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."
Then work on fixing that.
Why is it that when I speak of Constitutional principles I live in a dream world?
Working.
No matter how many wild witchcraft excuses you pull out of your silly butt, you can't deny that fact.
Let's see..... I have the founders actuall ACTIONS to back up my assertions.
-- Witchcraft laws are your back up? How pitiful.
All you have is some excuse for why our founders had no backbone to stand up against laws that violated rights which you claim they saw us having.
That statement is incoherent, -- but the 14th is not 'some excuse'. It's enforcement, by states, using it against the feds, could become the last best hope of saving our constitution, imo.
It is slightly better that your attempts to reason.
You can choose a jury when convicted for drug possesion.
A little slip of the statist tongue? ;^) I don't do drugs so how about choosing a jury before conviction, okay?
It is the job of every juror to vote you innocent if they see that the law is immoral or unconstitutional.
When you think you've been harmed by someone it's your job to press charges and take the person/defendant to trial before an impartial jury. You agree with that, right?
Indeed
When a cop sees someone robbing a home, should he just take the persons license plate down incase the homeowner wants to press charges when they get back?
But feel free to continue..
Why? Are you so bored that you are reading them all?
When a cop sees someone robbing a home, should he just take the persons license plate down incase the homeowner wants to press charges when they get back?
A cop in the moment must assure himself to what degree of confidence he has in his belief that the person is robbing the home. The degree of confidence increases or decreases with new information. Such as how the suspect responds as the cop approaches and several other criteria are considered as new information is introduced. Once assured that the suspect is robbing the house the cop arrests the suspect.
If you see a person selling hard drugs would you be harmed, and if so, how would you convince a jury that the defendant harmed you?
My family would be harmed by such as substance being sold in my neighborhood and any jury you can pull from my state would convict em in a hearbeat.
You can't defend your position on the constitution, so you punt nonsense.
How funny, yet sad.
Show us the harm.
My family would be harmed by such as substance being sold in my neighborhood and any jury you can pull from my state would convict em in a hearbeat.
How had you been harmed and how would you convince a jury?
The ideologues always try to use hyperbole. "We have to allow, and thereby give our societal imprimatur to, perversion, prostitution, promiscuity, pornography, obscenity, adultery, homosexuality, sodomy, and abortion, because otherwise, they (whoever this mysterious and ominous 'they' is) might outlaw puppies, or daisies, or saying the Rosary!" In other words, the ideologues are really just moral-cowards.
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.