In your view its inconsistant. As you well know there is no manual for interpeting the constitution. There is no inherent reason why a person can’t broad personal rights while believing that the 2nd amendment guarantees a collective right.
The ACLU is ensuring the constitutional rights and justice for all people and that includes their most important task of defending those rights of those people that society wants to take away extra-legally. If you want to strip NAMBLA of their rights then amend the constitution to do so.
I don’t own a gun, but I support gun rights. Nevertheless, I’m not worried about the ACLU’s interpretation of the Second Amendment, because there’s already a huge organization dedicated to the right to own a gun - the NRA. The ACLU doesn’t need to duplicate their effort.
As for protecting the rights of criminals and perverts… those are the people whose rights need the most protection, like it or not. You can’t say you stand for freedom of expression if you look the other way when someone tries to ban a book you find offensive, and you can’t say you stand for civil liberties if you only care about the rights of people you like. The civil rights of law-abiding middle class white folk, like inoffensive books, are rarely under attack.
When you go around protecting people’s rights, sometimes you run into situations where different people’s rights are in conflict (for example, rights of criminals or those accused of crimes vs. rights of victims or those who are in danger from criminal activity). If the ACLU fights for the rights of one side, they could be perceived as fighting against the rights of the other side. And if they show consistent bias in whose rights they seek to protect, they’re open to criticism.
This is all strictly hypothetical; I don’t know enough about what the ACLU has been up to lately to say whether this has been a problem.
What rights of victims, or of those who are in danger from criminal activity, are mentioned in the Constitution? I don’t think there are any, nor can I think of any case the ACLU has gotten involved with where one party’s civil rights were in conflict with the other’s.
If the presence of a stated reason for existence is grounds to construe a Constitutional grant as limited, then all patents and copyrights for any invention or publication that does not provably advance the “useful arts” ought to be immediately revoked.
OK, they don’t have a right to police protection. Presumably, while the police are turning a blind eye to a vigilante mob, they do still have a right to self-defence, and a right to seek injunctions from a court against the mob.
I read this and was all like, “Yeah, but what would the American Indian Movement be doing involved in a case like this?” I suppose that reveals quite a bit about my political background.
Well, I’d say it’s inconsistent in the sense that they aren’t reading all rights equally broadly, but I don’t really see anything wrong with saying that you think certain rights should be read more broadly, and others read more narrowly. I mean, so long as it’s not totally arbitrary.
But I can see good reasons to read some rights more broadly than others. Suppose you judge each right enumerated in the Bill of Rights on the basis of what you believe to be its purpose. If you believe the purpose of protecting free speech is to ensure that people are able to communicate their ideas without hindrance, than it makes sense to extend “speech” to all forms of communication. As it happens, this is a rather broad reading. On the other hand, if you believe the purpose of protecting the right to bear arms is to ensure that people can form militias, then it makes sense to extend this right only so much as is necessary to allow people to form militias. As it happens, this is a rather narrow reading. But I don’t really see anything inconsistent in such readings of the various rights.
One could argue that the ACLU is incorrect in their judgement of how broadly the different rights should be read, but the fact that they read some more broadly than others isn’t necessarily an indication that their reading of those rights is incorrect.
The ACLU does not get involved with cases promoting a broad interpretation of the 2nd ammendment, but do they actively get involved in promoting a narrow interpretation?
The ACLU interprets the Second Amendment in the very same manner as the Supreme Court did in Miller. Save for one renegage Circuit Court decision, no Circuit Court has ever held the “individual” interpretation. Yet the ACLU is “hypocritical” for following the consistent federal court interpretation.
If the ACLU were happily following Supreme Court precedent in all things, then you’d have a point. But the ACLU actively fights to CHANGE Supreme Court precedent in other areas. Here, they simply accept it.
No, they’re not hypocritical. They’re inconsistent. They read other amendments in a way as to maximize individual freedom; when guns are involved, they lose their desire to maximize indivdual freedom.
I’m going to agree with Bricker, here, as the reading of the amendment always seemed… fairly clear to me.
Common defense doesn’t just mean army. Crooks and critters also count. The rabid racoon I shot last year counted as common defense, after all. More dangerous than a guy with a gun in a uniform, anyhow.
On the other hand, they do a wonderful job protecting the other liberties, and the NRA is there for us. If the NRA wasn’t there, there’d be a problem… but hey, focus on what you’re best at. There’s nothing inherently wrong with taking the Miller position, if your primary focus is other rights. Just don’t expect the ACLU to help you in gun cases.
I think if you state that the ACLU protects individual rights where individual rights exist, that would be consistently true. The individual vs collective interpretation of the Second Amendment has been done many times on this board and I don’t believe such discussions lead to anyone changing his mind. The individual interpretation might be what some read into it, yet the federal courts have (with the one exception) have never read it that way. I too might take issue with isolated court rulings, but when they have consistently been on one side of the fence for decades the precedent is compelling.
Does the A.C.L.U. petition for the “revocation” of gun ownership rights?
What is the standard for promotion of useful arts?
I’m curious as to why you might cheer such a sentiment. Have you ever created anything? I make my living as a writer and I also exercise my creative impulses in writing. I like the idea that the law gives me the right to control publication, modification, etc., of anything I create. Wouldn’t you like such protection for something you’ve created?
In my view, the A.C.L.U.'s position on gun rights is pretty irrelevant to the question of whether they are a good organisation doing good things. So far as I understand, regardless of what their official stance might be on the proper interpretation of the Second Amendment, they have no active role in the matter. Their focus is on a set of rights that they consider to be the most important. Whether or not one agrees with their conclusion that these are the most important doesn’t really matter, because no one’s stopping others from taking up the banner on the other issues.
If it doesn’t, then there’s no market for it and its IP protection is useless. If there *is * a market for it, then somebody must find it useful, and the advance is proved as you ask. No problem I can see.
) position to take.