1765 Tea Party, to the Patriots of 1775, Shay's Rebellion of 1786, the 1798 Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, the 1814 Hartford Convention, 1832's South Carolina Nullification, the 1861 War Between the States, the 1960's "Massive Resistance." Sometimes such things work, sometimes they do not. We all know that the federal constitution does not give the Supreme Court the exclusive power to say w

It is time some politician pulls an Andrew Jackson again. When he felt the court errored in Worcester v. Georgia he supposedly said, "John Marshall (the Chief Justice) has made his decision, now let him enforce it." And proceeded to let Georgia run its own affairs without interference from Marshall. If a politician did this today with some of the wacky court decisions, I am sure he would be greatly applauded.

Merlyn, you and the school lawyers have all fell victim to the imperial judiciary that is trying to run this country from the bench. You all follow warped constitutional doctrines.

Yeah Merlyn, because there is not "right to a fair trial" or "seperation of powers" either. Like wall between church and state such terms mean nothing. There are constitutional guidelines on how to run a trial and how the branches of the government relate to each other. There is also the first amendment, but that protects the exercise of religon as much as it stops its establishment. Again, it seems like most people ignore your warped view of the Constitution imposed on people by an imperial judiciary as they ignore the spirit and the text of the federal constitution.

If a prayer is said in school, and a child chooses to go stand outside in the hallway. He/she is excluding oneself.

Were they excluded by the school, or did they excuse themselves? The difference remains. A court may not agree, but the vast majority of Americans do. What should be more important? Don't bother answering. I know what you will say.

You miss a subtle difference. The school is not excluding them. They are excluding themselves from the theistic activities by choice.

Your claim that we think atheists have no civil rights is absurd and you no that. Just because we all don't subscribe to your warped court-imposed view of the constitution, does not mean we do not care about civil rights.

Merlyn, you take your warped conclusions and are always assured of your correctness. Notice I never stated I KNEW the policy, like you always claim you know what is right. Recall my friend that I said, "I am not sure, but it seems like the words you get from the website are policy guidelines, not rules."

"Yes, I acknowledge that. However, homosexuality isn't one of them in my book." The BSA and you have different morals. That is no big deal. "Yeah, the policy is clear, if you know to go look on the BSA website and hunt it down among the press releases and legal documents." The BSA website is not the primary source for information about the organization. Ask any local professional or comissioner and they will tell you the policy.

Well I guess some schools still charter units. Thats what this article is about. I am not sure, but it seems like the words you get from the website are policy guidelines, not rules. Also note the construction of "Public schools and government organizations do not serve as chartered organizations." It could have said, "Public schools and government organizations can not serves as chartered organizations." It almost seems like it does not bind the council. It is saying what public schools will "not" do. If national wanted to BAN local councils from chartering to public schools, the langua

Dan, I am sure you can acknowledge that there are different degrees of immorality. None of us our perfect. But the BSA realizes that there are certain lifestyles that they do not want to influence their members. The logic of banning all immoral people from teaching morality would lead to nobody teaching morality anywhere. I do not think that is good for society. Merlyn, yeah I guess that is the problem with individual thought. People interpret things differently. There is no big deal though. If anybody asks, the policy is now quite clear.

Well it is certainly nice of you to tell the BSA what they "need" to do. I guess they are just "sloppy" in their language. Hey you have said before that Mr. Madison and Mr. Jefferson were sloppy in their language and corrected them. I guess nobody is clear enough for you, with the exception of the Supreme Court (and only the side of the opinion with which you agree).

"In a letter dated March 11, 2005, the Director of Registration at the Boy Scouts of America National Office notified the ACLU of Illinois that it intended to ADVISE "all local councils to transfer charters issued to government entities to private entities immediately." Emphasis Added.

It says "morally straight." Do you really expect the BSA to list all immoral activities? Such would be a daunting task.

Merlyn, local councils were not told to do so! Read your own links. They were "advised to do so."

Merlyn, then why when you say that don't you leave out the term 'explicit.' Oh yeah, because we all no the policy says no gays.