TheScout

"However, BSA councils that issue charters to public schools are being dishonest, because the council expects those public schools to exclude atheists, and they know public schools can't do that." That is not the problem of the BSA. It is up to the school whether it wishes to follow warped views of the constitution like yours, or resist. The constitution, like any contract, is not binding, if one side changes its terms unilaterally.

Merlyn, I realize that. But the fact remains that the US government still endorses the activities of the BSA through the charter. So I ask again, is the federal government dishonest for giving such a charter to the BSA?

So Merlyn, I ask again, is the federal government dishonest then for its national charter of the BSA?

Merlyn, You are wrong. If you read the link your provided and the actual letter to the ACLU, you will learn that the national council "advised" local councils to no longer charter to schools. Your view of legality is warped because it is out of touch with that of most Americans. So I ask again, is the federal government dishonest then for its national charter of the BSA?

Again, by using the word "explicitly" you acknowledge that the BSA does in fact say on their membership forms that gays are not allowed.

Merlyn, by the use of the word "explicitly" you acknowledge that the BSA does say on its membership forms that gays can not join.

Merlyn, by the use of the word "explicitly" you acknowledge that the BSA does say on its membership forms that gays can not join.

Merlyn, by the use of the word "explicitly" you acknowledge that the BSA does say on its membership forms that gays can not join.

Merlyn, we all know you have a warped view of legality, different from most of the American public. I would be interested to know the BSA policy on schools as CO's. I do not know if it is officially banned. I saw your link, but those seem to be more of guides to local councils than an official policy. I do not know. So is the federal government dishonest then for its national charter of the BSA?

Sticking up for principles by not endorsing immorality. I would be hard pressed to call this dishonest. The agreement was not a secret.(This message has been edited by TheScout)

A salute to the BSA for sticking up for their principles. Somebody in this society has to do it.

A camp crew is not needed to get staff that are not registered members of the BSA. In our council the Camp Director just finds some local troop to sign them up with so they can be members for the national inspection. For that reason Philmont staff might not have to be BSA members as they do not have the BSA Resident Camp inspection. (But that is just speculation)

So do you agree with the statement, "that whenever a form of government becomes destructive of these ends, (securing rights) it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it,and to institute a new government . . .?" I would still love to see just a small glimpse into how you pick if you like the majority of miniority opinions of the case. There must be some way!

I do not think so. In this context we were not talking about constitutional rights. We were debating the origin of constitutional government. This must come about before the existence of such a constitution. I think we have we have rights that are not simply given to us by our constitution, but additional natural rights that come from our Creator. I still don't want to know the whole philosophy. Just a small glimpse into how you pick if you like the majority of miniority opinions of the case. There must be some way!

"I'm talking about a "right" as a social/legal construct; currently, under US law, neither one of us has a right to overthrow the US government and install a new one. You're talking about "rights" in a sense of you get to do whatever you think is right, including, ironically, removing the rights of other people." Though I said the DOI has no legal construct, I am talking about the "rights" in a social theory as stated by the DOI. So I am just wondering if you do indeed agree with the statement, "that whenever a form of government becomes destructive of these ends, (securing rights) it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it,and to institute a new government . . ." "As for your harping on wanting to know my entire constitutional philosphy, I'll quote Wesley from The Princess Bride: 'Learn to live with disappointment'" Oh Meryln, I don't want to know the whole philosophy. Just a small glimpse into how you pick if you like the majority of miniority opinions of the case. Though I don't really like your views, I realize that you are not a fool by any means. This makes me think that despite what you say you have to have some theory to interpret the constitution. (This message has been edited by TheScout)

So what part of the phrase from the DOI "that whenever a form of government becomes destructive of these ends, (securing rights) it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it,and to institute a new government . . ." do you disagree with? So in your mind a people are not free until the tyrant agrees? So under your logic we should not celebrate our independence on July 4 because the UK did not recognize it. We should instead celebrate the 1783 date when the UK recognized us in the Treaty of Paris. It seems like in this instance you are placing more clout in the authority of tyrannical governments than those seeking freedom. Suprising position for you based on your other thoughts I think. So you determine what size of a court case you agree with as you "think about it." I am sure you know that in most cases both sides present well referenced opinions. When you think about it, what is the standard you use to determine which is correct. So if you "think about it," I ask, what standard do you use to critique the opinions as you think about them? Please, if you cite the constitution, tell how you find out what it means as both sides of the Court always base their arguments on the constitution.

It seems that you do not believe that people have a fundamental right to self-government. When I asked you, "So is it a "right" people have to "get together and create governemnts?" You replied, "Almost never" Maybe I interpreted the substance of your point wrong. I must point out however the Declaration of Independence which writes, "that whenever a form of government becomes destructive of these ends, (securing rights) it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it,and to institute a new government . . ." I know the DOI has no force of law, but it seems to hold that it is the RIGHT of the the people to abolish bad governments and institute new ones. Maybe you don't agree with the passage quoted above. "I do wonder though Merlyn, how can you disagree with the decisions of the Supreme Court" "I disagree a fair amount of time." "So if you base your interpretation on that of the Court, how can you "disagree" with its decisions" "Since most verdicts are not unanimous, there are usually conflicting opinions on every case. Some wag pointed out that, in the two 10 commandments cases that were decided a couple of years back (both by 5-4), only one justice out of the nine agreed with both opinions." So let me get this straight. When you say you base your interpretation on the Supreme Court's, you actually just mean you base your decision on the side of the ruling that you agree with? How then do you determine what side you agree with? And I still wonder, if you were the a SCOTUS justice on a case, how would you go about interpreting constitutional clauses.

"So is it a "right" people have to "get together and create governemnts?" "Almost never" It is interesting that you do believe in the fundamental right of self-government. This seems to me to be one of the highest expressions of the inalianable right to liberty. "the supreme court IS never "wrong," though I and many other people can disagree with their opinions" I do wonder though Merlyn, how can you disagree with the decisions of the Supreme Court. You previously stated that to interpret the constitution, "Generally, I read it and read court opinions based on it." So if you base your interpretation on that of the Court, how can you "disagree" with its decisions. This is unless when you read the text you have a different theory of interpretation. So I wonder what that would be?

"I don't agree. People really do just get together and create governments. There's no magical power or authority." So is it a "right" people have to "get together and create governemnts?" "And it's pretty much up to the supreme court to decide." So if the only source of constitutional interpretation is the supremee court. Why should we ever bother appealing its decisions. It is the SOLE source. Then it can never be wrong I presume. That then leaves the question. How should the SCOTUS go about interpreting the constitution then? What if you were a justice, how would you do it? And if you want to correct each others spelling and grammar, you should really capitalize Supreme Court.

"True, the people consent to delegate some of their powers to the government. But where do the people get the powers from that they are delegating?" "What "powers"? A bunch of people got together and created a system of government. What kind of "power" needs to be present to do that? X-ray vision?" The powers of government. Authority can not spring from no where. Government gets their power delegated from the people. The people must then get if from some where? "Generally, I read it and read court opinions based on it." Interesting. But I am sure you know reading the constitution can not answer all questions. What does "cruel and unusual mean" what does "due process" mean. Sort of questions that can not be answered by just reading. And court opinions? They have a theory of the constitution that they spring from. Or do you not think through the consitution yourself and just rely on court decisions. Seems like that would make a very static society because a court decision would never be wrong if we just all rely on court decisions. So by now I am dying to know. How do you interpret constitutional phrases. Something like, what is "necesary and proper?"

True, the people consent to delegate some of their powers to the government. But where do the people get the powers from that they are delegating? "I would still like to know how you interpret clauses of the constitution then?" "You seem to want a label. I don't have one. Deal with it." I do not need a label. I would just like a small insight into your thought process in how you interpret a phrase of the constitution. There must be some way!

"Ok Merlyn, then were do the powers of government come from?" "The consent of the governed" works for me." Ok then, where do governed get their ability to give consent from? I would still like to know how you interpret clauses of the constitution then? Maybe this would help me gain insight into your views. It just seems odd that you don't have a school of interpretation. It almost seems like you subscribe to any theory which can get you to your desired ends.

You have to buy shorts and socks for him! When I was on staff a few years ago my parents made me by my own . . . We just wore our normal uniforms that we wore with our troops. A lot nicer. You could tell a lot more about the individuals scouting experience that way.

Ok Merlyn, then were do the powers of government come from? In my view they come from the people's rights to make rules for their society, which come from God. Where do you think the powers of government come from then? In your discussion of what rights can be taken away, you miss a fundamental point. Governments take away the rights of citizens all the time. Witness Hitler's Germany and Stalin's USSR for two of the worst examples. Jews and political opposition certainly had their rights taken away. Such as the right to life. So since this was taken away by government, does this mean that their is no "right" to life. Now under both systems I mentioned rights were violated in accordance to the laws of the land for the most part. So I say, Nazi Germany acted for the most part in a constitutional manner in depriving Jews of their rights. However, they took inalienable rights way from them, so the government lost its legitimacy. There is a difference between constitutional and moral propriety. So I once again say life is still an inalienable right. (Though many governements seem to take it away). I still find it quite fascinating that you do not subscribe to a school of constitutional interpretation. And with all do respect, it makes your arguments in some cases seem a bit hypocritical. (I may be wrong, thats just what it seems to me). It almost seems like you subscribe to any theory which can get you to your desired ends. You preached literalism with your view of the 5th Amendment. Then your 10 Commmandment ideas certainly are not. Seems a literalist would say the only thing Congress can not do in regards to the 1st Amendment would be to establish a state religion. It seems like there you are preaching a more Living Constitution approach. Then when it comes to the 14th Amendment, you were telling me what the original intent of the Congress was in passing it. Just seems funny. So how do you decide how to interpret phrases of the constitution then if you do not subscribe to any theory of interpretation? Maybe this will help me see the merits of your argumen.

I meant so say that Baden seemed a bit hostile to Catholicism. The Church recognizes that there is a theological difference between Abortion and Capital Punishment An excerpt from the Catechism, http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/fifth.html Capital punishment is not regarded as wrong in all circumstances. The Church spells out when it can be used, though it also holds that in modern times it rarely must come to that. Abortion is always wrong. The Chuch doesn't even recognize divorce so that seem to be a non-issue.