Yes, the world changes. But the principles laid out in the Constitution do not change—only how they are defined in each age. In Jefferson's day, the lopping off of ears was not considered cruel and unusual punishment. Today, it would be. But we still honor the principle.

The Seventh Amendment guarantees a jury trial for lawsuits involving more than $20. The figure has changed, but the principle has not.

With computer databases and electronic communication, we have to figure out how to apply the valid principles of 200 years ago to the modern world. But we should still honor those principles.

But we should not let anyone turn the principles on their head. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms" does not mean "the right of the government to keep and bear arms," though you can find some high school government textbooks that say that very thing.

And "nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb" should not be interpreted to include "unless the government doesn't like the verdict."

Whenever you hear, "Even if it prevents just one instance of . . ." or "Even if it saves just one child . . ." or "Even if it makes us just a little bit safer . . ."—

BEWARE!

And oh! How could I have forgotten? Jefferson also ate meat!

wrt:
"There is a big difference (as a matter of principle) between something being legal and something being right. There is a big difference (as a matter of principle) between something being declared constitutional by a specific set of 9 members of the black-robed priesthood and something being actually allowed under a plain reading of the constitution. Defending our liberty is not a one-time event but a continuing battle."

There is an even bigger difference between what is possible and what is right, with legal possibly somewhere in between. Some seem to propose that just being possible makes something acceptable.

Privacy is not a liberal concept, but a conservative one, required for liberty and governed by the Fourth Amendment, among other legitimate legislations.

No, it isn't.

I disagreed because I missed the point??? So, it I only understood, then I would agree?? What arrogance.

The whole topic is about various opinions.
Well, that explains the arrogant view that if I only understood, I would agree, and since I disagree I must have missed the point.True, and if anything, history since the 18th century has proven Jefferson correct about the trends of government to the concentration of power and the resulting loss of libertySo, I take from this that you have no use for search warrants. After all, we could better help protect the innocents if the police would, at their whim, inspect the privacy of the pervert's homes.Show me where there is a problem here with umpires and I might START to listen. Until then, it is yet another useless feel-good action that accomplishes nothing except infringe on the liberty of the innocent.

Couldn't find the one I thought I saw, but this one is just as bad.

http://www.abovethelaw.com/2006/10/a...mark_foley.php

Good points have been raised about who is asking for us Umpires to sign the authorization form. The letter in various places says this is coming from the ASA.
If this is truely not coming from the ASA but some regional person who is not speaking for the Entire ASA then I think we have a "Commissioner gone wild" thing going on

New Jersey is run by idiots.

But we knew that already, didn't we?

This is exactly how those who would usurp our rights want us to think.

I will refrain from rehashing the rest, but I must disagree here (maybe I'm just missing your point! :) ).

I am not saying you missed the point because you disagreed. I am saying that you are disagreeing with something that was not the point. There's a difference. If you were saying that my POINT was wrong ... that would be simply disagreeing with my point. You keep saying you disagree with something that was entirely NOT the point ... leading me to say you missed the point.

A: "The sky appears to be blue."
B: "No, it is only the refraction of light rays making it look blue. The light is white."
A: "You missed my point - I didn't say the light wasn't white, I said the sky appears to be blue."
B: "How arrogant to say I missed the point just because I disagreed."
A: "Still not my point."

We could go in circles all day - but if you'll look above, each time where you disagreed (both to my point and the Jefferson thing), you were not disagreeing with the poster's point - you were disagreeing with something else entirely. Disagreeing doesn't mean you missed the point... missing the point means you missed the point.

You change the meaning of my quote by snipping out, "In some cases." No offense, but that's incredibly underhanded. (Made worse by the fact that my post was last on a page and very possibly not even read by those just tuning in to the current page.) I absolutely do not mean that to be true in all cases. I mean it to be true in SOME case, and in the particular case of this thread.

Let me ask you, then ...

Who is usurping your rights by making you sign a form that allows an organization that you are choosing to work for in a capacity which puts you in a position of authority over children to perform a background check on you? In what way are your rights usurped? Especially considering that they can do what they ask anyway without your permission should they choose to do so.

It would be a different argument if this information was not already public, but I think I'd STILL land on the side of protecting the rights of the children and trying to keep potentially harmful people from being placed in positions of authority over them. To me, your right to privacy is superceded by the league's responsibility to the children the moment that you decide you want to be placed in a position of authority over them. If your privacy is more important to you than your ability to be placed into authoritative positions, you surely have the right to not work. Your rights are most certainly not being usurped in this case.

With one of your earlier posts, I was not addressing your point at all, but rather the rationalization that led to your conclusion. I said that pretty clearly.

With Jefferson, the poster merely stated the he owned slaves. From that I assumed he was intending to attack his character or his expertise or his right to comment on liberty since he kept people in slavery. I countered that this, to me, indicated the the poster could not address the issues of loss of liberty in modern American society at all and instead chose to try to have Jefferson's views discounted through attack on Jefferson as a man.

The poster then said he was not attacking him since what he said was true, but was claiming that the interpretation of the constitution had changed regarding slavery, and I pointed out that the interpretation had not changed, but rather that the consitution had been amended. And. besides, whether on not the charge was true had nothing to do with the fact that it was personal attack rather than a couter to his views.

So, do you actually belive search warrants are an impediment to the protection of the innocent?

I agree with parts of what you said..., and indicated so very early on when I pointed out that I was well aware that a softball sanctioning organization is not the state.

I disagree with the rationalization that this implies and strongly disagree that the rights of the presumed guilty are superceded by the rights of the presumed innocent.

The rights of the children playing softball do not trump my rights as a citizen. Of course, since the ASA is not the state (as I said before), I can choose to not sign the form and live with whatever the consequences are.

Again, my dispute with what you are saying is the rationale you are using, since it is a very small half-step to use that same rationale where it is the state that is snooping and not a softball league. This rationale that "if it saves just one" then the loss of liberty is acceptable is disturbing in the extreme, to me. I trust that since you beleive this way that you have no problem whatsoever with the phone call monitoring program the Bush adminsitration put into place, since that would protect many more than "just one child."

Be REAL careful... this is where the 3rd party organizations get to fill in details about info that they might be missing. Often when asking for your SSN (don't give it) or DL or picture, they might not have such a complete detail about you. Once they have it, it then is added to the PUBLIC database for these companies. Therefore, you become an easy source of information supply. There is NO reason that a third party needs to be involved. The state and federal gov't has the certified records and that is where the info should be obtained, if at all.

Don't give out personal data... once out it can NEVER be retrieved. There are other ways for the assoc. to get the certified data!

Just a thought.:o

List wth Pics
 

Here is a site that you put in your address and zip code and it will show all the sex offenders within 2 miles of your home or work. Shows there picture, lists their sex crimes, and gives their home and work addresses. It also shows how close they are to schools in the area:

http://www.familywatchdog.us/

Fair enough.

I see your point. But I'm drawing a line in a different place. I am not saying the rights of the presumed guilty (although in many cases we're not talking about PRESUMED guilty, but CONFIRMED guilty ... but that's a separate argument) are superceded by the rights of the presumed innocent. I'm drawing the line between the rights of the general populus vs the rights of those unable to defend themselves (children, in this case).

Fair enough, but for the sake of the argument, let's say this WAS the government making this requirement. Not that all adults must submit to background checks ... but that all adults who are being placed in positions of authority over children must submit to background checks. See, there's the crux. The group of people whose rights you are saying are being trumped are people who are being placed in a position where we teach our children to listen to them and trust them. That trust can be misplaced if we do not ensure that those that are being trusted CAN be trusted. And again ... even if this was the government doing this, you, Joe Citizen, could simply refuse to sign the form and not participating in being an authority figure over children. Again - your rights not being trumped unless you want to be placed in these trusted positions.

Again, I see your point, and agree with much of it. (Can I have my liberal card back yet?) I do NOT believe the spying on of adults by the Bush administration was (or is) warranted. But to me this and the original topic are NOT equivalent. It would be more equivalent if, for example, the government made you sign a form allowing your phone to be tapped if you were going to be given government secrets, for example. And no ... I'd have no problem with that policy in that case.

It's not really the rationale of "it saves just one" that leads me to my opinions on the BG check thing. It's the rationale of doing the due diligence to ensure that we are not putting people in positions of trust that should not be trusted with that position. I think it's a vastly bigger leap going from BG checks of umpires to phone tapping of the general public.

How in the world do you get paid without offerering up your SSN?!?!?!