Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 Good

About denver4und@aol.com

  • Rank
    Junior Member

Profile Information

  • Location
    Denver, Colorado
  1. Rooster, before you get all crazy about my ignoring your reference to Sec 5, please note: 1) it had no part in the Supreme's decision. The Federal Supremes said their decision was solely based on: " With respect to the equal protection question, we find a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. " 2) the part you quoted was the excuse I speak of in my reply. The Florida Secty of State is bound by the 6 day rule. The Federal Supremes merely waited 'til it was too late and then sent it back for action "consistent with this opinion" which did not allow any reconsideratoin by Florida Supreme Court 'cause the 6 days were upon them. (This message has been edited by denver4und@aol.com)(This message has been edited by denver4und@aol.com)
  2. Rooster. Sure I can explain the decision. Here goes..... Well, skipping the year of constitutional law, and all constitutional history, here goes: The Supremes got a petition saying that the Flordia Supreme Court was WRONG to order a recount, and that the State Supreme Court was wrong to worry about why or how so many votes were thrown out with the chad issues. The Federal Supremes said "we'll hear it, there might be a 14th Amendment issue, but we'll issue a stay and there will be no recount while we think about it". Then the deadline for the Florida Secty of State to receive certifications of the numbers from the counties approaches, and she needs to report to the Federal election folks in Congress (remember the electoral system) and the Supremes say "Oh, well, we don't think that Florida is capable of doing a recount anyway, so let's not have a recount, lets just go with the first vote (which by the way the Florida Supreme Court found HAD to be recounted under Florida law)." And that, as they say, was that. Now, how did the result come about as a contrived deal? By staying the reoount issue the Supreme's insured (1) there would not be enough time to recount before the county clerks and the State Secty of State hit their deadline, and (2) thus insuring that the initial numbers which the Florida Supreme Court had already ruled were flawed, became final. Here are some comments by Legal Scholars and others on the decision: "The Justices' assumption of governmental authority reached a new dimension on December 12, 2000, when by a 5-4 margin, the Court affirmed its decision of three days earlier to halt Florida's recount of votes for the presidential election, effectively deciding the contest in favor of Republican candidate George W. Bush." Jesse Choper. "Few Supreme Court decisions provoke the immediate and intensely negative verdict that law professors passed on Bush v. Gore. (1) It usually takes some time for scholars to digest the opinions, reflect on the majority's reasoning, and render considered judgments. Not so in this case. Within a few days of the 5-4 ruling that halted the recounting of votes for presidential electors in Florida, the decision drew withering criticism from scholars across the ideological spectrum." Michael Wells There are many sources to explore for explanations, for example: http://www.questia.com/Index.jsp?CRID=bush_v_gore&OFFID=se1 is one. Of course, if you want to read the actual case, its at http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html But the best evidence of the utter intellectual bankruptcy of what the Federal Supreme Court did is found in the language from the Supreme's themselves. REmember, here are 5 people deciding a national election where: 1) the total count difference on the initial count was about 1700 votes, and those 1700 votes were the tail wagging the entire nation's election 2) The Florida Supreme Court (which should have deference in state matters -- a constitutional maxim from the early days of the republic) said a recount was required under state law 3) the Fed Supremes stopped the recount until the deadline approached 4) then the Fed Supremes said, tongue firmly in cheek: [actual language of the opinion follows:] " Upon due consideration of the difficulties identified to this point, it is obvious that the recount cannot be conducted in compliance with the requirements of equal protection and due process without substantial additional work. It would require not only the adoption (after opportunity for argument) of adequate statewide standards for determining what is a legal vote, and practicable procedures to implement them, but also orderly judicial review of any disputed matters that might arise. In addition, the Secretary of State has advised that the recount of only a portion of the ballots requires that the vote tabulation equipment be used to screen out undervotes, a function for which the machines were not designed. If a recount of overvotes were also required, perhaps even a second screening would be necessary. Use of the equipment for this purpose, and any new software developed for it, would have to be evaluated for accuracy by the Secretary of State, as required by Fla. Stat. 101.015 (2000). "The Supreme Court of Florida has said that the legislature intended the States electors to participat[e] fully in the federal electoral process, as provided in 3 U.S.C. 5. ___ So. 2d, at ___ (slip op. at 27); see also Palm Beach Canvassing Bd. v. Harris, 2000 WL 1725434, *13 (Fla. 2000). That statute, in turn, requires that any controversy or contest that is designed to lead to a conclusive selection of electors be completed by December 12. That date is upon us, and there is no recount procedure in place under the State Supreme Courts order that comports with minimal constitutional standards. Because it is evident that any recount seeking to meet the December 12 date will be unconstitutional for the reasons we have discussed, we reverse the judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida ordering a recount to proceed. " So, what did the Federal Supreme's say in English? They said that the Florida Supreme court correctly said that Florida State Law REQUIRED a recount. But the Federal Supremes didn't think that the folks in Florida WERE CAPABLE OF DOING IT, so they reversed the Florida Supreme Court and said "no recount". Remember the essence of the ruling is found in the sentence: "...it is obvious that the recount cannot be conducted in compliance with the requirements of equal protection and due process without substantial additional work." Too much "work" for the poor Florida Supreme Court and Florida County Election Commissioners. Of course, that's why the liberal judges in the 9th Circuit took such glea in issuing their initial order to stop the California recall vote -- I mean, tell me anytime when the reasoning of Bush v. Gore couldn't be used to stop an election or a recount? Imagine what would happen if the Supremes took a look at County counting all accross the country -- we could have a new rule where the Supremes always get to pick the president. Republicans stand for the proposition that government acts best that (1) acts least, and (2) acts at the lowest level. Bushwackers continually want to make all the decisions at their level. Of course, "unfunded mandates" s a subject for a different class. That's why lawyers laugh at the Bush v. Gore decision. It is the worst legal writing ever -- including the poor attempts of most 1st year law students. It was what we call a "results oriented decision". That is, once the supreme's stopped the recount, they only had to wait a few days before the recount became impossible due to the requirement that the state report results to the feds. And finally, remember, it was BUSH who sued in the Federal Supreme Court. that's why the case is called "Bush v. Gore". Do you really think that he didn't know what the outcome was going to be when he did it? So, we reach the end. The opinion is a joke. No lawyer believes for a minute that there was a case which, had the names been Smith v. Jones contesting an election for county clerk in any county in the country, under the same facts, the US Supremes would have ever agreed to hear the case. So now, we are again at the point where you are going to tell me which part of the constitution contains the exact wording that you believe the supreme court acted to "enforce it as written". Of course, you can't, because the Supremes never quoted any language, nor referred to any language.
  3. Rooster says: "First, you don't know what my professional qualifications may be." Nope. But its clear you are not a lawyer. Rooster also writes: "Second, while I have read your post stating that you are a lawyer, it hardly qualifies as concrete evidence. In fact, your subsequent statements give me good reason to doubt your claim. But you being the qualified professional that you claim to be, already knew that - right? " See, they teach you that in law school. Now I say "Your Honor, Please instruct the witness to answer the question." and then the judge says: "Rooster, Please quote to me the exact wording that you believe the supreme court acted to "enforce it as written". And then, you say, because its the only true answer: "I guess I don't really know" because its not there. see, that's a debate. Not changing the subject to question the other guys integrity. Its PUT UP OR SHUT UP TIME.
  4. Rooster. HUH? Ok, I'll bite. Please quote to me the exact wording that you believe the supreme court acted to "enforce it as written". If you don't have the language, please refrain from impuning my professional knowledge (which you do not have), or my professional interpretation (which you are, as far as I can tell, unqualified to question).
  5. Come on Rooster, not even you can believe that the Supreme's did anything other than pick their man. Even Justice O'Connor was quoted (during a party) as saying the night of the election that Bush would win before her court. I am a lawyer. I have not met one lawyer, even the staunch republican lawyers in my own office, who claims to believe that the Bush v Gore decision had ANYTHING at all to do with the constitution with the sole exception that when 5 black robes agree it becomes law. A justice's son belongs to a law firm. That firm argues for Bush. In ANY OTHER court in the country, the firm would have been disqualified. Not so with right wing idealogues pushing a Bushwacker agenda. In this case, his side wins. You should read the opinion. In your heart of hearts even you will not be able to see anything other than a gerrymandered decision to let the majority's man win. But then what would you expect from a pres and vp that talked over Enron's troubles before the bubble burst with the crooks at Enron, then tried to deny they had the conversations? (forgot that one on my list of special prosecutors). Oh well, coffee's all gone, and some folks will never understand why they had to pay back their $400 "tax refund".
  6. You're right Rooster7, there are some things we'll never know. In this case we do know: Boy George is a liar and a chickenhawk. What we don't know is how much he, Cheney and the rest were promised by their buddies in those secret meetings. The coffee's on the fire, time to smell it.
  7. I haven't posted in awhile. But I cannot believe anyone still believes in Boy George's fundamental goodness or that he has any faith in anything except politics. The man is a chickenhawk. He evaded the draft by taking a national guard slot and then went awol. I've taken to calling Boy George's party the Bushwackers because they sure as heck are not Republicans. Rumsfield, Cheney, all the rest who surround Boy George evaded the draft and avoided serving -- but they are sure willing to talk tough, and let other parent's children pay the price. Republicans were MEN like Father Bush, Reagan, Dole, Ford. Men who stood for something other than their own advancement and greed. Now he has taken us to war (where, by the way, one of my Eagle Scouts has just returned from harm's way) based on lies he intentionally told. He intentionally leaked the identity of a CIA operative to get back at her husband who had the gall to actually disagree with Boy George. I am retired Army. It makes me sick to see a faker like Rumsfield talk tough when he didn't have the guts to serve his country. I see nothing that indicates that Boy George is anything other than a liar and a con-man. After all the crap the right wing gave Clinton, I cannot believe there are not special prosecutors already appointed to investigate: 1) CIA leak; 2) Cheney meeting w/ industry in secret to hand out Billions in contracts to Haliburton (where his wife still gets $250,000 every January for being a good person) 3) Cheney meeting w/ oil representatives and Rumsfield at Pentagon to do secret study of Iraqi Oil Industry SIX MONTHS BEFORE ANY TALK OF WAR WITH IRAQ 4) Bush's lying to Congress (a lie to Congress, by anyone, without or without an oath is a felony)about the made up WMD in Iraq. 5) cheney's leaning on CIA analysts to change their findings before those were given to congress. Bushwackers in Congress spent more than a One Hundred Million dollars on special prosecutors to prove that Clinton did have sex with that woman. But haven't spent one dime yet to even ask pertinent questions of a group of politicians who are clearly lining their pockets with American Boys' Lives. Only 1 official appointed by Clinton's white house was ever tried, and he was acquitted. (Not including Clinton's own acquittal before the Senate). Wanna compare? Reagan's special prosecutors cost less than $50 million and more than 100 public officials appointed by that white house were investigated, with more than 30 convicted. Sorry, but its time to wake up and smell the coffee. We've got the highest deficit in history, we're giving tax breaks to those with earned income in excess of $1million a year, while increasing taxes for everyone else, we've got seniors buying their meds in Canada and Mexico while Boy George's white house works to make bringing prescription drugs from Canada illegal, and we've got boys dying so that Boy George can pay off Cheney and his oil buddies.
  8. Eagle74 writes: "While we both understand that we are "guests", without a vote..." Not quite. We are not guests. We have a right to be present, and a right to speak. That is the point of my discussion above. Its this concept that we are somehow in need of an invitation, which can be revoked that causes problems. Someone else posted a comment about too much formalism. That is also one of my points. We have too many folks who are control freaks and afraid to have discussions among adults about whatever is bothering them, and instead want to either make the discussion moot by eliminating the other point of view, or by silencing the other point of view by eliminating the person. by the way I'm an Eagle68! yis
  9. Rooster7 wrote: "If I honestly thought you understood God's Word, your little rebuttal would really concern me. However, my friend, you are what I like to call, a bumper stick theologianlots of rhetoric, but no substance." and "You inferred that I am being judgmental. Let me speak more plainly than you - You need to pick your company better." You know, you're right, I should pick my company better. I'll not be corresponding to anything that Rooster 7 writes in the future (at least I hope not). I have tried in the forums to be fair, non-judgmental, and to remember that this is supposed to be about Scouting, which is itself governed by the Oath & Law. I don't believe that I've ever attacked anyone else's beliefs, but instead have tried to point out that we're all entitled to our beliefs and that as Americans, we have sworn (remember the pledge of allegiance?) to defend each other's right to say what we please. R7 apparently is not a person who believes in any of those things. Based on a few short paragraphs he makes personal attacks on the depth or sincerity of my religion, and not only insults me personally, but does so based only upon his own narrow minded and biggotted views of the world. Hence, I'll take his advice, pick my friends more closely, and recognizing that he is not one, ignore his comments henceforth. thanks, yis
  10. Acco40 wrote: "My beef in all of this is that the COR and the full committee should be involved in selecting (committee function) and approving (COR and CO) a new SM and Committee chair. The SM issue is touchy. He did formally resign. Then he before another SM was "installed" he decided to keep on as SM. Should he have that option? My view is that once he has resigned, only the Committee and COR/CO can reinstate him or elect to go with someone else." Why? Why do you want the SM go go? Does everyone else feel the same? If no one wants him to go, then why all the desire for formality? If everyone wants a change, why? Its time for a tough, heartfelt meeting of the committee, the COR and the Chartered Institution. But the SM NEEDS TO BE PART OF THE DISCUSSION. Maybe he felt unsupported, unappreciated that day. Gee, he wouldn't be the first SM to have a bad day. If there is a widespread dissatisfaction, can it be fixed? Does the SM know that everyone (someone) feels that way? As a SM I am constantly amazed that adults will get upset over something, but never say one word to me. They'll call meetings, they've even wrote petitions, and enver delivered them to me or invited me to the meeting. so, the real question must be Why?
  11. Acco 40 wrote: "My beef in all of this is that the COR and the full committee should be involved in selecting (committee function) and approving (COR and CO) a new SM and Committee chair. The SM issue is touchy. He did formally resign. Then he before another SM was "installed" he decided to keep on as SM. Should he have that option? My view is that once he has resigned, only the Committee and COR/CO can reinstate him or elect to go with someone else." Why? Why do you want him to go? Do most folks feel that way? If so, it's time for some deep thinking and heartfelt talk among the committee the COR and the Charted Institution, BUT DON'T LEAVE THE CURRENT SM OUT of the party. No one wants him to go? Then why worry about formalities? We all have bad days, and if my committee took me up on it when I'm frustrated, I wouldn't be SM either. So Why?
  12. Dan, maybe I am confused. You're original post indicated that you saw no evidence of patrol method and wrote: "...I convinced him to join the one that is the most boy run, but I expect more! After being to, 2 winteralls, 1 camporees, 1 summer camp, and 1 camporall, I see no troops that uses the patrol method." I assumed that you meant your own troop as well was not using the patrol method. So, if a troop isn't using the patrol method, what is it that they're using (and you're seeing?). If a troop goes camping w/o the patrol method, then the adults must be running the show. If the boys are running it, then its the patrol method, even if they have just made the whole Troop, a "patrol" for the event. so, what are you seeing?
  13. Hi. Hey CubsRgr8, you lost the thread. The question had nothing to do with his being a leader, that was decided and the thread asked should somebody revoke his eagle badge. I didn't address the former, just the latter. Hey Rooster7, you're an inspriation for many verses, like "judge not, lest....". Again, you can "vote" to take away the badge, but my challege posted earlier has not been accepted. so far, no one can find a mechanism for revoking an eagle award. As for forgiveness and who gets into heaven. For crying out loud, we're scouters. As for me, I'll let God do his work and I'll worry about scouting in my neighborhood -- God'll decide who goes to heaven (and won't be all be surprised at who's name is on the "admit" list and who's isn't?!? ). bye
  14. Hi. I would like to comment on two things. First, the idea that Troop Committees are run as the dictatorship of the Committee Chair and the SM, and second, the idea that SM or ASM's may be excluded from a Troop Committee meeting. DO TROOP COMMITTEES VOTE? OR ARE THEY "RUN" BY FIAT OF THE CC AND/OR SM? I don't usually go "all legal" on everyone, but Bob White and I disagree, as they say in Star Trek, "at the molecular level" on this one. Look at the Troop Committee Guidebook (Pub. 34505B, copyright 1998, BSA). Page 13, Chapter entitled "Troop Committee Organization and Responsibilities". There is a list of 12 items there, and each is the responsibility of the "committee", not the Chairman. Moreover, the chapter begins with the words: "The troop committee is the troop's board of directors...." The idea that a group of people are a board of directors, is what the lawyers call "the express over the general" and means that the example (in all its facets, including how the meeting is run and responsibilities) are incorporated by the use of the example. But look at page 14 and beyond in the chapter. There is a section for each member of the committee, beginning with the Chair. The chair's duties are listed, and not once is there a reference to the Chair making any decision or overruling anyone. Also, the duties of each other member of the committee are listed. Repeatedly, it says that the committee member in that area "reports to the Troop Committee". It never says, not once, any language to the effect of a committee member "reports to the Committee chair." Finally, turn to page 33, the Chapter entitled "Troop Committee Meetings". The introduction makes clear that the "Scoutmaster is not actually a member of the troop committee, and has no vote." Has no vote. Somebody else has a vote. Who? The Committee members. Scouting is not a dictatorship. PLC's run by voting. SPL's are elected by voting. Troop Committee's are not dictatorships either, run by the Chair with no voice by the rest, or as one poster said "you won't need a committee, you just need the chair." But, you know, by cracky, I think Bob is softening on this one, for he wrote above: "The guidelines for spending unit funds are outlined in the Pack Leaders Handbook and the Troop committee Guidebook. In the Troop Committee guide book pg.15 it says under duties for Treasurer: "Handle all troop funds. Pay bills on the recommendation of the Scoutmaster and authorization of the troop committee." "On Pg 23 under Troop Bank Account it says among other tings " An account that requires two signatures on each check, those of the committee Treasurer and Scoutmaster, is recommended. Two sebtences later it says "Disbursements are made on the recommendation of the Scoutmaster and authorization of the troop committee." EXACTLY. Work areas report to the committee, not the chair, and the commmittee makes decisions, changes recommendations, votes when necessary. Do all meetings have to be run by Robert's Rules. Of course not. ARe many decisions made by consensus, of course. But sometimes you vote because there is no consensus, there is genuine, good faith disagreement. What else do chair's do? Well they can authorized expenditures if authorized in advance by the committee. They set the agenda, and they can limit debate. The idea that because the committee may vote when they disagree means that all meetings have to run all night is silly. A strong chair limits both discussion as well as meeting length. We used to have a 60 minute rule, if it wasn't done in 60 minutes, then it rolled over to the next meeting. After someone monopolizes one time, they get a lot more respectful of other's time the next meeting! In my legal practice, I have often had occasion to meet with the boards of various volunteer and non-profit groups. There is an entire body of law on the subject of how such associations (when they are not actually incorporated) operate. I have never found a single one that did not have its primary committee or board run by majority vote. ON THE ISSUE OF WHETHER ANYONE CAN REQUIRE THE SM OR ASM TO BE EXCLUDED FROM A TROOP COMMITTEE MEETING. Regarding the Troop Commmittee it is the rule that the "Scoutmaster is not actually a member of the troop committee, and has no vote." That's found at page 33, the Chapter entitled "Troop Committee Meetings" in the Troop Committee Guidebook (Pub. 34505B, copyright 1998, BSA). Somewhere, in a glaxy far far away, in a time long, long ago, there started a rumor that the sentence fragment, "the Scoutmaster is not actually a member of the troop committee" equals the idea that "the SM or an ASM may be excluded from a Troop Committee meeting." That is not true and it is dangerous. This actually happened in my Troop. I had a parent, who was mad at me (I'm the SM). Why, because he wanted an eagle medal for his son, but didn't see any real reason why that desire should be held up by a "lot of red tape" like actually making his son earn the thing! So, the parent (a lawyer) went to a DE and convinced him that the language "not a member" means that the SM can be excluded. They called a meeting (in my office!) and threw me and all the ASM's out. That was ugly. It got uglier, but that's another story. However, the point here is that I then had a meeting with the DE, his boss and several other folks. I am also a lawyer. I discussed the "no secret organizations" "no secret meetings" rules of the BSA. We soon had agreement that under those rules any parent could attend any troop committee meeting and could not be barred. We then moved on to the idea that there is NO WHERE in any BSA materials that I, the DE, or the other Council level folks could find that day, that allows the exclusion of the SM or an ASM from ANY Troop activity, event or meeting. In fact, the one place that a person might expect to find express authority to exclude a SM from a meeting, actually has an express prohibition against excluding the SM! In the Advancement Committee Policies & Procedures manual, pub 33088C, 1989 copyright, 1999 printing, it says at page 30, in the section discussing an Eagle Board of review (part 9) that: "The candidate's unit leader introduces him to the members of the board of review. The unit leader may remain in the room, but does not participate in the board of review....In no case should a relative or guardian of the candidate atend the review, even as a unit leader." Well, kiss my grits. That is the ONLY place we could find discussing the concept of excluding the SM from anything. And there the SM is expressly allowed to attend a meeting, even over the parent!!! While a SM and ASMs may be kept from voting on an issue in a committee, they may not be excluded, and they may participate in the debate. (The board of review expressly says no vote and no voice, the troop committee guideline says only no vote.) I realize that this was a long response. But I think its bad for scouting when "urban legend" makes people act differently than their instincts tell them they should act. We all naturally want to let everyone have their say. We all naturally protest against shutting anyone out of the room. And we naturally want to have the majority rule. That is in fact how Scouting works too. Yis, jim
  15. Hi Momscouter who wrote: "OK here is my dilemma - we joined a different troop last May. My son is 12 and has only been a Boy Scout for a year, and wanted to go in this troop because he had friends there .... the SM was almost ready to retire (he has been a SM for over 40 years) ...the SM does not even believe in the patrol method, does not have a PLC, plans all activities for the troop, refuses to use 'blue cards', ... the CC gets downright hostile if either of us 2 new committee members suggests any changes AND I recently found out that the Unit Commissioner ... views us newcomers as troublemakers!! The DE has kind of distanced himself, and if we talk to him we are accused of 'going over the committee'." Well, sometimes you just have to let the old guys die out first. That sounds flippant, but it may be the case. I suggest, however, that you avoid the political fight, you're going to lose. How do I know, because I've "been there, done that." After all, you are "troublemakers". You are "2 new committee members" telling the SM, the DE, the COR, the Commissioner that the SM is wrong and should do it differently! From their viewpoint, how could you be viewed as anything but troublemakers? ! But all is not lost. A SM is often the "symbol" of the Troop, unfortunately, more so in Troops where they are SM run. The parents see a good troop, lots of activity, and happy boys. The DE sees "troublemakers" because for years he has received his registrations, dues, numbers to count for his job from a stable troop that requires very little help or work from him. He's not going to "uphold principle" while that threatens the continued success of his numbers game. The Chartered Organization sees a great old guy, been there forever, an institution that turns out scouts, makes people happy, etc. They see you, once again as rocking a great boat and threatening to capsize it. Why should these folks trust you, "the new guy?" (or gal!) So, what to do? Well, there are some things you can do. First, be active and work on your own longevity. AND GET YOUR TRAINING. That's where you prove your committement, your knowledge, make contacts and EARN the respect to help make changes later. Second, offer to lead various trips, or outings. You can head up a Sea Base CRew, or a Philmont trek, or take a patrol on a patrol activity. During those events you have a chance to work with the boys, have them elect their leaders and chose their activities, make their own decisions and plans. In time, two things happen. 1) You stop threatening the SM and the insitutions, by becoming an asset to the troop and helper for the SM; and 2) the boys learn to like being in charge -- and that's were the change will come from. AND ALWAYS REMEMBER the SM has his history, knowledge, skills and expertise too. I'm a SM, and I just get a real thrill when a new parent joins my Troop, goes on the first campout, and then tells me, usually in a loud voice in front of the boys, all the ways I'm "not doing it right". Yep, thrills me, to the point of homocide!!!! But, I love the parent who comes in, asks me WHY I do it that way, and offers to do "whatever you need" done. That parent can often convince me to try something new, even if I tried it before and it didn't work that time. Remember, its about the boys, not the politics. good luck, yis (This message has been edited by denver4und@aol.com)
  • Create New...