Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 3/6/2006 6:13:28 AM EDT
Breaking:

U.S. Supreme Court rules colleges that accept federal money must allow military recruiters on campus, despite university objections to Pentagon's policy on gays.

Link Posted: 3/6/2006 6:15:11 AM EDT
W00t!
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 6:16:55 AM EDT
As a college student, I just have to say...


...Awesome!
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 6:16:57 AM EDT
So I wonder how many colleges are going to stick to their guns and not let the .mil in.


I wonder how much that will cost.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 6:17:09 AM EDT
I have a recruiter buddy that operates in Madison, WI right now.

He says every trip to UofW is like a little trot into hell.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 6:17:20 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/6/2006 6:18:14 AM EDT by The_Macallan]
This had to go to the SCOTUS?


United States Code
TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 115 - TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

Section 2388. Activities affecting armed forces during war

(a) Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully makes or conveys false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies; or
Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully causes or attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or willfully obstructs the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, to the injury of the service or the United States, or attempts to do so -
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

Link Posted: 3/6/2006 6:18:53 AM EDT

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:
This had to go to the SCOTUS?


United States Code
TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 115 - TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

Section 2388. Activities affecting armed forces during war

(a) Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully makes or conveys false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies; or
Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully causes or attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or willfully obstructs the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, to the injury of the service or the United States, or attempts to do so -
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.



I agree
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 6:20:21 AM EDT
I thought the same problem came up back in the 70's and SCOTUS ruled the same back in the 70's. Why are they re-hashing this shit again?
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 6:23:03 AM EDT
That is gonna burn the Leftists aka Commies aka Progressives aka Socialists aka Hippies aka.......





I bet DUh is about to implode over this?

Perhaps one of them will organize a protest after they a bowl or two.....
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 6:25:24 AM EDT

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:
This had to go to the SCOTUS?


United States Code
TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 115 - TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

Section 2388. Activities affecting armed forces during war

(a) Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully makes or conveys false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies; or
Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully causes or attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or willfully obstructs the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, to the injury of the service or the United States, or attempts to do so -
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.



Hell, if we were to truly enforce that we'd have half the Congress, 90% of the media, 98% of Hollyweird actors and half the states of California and New York in prison. Where would we find cell space?
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 6:26:47 AM EDT
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,186936,00.html

Supreme Court Upholds College Military Recruiting Law

Monday, March 06, 2006

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday that colleges that accept federal money must allow military recruiters on campus, despite university objections to the Pentagon's "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays.

Justices rejected a free-speech challenge from law school professors who claimed they should not be forced to associate with military recruiters or promote their campus appearances.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the decision, which was unanimous.

Law schools had become the latest battleground over the "don't ask, don't tell" policy allowing gay men and women to serve in the military only if they keep their sexual orientation to themselves.

Many universities forbid the participation of recruiters from public agencies and private companies that have discriminatory policies.

Roberts, writing his third decision since joining the court, said there are other less drastic options to protest the policy.

"A military recruiter's mere presence on campus does not violate a law school's right to associate, regardless of how repugnant the law school considers the recruiter's message," he wrote.

The federal law, known as the Solomon Amendment after its first congressional sponsor, mandates that universities give the military the same access as other recruiters or forfeit federal money.

College leaders have said they could not afford to lose federal help, some $35 billion a year.

The court heard arguments in the case in December, and justices signaled then that they had little problem with the law.

Roberts filed the only opinion, which was joined by every justice but Samuel Alito. Alito did not participate because he was not on the bench when the case was argued.

"The Solomon Amendment neither limits what law schools may say nor requires them to say anything," Roberts wrote.

The case is Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, 04-1152.

© Associated Press. All rights reserved.
Copyright 2006 FOX News Network, LLC.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 6:30:51 AM EDT
One of these pics shows Muslims taunting and shouting down US military troops in Fallujah 2003, the other is college students taunting and shutting down US military recruiters at a college in Seattle in 2005.

Can you tell the difference?





Link Posted: 3/6/2006 6:31:29 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SmilingBandit:
So I wonder how many colleges are going to stick to their guns and not let the .mil in.


I wonder how much that will cost.



None and nothing. The lilly livered humpback mountain loving hate america first liberals just love being sactimonious and 'holier than thou' right up to the point that it takes real commitment. They ain't gonna give up taxpayer bux. No way!
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 6:37:03 AM EDT

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:
One of these pics shows Muslims taunting and shouting down US military troops in Fallujah 2003, the other is college students taunting and shutting down US military recruiters at a college in Seattle in 2005.

Can you tell the difference?

members.cox.net/_themacallan/05_fallujah_april30.jpgmembers.cox.net/_themacallan/SeattleCollege2005.jpg






The only difference---dress uni vs. BDUs


Link Posted: 3/6/2006 6:37:20 AM EDT
Anybody else read "This Man's Army" by Andrew Exum (Ranger tabbed infantry Captain; went to Iraq and Afghanistan after going through ROTC at U-Penn)?

His theory was that letting military recruiters into liberal schools would do more to shift the armed forces to a liberal direction than anything else-by keeping recruiters out, liberal schools are actually helping to keep the military more conservative!
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 6:43:31 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ThirtyCal_FAL:

Originally Posted By SmilingBandit:
So I wonder how many colleges are going to stick to their guns and not let the .mil in.


I wonder how much that will cost.



None and nothing. The lilly livered humpback mountain loving hate america first liberals just love being sactimonious and 'holier than thou' right up to the point that it takes real commitment. They ain't gonna give up taxpayer bux. No way!



They will scream "fascist", "Nazi", "meddling", "It's Bush's fault", "oppressors" and every other kind of horseshit you can think of to try and divert attention away from the fact that when you take gooberement money you take the strings along with it.

Watch some colleges try and sneak fee increases in under the guise of "they took OUR money away so we HAVE to do this" (while quietly admitting recruiters on campus).

Reminds me of cities that take money from the FAA for airports and then try to close the airport in violation of the agreement to keep it open forever (or X years) and all the lame ass excuses they throw out to wiggle out of the deal.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 6:45:50 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Goonboss:
I have a recruiter buddy that operates in Madison, WI right now.

He says every trip to UofW is like a little trot into hell.





Remember, that's where the ROTC building got blown up in 70.

What a fucking hellhole.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 6:49:10 AM EDT

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:
One of these pics shows Muslims taunting and shouting down US military troops in Fallujah 2003, the other is college students taunting and shutting down US military recruiters at a college in Seattle in 2005.

Can you tell the difference?






The difference: One guy is heavily armed and can shoot his way out if needed. The other wishes he were.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 6:57:35 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/6/2006 6:58:08 AM EDT by markmars]
The real question is they going to enforce it? When I meet people like that I tell then I put my ass on the line so you can say stupid things and live in you dream world. When the people we are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan, and across the world, won’t think twice about shooting you at the drop of a hat. So say your stupid, uniformed comments, but remember with out me and soldiers like me on the front lines you couldn’t say shit.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 6:58:04 AM EDT
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 7:16:05 AM EDT

Originally Posted By markmars:
The real question is they going to enforce it? When I meet people like that I tell then I put my ass on the line so you can say stupid things and live in you dream world. When the people we are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan, and across the world, won’t think twice about shooting you at the drop of a hat. So say your stupid, uniformed comments, but remember with out me and soldiers like me on the front lines you couldn’t say shit.



Yup, DoD has been hesitant to enforce outof fear of polarizing Universities against the adminstration. Try to enforce it and you'll see universities doing everything they can to encourage protests like that.

Time for us to setup a wall of green.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 7:19:14 AM EDT
As if the military opening its arms to homos would lift all ojections towards in by the elites and campus activists. Let's be honest.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 7:26:11 AM EDT

Originally Posted By raven:
As if the military opening its arms to homos would lift all ojections towards in by the elites and campus activists. Let's be honest.



It wouldn't lift it all but it wouldn't give them the PC cloak of nondiscrimination to hide under.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 7:28:28 AM EDT
So, the college kids can just ignore the recruters. Just like I ignore girl scouts selling cookies outside of Lowes.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 7:31:44 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/6/2006 7:32:29 AM EDT by danpass]
from AOLNews

Supreme Court Backs Military Recruiters
By GINA HOLLAND
AP
WASHINGTON (March 6) - The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday that colleges that accept federal money must allow military recruiters on campus, despite university objections to the Pentagon's "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays.


Justices rejected a free-speech challenge from law school professors who claimed they should not be forced to associate with military recruiters or promote their campus appearances.


Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the decision, which was unanimous.


Law schools had become the latest battleground over the "don't ask, don't tell" policy allowing gay men and women to serve in the military only if they keep their sexual orientation to themselves.


Many universities forbid the participation of recruiters from public agencies and private companies that have discriminatory policies.


Roberts, writing his third decision since joining the court, said there are other less drastic options to protest the policy.


"A military recruiter's mere presence on campus does not violate a law school's right to associate, regardless of how repugnant the law school considers the recruiter's message," he wrote.


The federal law, known as the Solomon Amendment after its first congressional sponsor, mandates that universities give the military the same access as other recruiters or forfeit federal money.


College leaders have said they could not afford to lose federal help, some $35 billion a year.



As far as I am concerned; proof that when money talks you know what walks.

Liberalism truly is a mental disease. Who do they think guards the borders

edit: at least it was unanimous among the Justices
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 7:37:02 AM EDT
Ha ha...

Liberals devoted all of their Gay Rights energies trying to ensure that Brokeback Mountain would win Oscars.
Meanwhile, in the Supreme Court....

Seems they forgot to keep their eye on the ball.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 7:40:52 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Brians_45:

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:
This had to go to the SCOTUS?


United States Code
TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 115 - TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

Section 2388. Activities affecting armed forces during war

(a) Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully makes or conveys false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies; or
Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully causes or attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or willfully obstructs the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, to the injury of the service or the United States, or attempts to do so -
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.



I agree



Except we're not at war. Haven't been since, what, WW2?
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 7:54:33 AM EDT

despite university objections to Pentagon's policy on gays.





IIRC, it isn't a Pentagon policy. It's what the President and Congress told the Pentagon to do. Not like the Pentagon sets policy.

You'd think the libs could figure this out, except for the fact that they hate the military and this is just an excuse.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 7:54:58 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/6/2006 9:00:19 AM EDT by The_Macallan]

Originally Posted By dolanp:
Except we're not at war. Haven't been since, what, WW2?

It didn't say "when the United States DECLARES war" - it only says "when the United States is at war".

Then there's the whole thing about the US Constitution having no provision for exactly HOW Congress "declares" war. A valid position is that Congress DID declare war when it authorized full use of military force (i.e. war) in the aftermath of 9-11 and again in the Fall of 2002.

We are certainly "at war" in Iraq.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 7:59:00 AM EDT
Now if only they would do something similar about carry laws and guns.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 8:06:15 AM EDT

Originally Posted By 3rdpig:

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:
This had to go to the SCOTUS?


United States Code
TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 115 - TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

Section 2388. Activities affecting armed forces during war

(a) Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully makes or conveys false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies; or
Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully causes or attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or willfully obstructs the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, to the injury of the service or the United States, or attempts to do so -
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.



Hell, if we were to truly enforce that we'd have half the Congress, 90% of the media, 98% of Hollyweird actors and half the states of California and New York in prison. Where would we find cell space?



+1 Just the first sentence would have that effect
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 8:15:17 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Hellhound:
That is gonna burn the Leftists aka Commies aka Progressives aka Socialists aka Hippies aka.......





I bet DUh is about to implode over this?

Perhaps one of them will organize a protest after they a bowl or two.....



They are actually busy complaining that Brokeback Mountain didn't win best picture, and how the Bush Whitehouse arranged for a lesser film to win because of W's anti-gay agenda.

I am not making this up either.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 11:19:18 AM EDT
Roberts kicked some ass on this one.


...Roberts in particular was troubled by the schools' First Amendment claims, since the schools are free to decline the federal funding.....

"A military recruiter's mere presence on campus does not violate a law school's right to associate, regardless of how repugnant the law school considers the recruiter's message," Roberts wrote. "The Solomon Amendment neither limits what law schools may say nor requires them to say anything."

Link Posted: 3/6/2006 12:12:22 PM EDT

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:
This had to go to the SCOTUS?


United States Code
TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 115 - TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

Section 2388. Activities affecting armed forces during war

(a) Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully makes or conveys false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies; or
Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully causes or attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or willfully obstructs the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, to the injury of the service or the United States, or attempts to do so -
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.




We're not at war. It doesn't matter if we are engaged in a large scale, multi-year combat, we aren't at war until Congress actually makes a declaration of war. The actual declaration of war changes a lot of things legally - felons can now serve in the armed forces, and the executive has much broader powers. Don't expect that we'll legally be at war anytime soon...
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 12:17:33 PM EDT

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:
We are certainly "at war" in Iraq.



Under what definition? Were we "at war" in Panama? Were we "at war" in Grenada?

There is a precedent for the transition to war, and it is an explicit proclamation by Congress.

Article 1, Section 8 says that Congress has the power to declare war.

Giving the president authorization to use force is not the same as declaring war.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 12:34:11 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/6/2006 12:34:40 PM EDT by Cincinnatus]

Originally Posted By pliftkl:

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:
We are certainly "at war" in Iraq.



Under what definition? Were we "at war" in Panama? Were we "at war" in Grenada?

There is a precedent for the transition to war, and it is an explicit proclamation by Congress.

Article 1, Section 8 says that Congress has the power to declare war.

Giving the president authorization to use force is not the same as declaring war.


Why not?
The Congress gave the go ahead for US Armed Forces to do what by any standard on earth is considered "war".
If this is not war, does that mean that no one who has fought there is a "Veteran of a Foreign War"?

Must they write it on old brown paper and sign it with a feather pen?


This a silly argument.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 2:21:40 PM EDT

Originally Posted By pliftkl:

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:
We are certainly "at war" in Iraq.



Under what definition? Were we "at war" in Panama? Were we "at war" in Grenada?

There is a precedent for the transition to war, and it is an explicit proclamation by Congress.

Article 1, Section 8 says that Congress has the power to declare war.

How does the Constitution stipulate that Congress must act in order to "declare war"?



Originally Posted By pliftkl:
Giving the president authorization to use force is not the same as declaring war.


Show me where that is stated in the US Constitution.


Link Posted: 3/6/2006 2:25:11 PM EDT

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:

Originally Posted By pliftkl:

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:
We are certainly "at war" in Iraq.



Under what definition? Were we "at war" in Panama? Were we "at war" in Grenada?

There is a precedent for the transition to war, and it is an explicit proclamation by Congress.

Article 1, Section 8 says that Congress has the power to declare war.

How does the Constitution stipulate that Congress must act in order to "declare war"?



Originally Posted By pliftkl:
Giving the president authorization to use force is not the same as declaring war.


Show me where that is stated in the US Constitution.




Although in spirit, I would like to think that Congress needs to do more than laid back grunt for their declaration of war, there is nothing specified on how Congress is to declare war.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 2:28:23 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/6/2006 4:06:07 PM EDT by The_Macallan]

Originally Posted By NimmerMehr:

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:

Originally Posted By pliftkl:

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:
We are certainly "at war" in Iraq.



Under what definition? Were we "at war" in Panama? Were we "at war" in Grenada?

There is a precedent for the transition to war, and it is an explicit proclamation by Congress.

Article 1, Section 8 says that Congress has the power to declare war.

How does the Constitution stipulate that Congress must act in order to "declare war"?



Originally Posted By pliftkl:
Giving the president authorization to use force is not the same as declaring war.


Show me where that is stated in the US Constitution.

Although in spirit, I would like to think that Congress needs to do more than laid back grunt for their declaration of war, there is nothing specified on how Congress is to declare war.


Congress voted to authorize the full and unlimited use military force against a foreign enemy and also appropriated the funds to do so.

That's quite a bit more than just a "laid back grunt".

Link Posted: 3/6/2006 2:28:35 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Cincinnatus:

Originally Posted By pliftkl:

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:
We are certainly "at war" in Iraq.



Under what definition? Were we "at war" in Panama? Were we "at war" in Grenada?

There is a precedent for the transition to war, and it is an explicit proclamation by Congress.

Article 1, Section 8 says that Congress has the power to declare war.

Giving the president authorization to use force is not the same as declaring war.


Why not?
The Congress gave the go ahead for US Armed Forces to do what by any standard on earth is considered "war".
If this is not war, does that mean that no one who has fought there is a "Veteran of a Foreign War"?

Must they write it on old brown paper and sign it with a feather pen?


This a silly argument.



Some people think that there actually is a 'declaration of war' form that must be filled out.

Makes me want to get the buckaroo bonzai DVD so I can do a screen cap when the president is handed the "declaration of war - short form" to sign.
Top Top