Jump to content

Save our Scouts Bill (S 3026, 108th Congress 2d Session)

Recommended Posts

Scouters and others,


On November 20, Senator Bill Frist, along with Senator John Ensign of Nevada, introduced the "Save our Scouts" bill (S3026).


Here is a hyperlink to Senator Frist's press release:


via tinyurl: http://tinyurl.com/4j7o8


Here is a hyperlink to data on the bill from thomas.loc.gov:



At this writing, Senator Tallent of MO (YES!!!) and Senator Inhofe of Oklahoma have added their names to the co-sponsor list.




1) Read the bill for yourself.


2) Decide your position on the bill.


3) Advocate to your Senators that they sign on as co-sponsors

http://www.senate.gov (find your senators own site and e-note input page)


4) Advocate to your Representative that they introduce and support parallel legislation in the House of Representatives:



5) Since this Congress is about to adjourn, be prepared to write again in January 2005.



(This message has been edited by John-in-KC)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Senator Santorum-R and Congressman Don Sheerwod-R will both support this bill. I am not to sure of my other Senator-R Arlen Spector. As most of you may know he is/was under fire for some remarks about judicary nominees. My state senator-R and rep-D have/had sons in scouts who were eagles and they would also support this bill. Lets make this bill a strong bipartisan vote.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This looks like political grandstanding to me. Senator Frist is doing some fear-mongering about the Boy Scouts needing to be "saved" and against the evil ACLU -- when all that has happened so far is that the government has decided to "reaffirm" its prior directive to military units, to abide by the clear requirements of the Constitution on one particular issue in the pending lawsuit.


But just out of curiosity, I'd like to read the bill itself, does anyone have a link? There doesn't seem to be one in Senator Frist's self-serving press release. I read a few of his other press releases, and the guy is a real master at political spin, I have to give him that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry NJ, I don't see any "political grandstanding", as you put it, only a POLITICIAN (duh, he's a politician) in a position to do something about the attacks the evil ACLU has made against the Boy Scouts. I applaude Senator Frist's efforts!


I will be contacting my senators tomorrow and urging them to support this effort.



Link to post
Share on other sites

This appears to be the entire text of the bill.




2d Session


S. 3026

To support the Boy Scouts of America and the Girl Scouts of the United States of America.





November 20, 2004

Mr. FRIST (for himself and Mr. ENSIGN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary








To support the Boy Scouts of America and the Girl Scouts of the United States of America.



Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,




(a) DEFINITION- In this section the term `Federal agency' means each department, agency, instrumentality, or other entity of the United States Government.


(b) IN GENERAL- No Federal law (including any rule, regulation, directive, instruction, or order) shall be construed to limit any Federal agency from providing any form of support to the Boy Scouts of America or the Girls Scouts of the United States of America (or any organization chartered by the Boy Scouts of America or the Girl Scouts of the United States of America), including--


(1) holding meetings, jamborees, camporees, or other scouting activities on Federal property if such organization has received permission from the appropriate Federal official responsible for such property; or


(2) hosting or sponsoring any official event of such organization.




Link to post
Share on other sites

This bill wouldn't really do anything, even if anybody in Congress took the time to try to pass it (which I predict they won't--introducing it got them a little publicity, which is all they wanted). It doesn't say that federal entities can sponsor units--just "events," and it can't overrule the Constitution no matter what it says.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The language "any form of support" would encompass charter org sponsorship. The 'including' section referring only to meetings, events, etc. is intended as a clarifier of possible forms of support and not as a prohibition against other forms of support (i.e., sponsorship).

Link to post
Share on other sites

American What is more American that our system of laws and the rule of law instead of the tyranny of the majority or rulers?


Civil They act and speak more civilly than many of their detractors. They seems to understand that in civil system one must seek to right grievances by seeking redress in court not by just saying I think Im right so therefore Im right.


Liberties They seek to protect our liberties from governmental actions that violate our rights.


Union They band together people who value those rights on which our country was founded.



By the way the bill is fluff, a pandering attempt that will go nowhere. I heard Sen. Holings say last night that Sen Frist is a great doctor.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah yes...the All-American ACLU...upholder of our nation's rights and liberties...


So, what does Roger Baldwin, founder and the guiding light of the ACLU for its first thirty years of existence have to say...


In an article written for Soviet Russia Today (September 1934), "When the power of the working class is once achieved, as it has been only in the Soviet Union, I am for maintaining it by any means whatsoever." "The class struggle is the central conflict of the world, all others are coincidental."


Entry of Roger Baldwin in the Harvard reunion book on the occasion of the 30th anniversary reunion of his class of 1905 (1935), "I seek social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and sole control of those who produced the wealth: communism is the goal."


Doesn't much sound like a proponent of the American form of government to me.


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a wonderful bill for the Boy and Girls Scouts. But I'm wondering what other private organizations are worthy of government sponsorship. I'm thinking 4H, Boys and Girls Clubs, Junior Achievement, Religious Youth Groups, Little League, Pop Warner Football, all other youth sports programs, drum and bugle corps, private dance and youth theater groups, heck there must be alot more.


Why stop at private youth groups. What about adult civic and professional associations, the Kiwanis Club, Knights of Columbus, the American Medical Society, The Association of Trial Lawyers, the American Society of Safety Engineers, the American Society of all the other engineers, nurses, teachers, firefighters, police officers, on down the line.


We can keep going put your thinking caps on. What other private organizations should the Federal Government Sponsor? What about ExxonMobil, General Motors, Dupont, heck the Fortune 500.


I can think of nothing more un-American.


Warning: the above three paragraphs are meant as sarcasm.


As an Eagle Scout and with a son in scouting, I believe the BSA has a lot to offer. I support the BSA's right to set it's own membership policies. As an independant conservative I don't want the government involved in areas it doesn't need to be. I'm suprised at the number of scouters argueing for illegal, unconstitutional sponsorship of private scout units. I believe the BSA and it's units do not need unconstitutional government sponsorship and everything I've read seems to bears this out. I see a lot of conservatives that don't want government involvement in private affairs except when it seems to specifically benefit them or regulate others lives to be in more conformance with their own religious beliefs. In my mind these conservatives, are just another group of special interests looking for government handouts and favors, no better than tax and spend Democrats or tax cut and spend more Republicans.


Scouts are better than this.



Link to post
Share on other sites

PLEASE try to understand the difference between "access" and "sponsorship." ("Support" is a deliberately vague term--its use by Rumsfeld and in this bill is a cynical attempt to avoid saying that the DOD should sponsor units.) I have not encountered anyone on this board who has argued that BSA should be denied access to government facilities, as long as other groups get access too. Heck, even Merlyn claims he doesn't think that.

Look at the weaselly wording of the statute: it refers to any form of "support" including sponsoring an event. If they meant that government entities can sponsor units--the main controversy that supposedly led to this bill--why not say so? Perhaps it's only intended to save the Jamboree, but I continue to think that it's not intended to do anything but placate a few angry people.

Just to make this clearer: I am not aware of any "federal law" that has even been claimed to restrict support of scout activities by government entities--the challenges, as far as I know, have been based on the Constitution. This law can and will do nothing to change the courts' interpretation of the Constitution. Also, it can and will do nothing to affect what states or localities do, since it applies only to federal agencies. End result? Zippo.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Proud Eagle,


No I'm not in favor of the BSA or GSUSA being denied access to government facilities and that is not the issue that the ACLU has threatened to sue over. The BSA, GSUSA or any other youth group has every right to expect the same access to government facilities offered to any other private youth organization.


As an independant conservative I see no need for the government to be in the business of sponsoring private organizations, be it BSA units or others. Particularly those that wish to set their own membership standards. In fact, as I understand it, Exploring units that are sponsored by government organizations under the Learning for Life programs, are not allowed to have the same membership requirements as those BSA units lawfully sponsored by private organizations. Those that wish to maintain the BSA's right to set it's own membership standards should be very careful about encouraging government sponsorship of BSA units.


Hunt's point regarding the difference between sponsorship and access is well taken.





Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Create New...