TheScout

"Therefore, since the interpretations of the Supreme Court are the last word on the meaning of the Constitution" "the Constitution gives the Supreme Court the judicial power to make determinations of constitutional law" Not to start a new argument, but where exactly does it say the Supreme Court has the authority to exclusivly determine the constitutionality of anything. It doesn't that is why thoroughout our history there have been disagreements over who should determine what is constitutional and what is not. Every branch of government is co-equal is co-equal in its defense of the Constitution. The President has the duty to veto unconstitutional laws. Congress had the job not to pass them, and the Supreme Court has the duty to strike them down. The States as signatories to the Constitution have that right as well, as do the people from whom all the governments powers are granted.

"Do you think it is in the best interest of the US to drop back to people dying from the flu and having life expectancies of 45?" Of course not, but after reading the Constitution, it seems clear the federal government does not have public health powers. "How is providing for the common defense or general welfare unconstitutional?" Because there is nothing in the the federal constitution which allows Congress the power to act under these blanket statements. These, found in the Preamble simply state the rationale for framing the Constitution. I am not proposing that we do not do any of the things we are discussing, but according to our constitutional structure, different levels of government have different tasks. The federal government is responsible for the conduct of foreign policy, creating post offices, making currency, among other things. The state governments have the reponsbility to protect the public heatlh of their citizens. We are in an age when every looks to the federal government to solve all their problems. People do not seem to give a damn about our constitutional structures, which is a shame. The framers knew they could not provide for every circumstance, that is why the left an amendment process. If we want our governing document to be different, we should change it, not just ignore it based on our whims.

If we resort to the idea that any good idea is constitutional, how do we know that some day the government will decide that abolishing freedom of speech is a good idea, or freedom of the press, or the right to bear arms. Our written constitutional is what protects us from the government. If the people think it is a good idea to alter the powers of the government, they may approve a constitutional amendment.

Yes if Congress makes appropriations that are contrary to the Constitution, which I believe federal publich health funding clearly is, it is unconstitutional. Our federal government is one of limited enumerated powers. Just because something is a good idea does not make it constitutional.

Hunt, The Preamble does not empower or limit the government in any way. It is only a statement of the rationale for creating the Constitution. Article 1, Section 8 clearly spells out the only instances in which Congress can spend money and there is nothing that remotely mentions public health in any form. Furthormore, the 10th Amendment, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people." Again clearly says all powers not granted to the federal government in the Constitution, like stem cell research funding, are left to state governments. It seems many people think there is a good idea clause in the Constitution. Just because something is a good idea does not mean that it is constitutional.

Packsaddle, I do not believe in government funding for public health research. I think that if people talk about research funding, or any sort of expenditure, it always must bring up a question of constitutionality. Reading the federal constitution, it seems plain to me federal spending for public health research is not authorized. So I do deny the right of the federal government to do so. I would interpret my state constitution, New York, to allow such funding, even though I do not support it. I would also assume most other state constitutions would as well since they tend to be more expanisve in nature then the federal one. "Do you believe that for any idea, it's 'legitimacy' is determined solely by what's written in the constitution?" Yes of course. I do not understand how anyone could say otherwise. Governments only exist to exercise the powers the people delegated to them. Otherwise, our constitutions are mere blank pieces of paper.

Packsaddle, you say, "You clearly think public health is NOT a legitimate function of the federal government. Why then would it be a legitimate function of a state government as opposed to a county or parrish? Or city? Or family?" Its because different governments have different powers and authority. The constitution limits the power of the federal government to spend except in several enumerated cases. Just cause you think public health research is a good idea does not mean that it is constitutional. There is not a "good idea" clause in the constitution. Dan, you said, "No thanks. I'd rather have the heart surgery that allowed my older son to survive past 8 years old. I'd rather have the cure for cancer that may come in time to prevent my sons from suffering from the form of cancer that claimed their mother. But you go ahead and spend your share." If the government gave us all back our money. You could donate yours to a cancer research fund and I could spend it. But we all know if that happened, people would not donate on their own. That is why the government has to coerce the spending out of people. Thanks, The Scout

"So we should abolish the entire NIH? Nothing that the NIH does or funds is a core function of the federal government. I'm sure that $20 billion that the NIH gave out in research grants last year could better spent in Iraq, huh?" Well the NIH was founded in 1930. The United States did OK for over a century and a half without it. And instead of spending it in Iraq or anywhere, they can give the money back to you and me. It is ours anyway. I can spend it better than they can. "Are you saying that public health is not a legitimate function of government?" Yes. Our federal government is one of limited powers. Read the Constitution. Let us not make it a blank piece of paper. State governments can do as much research as they wish. Each state legislature can decide on its own based on the traditions and values of the state. Thats democracy.

Why is a federal subsidy of stem cell research needed anyway. If there really is a potential for a cure, private companies will respond due to a profit motive. Some states are begining to subsidize it as well. I do not think it is proper for the government to be spending my hard earned money on researh that is not related to the core functions of the federal government. "They also knew those Founding Fathers did, that outside of its legitimate functions, government does no thing as well or as economically as the private sector of the economy." -Ronald Reagan

Good to hear, but the most important part of the teachings of the BSA is not even the skills learned, but the values, discipline, and commitment learned while absorbing those skills. Regards, TheScout

Thats easy! We all talk about having a boy run troop. Let the PLC decide what to do.

Its not tough luck if he did not do his Duty to God. It is one of the requirments.

James Madison was the President during the War of 1812. He served 1809-1817.

I have to ask. Why do they toast President McKinley?

Never thought I was this good a Catholic. 1. Eastern Orthodox (100%) 2. Roman Catholic (100%) 3. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (98%) 4. Seventh Day Adventist (73%) 5. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (68%) 6. Orthodox Quaker (67%) 7. Hinduism (65%) 8. Orthodox Judaism (65%) 9. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (63%) 10. Islam (62%) 11. Jehovah's Witness (61%) 12. Sikhism (37%) 13. Reform Judaism (36%) 14. Jainism (36%) 15. Bah' Faith (34%) 16. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (34%) 17. Liberal Quakers (33%) 18. Mahayana Buddhism (30%) 19. Scientology (29%) 20. Theravada Buddhism (29%) 21. Unitarian Universalism (29%) 22. New Thought (23%) 23. Nontheist (23%) 24. Neo-Pagan (21%) 25. Secular Humanism (12%) 26. New Age (11%) 27. Taoism (6%)

Adults should not be inspecting uniforms at all. Thats what junior leadership is for.

The 50 Miler can't be done by bike.

gwd, It does not have to be arbitrary requirements imposed on the boys. In my troop when I was a youth the PLC wrote a sort of troop constitution which governed the elections.

What does the PLC think?

Well said. Greying Beaver

Couple Suggestions. For your essay, make sure you just focus on two or three of the attributes and explain them well. You might want to think about adding "delegating" as well. May I also suggest you look at a few ROTC units since you want to be an army officer. It can be a fall back option if you don't get into the service academy. Many guys prefer it to West Point as it is a lot more fun before your career, as I can testify as I am currently a ROTC cadet. Either way you end up with the same commission.

If sticking to their guns and morals costs the BSA membership, God bless them. No one should sacrafice their principles.

It is the shame that the BSA has to pioneer a program that they are scared of publicizing. What does that say for the virtues of the program?

I guess you are right, If girls can be in Little League where you live, that must mean they should be in Cub Scouts too.

While we are at it, I'm thinking about making up my own requirements for Eagle Scout. Any suggestions?