Berkely to treat Military recruit-stations like Pornstores

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by David Floyd
The reason Berkeley is not allowed to subject recruitment centers to zoning requirements is very simple. As has been pointed out McCulloch vs. Maryland, decided in the early 1800s (1803? something like that) when the US was still VERY pro-states rights, maintains that a state cannot tax an agency of the federal government. The logic that applies to that decision is EXACTLY THE SAME as the logic that applies to zoning requirements for federal institutions. As Imran pointed out, the power to zone is the power to destroy. What he means is that, if Berkeley can subject recruitment centers to the most restrictive zoning imaginable (porn zoning), then what's to say they can't create even MORE restrictive zoning, and say that military recruiting is only allowed in a 50 square foot area in the middle of a lake? Do you think Berkeley could do that, if they wanted to? And if so, wouldn't that be an infringement by Berkeley on the power of the federal government to raise and support an army?

There are a couple of possibilities here. Either you disagree with the decision in McCulloch vs. Maryland, you don't believe that recruitment is "necessary and proper" to raising and supporting an army, or you believe that somehow a local government has certain powers against the federal government that the state government does not have - simple put, Supremacy applies to the states but not to cities.

So which one is it?

I'm sorry I didn't know that Imran was making such a ridiculous argument. "The power to zone is the power to destroy." So you are both saying that the city of Berkeley can prevent the US govt from raising an army by their zoning power? Wow that is truly incredible.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Patroklos
What you don't know Kid is that your son wants to join himself, and you are violating his civil rights by not affording him the opportunity.

You actually said something stupider than everything that you have said in this whole thread. If you need to recruit at my sons school then he doesn't really want to join your military, now does he. If he wanted to it wouldn't matter if your office was on the other side of town.

The only difference is the terms of the conract, fully known ahead of time. Thats it.

Bull****! You sign away your rights in that contract. That's a different type of contract than you sign when you buy a car.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Kid,



There are a couple of possibilities here. Either you disagree with the decision in McCulloch vs. Maryland, you don't believe that recruitment is "necessary and proper" to raising and supporting an army, or you believe that somehow a local government has certain powers against the federal government that the state government does not have - simple put, Supremacy applies to the states but not to cities.

So which one is it?

I am curious as to what answer kid can give to this. Let me guess---- its the hidden 4th option that you have some greater understanding of the world and the law shouldn't apply if kidicious happens to agree with the action ???

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber
Kid

I want to thank you for an amusing diversion

Oh and kid we know you are a hypocrit. IF any branch of government tried to zone away a communist meeting place you would be harping on about fascist oppression, civil rights etc.

Honestly Kid . .. IF a city tried to zone things such that any political group espousing any leftist philosophy was zoned differently than other groups that do political commentary wouldn't you have an issue.

You don't like the military-- we get that. But that doesn't mean you can just ban things you don't like.

I have a right to have a political party. You don't have the right to recruit at my child's school that is across the friggin country. How ****ing hard is that to grasp? It's two things that are completely and significantly different. If you don't understand that you don't understand about freedom and rights at all.

[Kidlicious]

Flubber,

Look. The porn store has a better argument for rights to exist at a certain spot in the city. The government does not. The porn store has rights. Do you understand that?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber



I am curious as to what answer kid can give to this. Let me guess---- its the hidden 4th option that you have some greater understanding of the world and the law shouldn't apply if kidicious happens to agree with the action ???

As I've already stating and is quite obvious, the military would not be prevented from recruiting.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


I'm sorry I didn't know that Imran was making such a ridiculous argument. "The power to zone is the power to destroy." So you are both saying that the city of Berkeley can prevent the US govt from raising an army by their zoning power? Wow that is truly incredible.

Well imagine that every municipality in California created zoning that completely banned recruiting centres from within their limits. Doncha think that might impinge on the ability to raise an army just a tad??

Do you actually think a municipality has unrestricted right to zone without regard to human rights, state and federal laws?

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious




I have a right to have a political party. You don't have the right to recruit at my child's school that is across the friggin country. How ****ing hard is that to grasp? It's two things that are completely and significantly different. If you don't understand that you don't understand about freedom and rights at all.

Why don't I have a right to obtain information about the US military at a recruiting centre? It seems that my right to obtain such information is equal to my right to obtain porn at a porn shop or a copy of "Commies 4EVER" at my local commie office.

Then military people have rights-- Are you saying a military recruiter doesn't have rights and that you can dictate the location of his legal work?Could (on your view) a municipality tell a recruiter he cannot work within the city limits for example??


I don't concern myself for the federal government's 'rights"-- If Berkley bothered them one iota they could pass a law that said " Notwithstanding any state or municipal statute or regulation to the contrary" and then go on to say that Military Recruiting offices can go in any commercial area or whatever other rule they want to set out. So I don't worry about their rights.

But if a US person wants to gather with pro-military people for the purpose of discussing careers in the US military and you ban that activity-- I worry about tehir rights


How ****ing hard is that for YOU to grasp??

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Kidicious
... So you are both saying that the city of Berkeley can prevent the US govt from raising an army by their zoning power? Wow that is truly incredible.

They are both saying Berkeley CANNOT prevent the U.S. government from raising an army by their zoning power.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber
Well imagine that every municipality in California created zoning that completely banned recruiting centres from within their limits. Doncha think that might impinge on the ability to raise an army just a tad??

Imagine that fairies have wings. Who the **** cares? That's not true. And if every city in California wanted to ban all recruiting centers in the whole state I guess we might as well break away from the union. But that's not the case either so why are you talking about that as if it's close to reality?

Do you actually think a municipality has unrestricted right to zone without regard to human rights, state and federal laws?

Nope. I have no idea why you think that I do. I guess you are just very confused.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber



Why don't I have a right to obtain information about the US military at a recruiting centre? It seems that my right to obtain such information is equal to my right to obtain porn at a porn shop or a copy of "Commies 4EVER" at my local commie office.

Then military people have rights-- Are you saying a military recruiter doesn't have rights and that you can dictate the location of his legal work?Could (on your view) a municipality tell a recruiter he cannot work within the city limits for example??


I don't concern myself for the federal government's 'rights"-- If Berkley bothered them one iota they could pass a law that said " Notwithstanding any state or municipal statute or regulation to the contrary" and then go on to say that Military Recruiting offices can go in any commercial area or whatever other rule they want to set out. So I don't worry about their rights.

But if a US person wants to gather with pro-military people for the purpose of discussing careers in the US military and you ban that activity-- I worry about tehir rights


How ****ing hard is that for YOU to grasp??

Seriously, it's very painfull to try to figure out what is going on in your head. Let me ask you this. Would you rather have the right to join any political party or have the right to force a community other than your own to allow military recruiters to set up shop next to high schools? If you have to choose which one would you choose. Hell, you will probably still not get it. All I can say is one of us suffers from mental illness. You will just say that I'm arrogant or hypocritical for saying that, but seriously you should really agree that one of us has to be crazy.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


They are both saying Berkeley CANNOT prevent the U.S. government from raising an army by their zoning power.

Even if this law passes.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Kidicious

Imagine that fairies have wings. Who the **** cares? That's not true. And if every city in California wanted to ban all recruiting centers in the whole state I guess we might as well break away from the union. But that's not the case either so why are you talking about that as if it's close to reality?
.

Imagine this, then. Imagine the army wants to build a fortress on the commanidng heights overlooking the main road into a city. But the city wants to zone it for condos in order to increase its property tax. Who wins?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


Imagine this, then. Imagine the army wants to build a fortress on the commanidng heights overlooking the main road into a city. But the city wants to zone it for condos in order to increase its property tax. Who wins?

That is different because that is necessary for the military to function. It is not necessary for the military to have their recruiting offices next to high schools however. That's how the law is written. "necessary and proper"

[Zkribbler]

You don't need the Necessary & Proper Clause of the Constituion because Art. I, § 8 specifically gives Congress the power: To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years; To provide and maintain a navy...