The same can be said about the First Amendment.
And in turn, your point is a good one, however, I do not believe the ACLU hesitates to engage on First Amendment issues even when other organizations are doing likewise. The complete lack of attention to one article of the Bill of Rights, while at the same time being such hardcore absolutists about others, is jarring to me.
Can we get cites for each of those please?
I completely disagree.
There is no question that there are two distinct views of the 2nd…one, that it boils down to anybody can have guns, or two, that only militia members can have guns. There are nuances to each position, but they are pretty clearly understood to be the two main interpretations of the 2nd.
What is the big disagreement about the first?
And by the way… given the wording of the 2nd, even if you disagree with the idea that it refers only to militias (though again, how you could I don’t know) you have to at least concede that it is * understandable * that such an interpretation be made.
stoid
Very interesting, you should read it. I’d be interested in your rebuttal.
december
None of these but Democrats are routinely in positions to violate the constitutional rights of others. As for opposing Democrats, in addition to the examples already given, the ACLU filed suit against one pretty prominent Democrat (Janet Reno) a number of times in attacking the various internet censorship laws signed by a Democratic president.
I consider your point to be atop your head.
DPWhite
They sure do, and I’m proud to be carrying one of my very own. I had an old one autographed by Jello Biafra, but dammit I lost it a few years ago.
They do.
This is a tired and illogical rhetorical manuever. Any kid could just as easily grow up and murder the next Einstein, Mother Theresa, etc. Eugenics should of course be condemned, but hopefully with better reasoning than this.
Um…peepthis… that’s not ‘will be’ that’s ‘could be’ in other words ‘the OP’s conjecture that the kid will HAVE to be a crook is incorrect, they could also be (explicitly stated) something great or (implied) anything in between the extremes.’
Sorry to say I overlooked your suggestion. I’ll probably try it tonight when I have more time. Still, the fact that it’s not on their list of key issues proves my contention that they’re not empasizing their this one.
I agree.
No, you’re just not grasping that to the ACLU, campaign finance reform is a free speech issue. And therefore their work on it is listed on the “Free Speech” page which I linked to above. You might note that the “Key Issues” column doesn’t list Driving While Black, RU-486 or school prayer either, though they’re obviously major issues for the ACLU; you have go to the “Racial Equality”, “Reproductive Rights” and “Religious Liberty” pages, respectively, to find them.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Stoid *
**
The ACLU’s interpretation of the “right of the people” to be merely a collective rather than an individual right is in stark contradiction to its interpretation of the term “right of the people” elsewhere in the Constitution. The ACLU does not suggest that the “right of the people” to peacable assemble and petition for redress of grievances is merely a collective right, which can be exercised only through our representatives in Congress. Their interpretation is an illogical double standard.
(Anthracite, where are you?)
I’m frankly amazed at the idea that the child molestation cases raised no constitutional issues for the ACLU to get involved in. How about 14th Amendment due process of law? 6th Amendment trial by jury? The whole reason psychologists aren’t allowed to express opinions on children’s (or others’ credibility) is that it invades the right to trial by jury; the jury alone is permitted to decide who is credible and who isn’t.
Still, this thread has enlightened me somewhat; I wasn’t aware that the ACLU had helped defend Ollie North or supported Paula Jones’ suit. Perhaps there still is something left of the old ACLU that refused to let the Nazi marchers in Skokie be silenced.
Unsurprisingly, you’re incorrect. Do you have any clue whatsoever as to who is in the militia? Because U.S. law contains very specific definitions: Every able-bodied male between ages 18-45 who is not already a member of the National Guard is in the militia. Period.
Err, back to buddy-boy:
You thought incorrectly, as you would know by now if you’d read the thread you started. The ACLU supports “civil rights,” of which the rights enumerated int he First Amendment are only a part.
It doesn’t. Why haven’t you read this thread?
Even if he has no chance at a parole, so what? Why is he essential? Or will you next suggest that all single women be sterilized?
False.
No more ludicrous that any other “idiocy” the taxpayers are asked to support. I see your point, but you are assuming that the child will be supported by the taxpayers and you have NO reason for that assumption.
“Bad?” Whafuck?
So we’ll place you in charge of the Proper Role Model Office of your new Federal Department of Conception Control.
IOW, I understand your frustration, but it is not your place to determine who makes a good role model.
'Fraid not.
Nice work, ruadh.
Nonsense. 82% of Republicans in the House voted for the Voting Rights Act (which was 1965, BTW, not 1964). 94% of Senate Republicans voted for it. See here. More Republicans supported the bill than Democrats.
There are Republican stances against civil rights that are very unfortunate, but that is no excuse to distort history.
The ACLU’s interpretation of the “right of the people” to be merely a collective rather than an individual right is in stark contradiction to its interpretation of the term “right of the people” elsewhere in the Constitution. The ACLU does not suggest that the “right of the people” to peacable assemble and petition for redress of grievances is merely a collective right, which can be exercised only through our representatives in Congress. Their interpretation is an illogical double standard.
[/quote]
The site indicates that the ACLU’s position is in line with that of SCOTUS. Not that that proves anything, but you might want to address the Court’s reasoning in the relevant cited cases.
The First Amendment doesn’t contain a qualifying clause along the lines of “a well-regulated militia…”. Collective versus individual rights interpretation may lie there. Not that I want to get into a 2nd Amendment debate.
I didn’t say that there could not be constitutional issues. I asked in response to a poster (who confuses consistently the concepts of “sexual harassment” and “sexual assault”) what those constitutional questions might be. I further asked whether the ACLU had been contacted to intervene. My understanding of how the ACLU operates is that generally it does not solicit clients or cases, especially not criminal cases at the trial stage where the defendant is represented by counsel.
This is a very reasonable mistake. I’ve been reading ACLU literature for over 40 years. Many years ago, they focused on their support for the Bill of Rights. In more recent years, they’ve focused on their support for the 1st Amendment.
Their degree of legal support for a particular right depends on their philosophical support for that right. Some they support very strongly – arguably beyond the intent of the founders. Other rights are ignored by the ACLU or even opposed. Here’s a rundown, as I see it:
Amendment I
– Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, STRONG SUPPORT
– Or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; OPPOSE
– or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; STRONG SUPPORT
– or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. SUPPORT
Amendment II
– the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, ** OPPOSE**
Amendment III
– No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without consent IRRELEVANT
Amendment IV
– unreasonable searches and seizures, Warrants based upon probable cause STRONG SUPPORT
Amendment V
– Capital crime requires a Grand Jury, SUPPORT
– nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy NEUTRAL
– nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, SUPPORT
– nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law SUPPORT in criminal cases, OPPOSE in punitive damages cases.
– nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. OPPOSE
Amendment VI
– In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy NEUTRAL
– and public trial, SUPPORT
– by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense. SUPPORT
Amendment VII
– In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. NEUTRAL?
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
Amendment IX
– The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. SUPPORT
Amendment X
– The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.STRONGLY OPPOSE.
december, you may recall that you instantly accused me of being evasive when I asked you for clarification of your position.
Now here you are, blatantly ignoring all the posts refuting your position on the ACLU and proving your assertions about them to be wrong, and simply giving us a laundry list of your “opinion” about what the ACLU does and does not support, without any proof, cites, explanation or anything.
Why should anyone even consider what you are saying when you offer nothing in support of it and are so willfully blind to the opposing truth that has been carefully pointed out to you by several people in this thread? And you are telling me I’m evasive? Pretty nervy, fella.
Otto had it right:
I think it lies squarely there.
From the website:
So the “right of the people” to be a “collective” is spelled out pretty damn clearly in the second, has been upheld by the Supreme Court and there is therefore nothing nefarious or even partisan in the way the ACLU sees it.
stoid
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Stoid *
**
I’m going to have to argue with this rhetorical crapheap. ACLU is pretty good about Amendments 1, 4 and 5, but they refuse to take on Second Amendment cases entirely because of the issue’s lack of perceived political correctness.
Could it be that most ACLU supporters tend to be pretty liberal and that the organization fears alienating its contribution base by actually practicing what it preaches?
I’m not saying ACLU doesn’t do some good work, and I truly believe every freedom-loving American owes them a measure of respect for some of the battles they have undertaken, particularly on Amendments 1, 4 and 5, but please don’t hold them up as some kind of glowing example of the altruistic guardian. They’re pragmatists who will only fight the battles the board agrees with.
Or could it possibly be that with an entire very large other organization totally focused on the 2nd am., the ACLU choses to spend it’s finite resources on issues that others don’t find quite as compelling?
Unless it’s your contention that the NRA isn’t doing a bang up job in defending the 2nd, of course.
Hey Fallen… you might want to read the entire thread.