Dept. of Defense & Jamboree

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

This article mentions that last month, a federal court ruled

that the DoD's support of the Jamboree is unconstitutional:

 

http://www.wqad.com/Global/story.asp?S=3157488

 

Defense Department says it will support Boy Scout Jamboree

 

CHICAGO The Department of Defense has notified a federal court in

Chicago that it will support this summer's Boy Scout Jamboree.

The support will continue, despite a ruling last month that the

department's usual aid to the national scout meeting is

unconstitutional.

 

The Defense Department argues that the March 16th order isn't final

because the judge has yet to rule on two other challenged programs.

 

The dispute stems from a 1999 lawsuit. The American Civil Liberties

Union claims the department's sponsorship of the Scouts violates the

First Amendment.

 

A-C-L-U spokesman Edwin Yohnka says his organization's goal was to end

the practice of the government's direct funding of the Boy Scouts over

the long term.

 

[Eamonn 61]

And your point is??

[dsteele 20]

Mr. Westley:

 

You're boring us to death with your usual claptrap.

 

If any of you are curious, a simple search on Google of Merlyn LeRoy will show you that he is not taking his nom de plume from Arthurian legend, but rather from the old Rocky and Bullwinkle show.

 

I find that ironically appropriate.

 

I'm done with you sir.

 

Unc.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

It's certainly on-topic in issues and politics; Jamboree support was ruled unconstitutional due to the BSA's religious discrimination.

 

And what's wrong with Rocky & Bullwinkle? It's a funny & literate show. "Merlyn LeRoy" is a pun on Paramount director/producer Mervyn LeRoy from the 1930s. "Boris Badenov" is a pun on "Boris Godunov", a Russian czar best known from Moussorgsky's opera.

[FScouter 24]

My understanding is that the Jamboree is a training exercise for the military. They learn what is involved in managing a very large encampment. BSA ought to charge them for the privilege.

[Eamonn 61]

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Dec2004/n12062004_2004120609.html

Support for Boy Scouts to Continue, Rumsfeld Says

By Donna Miles

American Forces Press Service

 

WASHINGTON, Dec. 6, 2004 Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said the Defense Department has a "longstanding, excellent relationship" with the Boy Scouts that's mutually beneficial and should continue.

 

Rumsfeld, a former Eagle Scout and Distinguished Eagle Scout himself, said Dec. 3 during an interview on Fox News Channel's "The O'Reilly Factor" that he'll work to make sure that relationship doesn't come to an end.

 

"This is a good relationship. It ought to continue, and as long as I am here, I'll do everything to see that it does," he said.

 

At issue is an American Civil Liberties Union lawsuit challenging DoD's support of the Boy Scouts. The ACLU suit centers on the Scout oath, which acknowledges God. The group said the oath violates Scouts' religious liberty and that government sponsorship of the program is tantamount to religious discrimination.

 

DoD, however, has a departmentwide policy that prohibits official sponsorship of any nonfederal organization, including the Boy Scouts. Officials said the department entered into a limited partial settlement that reiterates this policy.

 

Army Lt. Col. Joe Richard, a DoD spokesman, said the partial settlement will have minimal effect on the military's relationship with the Boy Scouts. "The settlement does not prohibit the Department of Defense from supporting the Boy Scouts of America," he said. "Boy Scout units are permitted to meet on military bases, and military personnel are allowed to remain active in Boy Scout programs."

 

Legislation in both the Senate and House of Representatives aims to protect DoD and other federal agencies that sponsor the Scouts.

 

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, also a former Scout, introduced legislation last month stipulating that no federal law should limit any federal agency from supporting the Boy or Girl Scouts, including meetings held on federal property.

 

Another resolution in the House would allow DoD "to continue to exercise its statutory authority to support the activities of the Boy Scouts of America, in particular the periodic national and world Boy Scout Jamborees."

 

Rumsfeld wrote Frist in late November to support a proposed concurrent resolution. "The Department of Defense takes great pride in its longstanding and rich tradition of support to the Boy Scouts of America," the secretary wrote.

 

Many Thanks for the link to a local TV Station. Now take a look at what the DoD is saying.

Eamonn.

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

You also need to see what the DoD is NOT saying.

 

Those remarks from December came after the announced settlement with the ACLU for military bases to stop chartering BSA units. Notice that Rumsfeld and the DoD never say that the military is going to go back to chartering BSA units.

 

This federal court decision is more recent, and the ruling strikes down the statute authorizing DoD support of the Jamboree as unconstitutional.

 

Both are based on the fact that the government can't violate the first amendment, so more legislation like Frist's bill won't help, because legislation can't overrule the constitution.

 

[DugNevius 10]

Ok, now you are just getting silly. Im not saying i agree or disagree with anything you have been saying, but it gets tiresome and there are government things that are much more shady then supporting a boyscout trip for youths.

 

Makes me wonder about you though.

[OldGreyEagle 5]

I am not sure this is related, but what the heck. If you look at the general enrollment of the US Military Academy, you will find a disproportionate number of Eagle Scouts than in any other similarly sized Univerisity. I would expect such numbers of Eagle Scouts at West Point to be rivaled only by the student population at Annapolis and the Air Force Academy. When I was at the Jamboree the military prescence in the activities was quite impressive. Every branch of the service was there with recruitment information, fun activities, video recruitment clips, hats and other small trinket give aways, and recruitment inducements. After all, when are you going to get 36, 000 or so young men in the demographic you seek all in one place.

 

Way back before I was OldGreyEagle, I was more like ShaggyHairedEagle and I paid through the nose for car insurance. My girlfriend, the same age as I did not pay half as much. And no, I didnt have any accidents, our driving records were virtually the same. Being it was the beginning of women's rights I asked why charging under 25 men higher insurance rates than women was not sex discrimination. The answer I got was because the insurance companies can absolutely prove that it is more expensive to insure a male under 25 than a female and it was that evidence that allowed them to "discriminate" based on sex.

 

Now, for discussion sake, has not the BSA shown by their record to be a huge source of manpower to the US military and if there is a way for the branches of the military to endear themselves to the demographics they seek, wouldnot good business say they should do so? I have some agreement with the statement the military should be paying us to delivering as prime a crop of recruiting fodder to them for a week as you can imagine.

 

Now, has any other group of similar demographics ever asked the military to help them put on a naitonal convention? Wouldnt the military have to refuse such an invitation before discrimination is alleged?

 

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Here's the main part of the Jamboree ruling:

 

The Jamboree statute is neither neutral nor is the aid it provides the result of the "genuinely independent and private choices of individuals." First, it is not offered to a broad range of groups; rather it is specifically targeted toward the Boy Scouts, which, as this court has already concluded, is a religious organization from which agnostics and atheists are excluded. Second, the aid is not based on the "independent and private choices of individuals." Rather, the aid is provided directly to the Boy Scouts pursuant to the singular choice of Congress to provide a significant amount of aid (almost $8 million in 2005) to the BSA Jamboree to the exclusion of other possible recipients. Given the Supreme Court's focus on neutrality in approving government aid to religious organizations and the Jamboree statute's complete lack of neutrality in allocating aid, the court finds that a reasonable observer would conclude that the Jamboree statute conveys a message of endorsement of religion. As such, the court finds that the aid provided by the Jamboree statute violates the Establishment Clause. Barnes-Wallace, 275 F. Supp. 2d at 1276 (finding that lease provided to Boy Scouts for city park was not result of religion-neutral process and thus violated Establishment Clause).

 

[eisely 13]

The last quote from ML's original post says it all. The ACLU itself admits to its real agenda.

 

"A-C-L-U spokesman Edwin Yohnka says his organization's goal was to end

the practice of the government's direct funding of the Boy Scouts over

the long term."

 

If there was ever any lingering doubt in my mind about the worth and value of the ACLU, that quote finished it off. I have a real problem with people trying to legislate policy from the judge's bench and unrepresentative organizations like the ACLU participating in that. ML will simply argue that they are trying to enforce the bill of rights. He can maintain that rationale if he wants to do so, but the real agenda of hostility to BSA and everything it represents has been revealed.

 

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Yes, the ACLU sees a problem with the government directly funding a supposedly private, discriminatory religious organization, and the nasty old courts are actually agreeing.

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Eisely, I think that "trying to enforce the bill of rights" is exactly what the ACLU is trying to do, and all they are trying to do. What I think "has been revealed" is the fact that a lot of people want the BSA to be exempted from the legal consequences of its own policies.

 

Having said that, I have no opinion at this point as to whether the military's participation in the Jamboree is constitutional or not. Personally I do not think that the amount of participation by Scouts or former Scouts in the military answers the question. I have trouble with the whole argument (made in this forum about the San Diego case and also in this thread) that if the government gets enough "back" from the Boy Scouts, that changes the constitutional consequences of governmental involvment with an organization that discriminates on the basis of religious belief. On the other hand, the degree of government involvement with the BSA as an organization seems to be "less" in the case of the Jamboree than in the cases of the government being a CO or giving a preferential lease of government land to a council. In the end, that is what I think will determine the issue: Whether the government's actions can be seen as an endorsement of the BSA's policies. This is far from certain because the Supreme Court has never clearly, by a majority vote, stated exactly what the "test" is. (Merlyn, would you disagree with that?)

[packsaddle 753]

Agree with NJ on the ACLU. But aside from the legal battle, has there been any discussion of how such support might affect the readiness of our armed forces or national defence? Or are such discussions off the table?

[Eamonn 61]

How do we get from City of San Diego's leases to the Millitary use of the Boy Scouts for traning ?

I see no mention of the DOD or the Jamboree .

Eamonn