[TEPaul]

But Dave, I don't know that anyone has suggested that "the guys" lied (in the Federalist Papers et al)!

It's just astounding to me the extent that some people will go to make a point sometimes as is evidenced in much of this Whaly and ANGC stuff! Reems and reems of one kind of opinion or another. I say let them just stick to understanding and using the "mechanisms" "the guys" left us with and not necessarily to try to pick "the guys" brains in every scintilla of evidence they can find as "the guys" molder away in their graves.

I guess, I'll have to actually check here and there but I never felt that any of them wanted absolutely zero mechanism to "interpret" what might come up in the future and that's clearly the capacity of some of those mechanisms and they had to intend that to be so. The whole function and position of the US Supreme Court is such.

I think, like I'm sure you do, that those "guys" were quite amazing futurists but they certainly never intended to actually be there for us in the future.

[John Poindexter]

I hope you guys (I assume there are no women on this website) realize that I am taking all of this in as head of Bush's information gathering department. Carry on.

[TEPaul]

John Poin Dexter:

Why take it in over the Internet? Apparently personalities traits and such are somewhat skewed and misunderstood that way. Ask us down to the White House, I'm sure many of us will come as it's winter now and the courses are cold. We'll show you how to take in information firsthand.

If you have some pretty good wine down there, I'll come! If George bags that Osama's ass before the new year I'll even make a special trip to tell Pres George howdy do and good on him!

But if you offer no invite, stay tuned anyway because I think the next-up thread just might be exactly how to bag Osama's ass before the new year!

[Michael Moore]

Tom Paul -

Yes, this is my real photo, taken at my brother's wedding in 1998. I have been described as intellectual, but more literary than legal - I can barely keep up with this debate.

I suppose there is some bizarre connection between the Tenth Amendment and Rule 1-4, both of which ask "What if it does not appear in the rules?" The brevity of each has left them wide open to interpretation and led to such monstrosities as the Civil War and Decisions on the Rules of Golf.

But the Tenth Amendment is crystal clear when compared to Rule 1-4, which to me says "If you can't find it in the rules, apply justice."

Easily the most helpful post so far is the one quoting from PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin, by Stevens and Scalia, differentiating among the Rules of Golf, Conditions of Competition and Local Rules, and Notices to Competitors. As someone who is naive about tournaments this is fascinating and crucial information.

By the way, Scalia's dissent is hilarious -

"If one assumes, however, that the PGA TOUR has some legal obligation to play classic, Platonic golf--and if one assumes the correctness of all the other wrong turns the Court has made to get to this point--then we Justices must confront what is indeed an awesome responsibility. It has been rendered the solemn duty of the Supreme Court of the United States, laid upon it by Congress in pursuance of the Federal Government's power "[t]o regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States," U. S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 3, to decide What Is Golf."

[Paul Richards]

Michael:

Nice photo.
 

[DMoriarty]

You said to me . . ."I know you like to look to Amendment 9 to find extra-textual (unenumerated) rights, as apparently some legal scholars do the same."
Could you possibly tell me what you mean by that? If you could tell me what you think I'm looking for or seeing in Amendment 9 or what you are, I have a funny feeling it very well may clear up a ton of misunderstanding on this thread.
The concept of "Unenumerated" rights (the citizenry's or People's rights) as its defined in Amendment 9 is extremely important to me, not so much in what it exactly says but in the way that the entire US Constitution is constructed and written vis-a-vis the Bill of Rights or certainly this particular Amendment.

Tom, these are not really easy issues to address in a simple and concise manner.  
I will try to give you my understanding of the 9th Amendment's relationship to the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, why it was added, and what it was meant to do.  Then I will go from there.  I apologize if much of this is remedial for you.

At the time of the founding, most sovereigns had limitless power over their subjects except where their power was specifically limited by doctrines or tradition.   Some of the founders very much wanted to turn this structure on its head, so the Constitution was created as a GRANT OF POWER (as opposed to a limitation on already existing power.)  The founders envisioned a Fed. Govt. that had absolutely no power at all, except for the specific powers that the people (through the States) specifically granted the Fed. Govt. in the Constitution.  

Since the Fed only had the powers that the people gave them (through the States), many felt that the Bill of Rights was unnecessary. To give an oversimplified example, freedom of speech was unnecessary because the Constitution did not grant the Fed any power that would put the Fed in a position to impinge on freedom of speech.  

More importantly for this discussion, some also believed that a Bill of Rts was actually dangerous to the very structure of the government they were attempting to create.  Basically, founders were afraid that if they started limiting the Feds power by awarding the people unnecessary rights, the Fed would interpret this to mean that they could do anything it wanted so long as it didn't violate the enumerated rights.  They were afraid that the Fed would stomp on the rights of the people (some from state constitutions) like the British did.  They did not want to return to this type of government, and did not want to risk the "grant of power" basis for our Fed.

I think it was Madison who suggested the 9th Amendment in order to calm these fears and to insure that the Constitution remained a grant of power, and that the Fed's power consisted of only powers that the Constitution specifically granted.

So, many consider the 9th amendment a guidepost or reminder on how to read the Bill of Rts. in the context of the structure of the Constitution, and a guarantee that the Bill of Rights would not be used to increase Fed power.  

Turning to what I think you think the 9th Amendment means; to be honest I am not sure I know what you think, but I will give it a shot since you think it might advance the discussion.   I assume that you look at the 9th Amendment as guaranteeing rights that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution (your unenumerated rights).  Perhaps you think that identifiable rights exist that fall under the protection of the 9th Amendment.  I assume you conclude that, if the Fed (or State?) steps on those rights, the 9th Amendment should be invoked to protect the people from the govt. interference.  

My guess is that you may see this as consistent with what I say above.  But here is the rub, as I see it.  History suggests that the 9th does not create or protect any rights at all (enumerated or unenumerated.)   It just textualizes the notion that the Bill of Rts should not be construed to alter the structure of the Fed as a govt limited to only those powers granted by the Constitution.  (Under this reading, the 9th and 10th have a lot of overlap, which makes some sense, structurally.)  

In fact, the judicial creation and/or identification of particular rights (such as association) under the 9th Amendment could be viewed as entirely antithetical to the actual purpose the 9th.  The fed. government (judges) are governing in a manner that is not specifically granted in the Constitution!  Or, at the very least, the judiciary is usurping the will of the people (through the States) by amending the Constitution (adding rights) without following Constitutional amendment procedures.  

Even if you look closely at some of the opinions in Griswold (which creates a new substantive right), they stop short of finding the right of reproductive privacy in the 9th Amendment.  Instead, they use the 9th Amendment to justify the theory that the Constitution itself recognizes the potential for rights and protections beyond what is specifically listed.  (Shivas and Bork will tell you that this use is also antithetical to the 9th.)  The Justices turn to other portions of the Constitution to (try to) find the actual rights extending from enumerated rights.  

So, as I understand most of the evidence, the 9th Amendment is not a place to turn to when one is looking to find specific substantive rights that one wishes to protect Constitutionally.  In other words, freedom of association cant be protected by the 9th amendment because it is not an amendment that protects any specific rights.  

Now after having said all this, there are scholars who believe that the 9th Amendment is a legitimate place to look for rights that seem to go beyond the text of the constitution.  But, to be honest, I can't really remember what they said.  If I recall correctly, one such scholar is John Ely who wrote Democracy and Distrust.   You may want to check it out if you are interested in going deeper into the issue.  

[DMoriarty]

Shivas

Based your post #206, I assume that you and Bork think that Augusta should have no Constitutionally protected freedom of association or right to privacy, and that Georgia should be able to force Augusta to admit women merely by passing legislation requiring it to do so.  Is this a correct assumption?

By the way, I have never read any of Bork's books from cover to cover, but I have read excepts and a some of his essays.  You are right, his brilliance cannot be missed.  However, he might have benefited if he had read Federalist #78, quoted by you above, as a warning:

"This simple view of the matter . . . proves incontestably, that the judiciary . . . can never attack with success either of the other two [branches]; and that all possible care is requisite to enable it to defend itself against their attacks."

This quote holds true whatever the theory of interpretation of the judge, and whatever the textual basis for his opinions. In other words, no matter how well reasoned a decision or position, if it is out of whack with societal standards, it will not be tolerated for long.

[TEPaul]

D Moriarty:

You Said:

"Since the Fed only had the powers that the people gave them (through the States), many felt that the Bill of Rights was unnecessary. To give an oversimplified example, freedom of speech was unnecessary because the Constitution did not grant the Fed any power that would put the Fed in a position to impinge on freedom of speech.  

More importantly for this discussion, some also believed that a Bill of Rts was actually dangerous to the very structure of the government they were attempting to create.  Basically, founders were afraid that if they started limiting the Feds power by awarding the people unnecessary rights, the Fed would interpret this to mean that they could do anything it wanted so long as it didn't violate the enumerated rights.  They were afraid that the Fed would stomp on the rights of the people (some from state constitutions) like the British did.  They did not want to return to this type of government, and did not want to risk the "grant of power" basis for our Fed.

I think it was Madison who suggested the 9th Amendment in order to calm these fears and to insure that the Constitution remained a grant of power, and that the Fed's power consisted of only powers that the Constitution specifically granted.

So, many consider the 9th amendment a guidepost or reminder on how to read the Bill of Rts. in the context of the structure of the Constitution, and a guarantee that the Bill of Rights would not be used to increase Fed power.  

Turning to what I think you think the 9th Amendment means; to be honest I am not sure I know what you think, but I will give it a shot since you think it might advance the discussion.   I assume that you look at the 9th Amendment as guaranteeing rights that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution (your unenumerated rights).  Perhaps you think that identifiable rights exist that fall under the protection of the 9th Amendment.  I assume you conclude that, if the Fed (or State?) steps on those rights, the 9th Amendment should be invoked to protect the people from the govt. interference.  

My guess is that you may see this as consistent with what I say above.  But here is the rub, as I see it.  History suggests that the 9th does not create or protect any rights at all (enumerated or unenumerated.)   It just textualizes the notion that the Bill of Rts should not be construed to alter the structure of the Fed as a govt limited to only those powers granted by the Constitution.  (Under this reading, the 9th and 10th have a lot of overlap, which makes some sense, structurally.)  

In fact, the judicial creation and/or identification of particular rights (such as association) under the 9th Amendment could be viewed as entirely antithetical to the actual purpose the 9th.  The fed. government (judges) are governing in a manner that is not specifically granted in the Constitution!  Or, at the very least, the judiciary is usurping the will of the people (through the States) by amending the Constitution (adding rights) without following Constitutional amendment procedures."

D Moriarty:

Thanks for all that--obviously must have taken some time and I very much appreaciate it. Some of your logic is definitely not clear to me, particularly the last paragraph, and I should say some in the first paragraph. Got to go for the morning but I'd sure like to take up or clarify those parts I mentioned later. Or send me an email offline with your email if you'd like.

[TEPaul]

Dave:

Oh Wow, do I not agree with opinions like yours on your last post although I'm actually glad you posted it, in the spirit of open and diverse discussion. However, this thread can be an even better one if we try to stick on here to the way the US Government actually works as a mechanism, or should work, or was or is intended to work as a mechanism even if in theory, without inserting merely personal politcal opinion on a single entity of the government into the discussion.

My point being this country has always had a diversity of political opinion and it's up to the government to stay current with that, always certainly recognizing that one side or the other, or more likely either end of the political spectrum, will probably not agree. That's not much more than recognizing and administering a true democracy, in my opinion.

Don't forget Lincoln's great quote 'that the barometer of the strength of a democracy is the amount of dissent or diversity of opinion that any democratic government can stand at any particular time!'

You really think the US Supreme Court is the only entity or the most responsible entity for creating a 'society of victims'? How about the Executive Branch, how about the Legislative Branch? How about a ton of other things and other factors not to mention the people themselves who "act the victim"? Have they no responsibility if they act the victim with almost anything and everything? Have they no sense of personal responsibility--at least to themselves?

What the Hell happened to the small matter of their right to EXCERCISE their vote and express their opinion of who they want to lead them and what they would prefer their leaders to do, if, in fact, they're discontent? That little matter (the vote) in the broad scheme of things, and even in the context of this thread on our government and its Constitution, is the best manner in which they (the Citizenry) can express and maintain that THEY, in fact, ARE the SUPREME LAW of this land! That's their own responsibility to themselves, as much as anything, if they think something or someone has made them "victims" or made a mess of things!

What does the small matter of a less than 50% voter turnout which is not unusual in America today mean to you? To me it means either contentment or laziness, two things that amount to the same basic expression which is things are probably OK--their probably just fine or fine enough to not care to do much about it--like vote and express something.

I'm not in the slightest trying to criticize you either if you're a political conservative or even a liberal--that does not matter to me at all. But I'd hope we all can recognize that this country has a real dynamic to it, always has had, and the government necessarily moves along in sort of a grey area to reflect that. Nothing's just black and just white about our country or our Government, including all the branches of it, and that certainly includes that one of three, the US Supreme Court!

Please don't take this post personally, I truly don't mean it to be that at all, although I'm certain some will see it that way. Please come back at me just as hard as you think I might be coming at you! You have a tremendous amount of knowledge apparently on some of these things and I'd love to see it come out to logically explain or defend what you feel but always within the mechanisms of Government more than the personalities in it.

I know this thread isn't about golf architecture but I think it's a wonderfully educational thread nonetheless, and I hope it keeps going, and soon if you give me half a chance I'll whip it back into golf and even golf architecture even in the context of this "constitutional" thread.

I probably shouldn't post this but here goes!

Peace!

[TEPaul]

Dave Schmidt;

Thank you--you're a very thoughtful and very nice man! I'm not all that concerned about pissing people off if the message is fundamentally well meant, but I didn't really want to piss you off, although the primary reason is I think you might be much bigger than me!

[THuckaby2]

Guess I shouldn't swear to myself I'll stay out of threads as here's another one I'm breaking my promise on....

But Tom, I can confirm that Dave is quite a bit bigger than you.  QUITE a bit.

But if ever there's a gentle giant, that has to be Mr. Schmidt!  He'd have throttled me long ago if he wasn't this way!

TH

[DMoriarty]

And as to Court opinions that are out of whack with societal standards, I agree that in theory . . .  The problem, however, is that our politicians in Washington stand for nothing . . . and none of them has the guts to stand up and say that the Supreme Court is, and has been for at least 70 years, completely bonkers and overstepping their Constitutional bounds . . . but they also know that taking on the Court is a certain road to their political demise (ala Bork) because -- at the end of the day --  voters like freebies . . . Just look at the ridicule that Bork, Thomas and Scalia get . . .

Shivas, that is certainly the criticism often leveled, at both the Court and Congress.  But, with my Federalist 78 reference, I was trying to turn this approach on its head.  I am taking a step back and throwing out normative theories of interpretation ("the way it should be"), and instead asking this question:  How has the Court actually functioned in relation to accepted societal values?  I am sure you view this as a moral relativist's approach, because it is.  But I prefer to think of it as learning from history.  

Under this approach, I only care about an Opinion's reasoning and logic to the extent that the other branches and society accept or reject that the Opinion, reason, and logic.  

For example:  Under this approach, I don't care one way or another whether the justices in Lochner overstepped the bounds of the Constitution by inventing a substantive right.  Instead, I view Lochner as a bad decision because, as the industrial revolution progressed, it became (or was) severely out of step with the contemporaneous societal standards, so the political process brought it down.  Had the industrial revolution developed differently, maybe Lochner would still be good law.

You see a Congress that has been weak and unwilling to curb the judicial activism of a judiciary that has run amuck. You also view Bork as victim whose career was ruined by his willingness to take on the Courts.  

I see a Congress (and a society) that is pretty pleased with where the Court has gone over the last 70 years (with some exceptions).  And I see Bork as part of the courts, or wanted to be.  He was rejected by Congress because his interpretive theory (no matter how well-founded) might have led to results that Congress and society were unwilling to accept.

Well reasoned or not, we have accepted Brown v. Bd into the fabric of our society.  The "sword" of checks and balances cut down Bork because society did not want to risk of tearing that fabric by losing a decision like Brown.  (I know, Bork has since made clear that he would have reached the same result, but with different reasoning, but that was much less apparent then.)  

I call it my Federalist 78 theory, in honor of that great moral relativist, James Madison.

[TEPaul]

DMoriarty:

You're last post is exactly, precisely what I was trying to say to Dave Schmidt in my last long post.

Any of us can yell and scream and posture as to one of the branches of Government (Executive, Legislature, Judiciary) going bonkers and being out of step with society, but are they really?

Probably they are NOT to the extent nothing much is done about it--certainly the reason being ALL the inherent "checks and balances" supplied to us within the mechanisms of the US Constitution, supported by the Bill of Rights and all the extrapolations of same. (Bork got "balanced out" obviously because those mechanisms "checked" him).

One should simply look at the totality of the mechanisms supplied to us (and not just the individual parts) by the Framers and just analyze how and why they work and how they have worked, both individually and collectively to arrive at some result! Surely the "Peoples" right to VOTE and express their collective opinions underlie all of this (of course assuming they choose to do so).

In this way it can be seen that no matter what goes on the "People" are "Supreme" in this Land, then and now (armed with their right to vote and "throw all the bums out", should they become so discontent that they actually choose to do so!).

In this way our system is obviously somewhat more cumbersome than the Parliamentary System but the Framers knew that and intended it to be so. But it still can work just fine with the Peoples' underlying and Supreme lever (the Vote) should they collectively decide to use it.

[DMoriarty]

Shivas.

I will leave poor Bork alone, he's been picked on enough.  Perhaps he should consider a support group . . .

It is a good thing that it is very difficult to check the power of the Supreme Court, otherwise they would really be a useless branch.  Appointments work to bring about slow change; court packing and outright revolt might bring about quicker change. But the obvious and Constitutional approach is through Constitutional Amenment.  If enough of us think they are off base, we can amend the Constitution reversing or changing whatever they have done.  

Your reference to Roe is interesting.  I had a paragraph on Roe in my previous post but decided to delete it for the sake of brevity.  Funny how we rely on the same examples to make opposite points.

In 1970 there was some precident for finding privacy in the Constitution (the WWII anti-German cases for example).  But certainly those that were paying even a little attention could spot the large leaps in logic that were necessary in order to establish a Constitional right to reproductive freedom.  

But, there was a pretty large segment of society (most of which had had never read the Constitution) that had a gut-felt belief that this was the type of thing that the Government had no business interfering in.  This gut-felt belief is entirely consistent with the general philosophy expressed by the founders in the Constitution.

The fact that 30 yrs later Roe is more widely accepted than ever that, while the Ct. may have streched their power (and societal values) to its limits with Roe, they did not overstep thier bounds.  They stayed within the limits of societal values, and brought about fundamental change in a non-revolutionary manner.  While Jefferson may disagree, I think that fundamental change without resorting to revolutions is a good thing.    

By the way, most liberals have not been too happy with much that the court has done over the past 20 yrs.  

[JakaB]

I've got to stop letting this site piss me off before I go home...I seem to have lost a sense of space and time.
I'm left to haiku in desperation...

Paranoia golf
Takes another pound of flesh
Waiting for the flash

[ForkaB]

JakanB

Don't despair.  You are in fact right.  This particular thread has been hijacked through a wormhole in the space-time continuum from a race of people on the planet Skyron who are known as the Gormless Constitutional Argumentatives.  They will self-destruct as soon as they realize that this website is about golf and not Robert Bork.

[TEPaul]

Dave Schmidt:

You said above;

"How many people believed that in, say, 1970?  How about today?  A lot more today, correct?  And how did it get that way?  Do the Court's opinions "reflect" societal values, or do they"change" societal values?"

Those may just be some damn fine questions!

Assuming our 9 Jurists do act as quassi political leaders basically "legislating" from the bench, and assuming that you're correct that more people believe today that the way they ruled 32 years ago was correct than believed they were correct 32 years ago, and also punctuating those assumptions with your final question;

'Do the courts opinions "reflect" societal opinions, or do they "change" societal opinions?',

I guess one might just conclude that their opinions "change" societal opinion (if you're correct)!

And if that's all true as you appear to believe it is, I think you just answered that age-old political question; "Should a political leader or any kind of leader within the mechanisms of a Government lead his constituency or should he follow them?"

I think history could show us quite clearly that many if not most of the Framers and Founding Fathers may have taken that sort of "Noblese Oblige" attitude that they just might need to "lead" their constituency (the Amercican People), probably because, as I think we also know from history, they never felt their constituency was all that bright! I really doubt, in any case, they ever felt their constituency was as bright and clear thinking as they were!

      

[TEPaul]

JakaB and Rich:

If certain threads on this website piss you off, even simply because they stray from golf architecture, then why do you bother to read those threads? Is there something secretly pleasant about being pissed off I should know about?

[Paul Richards]

Tom:

I refuse to let myself get pissed off.  It's easy to just skip those threads that don't interest you!

[ForkaB]

Tom

The answer to your question is "yes!"  But I am not at all "pissed off."  Can't speak for Barney, however.....

[Jim_Kennedy]

Rich,
This thread sure has wandered around, no doubt about it.
The wandering began early and really started to blossom when the Whaley issue was tied to Burk/ANGC. It was then deemed a "social experiment" by some. Others insisted that women have no right to play the PGA Tour unless men can play the LPGA Tour and cried foul at this misperception of discrimination. This led to the Casey Martin/ADA/Supreme Court affair being brought up as a way that a man might get to  play the LPGA 's Tour. It's at this juncture that any reference to the original issue was lost..  
I have been a willing participant but through it all I stick by my earliest contentions that the Whaley issue is minor, has nothing to do with Burk/Augusta, is not a social experiment and will have no effect on sports in general or the male dominated PGA Tour as we know it.  Sooner or later it will become clear that this is really no more than a PGA member, who happens to be a woman, earning an exemption to play in a PGA Tour event.

[JakaB]

Tom,

I'm happy we can modify posts because who really wants a transcript of their life... 

[DMoriarty]

You're last post is exactly, precisely what I was trying to say to Dave Schmidt in my last long post.

Judging from your prior post, I thought that we were finally close to on the same wave length, but given that we had been speaking past each other on this thread, I didn't want to presume to speak from you.

By the way, you may not want to spread it around that we agree on this issue.  Either the theory, our agreement, or both could get you thrown out of alot of academic and social circles.

Jim:  Thanks for the recap.  This has been going on so long I honestly forgot where we've been.  

Barney, nice use of paranoia as a four syllable word.  I would think that medium might be too restictive for your free mind, but I guess in bondage we find freedom.  

[TEPaul]

Well, OK then, back to the Whaley issue. I'm sort of with Jim Kennedy that this may be no more than just an instance of a women happening to get an exemption into a Tour Event. Maybe this won't be much more eventful than that midget pinch-hitter Branch Rickey (or whoever did it) put into the big league baseball game a long time ago as a novelty to create interest.

But maybe not!

It all sort of depends where the PGA of America through their sectional structure wants to go with this! My pro told me the other day the PGA of America decided to allow women to compete in men's sectional PGA events maybe up to 5-6 years ago and they decided to "level the playing field" at 82% of the total distance of the men, then they changed that to 90%. (If someone has posted this fact on this thread, I'm truly sorry to repeat it).

But of course one wonders what the reason was for the PGA or America to do that in the first place. My pro believes it was because the PGA sections really weren't able to populate and stage PGA sectional tournaments for PGA of America women. Why? Because there really aren't very many women pros in the PGA of America. So instead of trying the logical route of maybe bringing more in to the PGA of America first they thought it easier to just let them play with the men and "level the playing field" this way from separate tees.

This certainly is a slippery slope method to solve the original concern--ie not being able to populate and stage women PGA sectional tournaments.

And now it appears Suzy has gone out and gotten herself an agent and maybe even will be decked out in "contract garb" and such since clearly the spotlight will be on her, no matter what.

What if the PGA Tour or the PGA Tour sponsors think this is a neat idea to perk up interest, and start offering sponsor's exemptions all the time to women in the name of even anti-discrimination, or who knows what?

Could this start to lead to a situation where women pros will compete on the PGA Tour or even men on the LPGA Tour? Could this all lead some day to a single PGA Tour for men and women with the PGA of America at the sectional level and the PGA Tour continually trying to tweak the "comparative" distance requirments of men and women generally until they can create a situation where they figure they have them all being competitive against each other. Maybe this ideas will get all the way into the PGA Tour Q school!

Why won't somebody like Corey Pavin get into the act and claim he too needs a distance adjustment because he's always been small and a short hitter and his "inherent disadvantage" actually constitutes "restraint of trade"?

Where will it all end then?

The PGA of America was wrong to open this door in their sectional events 5-6 years ago and they did it apparently for the wrong reasons. Let them get out there and expend the same amount of energy trying to recruit enough women PGA of America pros into their organization so they can compete in their own sectional events.

The PGA of America should never have opened this door (different tees) and they should realize that and close it!  

I'm really sorry if this point has been mentioned before and if so I'll delete this post but I sure couldn't face reading back through every post on this thread to find out.

[TEPaul]

JakaB;

At this point I have you completely figured out and I know EXACTLY why you get pissed off!

Because you THINK TOO F.... MUCH!!

Just cut that stuff out and you'll be happy all the time like the rest of us!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()