Skip to main content

View Diary: SCOTUS Gets It Right on Military Recruiting (212 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Absolutely. Immoral as hell. (none)
    But...

    We don't affirm the idea that morality, as such, ought to be legislated.

    The problem is really that the DoD has an immoral and only marginally legal stance on gays in the military.  Trying to correct that indirectly leads to being willing to do things that aren't really legal but are morally defensible.

    That's ground that always needs to be closely examined before deciding to defend it.

    The KKK has free speech rights, too.  But I'll be damned if I think that the rest of us should be barred from, say, refusing to do business with those folks, once we know who they are and what they think.

    "I desire what is good. Therefore, everyone who does not agree with me is a traitor." King George III

    by ogre on Mon Mar 06, 2006 at 12:38:24 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Depends on the issue ... (none)
      ...whether We [do or] don't affirm the idea that morality, as such, ought to be legislated.

      In the '60s, this was the argument by many against desegregation. Many religious people made (and make) the argument that they shouldn't have to rent to unmarried people on the same grounds.

      •  Pardon me if I don't write this clearly, but (none)
        your example Meteor Blades is a really good example of the kind of morality-based knick knack stuff that when added up starts to become a big heap of social control.  The Federalists and NeoCons have developed a really good set of legal minds over the past many years that has been dispatched to systematically make these kinds of in-roads with broad Constitutional theory leading the way.  

        At some point, a law was passed that essentially said that when a person rented to someone else that race, marital status etc. were not ever to be a part of the contractual agreement.  In other words, they said okay you can ask for rent, you can ask for reasonable upkeep and stewardship of your property, you can ask that there be no illegal activities, but you can't tell people how to live.  But what if how to live can get back into the mix?

        So what I would ask is what does the Federal Government get for what it gives?  What is the "deal" and is it a fair deal?  Is the scope of the deal reasonable because reasonable and Consitutional don't always allign on the same side at times.  

        Armando and everyone else may say it is a Consitutionally sound decision and it does offer a small amount of hope for the likes of Title IX, but at the same time it makes you wonder what else they can expect to demand for their funding.  Would they also be able to demand that all co-ed dormatories be made single sex now because of Federal funding?  Would they be able to insist that any college or university receiving federal funding is not allowed to dispense birth control at the campus medical clinic?  

        I just question whether or not this ruling is one that will be used to overreach more than it will be used to level the playing field.  Is it not possible that the Congress could pass a law altering Title IX so that women and girl's sports should get only 25% of the pie?  Then insist that colleges and universities risk losing funding if they don't immediately adjust.  

        Am I being totally crazy here or is it just possible that this strict construtionist interpretation could lead to a lot of very "Consitutional" but not so pragmatic or good decisions?  I know nothing - I just wonder...

        •  Thankfully, there is a limit. (none)
          "Would they be able to insist that any college or university receiving federal funding is not allowed to dispense birth control at the campus medical clinic?"

          No -- I go into this above -- Congress can't condition receipt of federal funding on anything that Congress couldn't constitutionally mandate directly.

          So, since Congress couldn't constitutionally tell schools they can't dispense birth control (as this would violate an established substantive due process privacy right), they can't condition the receipt of money on it.  This is called the "unconstitutional conditions" doctrine.

          Therefore, Congress can only go so far with their threats to take away funding if schools don't comply with certain conditions.

          •  Thank you for your reply. (none)
            I am sure that you are correct in your legal analysis.  I think what I was pondering and not articulating very well is what happens in this black is white and white is black Alice in Wonderland world that the GOP is trying to build with respect to the Constitution.  

            The leagues of their radical legal "scholars" made my lawyer Father laugh for years - his standard response: "These people are carzy" whilst chuckling with that "it'll never happen" attitude.  He still says they are crazy, but he doesn't laugh as much anymore because he is seeing insane legilation being validated more and more.  

            We went through a phase where I would tell him about some legal shift and he'd say, "They can't do that."  I'd say, "Ok" and leave it.  The next phase was "They can't do that" and my response became, "But they have done that."  Warantless wiretapping is just one of many examples.  That is about lawlesness, but do we really have the confidence that we once did that a challenge to this program would be upheld by the Supreme Court?  I don't.  I have no idea what they will come up with exactly to defend their blatantly illegal activities, but that doesn't mean I have confidence that this illegal act won't be legitimized.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (130)
  • Community (62)
  • Elections (39)
  • 2016 (37)
  • Environment (36)
  • Bernie Sanders (35)
  • Culture (30)
  • Hillary Clinton (30)
  • Republicans (29)
  • Media (29)
  • Climate Change (27)
  • Education (23)
  • Congress (23)
  • Spam (23)
  • Civil Rights (22)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (21)
  • Labor (21)
  • Barack Obama (21)
  • Texas (20)
  • Law (20)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site