# ACLU Hits a NEW LOW!! **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [September 8, 2001, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-hits-a-new-low/80404 "2001-09-08T15:38:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2001, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-hits-a-new-low/80404/101 "2001-09-10T22:54:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Kimstu \* > \*\ ***december:** \*Amendment II – the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, OPPOSE \* > > Bull… \*\* **Kimstu** , as this is Pit, you have a right to use this sort of language. But, you may be responding to the wrong point. Look at the ACLU’s expansive view on the right to abortion (which isn’t mentioned in the Constitution at all, of course.) How does the ACLU feel about “reasonable regulations” on the right to abortions? Waiting periods? Parental approval? Restrictions on specific types of abortions? ACLU strongly oppose them all. This is their issue! Compare that with their constricted view of RTBA. Whether the ACLU is right or wrong in their interpretation, I still maintain that they are not supporters of the RTBA. You may be correct that they’re closer to NEUTRAL than OPPOSE. Regarding the Moment of Silence in schools, I thought the ACLU opposed it. Opposition to the Moment of Silence would go against the free expression but in favor of the establishment clause. However, if the ACLU has come out in favor of the MOS, then I stand corrected. (BTW I’m not saying that it’s wrong to oppose MOS.) ---
**Author:** ![manhattan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/manhattan/32/7_2.png) [@manhattan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/manhattan)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2001, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-hits-a-new-low/80404/102 "2001-09-10T23:03:19Z")
Bang Bang Bang Bang! **december** , that was my head banging against the wall. The ACLU opposes _state mandated_ moments of silence for “reflection” or whatever BS the statutes say, because they correctly see it as a dodge and a way to sneak in state sanctioned prayer. You, the student, may take a moment of silence at any appropriate time – homeroom, lunch, when the teacher is talking, whatever. You, the student, may also pray at any appropriate time – homeroom, lunch, recess, during a test, whatever. Is this _really_ so hard? ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2001, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-hits-a-new-low/80404/103 "2001-09-10T23:12:18Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Kimstu \* > \*\*Can you tell us specifically which part(s) of the ACLU’s reasoning on what they perceived to be the unconstitutionality of Prop. 209 you disagree with, and why? Or if this is not the particular issue you were thinking of, can you give us some specific identification of the one you did mean? \*\* Gentle **Kimstu**. Even if the ACLU’s position on Prop. 209 were right, their choice of side demonstrates where where their sympathy lies. Of course, the ACLU position was ludicrous. It’s hard to make a case that a state propostion barring unequal treatment of the races violates an amendment barring unequal treatment of the races. They were actually upheld by an ACLU judge, who had promised to recuse himself (or herself?) on ACLU cases, but went back on his word. Of course, the appellate court immediately overruled him. No doubt, a good liberal can find some excuse for this unethical judge. Anyhow, I now see where some of you ACLU supporters are coming from. The ACLU does the right thing. That’s neither liberal or conservative. It’s just good. But, wait. You good-hearted liberals favor the right things and we rotten conservatives favor the wrong things. Since the ACLU also favors right things, they automatically stand with liberals most of the time. This was **pldennison’s** statement, and I applaud his honesty. ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2001, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-hits-a-new-low/80404/104 "2001-09-10T23:22:40Z")
december > [@](#): > > – nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law SUPPORT in criminal cases, OPPOSE in punitive damages cases. IANAL but my understanding is that this refers exclusively to criminal cases. Punitive damages are awarded in civil cases, thus this clause would not apply. > [@](#): > > Amendment VIII > – Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. SUPPORT in criminal cases OPPOSE in punitive damages cases Again, it’s my understanding that this applies to criminal cases, not civil cases in which punitive damages are awarded. Punitive damages are never assessed in criminal cases. > [@](#): > > What about Bakke, Adarand, and all the other reverse discrimination cases? Bakke is not an example of a member of a minority group violating the civil rights of a member of the majority group. It was an agent of the state (California) engaging in so-called “reverse discrimination.” I’m not familiar with Adarand; unless it’s an actual minority person discriminating against a majority member it’s not applicable. > [@](#): > > How about cases requiring that welfare and other social services be paid to various groups, such as new entrants into a state and illegal immigrants? These cases take money from the ax-payers for the benefit of the poor. What about court decisions requiring that illegal immigrant children be accepted in American schools? Not seeing how any of these examples apply. > [@](#): > > What about the question of whether the rape and murder of Jesse Durkheising was a hate crime? Seeing absolutely no relation to the point. Regardless, I did not state as an absolute that it was impossible for a minority person to violate the civil rights of a majority person. What I said was that in general minority people have not routinely been in a position whereby they could easily violate anyone’s constitutional rights. The Ryan > [@](#): > > Neither does the Second Am. Do you really not comprehend the difference between an explanatory clause and a qualifying clause? Or are you just willfully ignoring the distinction to convince yourself that you’re right? I already said I have no intention of engaging in a debate on the 2nd Amendment. Is there some reason you feel the need to be insulting? ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2001, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-hits-a-new-low/80404/105 "2001-09-11T00:08:31Z")
**december:** \*Look at the ACLU’s expansive view on the right to abortion (which isn’t mentioned in the Constitution at all, of course.) How does the ACLU feel about “reasonable regulations” on the right to abortions? Waiting periods? Parental approval? Restrictions on specific types of abortions? ACLU strongly oppose them all. This is their issue! \* What??! You imagine that the ACLU supports a completely unrestricted right to an abortion at any point in pregnancy? That’s nonsense. Of course the ACLU acknowledges that the state can regulate abortions, just as they acknowledge that the state can regulate gun ownership. However, they oppose what they consider to be unconstitutional and draconian legislation that interferes with the limited and regulated right to abortion that the courts have established. Just as they also oppose what they consider to be unconstitutional and draconian legislation that interferes with the limited and regulated right to bear arms. _Regarding the Moment of Silence in schools, I thought the ACLU opposed it. Opposition to the Moment of Silence would go against the free expression but in favor of the establishment clause. However, if the ACLU has come out in favor of the MOS, then I stand corrected. (BTW I’m not saying that it’s wrong to oppose MOS.)_ ( **manny** , are you done with that wall yet? I need to bang my head too.) Jiffy Rice, **december** , what part of the phrase “GOVERNMENT establishment of religion” do you not understand?! The ACLU is **completely in favor** of students exercising their constitutional rights to freedom of religion in order to pray or observe silence in school (where it does not interfere with necessary classroom activities, of course). They simply don’t want the government, via the school administration or staff, **mandating** such observances. _Even if the ACLU’s position on Prop. 209 were right, their choice of side demonstrates where where their sympathy lies._ WTF!?!!??? “Even if they were right,” their decision to support the “right” position would prove they were partisan?!? In order to be non-partisan, they should take the wrong position instead? For fuck’s sake, **december**. The organization’s mission is to defend civil liberties. They opposed a particular piece of legislation on the grounds that it violated civil liberties. If you want to claim that that’s “partisan”, you have to show not only that their reasoning is wrong but that their judgement was swayed by partisan prejudice. _Of course, the ACLU position was ludicrous. It’s hard to make a case that a state propostion barring unequal treatment of the races violates an amendment barring unequal treatment of the races._ As an attempt to portray the ACLU’s actual position on Prop. 209, that was pretty pathetic. Shit **december** , don’t you bother to look up facts even after I go to the trouble of finding links for you? The press release I linked to stated: > [@](#): > > Plaintiffs contend the initiative violates the Equal Protection clause by barring women and minorities from seeking protective race- or gender-conscious legislation when other groups are permitted to seek whatever preferential treatment they please. > > Further, plaintiff attorneys claim that Proposition 209 prevents state and local governments from meeting their constitutionally mandated duty to remedy discrimination against women and racial minorities. In other words, their claim is that the anti-AA legislation does not actually “bar unequal treatment of the races”, it merely prohibits the state from attempting to **remedy** unequal treatment of the races (and genders); and moreover, it unconstitutionally singles out the particular designations of race and gender in forbidding preferential treatment. Kind of different from your distorted and oversimplified characterization of the issue. \*They were actually upheld by an ACLU judge, who had promised to recuse himself (or herself?) on ACLU cases, but went back on his word. Of course, the appellate court immediately overruled him. No doubt, a good liberal can find some excuse for this unethical judge. \* Siiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiigh. Cite? ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2001, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-hits-a-new-low/80404/106 "2001-09-11T01:07:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Otto \* > \*\*december > > > [@](#): > > > > – nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law SUPPORT in criminal cases, OPPOSE in punitive damages cases. > > IANAL but my understanding is that this refers exclusively to criminal cases. Punitive damages are awarded in civil cases, thus this clause would not apply.\*\* **Otto** , you are absolutely correct in descriming the Supreme Court decision. But, look at the words of the amendment. Punitive damages do deprive people of property without the normal due process. If the ACLU felt as strongly about this issue as they do about abortion rights or establishment, then they would have found good Constitutional basis. I’m not saying the ACLU was wrong, but only that they support issues in line with their social philosophy. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2001, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-hits-a-new-low/80404/107 "2001-09-11T01:11:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by manhattan \* > \*\*Bang Bang Bang Bang! > > **december** , that was my head banging against the wall. > > The ACLU opposes _state mandated_ moments of silence for “reflection” or whatever BS the statutes say, because they correctly see it as a dodge and a way to sneak in state sanctioned prayer. \*\* Sure they do, and maybe they’re right. However, if they valued freedom to worship more than separation of Church and State, then thy might have argued that a student can’t conveniently pray while the teacher is talking. I’m not saying that they’re wrong, but only that they have a certain preference that tends to guide their actions. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2001, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-hits-a-new-low/80404/108 "2001-09-11T01:13:58Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Otto \* > \*\*Bakke is not an example of a member of a minority group violating the civil rights of a member of the majority group. It was an agent of the state (California) engaging in so-called “reverse discrimination.” \*\* 😕 **Otto** , could you explain this point in a bit more detail. I’m not getting it. Thanks ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2001, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-hits-a-new-low/80404/109 "2001-09-11T01:25:20Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Kimstu \* > However, they oppose_\* what they consider to be unconstitutional \*\* and draconian legislation **Kimstu** , you’ve gotten at the nub of my issue. _What the ACLU considers unconstitutional_ is pretty much _what the ACLU doesn’t like_. Look at Roe v. Wade. The Constitution doesn’t address abortion. It doesn’t even mention “privacy.” The Roe v. Wade decision made no effort to tie itself to the Constitution. It talked about “penumbras.” There’s another thread about the awful Dredd Scott decision. But, that horrible decision is a model of clarity compared with Roe V. Wade. It’s clear that the ACLU believes that abortion rights are appropriate (as do I), independent of any Constitutional argument. > [@](#): > > \*They were actually upheld by an ACLU judge, who had promised to recuse himself (or herself?) on ACLU cases, but went back on his word. Of course, the appellate court immediately overruled him. No doubt, a good liberal can find some excuse for this unethical judge. \* > > Siiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiigh. > > Cite? Unfortunately **Prof. december** needs the computer until the wee hours tonight to finish preparing her lecture to the medical students for tomorrow. I’ll have to look up the cite when I get enough time on the computer. Or, you could try iut yourself. My memory is pretty clear on this issue… ---
**Author:** ![The\_Ryan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7feea3/32.png) [@The\_Ryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ryan)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2001, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-hits-a-new-low/80404/110 "2001-09-11T01:58:33Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Kimstu \* > It would help if you let us know exactly what initiative you’re referring to here. If you mean the [lawsuit against Prop. 209 in California](http://www.aclu.org/news/n110696a.html), the chief reason the ACLU opposed it is because they considered it to violate the 14th Amendment. Yes, I was talking about that initiative, and no, the fact that the ACLU thinks that it violates the 14th Am. does nto mean that it does so. > [@](#): > > Depends what you’re voting on, doesn’t it? After all, in the past voter majorities have democratically voted in favor of Jim Crow laws, anti-miscegenation laws, and various ordinances promoting government establishment of religion, all of which are now considered to violate very important rights. Are you comparing a law saying “California will no longer discriminate on the basis of race or sex” with a law saying a state **will** discriminate? > [@](#): > > Similarly, the right of the people to “have their votes count” in enacting legislation to outlaw affirmative action policies do not outweigh the ones guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. Seeing as how there are no rights in the 14th Am. violated, they certainly can’t outweigh the right to vote, which certianly does exist. > [@](#): > > This is all kind of vague and unconvincing. Can you tell us specifically which part(s) of the ACLU’s reasoning on what they perceived to be the unconstitutionality of Prop. 209 you disagree with, and why? If I disagree with the ACLU trying to get rid of a law, why do **I** have the burden of proof to show that it’s constitutional? I started a [thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=54890) in GD quite a while ago to explain my reasoning on this matter. If you believe that there is some reason why the ACLU had a valid position, and wish to discuss your reasoning, you are welcome to start another GD thread. > [@](#): > > In other words, their claim is that the anti-AA legislation does not actually “bar unequal treatment of the races”, it merely prohibits the state from attempting to remedy unequal treatment of the races (and genders); So would those methods of remedy involve unequal treatment of the races? > [@](#): > > and moreover, it unconstitutionally singles out the particular designations of race and gender in forbidding preferential treatment. And just what is unconstitutional about singling out particular “designations”? > [@](#): > > I already said I have no intention of engaging in a debate on the 2nd Amendment. Why did you make a point about the 2nd Amendment if you had no intention of engaging in a debate on it? Making a claim and then responding to all criticism of with “well, I refuse to discuss the issue” is such a weaseling. If you don’t want to discuss it, fine. Don’t discuss it. But if you are going to discuss it, don’t expect people to allow you to drop in and out of the discussion at will. > [@](#): > > [Is there some reason you feel the need to be insulting? If this what you mean by “insulting” then yes, there is a reason. Your attitude is one that is hostile to truth, and I do not think that people that are hostile to truth should remain unchallenged. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Ryan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7feea3/32.png) [@The\_Ryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ryan)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2001, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-hits-a-new-low/80404/111 "2001-09-11T02:06:40Z")
Those last two quotes were from Otto, not Kimstu. Sorry! ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Lao](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/2bfe46/32.png) [@Dr.Lao](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Lao)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2001, 6:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-hits-a-new-low/80404/112 "2001-09-11T06:11:04Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by Dr. Lao \* > > \*\*What second amendment cases has the ACLU refused to take on? \*\* > > All of them. 😛 \*\* I appologize if I wasn’t sufficiently clear. I mean, what specific second amendment cases were brought to the ACLU and subsequently refused assistance by that organization on the grounds that they were politically incorrect or because they conflicted with the ACLU’s politics? It is a little silly of one to charge that the ACLU is not for second amendment rights if one is not able to produce a pattern of behavior (or even a single case, for that matter), isn’t it? ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2001, 6:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-hits-a-new-low/80404/113 "2001-09-11T06:16:16Z")
december > [@](#): > > Punitive damages do deprive people of property without the normal due process. May I be next in line for the banging wall, please? “Due process of law” is defined (Black’s Law Dictionary Abridged 6th Edition) as “Law in its course of administration through courts of justice.” Even if a private civil action (as opposed to a government action) were subject to due process, the act of having a fair trial with a judge or jury generating a verdict and, if finding for the plaintiff, awarding punitive damages, would in fact be the law in its course of administration through courts of justice. I won’t even try to explain substantive due process and procedural due process, as I don’t want to be the one who causes your head to implode. > [@](#): > > Otto, could you explain this point in a bit more detail. I’m not getting it. Have you even read Bakke? Forget having read Bakke, have you even looked at the actual name of the case to see who the parties were? The case caption is “Regents of the University of California v. Bakke”. 438 U.S. 265 (1978). Do you understand what the parties to a lawsuit are? Do you understand who the parties to this case were, and that they do not include any individual minority person accused of violating Bakke’s civil rights? The Ryan > [@](#): > > Why did you make a point about the 2nd Amendment if you had no intention of engaging in a debate on it? Um…because I felt like it? Because I’m allowed? > [@](#): > > Your attitude is one that is hostile to truth, and I do not think that people that are hostile to truth should remain unchallenged. Oh, well, in that case, fuck off, pusbag. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2001, 6:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-hits-a-new-low/80404/114 "2001-09-11T06:29:03Z")
Boys and girls, I think this is what’s known as an exercise in futility. stoid ---
**Author:** ![ruadh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d2c977/32.png) [@ruadh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ruadh)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2001, 6:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-hits-a-new-low/80404/115 "2001-09-11T06:39:21Z")
I agree, stoid. december seems to think that if he just keeps adding examples of the ACLU siding with the Democrats, that will somehow negate his error of originally (and repeatedly) claiming that they _always_ do. And any time The Ryan gets involved in a constitutional discussion (or any discussion, really) you just know it’s going to degenerate into a hopeless muddle of misinterpretations and pointless semantic games. I vote we kill this puppy off. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2001, 7:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-hits-a-new-low/80404/116 "2001-09-11T07:31:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Otto \* > \*\*Have you even read Bakke? Forget having read Bakke, have you even looked at the actual name of the case to see who the parties were? The case caption is “Regents of the University of California v. Bakke”. 438 U.S. 265 (1978). Do you understand what the parties to a lawsuit are? Do you understand who the parties to this case were, and that they do not include any individual minority person accused of violating Bakke’s civil rights? \*\* **Otto** , _Brown vs. the Board of Education_ didn’t name a individual white person either. One essense of the reverse discrimation cases is that the admission of a less-qualified minority meant that some more-qualified white person wasn’t admitted. Or, turning it around, supporting Bakke would mean admitting whites at the expense of minorities. I understand that Bakke (like Brown) sued the school, rather than a specific least-qualified minoritiy that he wanted to replace. I feel that my response is inadequate because I still don’t understand your point. What general principle or point are you making? ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2001, 7:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-hits-a-new-low/80404/117 "2001-09-11T07:48:48Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ruadh \* > \*\*I agree, stoid. december seems to think that if he just keeps adding examples of the ACLU siding with the Democrats, that will somehow negate his error of originally (and repeatedly) claiming that they _always_ do. And any time The Ryan gets involved in a constitutional discussion (or any discussion, really) you just know it’s going to degenerate into a hopeless muddle of misinterpretations and pointless semantic games. > > I vote we kill this puppy off. \*\* It’s ironinc that **ruadh** accuses me of misinterpretation, when his post is based on a misinterpretation. I _never_ said that the ACLU “_always_ sides with the Democrats.” (his emphsis) I didn’t say it \*once, \*let alone _“repeatedly.”_ In fact, I even pointed out that they agree with Republicans on the issue of campaign finance reform. **ruadh** , please take a look back through the thread and re-read my posts. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2001, 8:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-hits-a-new-low/80404/118 "2001-09-11T08:13:06Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Otto \* > december > > > [@](#): > > > > Punitive damages do deprive people of property without the normal due process. > > May I be next in line for the banging wall, please? “Due process of law” is defined (Black’s Law Dictionary Abridged 6th Edition) as “Law in its course of administration through courts of justice.” Even if a private civil action (as opposed to a government action) were subject to due process, the act of having a fair trial with a judge or jury generating a verdict and, if finding for the plaintiff, awarding punitive damages, would in fact be the law in its course of administration through courts of justice. I guess my explanation wasn’t very clear. I didn’t mean to imply that there was no due process. I said Punitive Damages deprive people of property without the _normal_ due process. I intended the word _normal_ to mean the kind of due process that applies in a criminal case, such as – knowing in advance what constitues an infractions – having a range of penalties specified in advance – having infractions and penalties legislatively enacted The ACLU has strongly supported this sort of due process in criminal cases, even when the punishment is only a fine. Other civil liberties groups have argued that this sort of due process ought to apply to pounitive damages as well, since people were also being punished by being deprived of property. The ACLU did not join them. This leads me to believe that the ACLU is more supportive of due process in criminal cases than in punitive damage cases, which was the point I was making. I confess, that was too much meaning to be conveyed by the single sord “normal.” I accept the criticism that my post was unclear. ---
**Author:** ![Bill\_H](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a5b964/32.png) [@Bill\_H](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bill_H)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2001, 8:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-hits-a-new-low/80404/119 "2001-09-11T08:15:46Z")
I see very little in these three pages talking about the specific case at hand. Frankly, I don’t see how you can define the ability to procreate as a constitutionally established right since conjugal visits have been denied to particularly wicked criminals for as long as the constitution has been around (at least), and taking into account that until only very recently a conjugal visit was the only way to procreate. In other words, if the right to procreate is decided, it’ll be a new right. Even it is defined as a right, that doesn’t mean convicted criminals should be entitled to it. They certainly aren’t entitled to other basic rights, such as owning guns or voting. My opinion is that they shouldn’t be entitled to it. Why not? Cause they’re in friggin jail that’s why not. Why shouldn’t they be entitled to see the sun or take that vacation to Hawaii or mix with people either? And I’m sorry to the poster who mentioned that her husband had been in jail. She would’ve preferred to be able to procreate with him. Well, I’m sure she would’ve preferred to have him there at the house with her as well. That’s the nature of jail. Your exposure to the world is limited. Your exposure to free people is limited. The greater the crime, the greater the limit of exposure. Your DNA leaving the building is just one more freedom to contain. ---
**Author:** ![TwistofFate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/cdc98d/32.png) [@TwistofFate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TwistofFate)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2001, 11:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-hits-a-new-low/80404/120 "2001-09-11T11:45:33Z")
December, You have neglected to address several cites asked of you, yet continue to ask for cites yourself. I suggest that you re-read the thread yourself. > [@](#): > > It’s ironinc that ruadh accuses me of misinterpretation, when **his** post is based on a misinterpretation. I never said that the ACLU “always sides with the Democrats.” ( **his** emphsis) I didn’t say it once, let alone “repeatedly.” In fact, I even pointed out that they agree with Republicans on the issue of campaign finance reform. ruadh, please take a look back through the thread and re-read my posts eh… I think your labouring under a few misconceptions of you own pal. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-hits-a-new-low/80404.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-hits-a-new-low/80404.md?page=7)