Endless Federal Overreach

[PoliticalChic]

I know that we have folks who belive that federal power should be right there behind anyone who claims to be offended....
... and heaven help anyone who is the 'offender.'

1. The federal govenment is out to "eliminate the hostile sexual environment on campus."

2. "...the most recent and egregious event occurring in October of 2010. That is when a group of the Delta Kappa Epsilon (DKE) fraternity pledges surrounded by brothers of the same fraternity loudly chanted "No means yes! Yes means anal!" "

3. Another of the horrors that the federal 'Minute Men' will confront "include the September 2009 "Preseason scouting report" email where a group of male Yale students widely circulated a list of fifty-three freshman women, ranking them in order of how many beers it would take to have sex with them."

4. And the G-Men are all over "several instances of private sexual harassment..." (Perhaps I should rephrase that...)
Yale Under Investigation For Sexual Harassment

Well, without bringing up Title IX, should this be a federal responsibilty....and if you believe so, where does it logically end?

 

[William Joyce]

One Democrat Rep -- forget his name -- was caught on YouTube saying "the federal government can do whatever it wants."

What I think is strange is that this most critical, fundamental aspect of the federal government -- ENUMERATED POWERS -- wasn't something I learned about until freakin' LAW SCHOOL.

 

[Mr. H.]

Heck, back in the 70's all we had were panty raids.

 

[George Costanza]

I know that we have folks who belive that federal power should be right there behind anyone who claims to be offended....
... and heaven help anyone who is the 'offender.'

1. The federal govenment is out to "eliminate the hostile sexual environment on campus."

2. "...the most recent and egregious event occurring in October of 2010. That is when a group of the Delta Kappa Epsilon (DKE) fraternity pledges surrounded by brothers of the same fraternity loudly chanted "No means yes! Yes means anal!" "

3. Another of the horrors that the federal 'Minute Men' will confront "include the September 2009 "Preseason scouting report" email where a group of male Yale students widely circulated a list of fifty-three freshman women, ranking them in order of how many beers it would take to have sex with them."

4. And the G-Men are all over "several instances of private sexual harassment..." (Perhaps I should rephrase that...)
Yale Under Investigation For Sexual Harassment

Well, without bringing up Title IX, should this be a federal responsibilty....and if you believe so, where does it logically end?

Would you classify the federal government's action in the 1960's, in the South, as "overreaching"?

 

[zzzz]

It never ends. Theoretically it will eventually lead to federal intervention because the symbols on your fingernails offend me!!!

 

[Sallow]

I know that we have folks who belive that federal power should be right there behind anyone who claims to be offended....
... and heaven help anyone who is the 'offender.'

1. The federal govenment is out to "eliminate the hostile sexual environment on campus."

2. "...the most recent and egregious event occurring in October of 2010. That is when a group of the Delta Kappa Epsilon (DKE) fraternity pledges surrounded by brothers of the same fraternity loudly chanted "No means yes! Yes means anal!" "

3. Another of the horrors that the federal 'Minute Men' will confront "include the September 2009 "Preseason scouting report" email where a group of male Yale students widely circulated a list of fifty-three freshman women, ranking them in order of how many beers it would take to have sex with them."

4. And the G-Men are all over "several instances of private sexual harassment..." (Perhaps I should rephrase that...)
Yale Under Investigation For Sexual Harassment

Well, without bringing up Title IX, should this be a federal responsibilty....and if you believe so, where does it logically end?

When people stop complaining about it.

Until then..the Government is obligated to investigate complaints.

 

[whitehall]

We have some serious problems in federal law-enforcement going on for decades and there doesn't seem to be any leadership or oversight from either the media or the congressional committies who are supposed to be in charge. The federal bureaucracy that brought us the "Siege at Ruby Ridge" and "The Branch Dividian Massacre in Waco Tx", namely the ATF, recently shipped automatic weapons to Mexico hoping for some obscure kind of intelligence in return and all they got was crime scenes and dead Americans. Thank God for the freedom of information but virtual silence in the liberal media and CYA attitude from both political parties.

 

[George Costanza]

This OP smells like "state's rights" with lipstick on it. "States rights" is a well-known, conservative buzz phrase which has as its end result, bad things.

 

[whitehall]

This OP smells like "state's rights" with lipstick on it. "States rights" is a well-known, conservative buzz phrase which has as its end result, bad things.

"States rights with lipstick on it". We have a poster using the old Jackie Gleason "Honeymooners" character Ed Norton pretending to be a right wing and a poster pretending to be a dumb bald headed jerk from Seinfeld and they both apparently expect to be trusted. Go figure.

 

[George Costanza]

This OP smells like "state's rights" with lipstick on it. "States rights" is a well-known, conservative buzz phrase which has as its end result, bad things.

"States rights with lipstick on it". We have a poster using the old Jackie Gleason "Honeymooners" character Ed Norton pretending to be a right wing and a poster pretending to be a dumb bald headed jerk from Seinfeld and they both apparently expect to be trusted. Go figure.

Well played.

In real life, I'm a lawyer - so now you KNOW you can trust me!

 

[Foxfyre]

When I was in college, a long long time ago, the university itself had certain standards of protocol that the students were not allowed to overstep. Freshman hazing was allowed but only of the most innocuous kind with no physical violation or harm allowed. Those who overstepped the protocol which really was just everyday normal decency would be subject to reprimand and, if the offense was severe enough, expulsion.

And we students pretty well policed ourselves. I remember one student who was especially well endowed who was told that so and so was spreading the word that she wore 'falsies'. She caught up with him in the middle of a crowded student union lunchroom and proceeded to bless him out for a good ten minutes without repeating herself and without using any profanity. That really impressed me.

Bottom line, we need to return to certain common values and standards of decency so that a civil society will enforce the standards. I don't want the federal government involved in stuff like this. But then I am the poster child for the anti-political correctness police anyhow.

 

[Mr Liberty]

This OP smells like "state's rights" with lipstick on it. "States rights" is a well-known, conservative buzz phrase which has as its end result, bad things.

Are you oppose to the state having more power over the citizen than the federal government? if so, why

 

[PoliticalChic]

I know that we have folks who belive that federal power should be right there behind anyone who claims to be offended....
... and heaven help anyone who is the 'offender.'

1. The federal govenment is out to "eliminate the hostile sexual environment on campus."

2. "...the most recent and egregious event occurring in October of 2010. That is when a group of the Delta Kappa Epsilon (DKE) fraternity pledges surrounded by brothers of the same fraternity loudly chanted "No means yes! Yes means anal!" "

3. Another of the horrors that the federal 'Minute Men' will confront "include the September 2009 "Preseason scouting report" email where a group of male Yale students widely circulated a list of fifty-three freshman women, ranking them in order of how many beers it would take to have sex with them."

4. And the G-Men are all over "several instances of private sexual harassment..." (Perhaps I should rephrase that...)
Yale Under Investigation For Sexual Harassment

Well, without bringing up Title IX, should this be a federal responsibilty....and if you believe so, where does it logically end?

When people stop complaining about it.

Until then..the Government is obligated to investigate complaints.

"...the Government is obligated..."

1. Only when we ignore the Constitution

and

2. When citizens don't act like adults and look for 'daddy government' to take care of them.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Heck, back in the 70's all we had were panty raids.

Now, just hold on, Mr. H....I'm not supporting the behavior of the Yalies, I'm simply pointing out that folks like my friend Sallow seems to feel that the feds should have their fingers in every cotton-pickin' aspect of life, from what toilets we can buy, what light bulbs we can use, what foods we can eat, and what college kids can say.

It's wrong.

It's progressive.

It's totalitarian.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I know that we have folks who belive that federal power should be right there behind anyone who claims to be offended....
... and heaven help anyone who is the 'offender.'

1. The federal govenment is out to "eliminate the hostile sexual environment on campus."

2. "...the most recent and egregious event occurring in October of 2010. That is when a group of the Delta Kappa Epsilon (DKE) fraternity pledges surrounded by brothers of the same fraternity loudly chanted "No means yes! Yes means anal!" "

3. Another of the horrors that the federal 'Minute Men' will confront "include the September 2009 "Preseason scouting report" email where a group of male Yale students widely circulated a list of fifty-three freshman women, ranking them in order of how many beers it would take to have sex with them."

4. And the G-Men are all over "several instances of private sexual harassment..." (Perhaps I should rephrase that...)
Yale Under Investigation For Sexual Harassment

Well, without bringing up Title IX, should this be a federal responsibilty....and if you believe so, where does it logically end?

Would you classify the federal government's action in the 1960's, in the South, as "overreaching"?

Nice rhetorical overreach, Georgie.

 

[PoliticalChic]

This OP smells like "state's rights" with lipstick on it. "States rights" is a well-known, conservative buzz phrase which has as its end result, bad things.

"States rights with lipstick on it". We have a poster using the old Jackie Gleason "Honeymooners" character Ed Norton pretending to be a right wing and a poster pretending to be a dumb bald headed jerk from Seinfeld and they both apparently expect to be trusted. Go figure.

Well played.

In real life, I'm a lawyer - so now you KNOW you can trust me!

You know the line in Shakespeare's Henry VI, is "kill all the lawyers" ?

Do you think the feds should ban Shakespeare as well as the horrid things the Yalies were saying?

Speak up, Georgie...and be consistent.

 

[George Costanza]

I remember one student who was especially well endowed who was told that so and so was spreading the word that she wore 'falsies'. She caught up with him in the middle of a crowded student union lunchroom and proceeded to . . . .

I REALLY thought this story was going somewhere else . . .

 

[George Costanza]

"States rights with lipstick on it". We have a poster using the old Jackie Gleason "Honeymooners" character Ed Norton pretending to be a right wing and a poster pretending to be a dumb bald headed jerk from Seinfeld and they both apparently expect to be trusted. Go figure.

Well played.

In real life, I'm a lawyer - so now you KNOW you can trust me!

You know the line in Shakespeare's Henry VI, is "kill all the lawyers" ?

Do you think the feds should ban Shakespeare as well as the horrid things the Yalies were saying?

Speak up, Georgie...and be consistent.

OK, OK - possibly I got a little carried away with my "1960's civil rights" comment. On further reading of your OP, I see you are limiting this to what you (apparently) think is something not worthy of federal attention. Maybe it isn't.

Try this one on. I went to a small, liberal arts college located in the southern California area. I won't say when I was doing my undergratuate work there, but is was a long, long time ago. Let's just say that we often saw deserters from both the North and the South walking through the campus, looking for a place to stay . . .

Anyway, we had a "tradition" that required all incoming freshman women to step up on a scale which was placed on the outside, front porch area of one of the women's dorms, in front of most of the male students on campus. The women would be weighed and measured (bust, waist and hips) and the results recorded in a book that was passed down from sophomore class to sophomore class.

We (the guys) always looked forward to "weigh in day" with great anticipation. I guess the well proportioned women didn't mind it as much as the less favored gals did. I was later told that the "weighing in" had caused many a sleepless night for girls who had been accepted and were awaiting the day they were to arrive on campus.

That practice has long since been discontinued at my college - and rightly so. Looking back, it was very wrong to put the women through something like that. But what did we know?

Now, suppose that the college had not voluntarily stopped the practice. Shouldn't SOME overviewing authority have stepped in and done so? Of course. And what it if had not? Would this be something of a sufficient enough nature to generate federal intervention, assuming all other avenues had been tried and failed?

 

[Foxfyre]

Well played.

In real life, I'm a lawyer - so now you KNOW you can trust me!

You know the line in Shakespeare's Henry VI, is "kill all the lawyers" ?

Do you think the feds should ban Shakespeare as well as the horrid things the Yalies were saying?

Speak up, Georgie...and be consistent.

OK, OK - possibly I got a little carried away with my "1960's civil rights" comment. On further reading of your OP, I see you are limiting this to what you (apparently) think is something not worthy of federal attention. Maybe it isn't.

Try this one on. I went to a small, liberal arts college located in the southern California area. I won't say when I was doing my undergratuate work there, but is was a long, long time ago. Let's just say that we often saw deserters from both the North and the South walking through the campus, looking for a place to stay . . .

Anyway, we had a "tradition" that required all incoming freshman women to step up on a scale which was placed on the outside, front porch area of one of the women's dorms, in front of most of the male students on campus. The women would be weighed and measured (bust, waist and hips) and the results recorded in a book that was passed down from sophomore class to sophomore class.

We (the guys) always looked forward to "weigh in day" with great anticipation. I guess the well proportioned women didn't mind it as much as the less favored gals did. I was later told that the "weighing in" had caused many a sleepless night for girls who had been accepted and were awaiting the day they were to arrive on campus.

That practice has long since been discontinued at my college - and rightly so. Looking back, it was very wrong to put the women through something like that. But what did we know?

Now, suppose that the college had not voluntarily stopped the practice. Shouldn't SOME overviewing authority have stepped in and done so? Of course. And what it if had not? Would this be something of a sufficient enough nature to generate federal intervention, assuming all other avenues had been tried and failed?

Why of course? Why do not the women simply boycott the practice or attend another college until the powers at the university do something? What unalienable, civil, legal, or constitutional right of the women was being violated? Morally wrong? Yes. Ethically wrong? Yes. But it is for the moral and ethical people of the university to deal with, not the federal government. And if there ARE no moral or ethical people at that university, I would expect to attend a different university and also my daughter and anybody else I could persuade. And I would let the administration know why.

And if that was the ONLY university in the world admitting women, I bet I could find enough benefactors who saw it my way to build another university. And I bet we wouldn't have any problem recruiting all the female staff at the original university as well as what moral and ethical men existed.

 

[George Costanza]

The

You know the line in Shakespeare's Henry VI, is "kill all the lawyers" ?

Do you think the feds should ban Shakespeare as well as the horrid things the Yalies were saying?

Speak up, Georgie...and be consistent.

OK, OK - possibly I got a little carried away with my "1960's civil rights" comment. On further reading of your OP, I see you are limiting this to what you (apparently) think is something not worthy of federal attention. Maybe it isn't.

Try this one on. I went to a small, liberal arts college located in the southern California area. I won't say when I was doing my undergratuate work there, but is was a long, long time ago. Let's just say that we often saw deserters from both the North and the South walking through the campus, looking for a place to stay . . .

Anyway, we had a "tradition" that required all incoming freshman women to step up on a scale which was placed on the outside, front porch area of one of the women's dorms, in front of most of the male students on campus. The women would be weighed and measured (bust, waist and hips) and the results recorded in a book that was passed down from sophomore class to sophomore class.

We (the guys) always looked forward to "weigh in day" with great anticipation. I guess the well proportioned women didn't mind it as much as the less favored gals did. I was later told that the "weighing in" had caused many a sleepless night for girls who had been accepted and were awaiting the day they were to arrive on campus.

That practice has long since been discontinued at my college - and rightly so. Looking back, it was very wrong to put the women through something like that. But what did we know?

Now, suppose that the college had not voluntarily stopped the practice. Shouldn't SOME overviewing authority have stepped in and done so? Of course. And what it if had not? Would this be something of a sufficient enough nature to generate federal intervention, assuming all other avenues had been tried and failed?

Why of course? Why do not the women simply boycott the practice or attend another college until the powers at the university do something? What unalienable, civil, legal, or constitutional right of the women was being violated? Morally wrong? Yes. Ethically wrong? Yes. But it is for the moral and ethical people of the university to deal with, not the federal government. And if there ARE no moral or ethical people at that university, I would expect to attend a different university and also my daughter and anybody else I could persuade. And I would let the administration know why.

And if that was the ONLY university in the world admitting women, I bet I could find enough benefactors who saw it my way to build another university. And I bet we wouldn't have any problem recruiting all the female staff at the original university as well as what moral and ethical men existed.

The college involved was/still is, one of the best, small liberal arts colleges in the entire country. Being accepted is extremely difficult, I doubt that "going somewhere else" would have been a realistic alternative, merely to protest the weighing in ceremony.

But I don't think something like that would ever get to a federal level, probably not even a state level. Fortunately, the college had the foresight to change with the times. Don't forget, this was all a long, long time ago. Everyone smoked, racial discrimination was openly practiced - aw, hell: it was the mid 1950's.