. You can look at it in terms o f the successlful suits against the
"identity groups" They have every right to set the standards as to who joins
their groups - te priciple holds; they do not have the right to faciltate
civil or criminal offenses. So far, nopone has charged the BSA with any
such behavior ( though I think the case be made.) The principle of the
Right to Choose has no connection teh BSAcase at all. The group has the
right to set rules of association for itself. The right to choose has
nothing to do with Roe vs. Wade .Roe is PRIVACY case setting the CONEXT for
choice. They are two VERY different cases, rulings and protected principles.
The question of abortion itself has never been addressed by the Court. The
issue of personal privacy has been in Roe. The Court doesn't want to touch
a non-legal moral/philoophical issue like abortion. The last it time it did
that , it led to a civil war :-) It hedged on teh definition of prongraphy
for teh same reason -- reasonable men and women disagree and any such case
setting limits on Constitutional provisons that are not self-refernet- i.e.
they run the danger of imposing external templates on the Constitution-- is
a very dangerous thing to do. In all these cases the Court historically has
chosen to opt for the alternative taht allows more freedom rather than less.
(Very brilliant systems thinking on the part of the Founders, IMHO.)
It blows me away that strict constructionists of teh Constitution always
seem to be the ones who opt for restrictions on freedom based on a concept
that requires primacy of external principles over Constitutional ones.
That's what the Imams do-- impose religious law on secular law. That hardly
seems to be what this country is all about. If it ever comes to that, be
assured I will exercise my rights under the Second amendment.:-)
Dave Dix
Phillips
Ward 6
----- Original Message -----
From: "Clark C. Griffith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Multiple recipients of list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2000 4:28 PM
Subject: Boy Scout issue
> I sometimes get confused by the policies that float around the city.
> Being Pro Choice for example, seems to be a very popular position among
> certain groups. However, and I am only guessing now, that same group
> goes off the deep end when the Boy Scouts want the Right to Choose, even
> if its only who they wish to hang with.
> Pro choice seems to focus on freedom, and Roe v. Wade and the Boy Scout
> case indicate that freedom is constitutionally protected. Can we
> reconcile the one with the other, or is freedom to be curtailed in the
> later without being curtailed in the former.
> Just wondering.
>
> Clark Griffith
> 7th Ward
>
>
