Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
stlscouter

Right to Peaceably Assemble

Recommended Posts

When you say not all lawyers, what do you think about 1 percent?

 

Yeah, I know, it's the 99% that give the rest of us a bad name!

 

I'm looking for a bagpipe teacher now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

stlscouter, NJCubScouter gave you a perfectly fine answer right off the bat; you (and the BSA) have every right to peaceably assemble. What you do NOT have a right to:

1) government financing of this assembly, such as the jamboree

2) conducting this assembly on military property without permission

 

You can conduct a protest march in Washington, DC if you like. The city's ordinance for recovering city costs for parades and festivals specifically exempts protests and rallies, so it won't cost anything. But that's true for everyone. You know, all people being equal and all that -- instead of taking money from everyone and having just a private group benefit from it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Merlyn-again I said nothing about protesting anything-peaceably assembly does not necessarily mean protesting. Again watch the commas.

 

Asking for permission to hold an event of any size (would necessaryily) cause governmnt agencies to act so that safety, health etc concerns would be met. The idea that The BSA should not be provided that government accomodation lacks in that where else can the experience of setting up a "city" with all of its needed services be had. Training FEMA, National Guard, Army Reserve etc should be, IMHO, continually looking for these kind of venues given the preparedness levels that hve been displayed in NY on 9/11, name a hurricane etc. Without sounding whatever do we then say that Boy Scouts or those who may agree with them should not benefit during the real thing? Can you or NJ provide a senario that provides this kind of training anywhere and/or provide it for less?(This message has been edited by stlscouter)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, it's fun to throw insulting and demeaning jokes at people we don't know. Really scoutlike. At least I've confined most of mine to musical instruments (and the occasional non-specific banjo player, gulp..). I have to side with Kahuna and NJ here. Seriously, one of the attorneys whom many might categorize as an ambulance chaser rescued my family from a terrible disaster. I was glad to have the guy on my side and I add that he and the opposing attorneys were all as professional as I could imagine. The system worked well but my family wouldn't have had full access to it without those attorneys.

I propose a test for future jokes: substitute 'Christian' for 'lawyer' (or maybe 'banjo player' ;) ). See how that flies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its just like a majic act-slight of hand and a diversion -when the post was about the peaceable assembly clause; and reading it without a comma and then call assembly protest we quickly focus in on the accordian reference and the lawyers-so just post on the thread topic-Aannoying, rude, unscoutlike attack on lawyers- whose ox is being gored now and see how intolerant we can become. Some of the posters here have really diehard views on gays, God, Girls, government and some and/or criticize the BSA relentlessly and have the esteemed status of Senior Forum Member-pardon the rest of us who can't gain membership in your "club".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That reminds me, anyone know the origin of the phrase, "Whose ox is being gored now?" I've always wondered about that, it's such a curious phrase.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The attorney defense is pretty funny. Ok, so we need them when our ox is gored. As for an album of Celtic music lead by a band of bagpipers, now that is wrongful goring.

 

As for the origin of ox goring rules, they have been around since there was ownership of oxen, camels and asses in the Fertile Crescent, pre- recorded history. Rules varied according to local prejudice. Talmudic Law allows for no fault if a Jewish ox gores a Canaanites but full compensation for the opposing act. Under Mosaic Law, it was considered unrighteous to allow for prejudicial judgment. Lev. 19:34-5, Love the stranger in all transactions, remembering that you were also strangers in a strange land once,*where prejudicial acts were common, *aka the early Golden Rule.

 

Being a senior member here means that you have posted one hundred times, or close to it. One could place one hundred periods in these boxes and obtain the same high honor. Now it probably doesn't sound as dignified but it really is.

 

Since I only posted the hint of a lawyer joke and didn't follow it with the punch line, then technically I can only be charged with hinting at lawyers.

 

Actually, the accordion is a rich source of humor that has not been fully developed. I hope that we can pursue that subject with the same vigor of a totally flamed-out poster.

 

FB

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm trying to figure out the point of the question - is it to assert the right to have the jamboree at a miltary base? Question - what other groups have had large gatherings like the jamboree at a military base? Do you really want to go down the path of using the right to peaceably assemble to assert a right to meet on a military base? Won't that mean that the military would then have to open their gates up to any group that wanted to hold a peacful assembly on the base? Groups like the National Knights of the KKK, or (insert the name of your favorite "bogeyman" group here). Is that what you want?

 

I have no problem with the BSA having their jamboree on military property - I do have a problem with the BSA's seemingly exclusive privilege to have their jamboree on military property when no other group has that privilege - and I definitely have a problem with taxpayer dollars being used to support that jamboree - Let the BSA have their jamboree on military property - but the BSA should reimburse the entire cost to the government of the jamboree - and I take that position with any group. As was stated by someone else, you have the right to peaceably assemble, you don't have the right to make government pay for that assembly.

 

Calico

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now THAT's interesting, Fuzzy Bear, thanks.

CalicoPenn, I agree - there does seem to be a lack of clarity and I thought I detected an element of entitlement as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Calico,

Perhaps the military could offer up Ft AP Hill to the Gay and Lesbian movement to have an annual convention. Great opportunity for training and experience for the soldiers. Also imagine the fantasaticly gala opening ceremony and parade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Calico: The right to use military facilities is limited, but it is not exclusive to the BSA. Lots of groups use military facilties all the time for lots of reasons.

 

The relationship between the military and the BSA is historical. It goes back to WWI, when Scouts sold Liberty Bonds, collected peach pits for gas masks and Sea Scouts were used to free up some shore duty jobs to let men go into combat. It has been mutually beneficial, since the military gets recruiting opportunities and Scouts get a lot of freebies. The fact that the BSA is chartered by Congress gives us a different status than groups that are not.

 

Anyway, it's clear that access to military facilities and services will somewhat limited no matter how the SOS law and the court cases are decided. With the military on a wartime footing and some troops looking at a third tour in Iraq, they simply won't always have the money or the manpower.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's worth noting that BSA's right to peacably assemble was under attack in the Dale case. The Supreme Court has found that there is a "freedom of association" that grows out of freedom of speech and the right to peacably assemble. In the Dale case, the plaintiffs argued that BSA was a place of public accomodation (like a store or restaurant) and that therefore it couldn't violate the New Jersey anti-discrimination rules. The Supreme Court ruled in BSA's favor, but not on freedom of association grounds. Rather, they relied on freedom of speech grounds (I'm not sure why). Of course, this has nothing to do with the right to use government property to assemble.

 

Also, when it comes to lawyer jokes and insults, everybody hates lawyers until they need one.

 

As far as bagpipes, have you seen the Daffy Duck cartoon in which Daffy must play a variety of musical instruments in order to sooth the Tasmanian Devil and lead him back to his cage? The only one that doesn't work is the bagpipe--the Devil goes berserk and tears it (them?) to pieces.

Share this post


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
Sign in to follow this  

×