Gary_Miller

le Voyageur, "How is that a stretch? That issue was decided by SCOTUS in Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999), Paul v. Virginia, 75 U.S.(1868), Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330, 334 (1972), Arlington County Bd. v. Richards, 434 U.S. 5 (1977),Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 629-31, 638 (1969), and et. al..." Say what all these rulings address the 14th amendment and the equal protection clause. From what I saw with a quick glance The 4th and 10th amendments are not even mentioned.(This message has been edited by Gary_Miller)

NJCubScouter, "I assume you mean "repeal", not "appeal." I'm not picking on you, I just want to make sure." Yes, I meant repeal. NJCubScouter, "If so, you want to repeal the direct election of U.S. Senators, and give that power back to the state legislatures? Really? Personally I'd rather keep that power (or at least, the tiny little bit of that power that each voter has) for myself and the rest of us, than give it to someone else. I elect my state legislators to decide state issues, not to decide who should represent me in the federal government." The people electing the senators is exactly what the problem is. If you know anything about the constitution convention and the writing of the constitution then you know that the "House of Representatives" was put in place to represent the interests of the people, and the "Senate" was put in place to represent the interests of the States. The "Senate" was to be selected by the state legislature who are selected by the people of the states. This process provided a check and balance between the House and the Senate, with the house looking out for the will/good of the people as a whole and the senate looking out for the will'good of the states as a whole. Therefore the state legislature could put pressure on the Senator's to not approve legislature that would not be the will/good of the state. Items like unfunded mandates that are forced down to the state from the federal government. A senator would be less likely to vote for such things is they had to answer to the elected body who had to find the funds within the state budget. The 17th amendment afforded for this check and balance to no longer be there, and we end up with things being pushed through the legislature base on what the majority party wants and not what is best for the people and the states. NJCubScouter, "This is not the first time I have heard this idea in the past few months, and... and... I have typed about five different things to try to complete that sentence, and every single one of them would have sounded like a personal criticism of you, Gary. I don't mean to." Lets hear what you have to say. Criticism is good as long as it is constructive and backed with facts or a good honest personal opion. I would be more than interested in why you think this would be wrong. NJCubScouter, "I just don't know what to say when people want to give up their rights to elect holders of a particular office, which we have had for about 100 years. (Well, I personally haven't since I'm not that old, but you know what I mean.)" I'm not giving up any rights. I still have the right to select my Representative in the "House of Representatives" and the right to select my state legislature. Both of which I can hold accountable if I don't agree with their choices. I just want the balance as designed by the original constitution. NJCubScouter, "I'll also say, just in general, that the federal government certainly has no monopoly on violating peoples' rights. The history of state governments violating peoples' rights is long and varied, and to some extent it led to the federal courts and government agencies asserting more power, or using more of the power they already had, or however you wish to view it." It's call checks and balance and is the reason the judicial system is a separate branch of government. Our founding fathers was not stupid when it came to setting up the government. They had studied many of the worlds government and had experience with the good and bad of them all. That's why our government is totally different from any government in the world. NJCubScouter, "You mention the Fourth Amendment (to which the states are subject under the 14th Amendment and applicable case law), before the 1960's the states basically ignored it and allowed police to do whatever they wanted. The federal courts had to step in and say the police could not knock down your door or tap your phone except under specific circumstances -- and in no circumstances could they beat a confession out of you -- regardless of whether they are local or state police (both of which are officers of the state) or federal police." Again checks and balances the judicial systems job is to make sure that the rights afforded the people in the constitution is adhered. NJCubScouter, "On another note, it was not federal officials who stood in the schoolhouse door so little black children couldn't get in. It was federal officials who made the governors and mayors and police chiefs stand aside so those kids could go to school." Thats the job of the federal government to make sure that all the rights of the people are protected and to make corrections within the law when they are not. This is the part of the oath taken by leaders and the military that says "Defend the constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic." This would be under the domestic part. NJCubScouter, "I don't mean to over-dramatize this, but when I hear all the hand-wringing about federal government power I have to wonder whether people are looking at the whole historical picture here." I can't speak for other but I assure you I'm looking at the whole historical picture, and it that picture that lead me to my conclusion that part of the problem is the 17th Amendment. NJCubScouter, "Has the balance of power tipped too far in the direction of the federal government? Maybe. I'm not necessarily convinced of it. What I am convinced of is that there needs to be a balance." The balance is no longer there, it been given away one freedom at a time. To the point that even the Judicial Branch has began to wright legislation, instead of ensuring that the legislation passed by the legislative branch and the executive branch fall within the guidelines of the constitution. NJCubScouter, "The unrelenting attacks on the federal government from certain political circles recently do not advance the cause of balance." Those political circles are the voice of the people. The people have the responsibility to make their wishes and frustrations know to their representatives. That is how checks and balances work.

Just allowing volunteers, you know the ones in the trenches to leave feedback on the BSA Innovation Engine website would be a start. They said over a year ago they would implement volunteers being able to leave feedback, but instead did something where you can't even get on the site now to see what being proposed or read the feed back. The only way I know what being proposed is because I was able to sign up for an email to be sent before they close the site completely down to have to sign in with an employees sign on.

The Fourth amendment has to do with unreasonable searches and seizures, and the Tenth amendment has to do with states powers. Nether would be affected by an ID system that shows who a person is what their citizenship status is. Many are already giving up their fourth amendments rights anyway without even knowing they have the right to refuse a search. For instant many give the police the OK to search their possessions upon request thinking that they have to allow this just because the police asked. When in fact unless they are being arrested for a the police has no right to search their property. And the states give up their rights to the Tenth amendment when they except money from the Federal Government with strings attached. Such as the money sent down for eduction this year and other so call stimulus money. In order for the states to get their powers afforded to them by the Tenth Amendment they have to start telling the federal government to go pound sand. Also the appeal of the 17th Amendment would help get the states powers back as afforded by the Tenth Amendment.

I find this all confusing, I'll explan. First a properly ran "Cub Pack" functions just like a "Boy Scout Troop" with the exception the pack is adult ran and led. A Den in a Pack functions like a Patrol in a Troop except, with the exception the Den is adult ran and led. The very nature of a Den is to be small in size (6-8 boys)just like a patrol in a troop is small in size (6-8 boys). So with that in mind. If there is more than 6-8 boys in a den its time to split the den and form another den. The OP said splitting the den and forming another den is not a option they are going to pursue. Why not? After all is that not whats happening anyway? They seem to have enough participation from parents. Surely the ADL could become the new dens DL and a couple of parents could be recruited to be ADL's.

mn_scout, "A BSA camp that offers soda, slushies, candy bars, and other nutrionless sugar treats should also offer healthy alternatives." The trading post sales items that youth would like to purchase. It is there to make money. Just how much money do you think they would make by selling granola bars and Milk VS selling Hershey bars and soda pop. While I do feel that there should be healthy alternative to choose from, the bulk of the money for purchasing stock should go to those things that will sell. mn_scout, "The only treat I could find that was not sugarful was a bottle of flavored water - exactly like you can buy at Costco for $.33/bottle - priced at the trading post for $1.25 Soda was priced at $.75. My consistent evaluation at the end of summmer camp for the past 6 years is to mention that alternative healthy snacks would be appreciated, and repricing unhealthy items higher than healthy ones would subsidize the healthy choices. Moving soda to $1.00 and water to $1.00, for example. I'm not asking to remove the big money-makers, just include some alternatives so I can have a healthy snack and be a good role model. My wee voice crying in the wilderness, I guess." Nothing is stopping you from bringing your own snakes and treats, and last I looked water out of the tap is free. mn_scout, "I would also say there are many reasons why soda should not be part of a dining hall (or any) menu - tooth decay, stimulant, addiction, obesity - all with no reasons why it should be included. An occasional soda is not a big deal, but having it constantly available to scouts at camp is effectively approving and promoting it." I guess we could serve water at every meal and nothing else. Just think of money that the dinning hall could save. I don't think a week at summer camp has ever made a boy a soda addict. And I know its never been the case of tooth decay, or obesity. And as fare as a stimulant maybe we should stop serving coffee as well.

acco40,"I pay for medical care for folks who smoke, drink or eat themselves to poor health. Therefore, I have no issue with "big brother" regulating school lunches, nutritional labels, smoking, etc. I have no issue with doing it by "force" either - the devil is always in the details. How much force? Would it be considered child abuse to feed a three year old nothing but happy meals (with fries, not applesauce) everyday? What about four times a week? Twice a week? Once a week? Once a month? Yes, it is a slippery slope but I'm not for "no" regulation nor total bans but something in the middle I have no problem with." I choose not to give up my freedoms to anyone, let alone the government. The biggest freedom I cherish the most is the freedom of agency, being able to choose for myself and my family. While what you have mentioned above may seem like a good idea and may seem necessary to protect the cost of health care and the obesity of society. We all know that the solution to obesity is education and physical activity. Not taking ones agency away by making regulations on what one can and cannot do. Give up one freedom and "big brother" will take another one.(This message has been edited by Gary_Miller)

Rockford8070, "I've seen Pepsi vending machines at one of our council camps, it made me sick just looking at it." Whats wrong with a soda vending machine at camp? Why would you get sick just looking at it? (This message has been edited by Gary_Miller)

SeattlePioneer "I've never seen soda pop served in summer camp mess halls, have you?" I have and I don't really have a problem with it. While I think its good to promote healthy habits, its not good to do it by force. Which is starting to happen in our society. The height and weight standards recently put in place by BSA, are not an accurate measurement on ones fitness. It does not take in to consideration a doctors assessment or ones daily activity. It only uses Height and Weight in determining ones ability to participate in an activity.

I wear my full uniform to every meeting that is related to Scouting. The reason I do is I want to promote the importance of wearing the full uniform to others, especially adults leaders and units that feel its OK to just where the shirt. The uniform says "We are the Boy Scouts of America" and the proper wearing of the uniform show that one is proud to be apart of the organization and what it stands for.

Do to the goodness of our hearts we as a country have become enablers. By making assistance easy we have enabled people to in the system of handouts. If people had to give back in some way for what they receive people would not stay in the system long they would do whats needed to get out of the system as soon as possible. All the while being able to hold their head up high knowing they worked for what they received. However there is no need because they can get the something without working for it. Example: We have what we call the friendship coalition in our town. Each Tuesday they fix a meal for people in need, no questions asked if you think you need it your welcome to come. At the same time there is a pantry open where you can get food also. There is also have a garden in the summer so they can have fresh vegetables also. The point I'm making is that anyone can come and help work in the garden, fix the meals, or work in the pantry. However, I have yet to see anyone who gets a free meal or food from the pantry help out, and I've seen people reciving food talking on a cell phone, ect..

Its really unfortunate when a scout goes to NYLT and the returns to his unit all fired up only to get shot down by a SM who does not understand what a boy lead/ran troop is all about, or what it means to be an advisor. I suggest that you and your buddies who want a boy lead program get together, with out any adults around or with an adult you trust, and come up with a game plan on how to get the troop heading to a boy lead in such away that the SM has not choice but to follow. A good start is for you to develop a fool proof year plan using a troop planning calendar. Then using the PLC plan every months meetings and outings using the troop meeting planning sheet, the SPL should make sure he has one filled out for every meeting during the month before he comes to the PLC. Then things can be tweaked during the meeting with input from the PLC and SM. What ever you do don't let the SPL quit help him be prepared for the meetings. Don't get in conflicts with the SM when he changes things with out the boy leadership buy in just do as he wants at the time while continuing to make sure monthly PLC and troop meeting are conducted in a professional organized prepared manner. It will take some time but soon the SM will start supporting your plan because he will see that its solid and works and its easier to let you youth do the work. Remember what you older youth are doing right now is laying the ground work for the younger troop members to follow, if you give up and leave will just stay the same and it will be the younger troops that suffer, not the SM.

jet526, "Having set on several EBORs for LDS scouts I've come to the conclusion that there is no such thing as Varsity or Venturing in LDS units. When asked what program they are in they will answer "Boy Scouts" even though their uniform has blaze loops and the application says Crew. I met one that had earned his Varsity letter, and none that knew about the Denali Award or the Bronze/Gold/Silver or Ranger Awards for Venturing." This is a problem in many LDS units. Its seems that there is so much value placed on the Eagle award that Varsity Teams and Venturing Crew focus on Scout advancements and not the programs. In my area we have been trying to get Team and Crew Advisors to focus implementing the program. Helping them to understand that it the program that will keep the YM involved and that keeping the YM involved is more important than advancement in the end. It also hard to convince inexperience leaders that advancement will automatically happen if the program is functioning as it should.

What makes any adult leader think they have the right to ban anything that is not against the law or BSA guidelines? I use to think I had the right ban electronics and other items, all in the name of tiring to give a scout a good outdoor experience. Then I came to a realization that I nor any-other adult leader had the right to banning anything on a camp out if we wanted the respect of the young men in our charge. Took me many years and lots of hard feelings before I discover this. When I think of the relationships that could of been had I not been so stubborn and insistent that my rules be followed. Now I teach correct principles and give advice, and then let the young men govern themselves. I have found that most young men will do whats right when you give them your trust. Lead by example. If you want your boys to cook good meals then the leaders should cook outstanding meals in their own camp. Soon the boys will see what can be done and they will start to follow.

Ok I can agree with the statement "should be in a coat and tie or his uniform". I also agree that a Venture Crew can have any uniform they dream up in which case that uniform would be except-able for a Venture. And if a crew choose to have no uniform then the candidate should wear a coat and tie. So how does one define the statement, "which should be as correct as possible"?

UCEagle72, "BTW - if you read the Advancement Guide, a suit is a valid option." I must of missed that one, guess I look again. In the mean time could you please past the page and paragraph number. Thank You. This tread is of great interest to me right now. Because as the new District Advancement Chairman I plan on pushing full uniform for EBOR. Its my opion that if a young man feels he has done all that is reguired to optain the highest rank in the program, Eagle Scout, should look and act like a scout. You can't do that without a full Scout Uniform. The definition I use is the one in the Boy Scout Handbook and the insignia guide. I plan on dropping the boom at district meeting and round-table next week. I expect to hit some resistance, as this will be a change in the way things have been done in this district for several years.

GEE BADENP, HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF THE CO HAVING THE RIGHT TO USE THE PROGRAM HOW THEY SEE FIT. IT WOULD STAND TO REASON THAT A CO MIGHT HAVE TO ESTABLISH SOME GUIDELINES A LONG THE WAY. THINK OF IT AS UNIT BYLAWS. (This message has been edited by Gary_Miller)

jhankins, "We'll have to agree to disagree, Gary." You are not getting off that easy. jhankins, "I have read the new material, and believe it will be a detriment to scouting in my area." So then I guess you don't believe that the Church Leaders were inspired to make the changes they did. It's obvious that your testimony of the scouting program and the way its used in the church is weak. May I suggest getting and reading a book call "On My Honor, A Guide To Scouting In The Church. by Thane J. Packer" It can be purchased at Desert Book or from the LDS Scouting relationship web site. It give some great in site on how the Aaronic Priesthood program and the Scouting program work together in building strong young men. jhankins, "You are neglecting to mention the things that changed and were announced last month at the leadership training meeting." I don't think I neglected anything in fact I posted the text from the Handbook in relation to the scouting program. jhankins, "The way registration works is going to change." How so? jhankins, "Stake troops can now come back. Wards can now choose to register with other wards and combine program should they feel the need." It's not should they feel the need, it's if it,s necessary due to low numbers of boys in wards. And it's not just something Bishops can do, they must have approval of the Stake President. jhankins, "But the heavy restrictions on fund raising are penalizing troops who are part of a community and actually lead scouting in the community, not just for their church boys (as the LDS church says their church should work)." I don't see how this will should have any effect on units and their relationship with the community. jhankins, "One fund raiser for camp? So if the boy can't raise the money, the ward budget is gone, and they've had their one fund raiser, that's it? The boy can't go?" I think its important to remember what the funding guidelines say, and then understand what the intent of the Budget program, which is to fund all activities out of the Budget. I have yet to have a need to conduct a fund raiser if the budget guidelines are followed. It seems that given enough notice that the boy and his parents are able to come up with the funds for summer camp, and for those families that are having trouble the funds just seem to show up. From the handbook. "8.13.7 Funding for Activities Funding for Aaronic Priesthood activities, including Scouting activities where they are authorized by the Church, should come from the ward budget (see 13.2.8). Funding for an Annual Camp or Similar Activity If the ward budget does not have sufficient funds to pay for an annual extended Scout camp or similar activity for young men, leaders may ask participants to pay for part or all of it. If funds from participants are not sufficient, the bishop may authorize one group fund-raising activity annually that complies with the guidelines in 13.6.8. In no case should the expenses or travel for an annual camp or similar activity be excessive. Nor should the lack of personal funds prohibit a member from participating." Its been my experience that if leaders adhere to the budget guidelines their is plenty of funds available to fund all the activities. The problems I have seen is leaders not putting the funds where they need to be. This is especially true at the stake level, were the guideline is for most activities to be done at the ward level. What I have seen is Stake Leaders holding large amounts of money back from the wards. In order to fund such activities as Aaronic Priesthood camp, or other large activities that take large amounts of money. Or not funneling more money to wards that have a large population of youth, versus wards that may have more elderly people. I have also see funds being returned back to Church Headquarters at the end of the year because wards did not use all their money. When this money could of been used to fund much need supplies or equipment by other wards.

NJCubScouter, its a specific publication used by the leaders of the LDS church in administrating the various programs of the church, in order two maintain continuity in the way "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS)" administrates the churches programs. There are two handbooks They are usually refereed to as the handbook of instructions. Handbook 1: Stake Presidents and Bishops and Handbook 2: Administering the Church. Handbook 1 contains those matters administered by stake presidents, mission presidents, district presidents, bishops, and branch presidents. Handbook 2, titled Administering the Church, contains all of the chapters necessary to administer the Church in the bishoprics, branch presidencies, quorums, and auxiliary organizations in the wards and branches. There is also a separate handbook call "Scouting" which is used to help church leaders implement and conduct the scouting program in the LDS church. The following statement from the LDS church President states why its important for church leaders to have and use these handbooks. "In July this year, 2010, the membership of the Church passed 14 million. Our membership has been increasing since the Church was organized in 1830. And it will continue to grow, with thousands of units throughout the world. It would be nearly impossible to maintain the integrity of the policies, procedures, and programs of the Church without these handbooks, which are available to Church leaders everywhere in all the languages which you represent. They will be an invaluable resource to you. Theyve been read and reread, corrected and reread."(Thomas S. Monson, President of The Church of Jesus Christ Of Latter-day Saints) The handbooks that have been refereed to in the above posts is Handbook #2 and the Scouting handbook. These handbooks are for the use by the adult leaders in administrating the programs in the church.(This message has been edited by Gary_Miller)

jhankins, "There are SO many changes in the new handbook. But the new handbook still works together with the old, so you have to reference both to get a clear picture." The revised Handbook 2: Administering the Church, replaced the old Handbook 2: Administering the Church. They do not work together and there is no need to reference them both to get clear picture. jhankins, "Some of the new changes don't make sense, of course. It's still up to the Bishop to decide what's best for his youth and the youth he serves." I have not yet found any of the changes that don't make sense. I have found some places where the guidance has changed on the way a program is to be done. The handbook is a principle-based approach that allows for adaptation as needed. While the Bishop has stewardship over his ward he still is required to stay with in the policies and guidelines in the handbooks.

Hold up guys before you go changing your programs. The revised Handbook 2: Administering the Church did not change the way scouting is being administered in the church. The scouting program is still using the Churchs Scouting Handbook, Published in 1997. From the revised Handbook 2: Administering the Church, under the section 8, Aaronic Priesthood. The handbook is available for anyone interested at www.LDS.org. "8.13.4 Scouting Where Scouting is authorized by the Church, quorums may participate in Scouting activities during Mutual. Scouting should help young men put into practice the gospel principles they learn on Sunday. Each member of the bishopric oversees the Scouting program for the Aaronic Priesthood quorum he oversees. Members of the ward Young Men presidency generally serve as Scout leaders. Or the bishopric may call assistant quorum advisers as Scout leaders, with members of the Young Men presidency called to serve as assistant Scout leaders. In each quorum, the bishop usually appoints the quorum president or one of his assistants in the priests quorum to serve as the youth leader of the Scouting program. However, he may appoint other young men as youth Scout leaders. Where Scouting is authorized by the Church, young men ages 12 to 15 should be registered. Young men ages 16 and 17 should be registered if they are pursuing rank advancements or if the stake president or bishop chooses to sponsor Scouting programs for young men of this age. All adult Scout leaders should register before they begin their service and should receive proper training in their responsibilities. In the United States, registered adult leaders receive liability protection from the Boy Scouts of America. The Church pays all or part of the fees for registering young men and adult leaders in Scouting. The Church also pays for unit chartering. Registration and chartering expenses are paid from the stake general checking account. The Church provides these funds in addition to the budget allowance. The bishopric organizes a ward Scout committee to ensure that Scouting functions properly as a supporting activity for Aaronic Priesthood quorums. Where there are few young men, a Scout troop may be organized to serve multiple wards and branches or, in some instances, an entire stake or district. For information about financing Scouting, see 8.13.7. For additional information about Scouting, see the Churchs Scouting Handbook."

Kamakamelian, "- and the new COR wants what's best for the good of the troop." Whats best for the troop is to ensure the program is focused on being boy lead/run. As the new CC you should ensure that all leaders understand that your primary concern is the boys and non-other. Make sure that your committee focus is on helping the SM deliver the program to the boys, by supporting him and providing him the tools and material to accomplish the mission. Kamakamelian, "One of the two adults who has been the biggest jerks in the troop has been on the committee for what seems like eons." As the new CC I would approach this individual privately. Let him know that you value him as a member of the committee. Then I would let him know that your focus is on the Boys and their program. Share with him your vision on how to get the committee focused on the mission of the program and the goals of the CO. Then ask him if he can support you as the CC to accomplish the mission. If he says no then ask him to step down from the committee, or have him removed by the COR. Kamakamelian, "He has kept the committee from holding regular meetings for quite some time because either nobody will vote the way he wants them to or he doesn't show up. There are few active adults left in the troop - SM, 2 or 3 AS, CC & 1 or 2 MC - and they have all said they want the change to occur." Establish a time and place for committee meetings. Make sure its held at the same time each month. Stay away from the same day the troop meets, so the SM and ASM can attend. Make sure everyone understands that buisness will be conducted on everyone having a chance to have their say in the discussion after which there will be a vote if need be and the outcome will be based on the majority vote. Make sure everyone understands that there will be a meeting held and buisness will be conducted no matter how many people are there. If you want say then you better be to the meeting.

GernBlansten, "Also, it is a federal thing. We are citizens of the US of A. Free to move about the country." But we are residents of our state therefore the state should issue the ID. GernBlansten, "How am I supposed to know if an Idaho ID card is authentic when I question your citizenship or identity." How do you know my drivers license is authentic? You don't however its currently excepted as identification for everything you may need ID for. It Identifies me as the person on the card do to my picture nothing else. GernBlansten, "If we need to carry ID, I'd prefer it be a federal one." I prefer that the federal government get back to their responsibilities as set forth by the US Constitution and give the states back their sovereignty. packsaddle, "Edit: Gary, if the federal government mandates standards (i.e. airport security measures, immigration, etc.), then why should the states have to pay for it?" Every mandate that comes down from the federal level should have the money and man power to deliver. However, until the states government stop taking handouts from the federal government the federal government will continue to mandate programs without funding them. State governments need to tell the federal government to go pound sand. Of course none of this would of happen if the senate was elected by the state congress as was written in the original constitution before the 17 amendment took place weakening the state governments and taking away the states representation in Washington. Which in turn weaken the checks and balances put in place by our founding fathers.

BadenP, "Yea Gary I think you lost that argument already in another thread. LDS does not only tweak the program they give advancement even when it is not legitmately earned by the BSA requirements." Well BadenP, it seems that we will just have to agree to disagree on this subject. Do to the fact that your prejudice towards LDS units make it so that you are not able to read for the purpose of understanding, or just don't care to.(This message has been edited by Gary_Miller)

The only problem I have with Federal ID cards is I have a problem with anything done at the federal level that should be done at the state level. And there are already items issued at the state level that can and is used as ID, drivers license is the biggest. The only ID that should be issued at the federal level are ID's required due to federal necessity. Some examples would be military, fed police, and legal alien cards (know as green cards).