Berkely to treat Military recruit-stations like Pornstores

[Imran Siddiqui]

Oh, for Kuci:

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Kidicious


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.

If the school receives any federal funding(and, for example, the city of San Francisco doesn't pay a dime towards education, it's all Federal/state funding) and the city is actively trying to impede the function of the federal government, then, well, I guess they don't really want/need that money, huh?

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

Strictly speaking, you can quit the military anytime you want too, you just have to deal with the consequences. Hell, there are mechanisms for people to quit in a legitimate fashion too. The military won't even chase you if you desert. If the cops pick you up, you'll be flown back to your command, given a Big Chicken Dinner, and sent on your way.

And the function and mortality levels is much like the ones I mentioned.

Would you be opposed to the Police recruiting at a High School?

What makes you think there is?

I'm betting it has to do with the guv'ment cheese being sent downrange to the city.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Lonestar

Would you be opposed to the Police recruiting at a High School?

I would.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Lonestar
If the school receives any federal funding(and, for example, the city of San Francisco doesn't pay a dime towards education, it's all Federal/state funding) and the city is actively trying to impede the function of the federal government, then, well, I guess they don't really want/need that money, huh?

No one is trying to impede the federal government. It's not like they are blocking recruiting stations like they did during Vietnam. I find your argument very amusing.

Strictly speaking, you can quit the military anytime you want too, you just have to deal with the consequences. Hell, there are mechanisms for people to quit in a legitimate fashion too. The military won't even chase you if you desert. If the cops pick you up, you'll be flown back to your command, given a Big Chicken Dinner, and sent on your way.

Come on man, I was in the military. Yes, there are consequences and they are significant. Of course you can pee the bed in bootcamp which is what I recommend as the least amount of cost for getting out. The point is that the military is quite different, and you know that. If they weren't different they wouldn't need to recruit like they do.

Would you be opposed to the Police recruiting at a High School?

No, but that's not really the point. If a community didn't want the police (or anyone else) to be able to recruit at a high school that should be their right.

I'm betting it has to do with the guv'ment cheese being sent downrange to the city.

So no philisophical or political right or anything? Thank you, exactly my point.

[David Floyd]

Kid,

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?

Why do you keep arguing in a circle? When Imran, et al, shoots down one aspect of your argument, you move on to another one. When they shoot THAT aspect down, you move right back to your original point as if it's still actually original.

Let's see if I can take a stab at explaining it to you. I'm by no means a lawyer, so this may in fact make it easier.

The federal government has certain enumerated and implied powers in the Constitution, most specifically located in Article 1. While there is plenty of room for debate over the scope of those powers, some are very, very simple. We'll come back to this.

Certain other parts of the Constitution (Article 1 Section 9 takes us through powers specifically forbidden to Congress, the 9th and 10th Amendments basically say that rights/powers not mentioned or granted are reserved to the people/states, the rest of the Amendments specifically forbid the feds - and, following the early 20th Century, all levels of government - from doing certain things) are restrictions on the powers of government. However, the US Constitution is not self-contradictory. It is clear, and I think we can all agree on this, that a SPECIFIC grant of power to the federal government is not superceded by ANY other part of the Constitution, UNLESS a Constitutional Amendment is passed. With me so far? OK.

I think we can all also agree that raising and supporting an army is the sole providence of the federal government. If anyone (Kid) disagrees, I'll be happy to quote verbatim from Article 1 Section 8. Clearly, recruitment is "necessary and proper" to raising and supporting an army. Remember, Article 1 Section 8 Clause 18(?) grants Congress the power to do anything "necessary and proper" to carry out any aforementioned power, of which raising and supporing an army is one.

Let's move on.

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?

[Patroklos]

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.

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.

The point is that the military is quite different, and you know that.

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

[Wezil]

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.

Excellent point.


I'd like to thank Kid for his persistance in this thread. As much as you may disagree with his position he has elicited some great argument.

Although I can understand the moral objection some people may feel toward the military and recruiters I can't imagine Berkely would be allowed to ban recruiting centres (outright or through restrictive zoning). Federal powers would have to be supreme in such instances.

[David Floyd]

Maybe Berkeley should just secede from the State of California, then secede from the United States.

Assuming that works, then they'll have no problem legally banning - excuse me, zoning - military recruitment centers

[Wezil]

I had a similar thought.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Maybe Berkeley should just secede from the State of California, then secede from the United States.

Assuming that works, then they'll have no problem legally banning - excuse me, zoning - military recruitment centers

Ya but they may not enjoy the fence that is placed around their city and the "immigration controls" that are applied when they try to enter the actual United States

[Imran Siddiqui]

Eh... as we all know fences to keep people out of the United States aren't all the effective .

[David Floyd]

OTOH, my impression of Berkeley is that they'd be more likely to build a fence to keep the evil Americans out, rather than trying to hop over the fence the US builds to keep them out.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Eh... as we all know fences to keep people out of the United States aren't all the effective .

It's Berkely. Let's give it a try.

[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.

[David Floyd]

And I think Flubber summed it up