Berkely to treat Military recruit-stations like Pornstores

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Already addressed by Imran. I'll just add that the Supreme Court of Marshall was much less "political" than the Supreme Court of the past 75 years or so. They took that case, ruled on the merits (correctly, I might add), and saying that "political struggle" was involved in the decision isn't true. Yes, Marshall did talk about the destruction of the bank, but that was precisely the specific legal issue at hand. What the case established, though, was a PRECEDENT. The precedent was not that "states can't tax the US Bank". While certainly true, the precedent that was set was much broader - no inferior government can restrict or constrain the federal government in the exercise of its rights or performance of it's duties.

No comment, because I don't want to repeat myself.

What you say IS relevant, because it's precisely the question I asked earlier. I'll restate it: Are you continuing to debate because you disagree with the outcome of McCulloch vs. Maryland? A simple yes or no will be fine, followed by as much explanation as you like.

I don't have any opinion on that case, however I can tell you that I do not agree with a law that would actually prevent the federal government from raising an army.

The two are one and the same. Placing a constraint on the federal government is the same as preventing the federal government from carrying out it's lawful duties. The constraint may not be 100% - or even 1% - effective in preventing the federal government from doing it's job, but the fact remains that the constraint itself is still unconstitutional.

No they aren't the same especially within the context of the specific case at hand, and I don't want to repeat myself.

Well, that's fine. I'm just pointing out the logical extension of your argument. In this case, the extension is that in a HUGE number of cities, and even states, abortion could be de facto banned simply through zoning it out of existence. And the fact remains that you can't do an end-run around a Supreme Court decision in this manner - you'll get sued, and the case won't make it anywhere NEAR the Supreme Court no matter how much you appeal.

I actually don't care if planned parenthoods were banned in certain cities even though I support a womens right to abortion. This case is however different, but I still don't see any problem what so ever with the feds raising an army. So I don't see that purpose of this line of reasoning.

Well, it's different in that we are talking about the rights of the people on one hand, and the expressly granted power of the federal government on the other. But it's not different from the standpoint that just as you can't take an overt action specifically aimed at reducing voter turnout by even as low as 1% in your city, you also can't take an overt action specifically aimed at reducing military recruitment by even as low as 1% in your city.

Why the hell not? If the military can't recruit without creating posts next to high schools maybe we don't need that much recruitment. Seriously, this all depends on your priorities. I don't understand your line of reasoning here.

I agree! Wholeheartedly! Just because Imran and I agree on this, you'll find that we are lightyears apart on the issue of the overall scope of federal power granted by the US Constitution, for example. However, when it comes to powers expressly granted to the federal government, even I agree that inferior governments can't interfere.

The word you are using, "interfere" is loaded.

[David Floyd]

I don't have any opinion on that case, however I can tell you that I do not agree with a law that would actually prevent the federal government from raising an army.

Allow me to rephrase. Yes or no, do you disagree with the notion of the Supremacy of the federal government?

No they aren't the same especially within the context of the specific case at hand

Yes, you're correct in that Berkeley cannot seriously impact the US Army's recruitment, which is irrelevant to the fact that Berkeley legally can't do anything overtly aimed at reducing recruitment.

This case is however different, but I still don't see any problem what so ever with the feds raising an army. So I don't see that purpose of this line of reasoning.

What if a major city in California decided to follow suit - say, San Francisco or LA, for example. Or maybe New York or Dallas or Chicago or Houston or Detroit or Atlanta decides to do the same thing. Hell, maybe the State of Washington decides to pass that law. The point is, whether there is a material impact or not, you can't try to reduce recruitment through zoning laws because at some point, it WILL create a materal impact.

That is, of course, assuming that a material impact vs. a negligible one is even relevant, which it isn't.

Why the hell not? If the military can't recruit without creating posts next to high schools maybe we don't need that much recruitment. Seriously, this all depends on your priorities. I don't understand your line of reasoning here.

Just who exactly do you think joins the Army? 43 year old stockbrokers? 26 year old college grads working for Intel? Come on! 17-19 year olds are the primary age group for joining the army, in many cases, because it makes sense for them! The Army pays for college, and also provides a ton of technical training and leadership experience that is beneficial in civilian life. Forcing the Army to stay away from high schools essentially prevents a large majority of young people from getting information about the Army, and drives down recruitment. Driving down recruitment is EXACTLY what this law is aimed at doing, and I'll reiterate - no city or state government has the power to pass a law aimed at negatively impacting the US Armed Forces.

The word you are using, "interfere" is loaded.

Yet that is what the law is aimed at doing - interfering with recruiting.

[Heraclitus]

Kidicious be carefull you seem alomst European in outlook and reasoning . That won't make you any friends on poly.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Allow me to rephrase. Yes or no, do you disagree with the notion of the Supremacy of the federal government?

In this case, yes. Not in all cases though. Do you look at the spirit of the law? Do you think the framers intended for the federal government to be used in this manner. Do you even think that the previous Courts would approve of this type of thing?

Yet that is what the law is aimed at doing - interfering with recruiting.

Yet, I'm sure the military will manage to recruit an adequate amount of fresh meat since we can't really afford anymore wars anyway. I really find the idea that they wouldn't absurd. This will not impede the federal govt.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Heraclitus
Kidicious be carefull you seem alomst European in outlook and reasoning . That won't make you any friends on poly.

Yes, I do notice how the two regions seem to go in opposite directions. I hope we don't need two world wars on our soil to come to our senses.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Of couse they were looking at the bigger picture. The bigger picture involved the survival of the federal bank. Trust me. That was a huge issue. So yes it had everything to do with the states control over the bank. You may not realize that in the 21st century, but try to put yourself in their place, in their time.

No, the bigger picture was the power of the federal government. You are the one talking about contexts, but fail to see the big ones. CJ Marshall was an ardent Federalist. He believed in federal power, which the Democratic Republicans were skeptical of. If you take all of the cases where Marshall was CJ (and there aren't all that many... they didn't really grant cert all that often back then), two distinct themes leap out. One being the primacy of federal power. The second being the importance of contracts (Fletcher v. Peck, which also asserted the primacy of the US Constitution over the states).

Marshall's goal was that the feds are supreme. It wasn't just McCulloch, but also Gibbons v. Ogden, Worcester v. Georgia, etc.

The Bank issue was really secondary in the case; however important it was at the time.

And the state can not assert supremacy over the feds, but the Court can decide that the fed govt has no supremacty regarding the case.

They won't. This is a clear cut case. Recruiting centers are necessary and proper to carry out Congress' power to raise and maintain armies. It is as necessary and proper as having a national bank to carry out Congress' powers under Art 1, Sec 8. The amusing thing here is that Marshall in McCulloch rejected Maryland's narrow interpretation that it actually had to be "necessary" (your argument for recruiting centers), and said it merely had to be rationally related to the objective.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
They won't. This is a clear cut case. Recruiting centers are necessary and proper to carry out Congress' power to raise and maintain armies. It is as necessary and proper as having a national bank to carry out Congress' powers under Art 1, Sec 8. The amusing thing here is that Marshall in McCulloch rejected Maryland's narrow interpretation that it actually had to be "necessary" (your argument for recruiting centers), and said it merely had to be rationally related to the objective.

Well the battle over supremacy between banks and levels of governments is one thing, Forcing communities to allow recruiters to stalk high schools is another. So we'll see.

Also, it's always political, contrary to what DF said, that the bank wasn't as political back then. It's always very political.

[Kidlicious]

Btw Imran, good job, you really know your stuff. You too DF. I don't think I ever actually believed that the US govt would stand up for a "hippie" community, but I wanted to give the authoritarian militarist types something to think about. Maybe this was my first troll.

[Igloodude]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Its actually based on the section dealing with raising and maintaining armies (Art 1, Sec 8, I forget the actual clause number). The necessary and proper clause would sufficiently cover recruiting centers, I'd imagine.

Thanks, that's a good point.

And to whoever asked about recruiters in high schools, in Alaska at least it is up to the school as to whether the ASVAB (regarded by most high school guidance counselors as the best vocational aptitude test around) can be given in the school, and whether recruiters get names, addresses, phone numbers, or scores from it. As a practical matter the recruiters try to say "if we don't get the scores you won't get the testing" but it isn't up to them, it's up to the area MEPS.

[Kidlicious]

When I taught high school I let the recruiters into my classroom to recruit and no one complained. This was at an at risk school though so the military was actually a good option for most of them. Better than death, prison or welfare.

[Agathon]

Constitutional crap aside (and my opinion that the US consitution is a moronic and outdated document is well-known) the Berkeley people have a good point.

Certainly, one would wish to locate things like brothels in certain zones, and military recruitment centres are worse than those. Frankly, having pimps advertising job openings for prostitutes on campus is more desirable than military recruitment centres, mainly because being a prostitute is arguably less damaging to your mental health than joining an organization whose main purpose is to overcome your natural human aversion to killing other people.

I've always found it amusing that military personnel are always being praised for having the highest moral character, when subordinating your conscience to someone else in matters of life and death is about the worst thing you can ever do. The military turns out a bunch of obedient authoritarian gonads with a lower tolerance for the taking of human life (witness this thread). Anyone who encourages their kid to join the military is about as good a parent as one who introduces them to hard dope.

[Kuciwalker]

Thanks, that was good for a good chuckle.

[Flubber]

Hey agathon

How do you really feel ??

[Igloodude]

Originally posted by Agathon
Constitutional crap aside (and my opinion that the US consitution is a moronic and outdated document is well-known) the Berkeley people have a good point.

Certainly, one would wish to locate things like brothels in certain zones, and military recruitment centres are worse than those. Frankly, having pimps advertising job openings for prostitutes on campus is more desirable than military recruitment centres, mainly because being a prostitute is arguably less damaging to your mental health than joining an organization whose main purpose is to overcome your natural human aversion to killing other people.

I've always found it amusing that military personnel are always being praised for having the highest moral character, when subordinating your conscience to someone else in matters of life and death is about the worst thing you can ever do. The military turns out a bunch of obedient authoritarian gonads with a lower tolerance for the taking of human life (witness this thread). Anyone who encourages their kid to join the military is about as good a parent as one who introduces them to hard dope.

I've given you the impression that I'm an obedient authoritarian gonad with a lower tolerance for the taking of human life in this thread?

Wow, I guess I need to cut back on the subtext...

[Elok]

It was all the sig heils that did it, ID.