This is the oath
“I, (full name) . . . do herby (sic) endorse George W. Bush for reelection of the United States.”
BOGGLE At least wirte up a coherent oath, you don’t want to put hot fudge on the idiot sundae you already made for yourself.
I actually don’t have much of a problem with the screeining process, and I tend to agree with Dewey that they are private events. Where I get my dander up is the enforcement of the motorcade routes to and from the events. I just don’t feel that the public streets fall under the same argument as the private event. And frankly, I think the security argument is a load of crock. But I think the habit of these morons to block traffic for everyday folks so they can make a statement is idiotic. Who decided that was a good idea? Could someone please buy them a clue?
I still do have a problem with what happened to the FEMA employee that wore the “Love America, Hate Bush” T-shirt to the capital during a Bush visit. THAT event couldn’t be construed as private. It was a public official speaking at a public place. State and federal funds were used to pay for the presidential visit. Then on top of that, one of them got canned (more specifically, reassigned with no new assignment forthcoming). Linda Tripp got over a half mil when the government purposfully impeded her gainfull employment. I think this gal should too.
I’d like to know what your thoughts are on that situation Dewey.
I’ve bolded the assertion I have a problem with. This is a question for a jury, not for you or me. As the learned counselor is no doubt aware the laws defining what is and is not a place of public accomodation vary from state to state and it would be a question of fact to see if some particlar political rally/speech/whatever would fall under this definition. General admission stuff in a public park almost certainly would. $1000 a plate dinners for members in good standing of the Knights of Columbus almost certainly would not. More details about the meeting in question and the laws of the state would be necessary to formulate a defensible opinion regarding the status of the event. This lack of details combined with Dewey’s clearly definite opinion is the root of the claim of sloppiness. You can’t just say “no rights were being violated” because you don’t know the laws of the state in question or the particulars of the event.
Since BSA v Dale has already been cited, let’s look at a passage from the decision.
Dewey has flat out stated no rights are being violated here. The first ammendment is clearly a regulation adopted to serve compelling state interests and it grants the right not to be forced to sign a pledge if you don’t want to. Dewey’s certainty must mean he has an affirmative arguement that admitting people who refuse to sign the “I support Bush for reelection” pledge will “affect in a significant way the group’s ability to advocate public or private viewpoints.” One that does not assume facts not in evidence, such as assuming the people who refuse to sign would engage in disruptive behavior.
I’d enjoy reading it.
Enjoy,
Steven
They’re working on fixing the oath:
N.M. GOP to Continue Asking for Pledge
Of course even if they fix the typo, and mention the office, the oath will still contain a factual error which renders it meaningless. Even the supreme court can’t fix that problem.
Actually, that would be a mixed question of law and fact that would be decided by the judge.
Spare me. This was, according to the OP’s article, an event with controlled access that required a ticket to get in. It was not a rally in public where anyone off the street could just walk up and observe – indeed, if it were, then nevermind the law because you’ve got a difficult logicistical problem in evicting your opponents.
The “public accomodation” issue is a red herring. Hotels are a public accomodation in virtually every state, but there’s no doubt that if the Boy Scouts rented a meeting room at the local Mariott that they could prevent James Dale from attending. The Mariott can’t discriminate, but individual users of its facilities can.
I can’t believe you’re accusing me of being sloppy. Kindly show me one state whose antidiscrimination provisions extend to political party affiliation. You can’t, because there aren’t.
Pay attention to the facts at hand, and the assertion that “no rights were being violated” is not only easy to make, but the only conclusion one can reach based on the law.
Steven, your post is getting sloppier and sloppier. The first amendment does not “grant the right not to be forced to sign a pledge,” it grants the right not to be forced by the government to sign a pledge. The RNC isn’t the government. Neither is the BSA. A private group can force you to sign a pledge, stand on your head, and sing “My Darling Clementine” if they want to before they let you in to their events, and the first amendment will not have been violated.
Are you seriously going to sit here and argue with a straight face that one’s ability to advocate a particular viewpoint isn’t significantly impacted by allowing in people visibly holding the diametrically opposite viewpoint? Give me a break.
I’d like to see a cite first.
I noted this in my response to Steven, but individual users of facilities can discriminate in ways that the owners of that facility can’t. If the KKK rented a meeting room at the Mariott, they could exclude blacks even though the Mariott can’t exclude blacks on a day-to-day basis.
The degree to which schools, etc., are required to make their facilities open to any particular group is an unsettled one. There simply isn’t a clear-cut answer to that question.
Then I think it obvious that the Secret Service was more than a bit overzealous, and shame on them for it.
Reminds me of back when Chelsea Clinton was a student at Stanford, and the editorial page of the Berkeley campus newspaper, on the day before the Stanford-Berkeley game, ran an article encouraging the destruction of all things Stanford, including Chelsea. To normal people, that’s just ordinary, harmless college paper football rivalry fare. But the Secret Service aren’t normal people, and the editor of the paper got a several-hours-long detainment from them for his contribution to collegiate publishing.
Although frankly it isn’t terribly clear to me that this was an official appearance anyway. It was a “rally,” which to my mind implies campaign event, and while the statehouse is government-owned, that doesn’t mean private events can’t take place there. Central Park is owned by the City of New York, but you still need tickets to see Shakespeare in the Park or the various concerts held there.
A. When he is ajar.
What?
Because, despite the appearance, the rallies aren’t about swaying undecided voters (and this is generally true of both parties’ rallies). Rallies are about
- getting a picture of the rally on TV, to demonstrate how much support the campaign has. (Oh, hey this is the Pit, so I can say… to sway the idiots who are also spineless, because you know, you should choose your anonymous vote so you’re on the winning side. )
and 2) to motivate and charge up your supporters so they go out and keep working hard on your campaign. In this case, it’s even more important that it seem like the campaign is going well and has a lot of support.
Oh, and 3) the final purpose of a rally is of course to allow the candidates to give a big hello to Opal.
[Slinks away furiously washing Pit smell off ]
Ah, how apropos, a zombie thread for Halloween!
A zombie thread about a speech by a vampire. VERY Halloweeny…
Cheney, a vampire? It is to laugh!
He’s clearly a ghoul. 
I’m fine with this zombie coming back. I lost track of the thread way back when. Although I don’t expect Dewey and I will agree on the matter, I don’t want him to think I was ignoring him. I actually had pneumonia.
No breaks, straight face. I find it a bit disengenous of you to continue to act as if it were a concluded matter of fact that the democrats who had signed up for the speech were going to disrupt it or “visibly hold the diametrically opposite viewpoint”. As far as the story goes which was presented in the thread there was no signage, no bullhorns, no “Fuck Bush” t-shirts. The idea that the presence of someone who may silently and peacefully disagree with the speaker constitutes “significant impact to the delivery of the message” is repellent.
Hundreds of years of peaceful demonstrations at political events in pretty much every democratic country show the message can get out effectively even with people holding signs with a different message. I find it very sad that you believe the two messages can not co-exist without destructive interference. Case in point, the guy in the chicken suit and GHWB.
Enjoy,
Steven
California prohibits employers, private actors, from discriminating on basis of political affiliation/activity, as do many jurisdictions. Groups which recieve federal funds, including both the RNC and DNC, are bound to the federal antidiscrimination laws as well. While I am unaware of any universal prohibitions on discrimination based on political affiliation/activity, specific funding programs may limit their recipients beyond the baseline. For example:
It would be interesting to see if the RNC recieves money under the National and Community Service Trust Act(s). If so then the behavior in the OP may actually be a violation, depending on the actual statutes. If you throw a party with the Gov’ts money then you gotta play by their rules as to who you can invite and who you can’t. Similarly the Workforce Investment Act of 1998, Pub. L. No. 105-220, 112 Stat. 936 (codified as amended at scattered sections of 29 U.S.C.A. (West 2000) imposes antidiscrimination rules on recipients.
I wouldn’t guess the RNC gets any money under that title though.
So, political affiliation is protected under antidsicrimination statutes in at least the sphere of employment. Can’t fire someone for being a Democrat, or refuse to hire them for being a Republican. The sphere of attendee selection for a political event is not directly addressed, but may be touched by the restrictions on organizations which recieve federal funding. This would depend on the exact type and program they recieve the funding under, and on other factors. Still, throw a party with the gov’ts money and expect to have to play by their rules as to who you’re allowed to discriminate against on the guest list and why.
Enjoy,
Steven
Good Lord. Asking me to reconstruct an argument from two months ago is a bit much, don’t you think? Ah well.
Good thing I never said such a thing. I said that there was a risk of such action, and the Bush campaign was taking an extremely risk-averse position on preventing such problems.
If you want to hold to the position that requiring those oaths is a really stupid idea, I agree with you. Where I disagree is in saying that action represents a threat to free speech or that it represents a violation of antidiscrimination laws.
Jim Dale might silently and peacefully disagree with the position of the BSA. He might even promise to never mention homosexuality in public ever again. That doesn’t mean the BSA can’t still exclude him.
Again you put words in my mouth. I never said two messages cannot co-exist. I said the decision of whether to allow dissenting views at a private event is up to the eventholder. It is within the eventholder’s discretion to allow or exclude participants as they see fit.
This has nothing to do with public accomodation law, which is what we were discussing. It also has nothing to do with the facts described in the OP: the excluded persons were not employees of the RNC. Please do try to keep context in mind the next time you decide to play “gotcha!”
I also note that the California Labor Code is subordinate to the Constitution’s free assembly clause. The RNC will not be required to keep a Democrat on-staff in California, even if that person is a mere secretary.
Irrelevant. Political affiliation is not a protected class under federal antidiscrimination law dealing with public accomodations.
Translation: I’m unaware of any actual facts that support my position, so I’m going to wing it with wholesale supposition.
The NCSTA creates and funds AmeriCorps and similar groups. So, no, they don’t.
And on and on your post goes, citing to wholly irrelevant laws that (i) deal with employment, not public acomodation, (ii) don’t by their very terms affect the RNC, and (iii) ignore that the event in question isn’t a public accomodation in any case.
No obligations, do as you see fit.
This is where you part ways with the SCotUS according to my reading/understanding of BSA v Dale. Closing ranks is acceptable “if the person’s presence affects in a significant way the group’s ability to advocate public or private viewpoints.” I may be wrong, I’m not a constitutional scholar, but it seems reasonably clear. If all other qualifications of membership are met, then restriction based on the person’s impact on your message bear a burden of proof that this person’s association/presence causes a significant effect. We have no evidence that these guys would have produced such an effect had they been admitted to the speech.
I actually did “getcha”. You didn’t limit your request for antidiscrimination statutes based on political association to public accommodation statutes. 
Sure, being more generous with context means thats what you were talking about, but if you like sharp elbows you’ve got no room to complain when someone does the exact same stuff you do in so many threads.
Anyway, the summary of Federal requirements on organizations which receive Federal money that I quoted earlier did not seem to draw a distinction between the labor practices and other practices of the establishment. “Organizations receiving federal funds generally are subject to federal anti-discrimination laws in the administration of the funded program?thus, they may not discriminate on the basis of sex, race, religion and other federally protected characteristics.” I realize the context of the piece was about volunteers working for various organizations, but is the whole thing that narrow? Universities which receive federal funds are bound to use Federal antidiscrimination guidelines in both student admissions and their own hiring practices. Are these statutes bound to the narrow point of law regarding employment/labor? Could David Duke get Federal money to run his campaign and still bar black people from attending campaign events that they otherwise qualify to attend(have tickets, etc.)?
We’re not talking affirmative action type quotas(“required to keep a Democrat on-staff”), but they are not allowed to refuse to hire/promote/etc. an otherwise qualified individual solely on basis of political affiliation. The labor law fairly plainly says discrimination on basis of political affiliation/activity is prohibited. If two resumes were identical, one of a Democrat and one of a Republican and the RNC rejected either of them based on that one factoid alone, they would appear to be in breech of the statute. I found a case where suit had been brought against an employer in WV for holding back on promotions/raises based on alleged political discrimination. It didn’t meet the burden of proof, but it was an allowable charge. The RNC firing a Democrat just because they were a Democrat in CA would seem to violate the state’s code.
Beautiful. When lawyers use weasel words for CYA purposes it’s just fine. When I’m doing it it’s just BS. I’ve already established that antidiscrimination statutes which list “political affiliation” as one of the guidelines exist in at least one sphere of law in at least two jurisdictions. This is hardly “wholesale supposition” to consider the possibility that in the entire lexicon of state, local, and federal law there may be a similar proposition for public accomodations. Remember, the point under discussion is your assertion that “no crime was committed, no rights were infringed.” I am not asserting that crime was committed, or rights infringed, but I am saying the possibility exists. I was being honest in saying that I haven’t got controlling legal authority on the specific matter at hand, and somehow that diminishes my credibility?
We went back and forth on (iii) some time ago, and you don’t have a basis for asserting this as a fact beyond your assumptions as to the particulars of the event. Determinations of what does and does not constitute a public accomodation sometimes are not obvious. I would not have thought the private organization of the BSA was one, but at least one court said they were in BSA v Dale.
As to (i), employment statutes establish antidiscrimination for political affiliation as a valid guideline for at least one area of law. This means they are not wholly irrelevant because they establish precedent for antidiscrimination based on political affiliation/activity.
For (ii), this was a single example of a law which goes beyond the basic guidelines. To research the acts which created all the different programs the RNC gets money under to see if they have similar extensions of antidiscrimination guidelines would be a pretty big task. Still it is a possibility, and that makes it at least somewhat relevant.
Enjoy,
Steven
For starters, you aren’t citing to the opinion itself – you are citing to the headnotes, which is a brief summary of the case, aren’t written by the justices, and don’t constitute actual law. Law students are commonly advised to avoid using the headnotes as a shortcut to reading the case, because they aren’t sufficiently precise.
Secondly, and more substantively, but the key to the test you’re noting is not the impact of the excluded individual on the message, but rather whether the group is an expressive asssociation. The court focused on whether the Boy Scouts were such an organizantion, and found that they were. They then found that the mere presence of an open homosexual in their ranks was sufficient to interfere with that expressed message. They did not need to allege that Dale would be actively trying to contradict the Boy Scout position; his mere presence was enough. The RNC would certainly be entitled to that same deference.
Let me put it to you this way: suppose the KKK held a private rally in a hotel conference room. They turned away blacks at the door. Are you seriously suggesting, assuming those blacks testified they only planned on sitting in the back and listening quietly, that Dale would not apply? That those individuals could use antidiscrimination laws to require the KKK to allow them to attend?
Of course they couldn’t. It’s a silly suggestion.
My mistake for assuming you wanted to discuss things like a grownup.
Sod off. If you’ve got an example of me deliberately ignoring context to score a cheap (and meaningless) point, pony up. That sort of thing isn’t “sharp elbows,” it’s just chickenshit debating.
Yes, it is, because that law only funds those particular organizations. It literally does not apply to any other organizations because it does not fund other organizations. AmericaCorp, et al, must be nonpartisan, fine; we aren’t talking about AmericaCorp, et al. We’re talking about private organizations that are neither created by nor funded by the government.
Yes. You can’t take a law that sets up guidelines for funding universities and somehow via sleight of hand make it magically apply to the RNC or to the activities of other private groups.
Yes, because federal matching funds are not tied to honoring protected classes. Tragically, plenty of Republican candidates, many of whom accepted matching funds, have held events at Bob Jones University, which in years gone by actually did have discriminatory practices in place.
Well, that’s what I meant, although I could have been clearer. The RNC may screen its applicants and reject those that are registered Democratic. It may fire secretaries who have “Kerry-Edwards '04” bumper stickers on their cars.
So too, BTW, may the Catholic church refrain from hiring Muslims, and the KKK refrain from hiring blacks. The constitutional rights to speech and association trump state and federal antidiscrimination law.
Such laws apply to widget manufacturers and the like. They do not apply to overtly political organizations like the RNC, because to do so would violate their right to expressive association under Dale.
You weren’t using weasel words. You were engaged in wholesale conjecture. Fact is, you haven’t been able to point to any antidiscrimination laws that are even slightly applicable to the case at hand. CYA is fine, but you’ve got to have some substance to your argument in the first instance.
And this means exactly bupkiss, becasue that sphere of law is wholly unrelated to the case at bar. It’s like using an OSHA provision to make a point about securities law – just because they both involve businesses doesn’t mean you can use one to draw conclusions about the other.
If wishes were fishes, you’d have a seafood dinner. What else to call this type of “reasoning” but supposition?
Then you should at least have a plausible argument as to how such an infringement took place. You haven’t constructed any such thing yet. And pointing to areas of the law that clearly are unrelated to the facts at hand do not such an argument make.
That court was, of course, overruled. But more to the point: the RNC is no more a public accomodation than PETA or the NRA or NARAL. If organizations such as the RNC are public accomodations, what’s left? What’s a private association?
No, it doesn’t, any more than a OSHA statute establishes precedent for securities law.
(N.B. A court might look at how an OSHA provision has been interpreted as persuasive authority when interpreting a similarly-worded securities law provision, but first there must be a similar securities law provision.)
No, it means you’re wishing that something exists with no basis for believing it does. Other than electioneering matching funds, can you name one program under which the RNC receives government money?
The issue isn’t whether it’s legal. The issue is that it shows how pathetic and cowardly our chicken-hawk homunculus-in-chief really is.