[TEPaul]

Jeff Goldman:

That's a very good and common-sensical post of yours about the Constitution, Bill of rights, freedom of association as it applies to private golf clubs in America, and perhaps even a potential case as "Burk vs ANGC" may have been.

While some on here are giving the Framers grammar and punctuation lessons you offered a more pertinent view-point.

I don't know how much good or interest it is to discuss the fact that the US Government, state and local governments do not have the right or the power to interpret these things since anyone can see they've all been doing exactly that for a couple of centuries--conservatives and liberals alike.

So where does that leave the right or concept of "freedom of association" as it applies to private golf clubs in America today? Privacy in some golf clubs justified even if de facto by "freedom of association" has been on the defensive for years---its been limited, truncated and more closely defined, particularly in the last few decades by a series of baically "anti-discrimiation" plaintiffs and lobbyists.

Will that continue if a case like Burk vs ANGC got to the Supreme Court? As you said, that depends! The US Supreme Court interpreted Roe v Wade from wherever they interpreted it. And perhaps shortly they'll reverse that interpretation with whatever Constitutional justification they find.

Conservatives are in power now and perhaps they will slow down the onset of "anti-discrimination" laws and statutes that've been limiting and truncating what "privacy" and freedom of association mean in the context of private golf clubs. At least I hope they will.

I don't think "anti-discrimination" of any kind needs to go there--into an ANGC. It isn't public or a public institution or a public accomodation. If anyone wants that, Martha Burk and her women's rights organization, or whomever else, the country offers them enough freedom of opportunity to go start their own ANGC-type golf club and discuss all the business or whatever they want to do in there, as well as let the Federal and state and local governements tell them who they need to let in and give access to if "anit-discrimination" in that type of entity is really their concern.

Mark Rowlinson wanted to know why access to private golf clubs in America is more limited than in Europe and apparently getting more limited every year---this is a large part of the why of it.

But despite that I guess there are just some who will want to continue to say that isn't really it---that it's just that some Americans are less egalitarian, more elitist, snobbish or pompous or some other crap.

[TEPaul]

MarkR:

There you have the real answer to why American private clubs have always had do deny access. Every non-member in the world has been "comma-ed" out of total inclusion all these decades by those poor editoraless Framers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights! It's never been elitism but that old virulent social ill---the hanging-participle, (or something) (disregard the comma and parentheses if it makes you feel more included).  

"The Americans and the British, two peoples divided by a common language."

Does this not totally prove Winston right?

We could've been such an egalitarian and hospitable nation, if we only learned to write!

We've become a nation of Moriartys---we don't understand what happened only that we have the inalienable right to argue with everyone and remind everyone that they haven't stuck to the subject!  

[henrye]

I don't want to argue with all you constitional experts, but here in Canada we have many clubs set up in the same manner as the US - ie: without any outside play.  Many clubs here (Golf, Racquet, Recreational, luncheon, dinner, etc) were set up along ethnic, societal, professional or political lines and the policies/practices of those historic establishments have continued into today.  By policies/practices, I'm refering to being invited to becomes a member, getting references and meeting directors as opposed to simply applying.

These practices create an environment of exclusivity (if you don't know a member, you'll never get invited to join) and if one were to introduce outside play, the club would lose the aura of exclusivity.

Newer clubs have had to compete with the established clubs and the bar was set years ago barring outside play.

That said, there are a number of different setups here.  Clubs which don't allow outside access are called private clubs.  One's which do, we call semi-private (a block of tee times may be restricted to members only) and lastly we obviously have a number of public daily fee clubs with no memberships.

[Mike Hendren]

Tom McWood had it right:   Indeed, something happened in the 1960's.  March 4, 1963 to be exact.

On that date episode #86 of The Andy Griffith Show aired for the first time.  Witness the following exchange:

Andy:  Well you can't let in everybody.

Johnny Paul:  He's right.  We gotta keep somebody out ... or it ain't a club.

Opie:  Yeah.



There you go.

Side Note:  This episode featured the debut of Helen Crump.  

You intellectuals are sooooo amusing.  Keep it up.

Kindest regards,

Mike

[TEPaul]

MikeH:

I love it. Thank you. You just nudged up the humor factor on here a smidge. We need it---we really do. Thank you, thank you, thank you verrry much!  

[Mark_Rowlinson]

TomP,

I'm so relieved to learn that it is only a comma dividing us.  What if it had been a semi-colon?  Doesn't bear thinking about, does it?

[SPDB]

Shiv - And it now appears that even the editor's editor needs an editor...

I haven't read Dan's post, so I am uncertain what he was trying to convey or how accurately the grammatical construction reflects his intention (sound familiar?). Nevertheless, I note the following errors in your correction:

1. I'll assume that Dan was trying to present 3 ideas seriatim. For whatever reason each of the thoughts contain a comma (though probably unnecessarily). Therefore, separating these thoughts with a semi-colon [sic] is appropriate. It is not separating an independent clause; it is used to avoid confusion with the internal commas.  

2. Your not serious about your proposal, are you? "Actions" ?? Say what you will about Dan's rewrite, but at least it didn't supplement the amendment with a whole host of new protections/rights.

Still waiting on that response regarding the Framers abject fear of a strong federal government.  

[DMoriarty]

Some of the founders were newspapermen, editors, and writers.  What they lacked in sentence structure they more than made up for in substance.  They (over)used commas because they wanted to be sure we understood when they were moving on to a new concept, idea, and/or right.  

You guys may have your commas in the right place, but in the process you have completely rewritten the substance of the Constitution.  For example . . .

'establishing an official religion' is not the same thing as respecting an establishment of religion[/i].

Dan, had you suggested this change to Mr. Madison, he'd likely have said something like, With all due respect Mr. Editor, you may want leave the Founding to us.  Not only is Congress prohibited from establishing an official religion, they also must state out of the business of religion all together.   As I will say  (notice all my commas). . .

"Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together."  
    --  July 10, 1822, Correspondence to Edward Livingston.  

Shivas, you are a typical originalist.  By the time your done reading it, it doesn't much resemble the original.  

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

Mark, I do not think there are so many here. It may seem that way as compared to the UK. I do think while most clubs in the states have financial issues, they have chosen other means to solve them. A certain group at my club is always worried about number of members and that group is always pushing Monday events to increase revenues.

[SPDB]

Laywers separate with semicolons.  Then again, lawyers get "which" and "that" wrong about 90% of the time, buy my unofficial count.  

It should be clear by now - no one is buying anything you're selling, official or unofficial.  

If the Framers were scared of a powerful Congress, they'd have been 3X as scared by most of the crap that comes from these folks.  They were scared of action.  If you don't believe me, dig up the Framers and ask them.  [/b]

Shiv - I'd ask you to go back and read the responses I offered on previous pages. There was no widely held fear of a strong central government by the Framers, quite the opposite. I'm far more interested in discussing the historical record of the period than I am in dissecting the grammatical peccadillos of Gouvernor  Morris, et al. It's far less susceptible to manipulation.

Also, one more thing since everybody seems to be in a nitpicking mood (and since you were so insistent that it needed no editing):

"or limiting the people's [this should be either "peoples' " because it's plural...right to assemble peacefully, complain about their government,..."

What other people(s) would you like to include? Maybe Dan was hasty in only limiting this specific right to the American people. Does Falun Gong need specific protection within the already too cozy confines of the First Amendment (as reinterpreted by Dan)?

[Dennis_Harwood]

I leave for a week-- and this thread is still going-- and not a constitutional lawyer among you (present company excepted) What this has to do with golf architecture (and the first post that started this thread ) is beyond me--

Why don't we do this?  Select 3 members of this discussion group who will be permitted to play any private course of their chosing at any time--but only three-- How would you all suggest we select those three without abridging anyones rights and being not discriminatory as to those who may wish to be included, but are excluded?

[Joe Hancock]

Why don't we do this?  Select 3 members of this discussion group who will be permitted to play any private course of their chosing at any time--but only three-- How would you all suggest we select those three without abridging anyones rights and being not discriminatory as to those who may wish to be included, but are excluded?

Dennis,

You'll have to forgive me before I ask, becuase I don't know law, but...

In your scenario, is it about one's rights, or is it about priviledge? If someone gifted three individuals the opportunity to play the private clubs of they're choice, I'd view is as a priviledge...nothing to do with one's rights.

I know better than to particpate in this thread....honest!

Joe

[Steve Lang]

 

Boolean , Simply Boolean I say!

Apparently private clubs and gca are part of a unified golf world and wordsmithing theory.. with gb&i and melds holding  or mixing the gca elements together.. in spite of expanding forces and energy constraints.. somehow it works for better or for worse.. when the ball goes into the cup.

i'm spoiled by club play and enjoy a good muni or semi-private once or so a month.. 15 years ago it was the opposite.. gca be damned or praised.. is it still snowing in the midwest?

[Mark_Rowlinson]

Here I go again, sticking my neck out:  the thing I've found with Americans (of course I generalize, to use your spelling) is how generous you are.  You have much to be proud of and you want to share it with us visitors.  

One of my sons is currently having a whale of a time in the States, being treated to golfing experiences beyond his wildest dreams, all through the generosity of GCA posters.  

I have been invited by a GCAer to participate in a golf day in August - I've been inundated with E-mails and IMs saying, 'While, you're here come and play at....'    

I have been lucky enough to have worked with many of the finest American classical musicians.  It has been one of the most valuable artistic experiences of my life - fabulous musicians, but wonderful, liberal-minded human beings at the same time and generous beyond belief.  

I only have to think back to my most recent US visit.  Rick Holland took me all over Chicago - golf courses (a personal trip round Chicago Golf Club archives never to be forgotten - not to mention a 4X4 trip over the key holes of a very frozen Beverly), sights, restaurants and even Mike Kaiser!  I turned up in Philadelphia and Bill Vostiniak again showed me everything to do with the foundation of the country.  In both cases the local GCA fraternity turned out in force to ensure I did not go away slimmer than I came! (correction - even plumper than I came).  

If these are typical Americans - and my experiences over the years are nothing to do with politics or the law - I still find it odd that the golfing ethos is one of possessive privacy, not at all a desire to share what is best - commas or semi-colons notwithstanding.

This thread has more than run its course.  I now have a clearer understanding of the structure of American golf, about which this topic was originally posted.  

Many thanks for your learned judgements.

[Gib_Papazian]

Mark,

If you make it to S.F., give me a call.

I'll see if I can get you into an impossibly private enclave that hosts U.S. Open's every now and again.

You are right, this thread has run its course. Just another amusing demonstration of how/why our sprawling nation is completely polarized.

Everybody wants to be private, very few mind extending a helping hand.

It does not come down to generosity, we are the most generous nation the world has ever known.. . .to the point of stupidity.

It just comes down to not wanting to be told what to do by authority. . . . . any authority. It started with the King of England 200 years ago . . . . and extends all the way to vigilantly guarding against the incremental erosion of property and privacy rights against empty-headed, egalitarian nitwits.

"When debating social issues, I prefer to *think,* instead of *feel.*"

- Brian Wilson
Libertarian Radio Talk Show Host.    

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()