Posted on 10/16/2006 9:59:39 AM PDT by RB2
BOY SCOUTS COMMENTS ON SUPREME COURT DECLINING TO HEAR SEA SCOUTS CASE
Irving, TX / October 16, 2006 — Boy Scouts of America is disappointed that the United States Supreme Court has declined to hear an appeal of a California Supreme Court decision affecting Sea Scouts in the City of Berkeley.
In 1998, the City of Berkeley sought to punish the Sea Scouts by revoking their free use of berth space unless Boy Scouts of America changed its constitutionally-protected membership policies. In March of this year, the California Supreme Court rejected the Sea Scouts’ First Amendment challenge to the City’s exclusion, concluding that the Sea Scouts, unlike others, may exercise their constitutional rights only by paying the full price of berthing in the marina.
Boy Scouts of America was not a party to the case but filed a friend of the court brief supporting the Sea Scouts. George A. Davidson, attorney for Boy Scouts of America, stated that “The issue of governments seeking to punish organizations for exercising their First Amendment rights is a recurring one. There will be other opportunities for the Supreme Court to affirm First Amendment protections for organizations dealing with government agencies. Boy Scouts will continue to be active in bringing to the attention of the Court opportunities to provide needed guidance to lower courts on this important issue.”
For more information on this case and other legal issues affecting Boy Scouts, visit www.BSALEGAL.ORG
I don't understand why they thought they had a constitutional right to a free berth.
Who pays for the berths?
How many FREE Berths are there in California. Are you reading this Governor Arnold?
I remember reading it on another thread that in return for some services provided [?- could be for some other reason] their lease was stating "rent free in perpetuity". Thus it appears to be a contract law dispute, not the constitutional one.
"I don't understand why they thought they had a constitutional right to a free berth."
That is not the point. The city gave it to them. They had an agreement. The city reversed that agreement to punish the Sea Scouts because of there ties to the Boy Scouts. And Berkley wants to make sure Pedophiles are allowed to be scout masters so they can molest young boys.
I don't understand why the city feels it MUST PUNISH those that do not agree with it. THAT is the point.
It's been posted on FR that the Boy Scouts had donated the rock used to construct the whole facility many years ago, in exchange for a free berth.
I have no idea if that's accurate or not, but if true, it puts the situation in a new light.
Fletcher J
Then it is a contract law issue, not a constitutional issue. If they have a case on those grounds they need to pursue it.
My guess is they don't think they do.
So I guess it' ok for Foley to be a scoutmaster...Im SOOOOO CONFUSED.... ;>
Quote from the article:
"lp. In 1998, the City of Berkeley sought to punish the Sea Scouts by revoking their free use of berth space unless Boy Scouts of America changed its constitutionally-protected membership policies,---" (and allows homosexual perverts and the Godless into their ranks) parenthesis mine."
Sounds like a constituional issue to me. It says to the Boyscouts: 'drop you Consitutionally protected bylaws and we'll reintstate your contract for a free berth'.
Once again the left succeeded in pushing forward a challenge that has resulted in aborting a berth!
lol
The Supremes are cowards. They don't want to actually decide the case against the Boy Scouts and hear the scorn and abuse they might get from the "little people." They also "declined" to hear the "act like a muslim for 3 weeks" public school curriculum. Don't want the masses to get uppity.
They're Liberals. If you don't agree with them, they'll silence, punnish, or kill you -- but purely out of tolerance, peace, and love.
Because as long as Berkeley is giving free berths to other similar non-profit orgs, it can't treat the Scouts differently.
Here's how it works. It is okay for the BSA to use gay scoutmasters. It is not okay for the Catholic Church to have gay priests. It is okay for a Democrat to have an actual sexual relationship with a youth but it is not okay for a Republican to send suggestive e mails to a young adult. It is okay for the gov't to renege on agreements to the BSA but it is not okay for the gov't to withhold tax money for offensive religious art.
I think that about covers it.
Except a basic tenant of constitutional law (particularly in the Supreme Court of the United States) is that the court should not decide constitutional issues if it can resolve the case on non-constitutonal grounds. So (and I speculate here) if there is a contractual basis for terminating the relationship, then the constitutional issues are irrelevant.
But gay Scoutmaster's taking large groups of 12 to 13 years old boy in the wood on overnight camping trips to show them there pup-tent is to be social progress required by law ?
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.