Federal funds and scouting

[GernBlansten]

I believe most of the cases you cite are post-Dale (and frankly I was not aware of the others). Seems to me that when the BSA won that court case, they won the battle but lost the war. That case created a precedent (BSA declaring they were a private religious organization) that had a domino effect to bring subsequent cases since its status was altered in the eyes of the law, eg no longer a public accommodation and now a private religious one.

 

The Dale case was the watershed case. I believe the ACLU was correct in bringing it, I also think the BSA was successful and correct in defending it. But I don't blame the ACLU for the fall out because of it. Its BSA's policies that are causing that, not the watchdog group who is pointing it out.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Pack212Scouter writes, quoting GernBlansten:

"But what if it were a local jurisdiction that had a 99.9% majority that decided to deny blacks to marry whites. If the ACLU stepped in to stop that, would that be a travesty of justice?"

 

Interesting example. First of all, I would not personally approve of it. Secondly, it is established that until and unless there is an actual ammendment to the federal constitution, marriage laws reside withing state rights.

 

Wrong. Loving v. Virigina (1967) said that marriage was a civil right, and states could not prohibit interracial marriage.

 

Thirdly, there is not any part of the constitution guaranteeing anything be not based on race, other than voting.

 

It would be nearly impossible to meet the equal protection clause of the constitution. Justice Stewart, in his concurrence in Loving, also stated:

 

I have previously expressed the belief that "it is simply not possible for a state law to be valid under our Constitution which makes the criminality of an act depend upon the race of the actor." Because I adhere to that belief, I concur in the judgment of the Court.

All other equal rights guarantees are laws, not constitutional gurantees.

 

Wrong. Religion, for one.

 

(fixed italics)(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

[Pack212Scouter]

"Wrong. Loving v. Virigina (1967) said that marriage was a civil right, and states could not prohibit interracial marriage."

 

Quite right. Nice catch, states do have the right to regulate marriage as long as it does not conflict with Federal rights. That example was not a good one.

 

 

[Mr. Boyce]

For me, the real political problem of our age is trying to run a democracy through the dictates of a court. We have essentially made the legislature irrelevant.

 

But there is a moral good in a majority vote.

 

Not all majorities are tyrannies, although I would suppose someone could quibble up minority oppression in each majority vote.

 

The "tyranny of the majority" idea is a very old one, and nowadays it has been replaced by the tyranny of the well-funded and vociferous minority. Passion wins, beating an apathetic majority.

 

I'm a middle of the road guy, but I think the conservatives are making the stronger case in this area. Especially with the extremism of political correctness.

[Mr. Boyce]

Back to my original post, I think as a citizen it should be okay for the federal government to assist charities that do not fulfill every criteria, as long as a worthwhile public benefit was achieved.

 

In other words, the government should have the ability to use a nonprofit if doing so helps it achieve real public benefit. Mutually beneficial relationship.

[skeptic]

Oh come on Mr. Boyce; that would be using "common sense". Have you forgotten that it is no longer in vogue?

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

"Common sense" is what people use to approve of, say, government support of an organization that excludes atheists, while prohibiting support of an organization that excludes Jews, or Catholics. It's just government supported discrimination which is "OK" as long as the group being discriminated against is unpopular enough.

[evmori]

Common sense is something most lack, especially the ACLU!

[scoutingagain]

One person's "common sense" is another's special interest.

 

As one with a generally Libertarian outlook I don't see why the Government should be funding the BSA, GSUSA, Country Clubs, the Knights of Columbus, or any other private organization. If your going to be private, be private. Don't expect to accept government funding without strings attached. Ask the Catholic Charities that accept Federal funding. Ask any contractor that works for the government. Ask anyone who recieves government grants.

 

The public means all of the public. Not just the part of it an organization chooses to serve.

 

SA

[Pack212Scouter]

I am a big supported of staying away from funding with strings. Your statement is not quite true though..."The public means all of the public. Not just the part of it an organization chooses to serve"

 

The government quite often chooses which part of the public gets served by something, and where it deems funding will do the most good. In general, food stamps are not given to the wealthy; housing assistance goes mostly to low income areas, not everyone; community development programs may go to one area of a city or country and not another. FEMA offers coverage to areas of flood disaster, but not the individual that was the sole victum of a creek. The list goes on and on, but the jist is that the government is ALWAYS making a decision on which part of the population a program is aimed at.

[OldGreyEagle]

Personally I think all public money marked for research on ovarian cancer should halt as well as all funds marked for research for prostate cancer.

[Mr. Boyce]

I'm sorry. I'm an idealist. I believe this IS a public interest and a common good.

 

I also feel it's a mistake to posit government as "THEM" and citizens as "US". We live in a democracy and must feel responsibility for our own government and governmental actions. Or else the whole game's lost. I dislike the common belief that all government action is inept or automatically suspect. I also feel that if we want a program and vote to do it, we also should feel obliged to pay for what we've bought!

 

Again, scouting generates much that's good for America and for the general public. I think scouts should not be the ones approaching local or state or federal government for assistance, but as a citizen, I wouldn't think it bad if, for example, scouts were asked to help with a state conservation effort or public health effort, as long as it was mutually agreed upon and benefited the public.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

I'm also an idealist, and I don't consider the BSA to be for the common good.

[evmori]

I'm also an idealist, and I don't consider the BSA to be for the common good.

 

What do you consider to be for the common good, Merlyn?

[Pack212Scouter]

"I'm also an idealist, and I don't consider the BSA to be for the common good."

 

Actually, since Merlyn does not believe in Scouting, I am actually curious about why they are in these forums, unless it is just to stir the pot.