vol_scouter

Packsaddle, Had you read the posts carefully, neither I nor BS-87 said that Eamon's son would not currently be eligible to be president. I made a very reasonable suggestion to clarify what the meaning of 'natural born citizen' should be. By the standards that you, acc40, and others espouse, then a child born on American soil of parents who are not citizens and was raised from 1 year through 25 in a communist system or extremist country such as North Korea or Iran would be eligible to be president when they were old enough. That is nonsense. Certainly, being born here of USA citizens does not assure that the child will be patriotic as in Bill Ayres and his wife. However, they are more likely to be loyal Americans than those who do not meet those requirements. Having requirements that must be met is very American. My suggestions are reasonable and logical. They would not affect the current office holder but codify what the requirements would be in the future.

BS-87 said it well. The president needs to be without reproach as to his allegiance to the USA. My suggestions codify that which is very American.

So hopefully the birth certificate issue for Obama is now settled. The episode has demonstrated a need for a constitutional amendment to clarify what is meant by the term 'natural born'. Obama has brought up other issues to which the constitution is silent such as having one's citizenship renounced as a minor. I would aver again that now would be a good time to address such issues. It would not affect Obama in any way since the process would take longer than the next election so such an amendment would be for future presidential candidates. My qualifications would be for the presidential candidates, the vice presidential candidates, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. They should all be natural born which should be defined as having both parents USA citizens prior to the birth of the candidate and that the birth occur on USA soil. That the candidates shall only have USA citizenship throughout their life and no other citizenship (i.e. dual citizenship is not allowed). The amendment should also spell out plainly the documentation that is required to show this and that the documentation will be posted online and in newspapers (if they still exist) for all to see. Distractions as Obama has caused because of his background should not have to be an issue in the future.

wingnut, Congratulations! That is quite an honor.

It seems to me that more information is required before deciding what to do. I would ask the other adults on the outing how the riding arrangements ended with a single youth with a SM. Did the SM try to get several boys into his car and several refused? Was the backseat full of gear and, if so, was that unavoidable. In other words, did the SM try to avoid the situation? If he did and other circumstances dictated the final riding order then Beavah's approach seems appropriate. Perhaps, the issue was discussed and all adults decided in this particular instance that it was necessary. If that is the case, then I would argue that mentioning that it is a violation and that it would be better to work harder to assure that it does not happen again seems appropriate. If such explanations are not discovered, then reporting it to the SE is the best policy. Just be sure that you know that a situation has not occurred whereby such an arrangement was mandatory and the SM was the one in an uncomfortable situation. It is not the duty of the witness to investigate the incident but it is the duty to be sure of the situation.

For reasons already stated, abolish it and further, stop federal dollars to K-12 education.

Scoutfish, You clearly do not have concerns but I and many others find that a negative. In my opinion, someone how has lost their citizenship even if a parent or legal guardian did so should not be eligible to be Pres,, V-P or Speaker. That is not currently in the constitution but I believe that it should be in the future. Beavah, My internet reading in the past would indicate that there is not a definitive ruling determining what the term 'Natural Born Citizen' actually means. If the current precedent for the other standards are so low, then they should be changed for future presidential candidates.

So Beavah, you would have no concerns if a candidate in the 2016 election was taken to Iran as a young child, their citizenship was revoked, and they returned sometime in high school years? Would you not be concerned about core values? Those values have to do with the way all problems are approached. Would you not have concerns about the way that they see this country? Open microphones have shown us that our politicians hold some groups in contempt and are arrogant (not a surprise). What if that attitude affected the candidate's idea of ALL Americans? Such things concern me and I believe many others. We at least should have a clear picture of what the person's background really is. Many people do not know or believe that Obama was taken to Indonesia and apparently his mother renounced his citizenship.

packsaddle, Beavah's post clearly implied (which was the word that I used) that anyone who at this particular juncture in history wants full disclosure and better definition of the requirements for president is a racist. I, like many others, have never seen a major candidate with so many question marks about their past which has spurred the concerns. That is not racism.

Beavah; First, to be in scouting you must have a background check so don't get your fur up for a little bit more for the most important job in our country. Otherwise, the constitution is just a set of suggestions to use if convenient and discard otherwise. Middle school age sets a lot of values and beliefs for young people as we all see working with youth (that is the real reason that we do it). So I do not see such issues as insignificant. Obama came from near obscurity on the national stage to president in a very short time. As folks have tried to dig into his past, there are aspects that some people would find disturbing. The voters would have been better served had all those issues been brought up during the primaries so that voters could determine if those issues would affect their votes. This is not acceptable and should be prevented from happening again. Just because you have not had to produce such records or agree that a potential employer can access them does not mean that it is not becoming the standard. Lastly, it is dangerous to a democracy to attempt to stifle debate by implied folks are racist because they disagree with someone's politics or have legitimate concerns about their past.

I second BS-87. My personal feeling is that someone who is going to run for president: must be of age 45 years of age (35 is too young), must be born on USA soil, must be born to citizens, must not have other citizenships, must never have given up citizenship {whether done by parents/legal guardians or themselves}, must present all pertinent documents {including but not limited to: birth certificate [long form if used in the state of birth], passport records, college records, loan records, financial disclosures, etc.} to every state for examination. As an amendment, it would not affect Obama so it is not directed toward him but a result of his election. The same requirements should be made for the vice president and anyone wishing to be Speaker of the House would meet the same requirements but would not be reported to the states but some committee from both houses of the government. The 50 states are more likely to have clear and fair resolution than the FEC on eligibility since there would be less direct party control.

In my home state, they have kept the long forms at least for my children (all grown). One of them had to produce a lng form. The electronic style forms, e.g. Obama's, are unfortunately easier to 'fake' than paper. That is the curse of the electronic age - for the convenience we give up some security. I still believe that for president, vice-president, and speaker of the house should have many records inspected and made public so that such issues are unlikely to come up in the future. The definition of natural born needs to be spelled out clearly. My reading as to the interpretation agrees with BS-87 and is opposite that of CalicoPenn. I do not have the time or energy to do primary source reading to determine this definitively for myself. It is an important idea that should be clarified in clear and concise language in an Amendment.

So John, if the requirement to determine eligibility in Arizona was placed into hands of many, Governor Brewer would sign it? Seems like a better approach than a single possibly partisan person. I have had to produce a copy of a long form birth certificate before and in order to be president, I see many good reasons to require the same and none not to do so. Once again, I believe that Obama was born in Hawaii. From what I have read, in order to attend his school in Indonesia, Obama's mother changed his name to Barry Soetoro and had to renounce his citizenship since Indonesia did not allow dual citizenship. If this is true, then where is the record here in the US that he regained his citizenship? Seems to me that such matters should have been clear and totally in the open for him to run for president. It also brings up the scenario that should it be alright to give up one's USA citizenship and regain it at another time and still be president? The constitution does not address this to my knowledge. It seems to me that such issues have demonstrated a need to have a more thorough and open system to show the background of presidential and vice-presidential candidates. Should not the speaker of the house also need to meet the same requirements in case something happened to both? This is not meant as an attack on Obama but rather a comment on how the system is not well defined (good example - what does natural born mean?) and too fraught with possible loose ends. So going forward, as a nation we should learn from this and setup a better system.

I fail to see the problem in the Arizona bill unless it is a point of law with which I am not familiar. Currently, the parties stipulate that the candidates meet all requirements but each state has the duty to assure that the candidates do indeed meet those qualifications. If a state requires the proof that the parties and the FEC stipulates is available - what's the problem? Just more checks. I do not doubt that Obama was born in Hawaii. So why should ALL states not require long form birth certificates, SSN, and other records that prove meeting the natural citizen requirement?

Beavah, So the money that the government unions use to elect officials (mainly democrats) comes from the union members voluntarily writing a check? My understanding is that the money comes from the contribution that the employer makes to the union. If that is true, that means that the taxpayers are paying for PACs that try to elect almost all democrats. Such a situation is wrong. I should not have to pay tax dollars that go directly to a union to elect someone. Let the union members pay 100% of the money from after tax dollars as most in society must do. That is fair - the current system is not. {Not really a topic for here but the best solution may be to ban all groups from participating the election process and only allow private citizens who are registered to vote to contribute. Also, ban contributions that cross state lines except for the presidential election.} By the way, the real test of who pays for what is if the employer were no longer required to pay the expense, would the employee see an increase in pay equal that which had been 'deducted' from their pay. If the answer is yes, then the employee is paying for it and if no, then the employer is paying. My guess is that the taxpayers are paying the union dues but they are paying for their healthcare - we shall see if the law stands in Wisconsin. I fail to see why it would not be better for all states to be right to work. If the unions are beneficial, then people will join. Allow competing unions. Also, unions should be limited to a single employer. In other words, there should be a GM union, a Ford union, and a Chrysler union but not a union representing employees in all three because it gives the union too much power. Also, I hope that everyone who is touting the virtues of a union are driving a GM, Ford, or Chrysler car and not a non-union Japanese car. (I drive union made cars).

As a professional, I have to pay to be in a number of organizations out of my own pocket - not with pretax dollars that the union workers never see. In the case of the public sector unions, the public pays those dues with pre-tax dollars. Whether the dues are paid by the employee at all will ultimately be determined if they get reimbursed for the union dues in Wisconsin - if they do not then the tax payers pay all of the dues. One way or the other, the unions members should pay their union dues with post-tax dollars just as others in the society do. It will be interesting to see how many find the unions worth the dues if they have to write a check each month.

Trevorum, Citizens have equal rights. Males can marry females and vice versa. That applies to everyone. What is being asked is for new rights.

Ethics and responsibility go both ways. The changes in Wisconsin may bring some control on the unions.

Collective bargaining is clearly a privilege bestowed by the states who decide the extent of those rights. The union dues are currently being paid by the taxpayers because the money is taken out of the checks by the state government. Now in Wisconsin, the union workers will have to pay the union dues which will provide better oversight on the amount and expenditure of those funds. The unions in Wisconsin still have collective bargaining rights over compensation. They do not over healthcare, vacation, etc. That matches all of my experiences in the private sector white collar jobs. Only very high level management is able to negotiate their vacation, health care plans, and other benefits. So they are now in line with most other people except they have many more people which still gives them an advantage. Also, allowing the workers to vote on whether the union should continue to represent them is democratic. The idea that a union, once voted in, can never be voted out is obscene. Requiring regular votes on continuing representation is reasonable. Thus, the Republicans have made reasonable changes. I agree with Beavah that favoring some unions over other ones is not right. States certainly have the right to be right to work or not but I see no logic in not being a right to work state. It is more democratic.

Beavah, So the Obama government should consulted physicians who were practicing medicine in the communities and ignored academic physicians who practice in a totally different environment with medical students, interns, and residents to perform the bulk of the work. However, since they, the politicians know more about the practice of medicine than those who do so, they are elitists. They believe that they know what in truth they do not know.

Beavah, A non-union employee may in theory have the right to bargain for pay, benefits, vacation, et cetera but in reality it just doesn't work that way. I have worked for several employers from ~20 to ~5,000 employees. In all cases, the benefits, vacation time, etc. were a take or forget the job proposition. Salary could be negotiated but nothing else could. I live in a right to work state which I suppose could change that equation but I rather doubt it. So it seems to me that this only levels tha playing field to that others actually have.

Eagledad makes some good observations. Calicopenn's attitude is that of an elitist - my thoughts, ideas, and viewpoints are more intellectual than conservatives. This is despite both sides having very thoughtful and intellectual proponents.

While one can argue the merits of union states versus right to work states, the issue in this case is different. The republicans running for the house, senate, and governor in Wisconsin and Ohio ran on the platform of decreasing the influence of unions. They won in large numbers and the democrats lost. That means that the republicans should be able to enact what they said that they would do. I have often watched republicans lose votes on issues that they believed to be important (recently, Obamacare) but they performed their elected duty. The democrats in Wisconsin are disgusting and clearly do not believe in representative democracy. If the voters do not like the republican reforms, they will return control to the democrats. The tactics being employed by the democrats in Wisconsin damage our representative democracy and set dangerous precedents. I hope that they return on Monday and perform their duty.

Well said desertrat77. Asking questions about current events is fine as long as the intent is to determine if the young man is aware of what is going on outside of his immediate sphere. If the young man has some understanding, that should be enough to satisfy the committee. The young man should not have to possess in particular set of opinions. Students applying to medical school are often asked questions about hot button issues such as abortion and healthcare reform. The are judged solely upon their awareness of the issues not on their views. The same can be true for a EBoR. The worldview of the EBoR members cannot be used to judge the candidate.

Stosh, It is sad to hear that another unit succumbs to political correctness by removing you and controlling the youth. In response to your queries: 1) Man is a hunter, gatherer, warrior. Agreed! Our PC society condemns all of these activities. We are to emasculate our boys because everything manly as you mention is wrong at best and more likely, evil. Many on the left say that families are better off without a father because males are disruptive and teach the wrong values. 2) Man is not a home-body, he needs adventure. PC gets you again! Outside is dangerous!! Our boys could actually be, hold your breath now, HURT! So boys are compelled to play indoor games instead of spending time outside using their imaginations. 3) Man needs a woman to claim and protect for his own. Once again, PC and the left say that men are not needed in families. The only use for men is to fertilize women. Women are taught that they do not need men in their lives. In the 27 years that I have been in hospitals first as a medical student then as a physician, I have overhead thousands on conversations between nurses who are complaining about boy friends or husbands. In all of those years, I have heard exactly one time that the advice was to stick with him and work it out. The advice is always "If he doesn't make you happy, kick him out". This is what society deems as the correct response. Rather than, life with anyone is difficult and no one will ever make you happy 100% of the time. So, Stosh, until society realizes that political correctness is destroying our society and therefore our country, the attack on our boys will continue. My son, an Eagle who has a PhD in a technical field and is married, said it best as a youth when he pointed out that the school system and society condemned everything that he and his friends wanted to do and they way they acted. No wonder so many males are angry and disillusioned.