ACLU attempt to Block Jamboo from Military Base

[LongHaul]

TO: Selected Scouters

 FROM: James D. Stone(SE Chicago Area Council)

 DATE: March 29, 2006 Next week a hearing will be held on the lawsuit by the ACLU regarding blocking National Jamborees from being held on U.S. Military bases. If you would like to participate in a media briefing on Wednesday, April 5, 2006 at 1:00 p.m., please note the announcement below. Also, Scouters may desire to attend the hearing on Thursday, April 6, 2006 at 9:30 a.m. at the U.S. Court House located at 219 S. Dearborn Street, Chicago. The case is Winkler vs. Rumsfeld.

Maureen F. EfnerExecutive Assistant Chicago Area Council Boy Scouts of America 1218 W. Adams Street Chicago, IL 60607-2802 (312) 421-8800, ext. 203 (312) 421-4726 (Fax) mefner@bsamail.org

Will the ACLU kill the Boy Scout Jamboree? An invitation to a briefing on an important First Amendment appeal taking place in federal court in Chicago next week What: Media briefing about the ACLUb s lawsuit to block military support of the National Boy Scout Jamboree

 When: Wednesday, April 5 at 1 p.m. CST

 Where: Wildman Harrold 225 W. Wacker Drive, 30th Floor Chicago, IL 60606

 Who: George A. Davidson Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP National Counsel, Boy Scouts of America as amicus curiae William H. Hurd Troutman Sanders LLP Representing the Commonwealth of Virginia as amicus curiae Harold Johnson Pacific Legal Foundation as amicus curiae

 Background: In 2005, a federal district court in Chicago sided with the ACLU and ruled that the militaryb s support for the National Scout Jamboree b held once every four years at Fort A.P. Hill in Fredericksburg, Virginia  is unconstitutional. The case is Winkler v. Rumsfeld, No. 05-3451 (7th Cir.). The ACLU's claim is that the Scout Oath's  duty to God makes the Boy Scouts a religious organization, like a church, and that military support for the Jamboree violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. If the ruling stands, the military may not lend equipment or provide logistical support to the Jamboree, as it does for many other civic organizations. The Department of Defense appealed this decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago. Oral arguments are now scheduled for Thursday, April 6 at 9:30 a.m. CST.

 For more info: Visit http://www.bsalegal.org/ There you will find background on the case including a podcast on the upcoming appeal and copies of the various legal briefs. Source: Boy Scouts of America Media Contact/RSVP: Bob Bork Media Adviser to Boy Scouts of America (703) 821-8008 office (202) 997-1317 mobile rbork@bork.com

[SR540Beaver]

It will never happen. Eventually, it might end up at the Supreme Court who will allow it to continue. Just my two cents.

[nldscout]

It will be years before this is finally deceided. That said, in order to make Jambo fair to all, lets move it to the west coast, say maybe Alaska? I always wanted an excuse to go hunting in Alaska!!

[Trevorum]

For one, I wouldn't mind going back to Farragut State Park in Idaho. The summer climate in Virginia is miserable for camping.

[LongHaul]

I loved Valley Forge but Farragut State Park was better.

[SR540Beaver]

The Jambo infrastructure at AP Hill is great. The heat and humidity however is miserable with a capital M. I vote that we move it to a military base in Colorado. It is a nice central location and better climate. Of course, you can't tour DC.

[Kahuna]

Farragut is a beautiful spot and a facility just right for a jamboree, but all that dust! 1/2 inch of topsoil over rock and 35,000 pairs of boots wear off the grass in the first hour.

 

I think we should think about the Parker Ranch over on the Big Island of Hawai'i. Perfect temperature, little rain in summer, trip of a lifetime.

[scoutldr]

I've lived in Virginia for all of my 52 years. The weather's just fine, thanks. And it's predictable. As I've said before, i wouldn't take my troop winter camping in Michigan without proper training and equipment. I don't expect troops to come here without the same aforethought and preparation. It's hot and humid EVERY summer...always has been since the Jamestown settlers landed 399 years ago...so it should not be surprise to anyone, least of all the Jambo planners. At least we didn't have a CAT 4 hurricane...this time.

 

Be Prepared!

[SR540Beaver]

scoutldr,

 

It wasn't unexpected and we were prepared. They ran up the red flag most afternoons, shut down all activities and we sat in the shade and drank water. It only cost us $1900 for that adventure.

[Trevorum]

scoutldr,

Even the Jamestown settlers knew the summer climate in Virginia is miserable! Yes, predictably miserable. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't want to host a summer Jamboree here in Texas either, and for the same reason. My point is that given the choice, I'd much rather spend a week of my summer camping in the Rocky Mountains.

[Eamonn]

My geographical knowledge of the USA isn't good enough for me to have much input as to where it should or could be moved to.

I was at Moraine and it was a mud bath.

I don't know if the BSA is going to win in court?

I'm not even sure if we should?

Sure I hope we do, but I'd need to read the pros and cons.

So far from what I have read it seems to be a win, win situation, the army (DoD) likes us being there and seems to use it as a training and we like being there. But I'm sure there are other arguments out there as to why we ought not be there.

Eamonn.

[LongHaul]

I've been all over he U.S. in a scout uniform and would like to see the Jamboree back on the road. A "pro" part of using A.P. Hill is that we know today where the next Jambo will be held. We can develope itineraries, and travel options. There is equiptment which is stored at A.P. Hill, some of which was not discovered until it came time to pack up and it was realized that the stuff being sought was in fact in the third trailer from the left which everyone thought someone had looked in but that's a hourse of a different color. The issue here is legality, Is it legal for BSA to use this facility. What I would like to see happen is that the SCOTUS revisit the Bill of Rights issue and return States rights to the States. Allow people of similar views to live together and share those views. If a community wants to display religious symblos on public buildings find, you don't like it move. Eventually we will group according to common views. We used to have the phrase "melting pot" where the concept was that people would embrace common views and become Americans. Now we have the phrase "salad bowl" where each individual element retains it's original uniquness and we become X-Americans. If we are going to remain seperate then let's allow seperation. This will never happen because it would relinquish central control by the Federal Government.

LongHaul

[GernBlansten]

Interesting perspective LongHaul.

 

Would your utopia of states rights also allow states to say that black people cannot live there (or alternatively, only over there)? Or homosexuals? Or invalids? or Non-Christians?

 

What would be the purpose of the US Constitution if each state can operate as its sovereign nation? The US Constitution provides all Americans with certain rights and protections that cannot be infringed on by the states. Currently, states rights or local laws cannot supercede the protections of the Constitution.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

LongHaul writes:

The issue here is legality, Is it legal for BSA to use this facility.

 

Once again, the issue isn't "use", it's government support. If AP Hill was open to everyone on equal terms, and the BSA was just one organization that used it, that would be constitutional. What was struck down was legislation authorizing government support of only the BSA jamboree, and several million dollars a year was spent by the government to support it.

 

What I would like to see happen is that the SCOTUS revisit the Bill of Rights issue and return States rights to the States. Allow people of similar views to live together and share those views. If a community wants to display religious symblos on public buildings find, you don't like it move.

 

Including having state taxes support a specific state church? That was the case in the US up to 1832, and it presumably was constitutional until the 14th amendment was passed after the civil war. There are a few countries in the Middle East trying to decide what their official state religion will be, but instead of moving, dissenters seem to be blowing up people. What makes you think people wouldn't react similarly here?

 

[LongHaul]

GernBlansten,

Would your utopia of states rights also allow states to say that black people cannot live there (or alternatively, only over there)? Or homosexuals? Or invalids? or Non-Christians?

     Actually Yes, personally that is exactly what I think the writers of the Constitution intended. Connecticut had a State Established Religion until 1818. In 1818 the State of Connecticut drafted a State Constitution which dropped the state religion, their choice. It was the SCOTUS interpretation of the 14th Amendment which took that right away from the States not the Constitution itself. What the Constitution says is that "Congress" shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; Congress does not say that religious symbols can not be displayed on public buildings nor does the Constitution itself say that, the SCOTUS says that it is according to how it (SCOTUS) interprets the 14th. Amendment to the Constitution. The drafters of the Constitution were very clear on States rights and clearly said that any power not expressly given Congress shall be reserved to the States. It has Articles defining what rights are denied the States and Denied Congress. The fact that the whole document can be reapplied by the SCOTUS is why discussion of Supreme Court appointments is so important. If the SCOTUS over turned Roe v Wade it would not change what the Constitution actually says only how it is applied.

What would be the purpose of the US Constitution if each state can operate as its sovereign nation? The US Constitution provides all Americans with certain rights and protections that cannot be infringed on by the states. Currently, states rights or local laws cannot supersede the protections of the Constitution.

States rights do not constitute sovereign nation status the Constitution is clear on that. The rights the Constitution provides each citizen are always subject to the current SCOTUS which means the document itself guarantees little.

 Getting back to the first section, do I think that a state should be able to declare itself White, AngloSaxon, and Protestant yes. If you aint you cant live here. Do I think that there will EVER be a time that enough people with that view are able to mass together to form a body large enough to petition statehood? No. Most of us are not that bigoted and would not want to live with people who were. Do I think that a Community of Amish should be able to outlaw motor vehicles and Flashy dress yes. You aint in Black then dont even think about stopping for more than gas or directions. Wait ! are there gas stations in all Amish communities? If a group of Orthodox Jews wanted all work to be stopped from sundown to sunrise on a particular day of the week then fine. There is a suburb of Chicago called South Holland, big surprise it was originally a group of Dutch. No business was conducted on Sunday, none, not even gas stations or fast food. Its what the people wanted. It got over ruled eventually because someone wanted to live in this peaceful community and change it. If the state of SD wants to outlaw abortion fine, if the state of Illinois wants to outlaw death penalty fine, if the state of Texas wants to allow the execution of mentally handicapped criminals that should be up to the citizens of the state of Texas not Rhode Island.

     What I do personally and how I choose live my life does not dictate how others should be forced to live theirs. I should respect their views as I would have them respect mine. 

 LongHaul