Time bomb in new city budget? [Philly votes to boot Scouts]

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Beavah writes:

How ethical is it to change the terms of the entitlement by subsequent legislation?

 

They never changed the terms; it's always had a 1-year cancellation clause. "in perpetuity" in a lease just means the lease doesn't need to be renewed every year/month. Such leases always have other ways to terminate, since they never lapse.

 

This vote didn't change the terms, the city council has to vote to decide what to do. That's how a city council decides things.

 

Can the Federal Government, by legislation, eliminate the Social Security entitlement to a person who they feel discriminates (even though that entitlement is also "in perpetuity" in exchange for prior compensation)?

 

SS is not an entitlement granted "in perpetuity", and the terms on who receives benefits has changed many times over the years.

[Beavah 205]

They never changed the terms; it's always had a 1-year cancellation clause. "in perpetuity" in a lease just means the lease doesn't need to be renewed every year/month. Such leases always have other ways to terminate, since they never lapse.

 

Well, not always . Always is a pretty far reach. "In perpetuity" also expresses a principle or intent, which is relied on by the recipient of the grant. No organization would agree to build a building and then turn the brand new building over to the city for free if in fact it could simply be "taken" by canceling the lease after a year and one day. Parties rely on statements of intent all the time to engage in commerce. It is a matter of ethics, and only those who are the most abusive of ethics look for technicalities to dodge the clear intent.

 

Same with Social Security, eh? It is a promise to provide payments until death - payments for the full remaining life of the person after designated retirement age. Can the congress simply revoke that entitlement at age 80 for persons who are believed by the majority of the legislature to be discriminatory or otherwise obnoxious? Perhaps, given a properly stacked federal bench; terms of benefits can be changed. And payments to a religious person may be construed, after all, as government support of religion.

 

But is it ethical to do so, when one party has relied on the clear principle and intent of the other to provide such payments?

 

Beavah

 

[Gonzo1 10]

Merlyn,

You wrote:

"Same with the Boy Scouts' lease; it goes against the city's Home Rule Charter and Fair Practices Ordinance. The city can't subsidize a discriminatory organization."

 

I don't think (me personally) that Home Rule Charter should apply, according to most lawyers, the BSA and the council should be Granfathered because they had the lease. Afterall, the council had the lease since 1928, there were no concerns about political correctness then and the council should be left alone.

 

It would seem to me that "ex post facto" laws may apply. I don't really know for sure, I'm a doctor, not a lawyer, but I did save 15% on my car insurance last night by switching to Geico.

 

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Gonzo1, there IS no "ex post facto" law. The city didn't change the lease, they've ALWAYS had the authority to end the lease with a year's notice.

[Gonzo1 10]

Merlyn:

A qucik search of Ex Post Facto revealed:

 

"An ex post facto law is a law passed after the occurrence of an event or action which retrospectively changes the legal consequences of the event or action."

 

Since the lease was originated in 1928, I doubt SERIOUSLY that anyone had a complaint about the BSA back then and if everything was otherwise hunkydory until now, why now? You just gotta follow the money. Someone is whining and complaining and I hope all who voted against the BSA get voted out of office.

 

When did the Home Rule Charter and Fair Practices Ordinance come about? That's when the "ex post facto" comes into play. If the Boy Scouts were OK before, they should be OK now.

 

 

[Gonzo1 10]

Merlyn:

Here's another:

"The 'words and the intent' of the Ex Post Facto Clause encompass '[e]very law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed.' Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. (1 Dall.) 386, 390 (1798) (opinion of Chase, J.)."

 

Again, if the scouts were OK before, they should be OK today, and tomorrow.

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Gonzo1 writes:

Since the lease was originated in 1928, I doubt SERIOUSLY that anyone had a complaint about the BSA back then and if everything was otherwise hunkydory until now, why now?

 

Because the BSA now insists it's a private, discriminatory organization, and the lease arrangement is in conflict with the city's Home Rule Charter and Fair Practices Ordinance. The city council has always had the power to end the lease, and they've decided to do just that.

 

When did the Home Rule Charter and Fair Practices Ordinance come about? That's when the "ex post facto" comes into play.

 

No, it doesn't. The city has ALWAYS had the power to end the lease. You really should've listened to yourself back when you said you aren't a lawyer. You aren't.

 

And the ex post facto law you quoted is about criminal cases. This isn't a criminal case. It's about a city exercising their legal authority to end a lease.

[Gonzo1 10]

Here's another:

This doesn't say anything about only applying to "criminal law"

From Wikipedia:

An ex post facto law (from the Latin for "from something done afterward") or retroactive law, is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences of acts committed or the legal status of facts and relationships that existed prior to the enactment of the law.

 

I guess it really is just about the money and I hope the city council gets what they derserve. I hope people will run against the incumbents and vote them out.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Gonzo1, no law was passed. The city council voted to end the lease; that isn't a law.

 

And yes, people have been complaining to the city about how they're subsidizing a private religious organization.

[Gonzo1 10]

It's too bad that the homosexual group in Philly can't be tolerant of the Boy Scouts. I would wager that if it had been the other way around, and that a homosexually oriented group had the lease and was getting the boot, the homosexual groupd would be screaming about intolerance and discrimination against them.

 

Perhaps a scout friendly individual or business will donate some land or building for the council.

 

But then again, someone might complain that the council uses city water or sewage or doesn't have some other thing or widget and will try to beat down the scouts then.

 

Merlyn, what I don't understand is why, why you come here to this scout oriented forum when you are clearly not a scout(er). Why?

 

Are you a member of some pro atheist group? If so, can I join? If not, why not?

 

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Gonzo1 writes:

It's too bad that the homosexual group in Philly can't be tolerant of the Boy Scouts.

 

"Tolerant" in your definition seems to mean subsidizing the BSA with their tax money. You want to be a private organization? Be one. Pay market rates.

 

Merlyn, what I don't understand is why, why you come here to this scout oriented forum when you are clearly not a scout(er).

 

I've explained before I was a cub scout long ago. I'm also against my tax money used to support a supposedly private religious organization.

 

Are you a member of some pro atheist group? If so, can I join? If not, why not?

 

I'm a member of Scouting For All (which is pro-atheist in the sense that they advocate that the BSA be open to atheists), and yes, you can join them. I'm also a member of Minnesota Atheists, which is part of American Atheists, and no, you can't join them, because it's a private organization of atheists. You'll notice that AA doesn't leech off your public tax money the way the BSA leeches off my public tax money.

 

[Gonzo1 10]

Merlyn, you wrote:

 

"Tolerant" in your definition seems to mean subsidizing the BSA with their tax money. You want to be a private organization? Be one. Pay market rates."

 

The council had a lease and did not violate the terms of the lease since 1928. It seem that Philly just wants some cash and find the scouts an easy target. I hope the councilmen who vote again the scouts get voted ou themselves.

 

Merlyn, you also wrote this:

 

"I've explained before I was a cub scout long ago. I'm also against my tax money used to support a supposedly private religious organization."

 

The lease was in place since 1928 and all of a sudden, there's a salvo against the scouts. If it were the other way around you'd be moaning and complaing about discrimination against your group.

 

Also:

 

"I'm a member of Scouting For All (which is pro-atheist in the sense that they advocate that the BSA be open to atheists), and yes, you can join them. I'm also a member of Minnesota Atheists, which is part of American Atheists, and no, you can't join them, because it's a private organization of atheists. You'll notice that AA doesn't leech off your public tax money the way the BSA leeches off my public tax money."

I think I'll try to join MN Atheists and AA, that way I can try to get them to change their membership rules to allow Christians too. But a quick check of both websites reveals that AA is very bitter, only a handfull of protestors show up at your events, I counted no more than 13 at any event. Also, and this is the best part, your MN Atheists group membership is tax deductible, TAX DEDUCTIBLE????? YOU GOTTA BE KIDDING, RIGHT? After all your complaing about the scouts getting "subsidized", you're taking a tax deduction? I challenge you to pay your fair share.

 

 

 

[scoutldr 732]

As it happens, I sit here in downtown Philadelphia writing this from a hotel next to City Hall. As I walk to my conference tomorrow morning, I may fling an un-Scoutlike gesture towards the Mayor's office. I had decided this afternoon that when I get home, I will fire off a letter to the Mayor and the Conference Organizers outlining the many negative observations since I got here Friday afternoon, and urging the organizers to scratch the "City of Brotherly Love" from their list of potential venues. This is one more point I will add to the letter. Although I was born in OGE's neighborhood a little north of here, and lived here in Navy housing as a 3 year old, this is undoubtedly one of the dirtiest, nastiest cities I have ever visited. We rode the subway to see the Phillies beat the Giants last night, and (in the City Hall station, no less) had to step over homeless people and piles of feces and puddles of urine. The station looked like it had not been cleaned since 1928. The cab drivers are crooked ("sorry I don't have change for a 20" and "no credit cards, cash only"), and we don't venture out after dark. And yes, I've been to many big cities...this one is about 40 years behind the others.

 

To anyone planning a vacation here...don't bother. This city is old, filthy and dangerous.

 

(Edited for typos)(This message has been edited by scoutldr)

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Gonzo1 writes:

The council had a lease and did not violate the terms of the lease since 1928.

 

The city of Philadelphia isn't violating the terms of the lease, either. They can terminate the lease by giving one year's notice.

 

It seem that Philly just wants some cash and find the scouts an easy target.

 

I'd say it seems that Philadelphia does not want to support the BSA's discrimination.

 

...

The lease was in place since 1928 and all of a sudden, there's a salvo against the scouts.

 

Because all of a sudden the BSA insisted it was a private organization that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation and religion.

 

If it were the other way around you'd be moaning and complaing about discrimination against your group.

 

No, I wouldn't. The BSA is finally being treated the same as any similar group. People who want favoritism for their group inevitably find themselves being in the disfavored group at some point, and suddenly have to reverse gears. People like me, who want equal treatment, want it whether I'm in or out of the current group in vogue to favor, because I know the political winds will keep changing things, so the only way to go is no favoritism in the first place.

 

I think I'll try to join MN Atheists and AA, that way I can try to get them to change their membership rules to allow Christians too.

 

Good luck with that.

 

But a quick check of both websites reveals that AA is very bitter, only a handfull of protestors show up at your events, I counted no more than 13 at any event.

 

The godless Americans march on Washington in 2002 only had 13 people? Could have fooled me:

 

http://www.atheists.org/gamow/rally/

 

By the way, are you implying that small groups of people don't have rights or something?

 

Also, and this is the best part, your MN Atheists group membership is tax deductible, TAX DEDUCTIBLE????? YOU GOTTA BE KIDDING, RIGHT? After all your complaing about the scouts getting "subsidized", you're taking a tax deduction? I challenge you to pay your fair share.

 

I am. Any group like MN Atheists that meet the nonprofit and other requirements to be tax deductible can get it. Equal treatment and all that.

 

Now, if Philadelphia had an unlimited supply of buildings that it could lease at under market rates to any number of groups, the BSA lease probably wouldn't be an issue, since any and all groups could get a publically subsidized building. But they don't.

[Gonzo1 10]

The main thing I really don't understand here is this: How is Merlyn hurt by all of this stuff?

How is Merlyn, you personally affected by the BSA?

Do you want to join the BSA?

Do you want to go camping with us?

Join us at a campfire?

Maybe you'd like to attend WB?

 

I don't see (in your legal terms) your "standing". How are you, Merlyn affected?

 

If you'd like to join us, find a religion you could pigeon hole yourself into and join.

 

On the other hand, maybe Spiral Scouts is more your speed.(This message has been edited by Gonzo1)