Talent joins locals for pro-Pledge rally

[wyomingi]

All politicians should be required to complete the Citizenship in the Nation Merit Badge before taking office. Requirement 7 would help some of them.

 

"Name the three branches of our federal government and explain to your counselor their functions. Explain how citizens are involved in each branch. For each branch of government, explain the importance of the system of checks and balances."

 

[CalicoPenn]

LisaBob,

 

Thanks for the clarification - I knew that Congress couldn't remove original jurisdiction without amending the constitution but the way the article reads, it seemed that Congress could make an exception on appellate matters and give SCOTUS original jurisdiction. I read the decision of Marbury v. Madison after you pointed it out (man, I just love the internet) and thought it interesting that the court called the sentences we're talking about superfluous, or as I interpret that, as meaningless fluff not to be taken seriously. Is that how you see that?

 

But more to the point - when I first read the article, my first thought was "Election Year, Anyone??"

 

CalicoPenn

[CalicoPenn]

LisaBob,

 

Thanks for the clarification - I knew that Congress couldn't remove original jurisdiction without amending the constitution but the way the article reads, it seemed that Congress could make an exception on appellate matters and give SCOTUS original jurisdiction. I read the decision of Marbury v. Madison after you pointed it out (man, I just love the internet) and thought it interesting that the court called the sentences we're talking about superfluous, or as I interpret that, as meaningless fluff not to be taken seriously. Is that how you see that?

 

But more to the point - when I first read the article, my first thought was "Election Year, Anyone??"

 

CalicoPenn

[CalicoPenn]

LisaBob,

 

Thanks for the clarification - I knew that Congress couldn't remove original jurisdiction without amending the constitution but the way the article reads, it seemed that Congress could make an exception on appellate matters and give SCOTUS original jurisdiction. I read the decision of Marbury v. Madison after you pointed it out (man, I just love the internet) and thought it interesting that the court called the sentences we're talking about superfluous, or as I interpret that, as meaningless fluff not to be taken seriously. Is that how you see that?

 

But more to the point - when I first read the article, my first thought was "Election Year, Anyone??"

 

CalicoPenn

[GernBlansten]

Calico, your hiccups are getting worse. I suggest drinking an entire tall glass of water without stopping then holding your breath for 1 minute.

[Lisabob]

Hey Calico, I had that same thought about electioneering so I checked. Talent won't be up for re-election until 2008. But I guess he could be either a) positioning himself early or b) trying to help his fellow party members who are facing re-election in 2006 by staging a vote that they can use for obvious political purposes. Or maybe both.

 

Lisa'bob

[fgoodwin]

So, would anyone like to venture a opinion as to what the provision that I quoted means?

[Prairie_Scouter]

It's a shame that Scouts were used as display pieces for this effort. It may be well-meaning, I suppose, but it looks more like a bit of political gamesmanship to me. BSA itself has been played as a pawn of the conservatives (my opinion) for some time, but this is usually the adults, and the Scouts are left out of the mix.

[scoutingagain]

fgoodwin, sorry can't answer your question.

 

WRT the scouts participating in this event, I don't think this was appropriate. The BSA is a youth organization and not a political organization. Participation as a unit or in uniform in events such as this, regardless of how one feels about a particular issue, has the potential to politicize the organization. In fact I don't think it was appropriate for the BSA to participate in the infamous Democratic convention either.

 

However I am heartened that this Senator has taken such a courageous stand on such a controversial issue. By comming out in support of the Pledge of Alligiance, we can rest assured congress won't be distracted with less important matters such as the war and whether or not the scouts present will need to serve in Iraq 3,4 or 5 years from now or if they will have 50% of their incomes taxed to pay for the deficit currently being rung up or support their scoutmasters in retirement.

 

 

 

SA

 

 

[CalicoPenn]

Thanks for the advice Gern - I had to add standing on my head to get it to work - LOL

 

Calico

[CalicoPenn]

fgoodwin,

 

I had stated that my opinion of that provision was that Congress could give the Supreme Court original jurisdiction over something listed as something they have appellate jurisdiction and that Congress could make regulations on how the courts would operate but couldn't restrict them on what they could rule on.

 

Lisa'bob pointed out the Marbury vs. Madison ruling in which the Supreme Court ruled that Congress could not change jurisdiction or make restrictions without passing a constitutional amendment, and that also states (and I'm sure that someone will correct me if I'm mistaken) that basically everything in the sentence you ask about after the words "both as to law and fact" is superfluous which I interpret to mean the words following are needless chaff that don't amount to a hill of beans.

 

CalicoPenn

[fgoodwin]

CP: thanx

[John-in-KC]

Many comments here:

 

For all: The Pledge of Allegiance is actually the weakest of the five Oaths or pledges available to Nationals and Citizens of the United States. The other oaths are:

 

The Oath of Office of the President of the United States ... the ONLY one in the Constitution.

 

The Oath of Office for Officers of the United States ... in the Armed Forces, in the Congress, in the Courts, and in the Civil Service. "I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States, against all enemies foreign and domestic, that I take this obligation freely, without mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter SO HELP ME GOD."

 

The Oath of Enlistment for Soldiers of the Armed Forces, which unlike the officers oath, also binds them to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

 

The Oath of Naturalization.

 

Only then do we get down to the Pledge of Allegiance.

 

I tend to drop requests for a constitutional amendment on the Pledge in my spam box for just that reason: It's weak and wimpy.

 

For Wyomingi: Yup. Gotta agree with you. BTW, that same task should also apply to a plethora of radio commentators, from Franken to Hannity (the final motion in setting deflection on an artillery piece is ALWAYS to the RIGHT!)

 

For LisaBob and John Daigler: I would hope that my dear junior senator from the great state of Missouri took time to talk to the Scouts in a small group! Young men listen, and it hits home with them! I do know that I would gladly line up my Crew and Troop in uniforms to meet the Honorable Mr Graves (R-6th, MO), Eagle Scout and Runner in the Tribe of Mic-O-Say, and the Honorable Mr. Skelton (D-4th, MO)(Eagle Scout and Sagamore in the Tribe of Mic-O-Say). These men have both shown their dedication to Scouting as well as the Nation!

 

John

A Good Old Owl Too

 

 

 

 

[Lisabob]

John,

 

I agree completely that scouts should take every available opportunity to meet and talk with elected officials. I'd have no problem at all with any Senator (or Representative, state, local gov't leaders, etc.) visiting any scout group.

 

I do have a problem with using scouts as political pawns in one's partisan games though, and from the sounds of it, that's what happened here. No politician should ask scouts to be part of a rally for or against a political issue, and no scout unit should attempt to do so IN UNIFORM. To do otherwise lends credence to the suspicion that scouting is just a front for a particular political view, and that's wrong.

 

Lisa'bob

[SoDakScouter]

FG:

 

Sorry it has taken time to get back to you on your provision that you quoted.

 

Congress has limited Federal Habeas Corpus Proceedings, especially in Capital Cases. Congress can direct the process of where claims or proceedings start. Because of Marbury v. Madison Congress has been limited in what it can do, but they are able to do somethings.