Berkely to treat Military recruit-stations like Pornstores

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber
I am really curious if you would be on the same bandwagon if the municipality was trying to ban something you saw as very worthy

Like what? I can't really imagine what you are getting at, because I can't think of a govt entity that someone whouldn't want in their community, except for maybe welfare offices or something. Is that what you mean?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


I'm sorry, but when did they create zoning laws? All they did was to say that we can recruit here. That isn't creating anything. That's an exemption from local zoning laws (the power to zone is the power to destroy too).

Ok, then by the Supremacy Clause, if they can't create zoning laws, the state and local govts can, right? So why can't they zone the recruiting centers to a certain part of town?

[Riesstiu IV]

More like Jerkely, am I right guys?

[Kidlicious]

Here we go with the "I don't like them so they deserve to die" crap again.

[Flubber]

I am not a US lawyer-- all I can say is that in Canada I have little doubt that a municipality could not ban a military recruiter from a place that zoning and other applicable laws would not ban other recruiters for other employers or similar gatherings of people

I can think of a couple of possible reasons why this might be the case

1. Constitutional law-- federal power over armed forces-- there may or may not be a provision that grants recruiters some sorts of rights--BUt the feds could pass one pretty quickly

2. Limits on municipal powers-- IN Canada municipalities are created by provincial statute and ONLY have the powers that such statutes give them. Courts have slapped down municipalities pretty hard when they have tried to "ban" things that are legal under provincial and federal law. Zoning laws would generally not be permitted to promote one political opinion over another.

3. Human rights and constitutional rights-- Does anyone think that passing any law that would treat people differently based on a political opinion or predisposition would stand muster?


Municipalities can do zoning. If they had a reason to zone an area such that employment recruiting was not a permitted use, that may be supportable. But if they say that Exxon, Chevron and ACME MINING cannot recruit but Green Peace, and the ACLU can, I cannot see how such a provision could ever survive. ( So I have problems with this even leaving aside any powers or rights of the military as a branch of the federal government)

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber
I am not a US lawyer-- all I can say is that in Canada I have little doubt that a municipality could not ban a military recruiter from a place that zoning and other applicable laws would not ban other recruiters for other employers or similar gatherings of people

I can think of a couple of possible reasons why this might be the case

1. Constitutional law-- federal power over armed forces-- there may or may not be a provision that grants recruiters some sorts of rights--BUt the feds could pass one pretty quickly

2. Limits on municipal powers-- IN Canada municipalities are created by provincial statute and ONLY have the powers that such statutes give them. Courts have slapped down municipalities pretty hard when they have tried to "ban" things that are legal under provincial and federal law. Zoning laws would generally not be permitted to promote one political opinion over another.

3. Human rights and constitutional rights-- Does anyone think that passing any law that would treat people differently based on a political opinion or predisposition would stand muster?


Municipalities can do zoning. If they had a reason to zone an area such that employment recruiting was not a permitted use, that may be supportable. But if they say that Exxon, Chevron and ACME MINING cannot recruit but Green Peace, and the ACLU can, I cannot see how such a provision could ever survive. ( So I have problems with this even leaving aside any powers or rights of the military as a branch of the federal government)

It sounds like you have no local control whatsoever. I thought your system was more like ours. In the US ideally localities are suppose to have as much freedom as possible or reasonable.

[Ben Kenobi]

They haven't been successfully challenged at the federal level. There still are free speech zones all over the country at college campuses.

Nope, and they are a fairly recent innovation. They have been challenged at the local levels.

And university students who stage sit ins realize they can be arrested for it (and usually are... which helps their point that the administration of the college is fascist or whatever).

Well my beef is that the rule is selectively enforced. There are plenty of loud and obnoxious demonstrations here that are outside the zone, but so long as they agree with the university, it seems to be ok.

We had one to increase tuition funding, took over the whole plaza with mikes and bullhorns. But a small and critical demonstration was exiled to the "truth bubble".

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


It sounds like you have no local control whatsoever. I thought your system was more like ours. In the US ideally localities are suppose to have as much freedom as possible or reasonable.

Lots of local controls but only within the powers granted by the statute. The municipalities actually govern quite a bit in practice.

A couple of the big cases on municipal powers actually dealt with escort agencies or massage parlours (both of which are fronts for prostiturion of course but prostitution is legal in Canada)

A couple of different municipalities tried to get cute with the business licence requirements or zoning requirements. I forget all the details but I think they tried things like setting prohibitive fees for licences (like 20K per year), restricting hours of business to something ridiculous (noon to 2 pm when every other business could be open until 9) etc. The courts found that these were not reasonable requirements for a municipal purpose but were intended to in effect completely prohibit things that are legal in this country and the provinces involved. The court would not allow them to do by devious means that which you could not do directly


I see a similar rationale applicable to military recruiters. Whether a municipality likes the military or not, the Armed forces have a legal right to offer employment to prople. To restrict them in a way that other employers are not, seems to be beyond any municipal governance purposes. If the military is being treated identically with all other employers, a zoning or other municipal bylaw may be valid

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Ok, then by the Supremacy Clause, if they can't create zoning laws, the state and local govts can, right? So why can't they zone the recruiting centers to a certain part of town?

Like I said, a locality or state cannot put burdens on the federal government doing its constitutionally allowed activity. Recruiting is allowed under the constitution. Zoning recruiting offices to the outskirts is burdening the federal government.

McCulloch v. Maryland says sorry city, you lose. Open and shut case.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Nope, and they are a fairly recent innovation. They have been challenged at the local levels.

1960s is fairly recent? That's 40+ years old.

Well my beef is that the rule is selectively enforced. There are plenty of loud and obnoxious demonstrations here that are outside the zone, but so long as they agree with the university, it seems to be ok.

That is an entirely different issue, of how it applies.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Here we go with the "I don't like them so they deserve to die" crap again.

At least withhold federal funds. Hell, if the City of Berkeley is so convinced of the eeevvviiillls of the military, explicitly exclude Berkeley city limits from, say, any highway maintenance bill.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber
I see a similar rationale applicable to military recruiters. Whether a municipality likes the military or not, the Armed forces have a legal right to offer employment to prople. To restrict them in a way that other employers are not, seems to be beyond any municipal governance purposes. If the military is being treated identically with all other employers, a zoning or other municipal bylaw

The military isn't like other "employers." If they were there wouldn't be any problem.

Also, you seem to think that someones rights would be violated if the military wasn't able to keep certain recruiting offices open. That's simply not true. Just because Patroklos and DD want the military to recruit my son into the military, that is not a right that they have.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Lonestar
At least withhold federal funds. Hell, if the City of Berkeley is so convinced of the eeevvviiillls of the military, explicitly exclude Berkeley city limits from, say, any highway maintenance bill.

You still need a legal basis for that. But your claim is ridiculous. Just because you don't want the military standing outside your childs high school trying to recruit them doesn't mean that you shouldn't receive the same benefit that others receive.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Kidicious


The military isn't like other "employers." If they were there wouldn't be any problem.

They are like the Police, EMTs, and Fire Department.

Also, you seem to think that someones rights would be violated if the military wasn't able to keep certain recruiting offices open. That's simply not true. Just because Patroklos and DD want the military to recruit my son into the military, that is not a right that they have.

Why not?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Lonestar
They are like the Police, EMTs, and Fire Department.

No they aren't. You can quit those anytime you want. There are also several other differences. I shouldn't have to continue.

Why not?

What makes you think there is such a right?