Jump to content

madison and cavies?


Recommended Posts

Might just be the most asinine post I've ever read here.

Put a list in Excel, and hit the ∑ key. That should give you all the reconciliation you need.

He is referring to the fact that the Boy Scouts do not allow homosexuals or atheists to join. However, I believe this is also only for the actual boy scout troops and not venturing troops such as the Scouts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 85
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Now, if desegregation is not part of the Constitution, and is not part of the 14th Amendment, how does one go about mandating desegregation? By Statutory Law? An Act of Congress? Ordinary Law? This goes back to the fundamentals of our Constitution and requires a Constitutional Amendment. Did this happen? Think about it: Civil Rights Act. Go figure...our government did not do this thing that was right to do, in the correct manner. Oops.

OK, flame suit on--go ahead and blast me. But I'm right. It should be and should have been an amendment. Just sayin.

i'm not going to flame you, because your history is basically right.

there are no "individual rights" in the constitution; only limitations on the government's power to regulate certain things. BUT, the constitution does contain mechanisms for Congress to create statutory law -- like the Civil Rights Act of 1875 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, etc -- from an enumerated list of powers the drafters gave them. there's no way the drafters could have envisioned all of the issues we face today. they knew that, so they gave congress great power to fix things.

the 13th amendment made slavery unconstitutional. the 14th amendment provides (among other things) for equal protection under the law. the answer to your question about where mandating of desegregation comes from is: the federal courts. the 14th is hopelessly vague, and "it is the provence of the judicial department to say what the law is" (Marbury v. Madison).

so, in 1954, the court started mandating desegration in brown v. board of ed. it said that the schools must be desegregated with "all deliberate speed." it took them a few years to tell us what that meant, but we got there.

(the point is coming -- hang in there)

now, in order to trigger an equal protection challenge, a plaintiff must have been injured actually, there must be a state actor, and the plaintiff must also be a member of a "suspect class." that means they have to have an immutable trait and have been discriminated against by the state because of that trait. sex is a suspect class, and so is race. sexual orientation is not.

so, the answer to all this is that even if a 19 year old woman could prove that she is "injured" by being kept out of the corps, there's no "state action" here, and the constitution is not implicated.

sorry for the hijack.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yep -- the only thing that might stand is a suit on a state action theory that could theoretically result in an organization's loss of non-profit tax status.

Thought about that for a few moments, Sam, and (without getting too wonky here), there are two separate elements in your thought:

-Non-profit status is determined by the state in which an org is incorporated.

-Tax-exemption under the federal law is actually a separate element of an org's business, and requires a separate application, the primary factors being whether a state has offered you non-profit status, and whether you can prove that there's public support for your company.

I'd agree that it's theoretically possible that some state incorporation laws could be narrow enough so that they could revoke a npo charter based on perceived gender bias. But the Feds are silent on the subject with regards to 501©(3) status, so if such a narrow state interpretation was ever acted on, all it'd require is a move of the org's incorporation to a neighboring state, so nothing would change. Arguably the federal status is the more important consideration, since that's what allows donations to be taken as tax deductions.

In any case, I wouldn't imagine Illinois would be a state where this would ever be a concern. As long as the Boy Scouts are in business, no one at the state level is going to try to force them to change their membership model.

Edited by mobrien
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thought about that for a few moments, Sam, and I'd agree that it's theoretically possible that some state incorporation laws could be narrow enough so that they could revoke a npo charter based on perceived gender bias. But the Feds are silent on the subject with regards to 501©(3) status, so if such a narrow state interpretation was ever acted on, all it'd require is a move of the org's incorporation to a neighboring state, so nothing would change.

In any case, I wouldn't imagine Illinois would be a state where this would ever be a concern. As long as the Boy Scouts are in business, no one at the state level is going to try to force them to change their membership model.

right -- plus it would take years to wind through the courts, and most likely the plaintiff would have aged out by then.

heh

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ok ok ok.... lets keep this corps related. My intent in asking this was what specifically keeps them from a lawsuit... Not whether blacks and whites should have been segregated... please stay on topic... thats not a discussion to get into here

so... I really don't see it happening at any time, but what would happen if a corps accepted, or didn't accept members based on race? Would the same rules and arguments apply, or would it be completely different?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has come up several times on the Cavaliers message board, or at least it did a few years ago (I haven't read those boards since late 05). As was told to me by someone "pretty darn high up" on the Cavalier food chain, the Cavaliers do not receive money from the government, and as a result are not governed by the same discriminatory laws. I don't want to use any names because I don't want to misquote someone, but that's how it was expressed to me and I'm pretty sure with some digging someone could find that answer on the Cavalier website. Probably Scouts too somewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i must this is quite an interesting discussion? i dont think we ever would see a sex related suit.. along teh same lines as somebody else mentioned if the discrimination were along race lines/ if the mandarins say declined a white man membership because he was white what would the implications be...

Edited by josh161
Link to comment
Share on other sites

a survey of women reported that 95% of females want these corps to remain all male.

ok I made that up

I didnt make it up that madison did have a girl in the corps once, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

a survey of women reported that 95% of females want these corps to remain all male.

ok I made that up

I didnt make it up that madison did have a girl in the corps once, right?

Twice. And didn't the most recent one just marry their 03 drum major?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

a survey of women reported that 95% of females want these corps to remain all male.

I wouldn't be surprised if that number turned out true. Haha. Especially that 13-18 yr. old age bracket. :guinesssmilie:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...