So the ACLU, among others, sued the US Government for allowing the Boy Scouts to use Federally owned military bases, and having the support of government-paid personnel for their activities (such as the Scout Jamboree currently going on right now).
The logic went, and it's quite sound, is that since the Boy Scouts are a religious organization (their rules of membership specifically require that you believe in some sort of deity, explicitly prohibiting atheists) and also a discriminatory organization based on gender-preference (you cannot be gay and be either in scouts, or a scout leader, according to their rules). The ACLU won the case, got a Circuit court to say that "yes, it's unconstitutional for the military to support an organization that promotes religious discrimination."
Tennessee Senator Bill Frist, apparently unaware of how Constitutional Law works, has pushed for (and gotten support for) a Bill that would permit the military to allow the Scouts to use their facilities.
But you see, Billy-Boy, your law is meaningless. All it means is another lawsuit, which the government loses, because -- say it with me, Bill, "The Constitution trumps your petty little bill."
One more time: "The Constitution trumps your petty little bill."
It wasn't just that the Circuit Court said, "Oh there's no law authorizing this," they specifically said "You can't do this under the Constitution of the United States of America."
Thus, if you want the scouts to have access to the military facilities, you have to either change the Scouts, or change the Constitution. One of those two has to happen.
Of course, I shouldn't say things like that, or BillyBoy will probably get a mind to trying to add an amendment that permits religious discrimination.
I feel so ashamed to have contributed to putting Bush in power in 2000. Seriously, I regret that more than anything I've done wrong in my life, and there's a lot of stuff in my life I regret. I thought it would mean that the balance-of-power would swing "a little to the right" after eight years of swinging to the left. Little did I know there was a superconducting-electromagnet on the right ready to drag that pendulum all the way over to the ultra-extreme edge.
Please forgive me.
And think about it like this: Lawsuit, again, appeal all the way to the SCOTUS, soon to be freshly stocked with Republicans.
When you control the SCOTUS, you control the Constitution itself. Not what I believe the Founders intended, but, I'm kinda sure there's not a lot going on now, that the Founders intended.
Actually, you miss one thing (I don't know that Congress is trying this in this case). The Congress has the power to remove things from SCOTUS jurisdiction.
What people forget is that the 3 branches are co-equal - none are surpreme. The Court can overrule law, but:
-- the Congress can remove areas of law from their jurisdiction
-- the Executive branch can decide not to enforce particular laws if they so choose
I'm not advocating either in this case, but it's all possible, and all legal.
- How can Congress remove laws from their jurisdiction? I know they've attempted to do so in the past, but I've yet to see the Constitutional basis for that.
- The executive branch has no role in civil decisions. If I sue the Federal Government, the matter is pretty much contained entirely within the Judicial Branch.
Article III, Section 2:
"Clause 2: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."
Which means that Congress can change the jurisdiction of the court. Heck, the court arrogated the role of judicial review to itself (Marshall) - there's nothing in the Constitution about that.
As to the executive branch, they are responsible for enforcing federal law. The President could easily instruct the justice department not to enforce law "blah" (they informally do this all the time with respect to penalties the law calls for with respect to trade with other nations).
Dude- There is no forgiving you, you are unforgivable.
DEREK-
For this the family forgives you, for buying a concert ticket that had the words BRYAN ADAMS on it, this the family can never forgive.
I do have a question that was brought up at work today......Who can the families sue for damages and loss of life? We all know the government would never own up to any mistakes...
Big George: Nobody. See, as part of going to the Jamboree, you sign a release of liability.
Also, it's increasingly becoming clear that the men violated Scouting rules and guidelines in regards to pitching tents (which are taught to every Scout on their first camping trip), so the accident would be seen by a court as being due to their own negligence.
psst ... guess what? You do NOT have to believe in God, a god, or any type of deiety to belong to the BSA. Yes - duty to God is mentioned in the Oath, but you DON'T have to say it. (just like the pledge of allegiance) There is an annual event - Scout Sunday - but you DON'T have to participate.
Get off your freakin high horse and look at the other values and skills the organization helps teach youth.
Oh - did I mention it's a PRIVATE organization??
If the ACLU and all the other liberals keep
attacking the Boy Scouts of America, one day there will be no more Boy Scouts and, then, you will have 3-4 million additional boys roaming the streets with nothing to do but get in trouble. With all the bad that exists in our society, it looks like they could waste their millions on something that really is bad.
GOD bless America, GOD bless the Boy Scouts, and GOD bless the ACLU liberals.
Scouter,
Umm, yes, you DO have to believe in God to be in Scouts. As witnessed by the fact that the Boy Scouts kicked out a fucking EAGLE SCOUT (e.g., somehow who they would tell you is the best of the best of Boy Scouts) because he was an atheist:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/31/national/main527684.shtml
I've got no problem with the Scouts being a private organization. I've got no problem with their excluding classes of people from membership. I *absolutely* believe that they have the right to freedom of association. I'm a libertarian, I think people have to right be sexists, racists, homophobes, or whatever they want to be, and to associate (or not) with whomever they want, as they see fit.
But what they DON'T get to do is have that association receive public assistance, in the form of free and/or discounted use of publicly-funded resources, if they're going to continue to discriminate based on religion.
No one's bashing the Scouts. We're simply saying "you can promote whatever values you want, but if you discriminate, you don't get the benefit of federal funds and resources to do it."
Gee, I've been a Scout leader 30+ years and I;m still waiting for my federal support.
The Scouts have "paid" for Fort A P Hill by adding about $20 million in infrastructure improvements over two decades. For the next three years and 50 weeks A P Hill is a training base for units (regular, reserve, guard) on the east coast.
The military does provide support because they see it as a prime recruiting venue, the military seems to prefer recruiting boys with character, leadership skills and outdoor skills.
PS: The Girl Scouts are strictly female, as opposed to several coed BSA programs, yet neither the ACLU or any United Way has attacked the USGSA.
Man, apparently they don't teach READING skills in the scouts, though, do they Tomscout?
The Boy Scouts are a private organization. They can do whatever they want. They just don't get to use federal resources to do those things if they're going to discriminate.
Of course the military sees it as a prime recruiting ground, because they're as homophobic as the Boy Scouts are.
Nobody's attacking the scouts in this. You can do whatever you like, you just can't expect federal resources to support your endeavours so long as you discriminate.