I agree with SPBD, this thread is comical . . . TEPaul has a textbook nearly a half-decade old, so he is a Constitutional scholar and can lecture a bunch of lawyers on how to properly interpret the Constitution; plus he played a few rounds with some Europeans who may have been nearly as pompous as he, so now he is an expert on the motivations of European clubs and knows more than members of such clubs. Meanwhile, Shivas is trying to Bork us again, (mis)reading text to his liking.
A few comments,
Gib, your theory that we have more "ill-mannered idiots" and must therefor guard the gate doesnt fly. The ill-mannered idiots are the ones flooding the overseas courses with outside play. Your contingent for your upcoming trip excluded, of course.
David Tepper, We do have our own rights of rambling here in the United States. It is called an easement. Depending upon the jurisdiction, they allow the public access to the coast, to rivers and streams, to certain recreation sites, etc. So we are not so different after all.
Shivas, I agree that the Constitution is a "grant to power." The Federal Government only has the power granted by the Constitution, and there is no need to list out every little thing the Federal Government lacks the power to do. But what you are forgetting is that the Constitution has been amended (the P and I clause of the 14th amendment is likely the best source of power incorporation and protection of individual rts), and so has the world-- interstate commerce is indeed everywhere and so the Federal Govt's power is right there with it.
As for you reading of the first amendment, it is fun to see the lengths to which you go to shore up a flawed argument.
1) There is a comma. There should not be a comma if we are only talking about one right. And there is no long list in this phrase, just two (or one) item(s.)
2. Look a little more carefully at your sentence diagram, keeping in mind the alternative suggested structure which you say it should have if they are seperate rights . . .
Congress shall make no law abridging. . . the right of the people to peaceably to assemble, [OR] to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Now this doesnt create two rights, but rather creates rights in the alternative. Did the people have a right to peaceably assemble OR petition for redress of grievences?? When did they choose one or another? If they did one, could they not to the other. Makes no sense.
Peaceably assembling and petitioning the government for redress are two different rights. They are two distinct actions so they'd have to be.
That being said, the right to peaceably assemble is not the same freedom of association that people throw around on here all the time. It is a political right.
By the way, didnt I teach you about half this stuff back during the Martha Burke debates?
-- There never was a Martha Burke Lawsuit. So far as I am aware she was simply trying to exert political pressure. I dont think her group ever challenged Augusta's right to do what they were doing.
-- George Pazin calls the judiciary "tyranical" because it occassionally (and very rarely) trumps the legislature's wishes. But according to the founders, the most dangerous and likely tyranny is "the tyranny of the majority." So perhaps the judiciary is just doing its job.
A well-constructed Union must, above all else, break and control the violence of faction, especially the superior force of an … overbearing majority.
--Federalist 10
Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive, that, in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. . . . The judiciary . . . has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.
--Federalist 78
_________________________
As to the original questions, I think the reasons for the current exclusivity of clubs have probably been mentioned--
--Clubs fear that opening up too much will put them at risk of loosing their autonomy and might increase their tax burden. In my opinion, these concerns became much more serious in the 1960's, with the use of the Commerce clause to reach private action. I am no expert on the area, but it seems a club could carefully craft its way around some of these pitfalls (for example, Augusta's supposed Chinese wall between the club and the Masters.) However, I dont blame the clubs for choosing to avoid trying to walk this line. Also, I dont think that this is necessarily motivated by a desire to behave contrary to certain societal norms-- Having Uncle Sam watching over your shoulder can take its toll even if you have no intention of doing anything wrong.
-- That being said, some clubs (or rather some members of such clubs) really want to continue behaving in a manner which is unacceptable in today's public society. While its Constitutional basis may be questionable, private clubs have this right.
-- Some members of some clubs apparently dont buy into the notion that allowing some access to the great courses is a good idea. Take TEPaul's comments earlier,
"You (and Rich) keep saying that the system in Europe is better. Better for whom? It may be better for golfers who want access to play private clubs but I don't think the way it's done in Europe is better than America for the member of a private club." Presumably TEPaul is talking about belonging to a really top tier club which allows one to gain access at other top tier clubs.