Berkely to treat Military recruit-stations like Pornstores

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I believe I asked for ... any sort of cogent legal reasoning ...

Still waiting.

Same old DinoDoc.

You know the thing is that it makes it so clear when one reads the posts that the most flag waving Americans make that all the crap that they shove down our throats about America being about freedom is just brainwashing.

Thanks for being so openly against freedom and waiving the American flag like you do.

[Patroklos]

That sounds kind of like the people that have "disabled " automatic weapons. Its a very quick repair to bring them back to their full usefulness is it not??

I blowtorched bolt will never again be able to withstand the preasures of firing a round. They are done.

If a collector wants to bring his Sherman out against the US Army, I just hope he gives me a heads up so I can watch with popcorn in hand

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kidicious
They aren't arguing. It's DinoDoc and Patroklos after all. One only has one liners they other is nothing but a hack.

But they are still winning, so perhaps you ought to change tactics .

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber
personally I am shocked that Kid is in any way supporting the right of an actor with governmental or regulatory powers to ban a completely legal gathering for people with certain viewpoints and beliefs or seeking certain types of legal employment.

That's because the government is not the same as a citizen. Duh.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
But they are still winning, so perhaps you ought to change tactics .

Like I told them. The ball is in their court. They aren't responding. So why don't you mister smarty.

[Imran Siddiqui]

They are like cats with a bug. They are toying with you.

The Supremacy Clause allows Congress to tell the states and localities to shove it unless there is a specific prohibition against said act in any other part of the Constitution.

As Rumsfeld v. FAIR points out, Congress can demand recruiting take place in colleges, but in that case chose monetary inducements (federal funding). So why wouldn't that apply to cities under the US?

Recruiting is done under Congress' mandate under federal budgeting.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


That's because the government is not the same as a citizen. Duh.

and an apple is not the same as an orange-- your point ??

Lets see

1. Is it that government should not be allowed to offer employment in one of its branches in a place or a manner that a private citizen could?

2. Or is it the particular branch of government? If this were an affirmitive action group (say a human rights tribunal) that wanted to recruit employees, would you support a government actor's right to ban them??

[DirtyMartini]

Sorry to interject --

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
As Rumsfeld v. FAIR points out, Congress can demand recruiting take place in colleges, but in that case chose monetary inducements (federal funding).

I don't understand that sentence -- specifically the "in that case chose monetary inducements part". Please eloborate.

Also, I'm pretty sure this whole federal funding argument stems from a post based on a misunderstanding of the story: someone assumed it was UC Berkeley that was trying to regulate recruiters rather than the city of Berkeley. Following with the argument that if you want federal funding for research, you'd better be prepared to accept military recruiters. Maybe that argument applies to the City of Berkeley as well, minus the research part...

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
They are like cats with a bug. They are toying with you.

They are just pretending to toy with me and they don't realize that they just make themselves look stupid.

The Supremacy Clause allows Congress to tell the states and localities to shove it unless there is a specific prohibition against said act in any other part of the Constitution.

As Rumsfeld v. FAIR points out, Congress can demand recruiting take place in colleges, but in that case chose monetary inducements (federal funding). So why wouldn't that apply to cities under the US?

Because a city is something different. In fact, the proposed law doesn't prohibit recruiting within city limits. It only restricts that recruiting to certain parts of the city.

Recruiting is done under Congress' mandate under federal budgeting.

And...?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber


and an apple is not the same as an orange-- your point ??

OMG, you need me to spell it out for you? What do you think the purpose of freedom of speech is? You think it's so that the government can set up recruiting stations?

Lets see

1. Is it that government should not be allowed to offer employment in one of its branches in a place or a manner that a private citizen could?

2. Or is it the particular branch of government? If this were an affirmitive action group (say a human rights tribunal) that wanted to recruit employees, would you support a government actor's right to ban them??

It's that the particular community does not want this particular activity happening in certain parts of the city. You know... freedom?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by DirtyMartini
I don't understand that sentence -- specifically the "in that case chose monetary inducements part". Please eloborate.

Ah, Congress decided to say you can deny military recruiters, but then you get no federal funding. In the opinion (written by Roberts for a unanimous court), the Supreme Court said that Congress could, if it chose, mandate military recruiters be allowed in public schools, but it went about it this way (and that's find too).

Also, I'm pretty sure this whole federal funding argument stems from a post based on a misunderstanding of the story: someone assumed it was UC Berkeley that was trying to regulate recruiters rather than the city of Berkeley. Following with the argument that if you want federal funding for research, you'd better be prepared to accept military recruiters. Maybe that argument applies to the City of Berkeley as well, minus the research part...

Which is why the above case's reasoning matters. Congress could, the Court said, mandate recruiters be allowed to recruit if they wanted it so.

[q=Kidicious]In fact, the proposed law doesn't prohibit recruiting within city limits. It only restricts that recruiting to certain parts of the city. [/q]

Still a restriction on constitutional exercises of federal power by a local body, in violation of McCulloch v. Maryland

[Flubber]

Originally posted by DirtyMartini





I don't understand that sentence -- specifically the "in that case chose monetary inducements part". Please eloborate.
...

I have not read the case but I took it to mean Congress did not demand or "force" the matter and instead used cash as a tool

[DirtyMartini]

thanks Imran and Flubber

[Kuciwalker]

Still a restriction on constitutional exercises of federal power by a local body, in violation of McCulloch v. Maryland

Do I get a cookie?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Still a restriction on constitutional exercises of federal power by a local body, in violation of McCulloch v. Maryland

It's only a restriction in the same sense that restricting protestors to certain areas is a restriction. For example, all colleges have free speech areas and areas designated for recruiting and so forth. The recruiters can't go anywhere they want on campus so why should they be allowed to recruit anywhere in the city?