Posted on 02/15/2002 6:50:19 AM PST by DoSomethingAboutIt
Libertarians in Santa Barbara, California have scored a victory for freedom of association by helping to nullify a resolution that censured the local Boy Scouts chapter.
On November 14, county supervisors approved a statute forbidding the government from discriminating against private organizations -- even if that group has "incorrect membership requirements," said Santa Barbara LP Secretary Robert Bakhaus.
"Even the U.S. Supreme Court had said the Boy Scouts have the right to associate, and make their own internal rules as they choose," he said. "If LPers could not lead in such a case as local government censuring the Boy Scouts, who would?"
The new statute invalidated a resolution adopted in March by a 3-2 vote, which censured the Boy Scouts for refusing to allow gay men to serve as scoutmasters.
County commissioners said the Boy Scout's policy violated the country's anti-discrimination law. The censure would have allowed county officials to prevent Scouts from using local camp grounds, leasing property from the city, or passing out leaflets on school grounds.
However, the Boy Scouts of America said the gay lifestyle violated the organization's oath, which requires members to be "morally straight." It won a U.S Supreme court decision in June 2000, which affirmed its right to decide who could be a Boy Scout.
Bakhaus said Libertarians support the right of the Boy Scouts to set their own membership requirements without government interference -- even if some Libertarians personally oppose those requirements.
"Even bigots have rights," he said. "Private organizations [should have] the right to make their own membership and leadership rules."
After the commission passed its resolution in March, "libertarian sympathizer" Michael Warnken and local LP members collected 20,000 signatures to put an initiative on the ballot to overturn it.
Libertarians helped drum up publicity for the campaign by sending letters to the editors of local papers, appearing at meetings and rallies, and speaking out on local television shows, said Bakhaus.
A number of conservative Republicans also joined the effort, which shows that small organizations "can't afford to be shy about having allies," he said.
"[Our LP affiliate is] too small to abolish taxation or achieve other radical reforms outright. We must first develop our clout by helping enforce the current good laws limiting government, while rallying better liberals and conservatives to uphold the best American traditions of freedom," he said.
However, the coalition ran into opposition from the county attorney's office, which filed a suit to stop the petitioning.
The attorney claimed the initiative language was "vague," and that only a statute or regulation -- not a resolution -- was subject to invalidation by initiative.
In response, activists changed the language of the measure meet state initiative requirements, and hired their own attorney to defend them from legal attacks, said Bakhaus.
With the initiative back on track and a large public turn-out at the commission's November meeting, county commissioners decided to nullify the anti-Boy Scout resolution, said Bakhaus.
"[It] was approved as law without a vote of the people, thanks in part to a large public showing -- but mostly by the fears of an electoral backlash if it went to a vote," he said.
Most importantly, Libertarians learned valuable lessons from the experience, said Bakhaus.
"The [Santa Barbara LP] learned that a countywide petition drive is not outside the bounds of doability," he said. "We also learned that a 1% investment ratio can be leveraged into victory, if that investment consists of extensive knowledge and experience about the intricacies of real politics."
WRT law enforcement officers who use their police powers to "enforce" unconstitutional edicts, they SHOULD be punished and that much more harshly than any other perp, because the boys and girls in blue are acting under color of law in their depredations. And the politicians who give them their marching orders should be equally penalized. The ones who act properly and do a CONSTITUTIONALLY-PROPER job of keeping the peace are to be commended and supported! I would back up one of these folks ANY time! Do you see the difference? I made it clear in the original post, except to you, I guess.
However, BATFags and the DEA and even the Feebs have no constitutional basis for EXISTENCE, as the Constitution prescribes only THREE crimes that fall under Federal jurisdiction outside of a military reservation or the District of Columbia, treason, piracy and counterfeiting. Which "duties" of the BATFags or the DEA or FBI fall into the prescribed categories? And since the Secret Service is charged with investigating counterfeiting, it seems to me that it could be expanded to include treason and piracy as well. These are not, that I can see, "growth" crimes so it might work out well!
Why would you say that? Because I support state drug laws? Have I ever said that I want to spy on my neighbors?
Reality is, most behavior done inside the home, no matter how illegal it is, is never known about. Ask victims of child abuse. This is just a price we pay for privacy, and I would fight to keep it.
And I agree that the feds have no business in most of these matters. They are completely disregarding the USC by trying to enforce federal laws on drugs. I also share your desire to have all officers who commit crimes held responsible.
-- Just as a start. - Make a point or give it up.
It's implied in a number of your previous posts, but as I am not going to go looking right now, I apologize if I offended you. In some areas we do agree and perhaps we should capitalize on that.
And I welcome anyone that would join in the fight to protect our rights.
Read Section 1. -- People are not to be deprived of Life, Liberty, or Property without due process.
Fiat declarations that a queer or an addict is a criminal is not due process.
250 posted by tpaine
If the activity is deemed criminal and it is not a guaranteed right, it is due process.
The state has no power to 'deem' an activity criminal on whim. Or through majority rule. Fiat declarations of an actions 'criminality' are not due process. They are prohibitions that violate the constitution on quite a number of legal grounds.
Or are you gonna pull some wild excuse out of your butt for why our founders allowed states to prohibit witchcraft, sodomy, ect....
Many states had such laws before the constitution. Most have been repealed, as they are now clearly unconstitutional, dispite the wild excuses of buttheads like you.
If the Boy Scouts owned an apartment building and rented out units to the general public, they would be required to make the apartments available to applicants without regard to their races.
The fourth amendment refuses government access to a person's home, property or business without a properly signed warrant. Yet the government forces business owners to give access to total strangers via discrimination laws. In effect the government, taxpayers' employees, can't be trusted, yet the same government that can't be trusted proclaims that business owner must trust total strangers.
Since the 14th amendment, no state may abridge, deprive or deny persons of life, liberty, or property, without due process.
No matter how many wild witchcraft excuses you pull out of your silly butt, you can't deny that fact.
So you think that my neighbor should be able to do these things in his front yard for all to see?
If you think you've been harmed by another person take it before a court and impartial jury.
"No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him."
--Thomas Jefferson to Francis Gilmer, 1816. ME 15:24How and why individual rights prevail over the illusion of group rights.
The smallest minority is the minority of one -- the individual. When the individual is protected all larger-than-one minorities as well as the largest majority are protected. The largest majority is the human species.
Whenever possible, absolutes are preferred to relatives. Absolutes are constant across all cultures and times whereas relatives change from culture to culture and generation to generation or century to century.
Absolute: The highest moral, human and individual right is the right to self-defense against the initiation of force, fraud and coercion. The proof is that without one's own life a person has nothing, nada, zero, zip.
Absolute: Every instance that force, fraud or coercion is initiated against a person that person experiences a loss of value to his or her life. Only the victim knows how much his or her life was, is and will be diminished by the person that wielded initiation of force, fraud or coercion against him or her.
When plaintiff decides that arbitration will not meet plaintiff's needs, trial by jury is the best recourse that a plaintiff has for gaining restitution for plaintiff's life being diminished by the initiation of force, fraud or coercion.
The plaintiff must convince a jury beyond reasonable doubt that he or she has been the victim of initiation of force, fraud or coercion by the defendant. Also, plaintiff must express the loss of value plaintiff suffered and express what plaintiff seeks in terms of restitution or compensation for plaintiff's loss of value.
Here's a short, partial list that a plaintiff might bring charges against a person whom the plaintiff claims victimized him or her. All cases can be settled via trial by jury.
Plaintiff claims defendant initiated force, fraud or coercion against plaintiff by:
Defendant killed person that is close relative or close friend to plaintiff. This is a logical choice of who would be first in line to become plaintiff. E.g., spouse, child, sibling, etc.
Defendant assaulted victim
Defendant stole from victim
Defendant blackmailed victim
Defendant ingested drugs
Defendant sold drugs to third party consenting adult
Defendant viewed pornographic material
Defendant sold pornographic material to third party consenting adult
Defendant sold sexual favors to third party consenting adult
Defendant engaged in gambling with third party consenting adultThe burden is on the plaintiff to prove to a jury beyond reasonable doubt that he or she has been the victim of initiation of force, fraud or coercion and to what extent the plaintiff has been damaged by the defendant.
The bottom line is: if the jury agrees with you/plaintiff you're right and win the case. If the jury disagree with you/plaintiff you're wrong and lose the case.
You don't like it? - Go over to DU and cry about it. -- Or.
-- You can stay here and learn to reason.
That is called jury nullification. It is actively discouraged by the courts. I believe a woman was actually arrested for it. The courts want nothing but a finding of the facts from the jury.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.