I agree wiht Bill H.. By twising the Constitution into the meanings they prefer, the ACLU is crapping on the real Constitution.
I composed a big response last night and then lost it through a mis-click. I am too busy today to give this thread the full attention it deserves, but in the meantime…
Gonna give you the benefit of the doubt, Stoid, and assume you just misread that. The quote you have there is not by the Supreme Court. It’s from U.S. v. Warin, a U.S. appellate circuit decision. The Supreme Court has never made any such ruling. U.S. v. Miller, which is a Supreme Court case, just declares that sawed-off shotguns are not among the “arms” that the people have the right to bear, since such shotguns supposedly have no practical use in a militia. Nowhere does it hold that only the States, not the people, have the right to bear arms.
The only thing that the militia clause “spells out” is that a free State needs a well-regulated militia to be secure. It does not say that the people really don’t have the right to bear arms, in plain contradiction of the next clause.
Here is an article by David Kopel, being prepared for the St. Louis University Public Law Review, that examines what the Supreme Court has actually said about the 2nd amendment. While these are mostly dicta, they are said to clearly reflect a view of the 2nd amendment as an individual right.
Incidentally, even if the ACLU were right that Supreme Court opinion effectively nullifies the 2nd Amendment as an individual right, that would hardly excuse their agreeing with it. It’s not as if the ACLU considers the Supreme Court the final word on what is a constitutional right and what isn’t. SCOTUS has long since ruled that the death penalty isn’t cruel and unusual punishment (it was standard procedure in America when the 8th amendment was enacted), but the ACLU continues to insist that it is cruel and unusual punishment.
I note, BTW, that no one has yet responded to pldennison’s statement that the entire adult male population 18-45 is legally in the militia.
I’ll be back when I can, but probably not till tomorrow or late tonight.
Sorry, Stoid. You didn’t misread anything at all, the ACLU did. Your quote from the ACLU’s page is correct, where it mischaracterizes U.S. v. Miller. If you read the actual quote from U.S. v. Miller, you see the Court’s actual ruling has nothing to do with what the ACLU says it does.
The actual ruling on individual rights vs. collective rights is further up the page, at U.S. v. Warin.
No it won’t be.
Skinner v. Oklahoma in 1942 held that there is a fundamental right to procreate.
december, I refer you to your statement “They don’t oppose Democrats.”
How about the entire quote?
From Page one.
So, it does seem very clear to me at least, that you made the claim that the ACLU is “essentially a (snip) a Democratic civil liberties organization”.
THere it is, in context. Care to elaborate now how ruadh’s misinterpreting it?
. Kimstu, are you not aware that there is quite a controversy over the meaning of the establishment clause? One side (including the ACLU) says it means “separation of church and state.” The other side says it merely prohibits the establisment of a specific official state religion, like the Greek Orthodox in Greece.
Again, there are issues that aren’t legally clear. The ACLU supported their side because they support affirmative action.
On the Prop 209 lawsuit, the ACLU reasoning was wrong. (BTW I didn’t say partisan prejudice. Belief in affirmative action is perfectly reasonable, but I do maintain that their positon was in furtherance of their political belief.) Their argument was not upheld, except by Judge Henderson, an ACLU member. (In fact, IIRC, he had been in an ACLU leadership position.)
I wasn’t attempting to portray the ACLU’s argument, but rather to summarize the case as I saw it. Kimstu, you’ve repeated the ACLU argument. Every lawyer has an argument. Can you not see the flaws in the ACLU argument? The appellate court and USSC could.
Kimstu, here’s some background on the Prop 209 litigation. Judge Henderson was the ACLU member who ought to have recused himself, but didn’t.
amarinth wrote
Before you make such confident claims, please read your own cites. It is completely irrelevant. It talks about sterilization, which has only minor overlap.
Furthermore, that case was in 1942, and you’ll certainly understand that since 1942 (and before as well), many criminals have been denied conjugal visits and therefore procreation rights. So even if your cite did say what you think it did, it was not enforced (at all), and therefore is not relevant.
december said:
Perhaps (I don’t know), but I don’t think the ACLU opposes people peacefully protesting outside abortion clinics. The problem is that so many of the protesters get violent or abrasive to the point of not being peaceful. Thus the regulations on protesting are response to a widespread and otherwise uncontrollable problem.
december said:
I think perhaps they picked the establishment clause over the free exercise clause because in these cases the free exercise clause is inappropriately applied and the establishment clause is being violated. I guess that’s interpretational, and so you are arguing their chosing the interpretation they do makes the liberals not conservatives?
How is opposing MOS anti-free expression? The Moment of Silence is the school official telling people “you must now take a moment of silent reflection and prayer”. That is a directed act. Free exercise allows the students to pick an arbitrary time during their day and silently reflect or pray themselves, without being told and without having a specific time limitation enforced (you must stop praying… now). A directed act makes it a violation of the establishment clause.
Or are you arguing that the free exercise clause should trump the establishment clause? I would think that would subvert the whole intent of the establishment clause.
I do know that there was a court case involving how far away the protesters had to be. I believe that the ACLU supported the greater distance requirement. No doubt they were concerned about the risk of violence, which seems perfectly reasonable.
OTOH the ACLU supported the free speech right to burn the American flag – an action which also could lead to violence. My contention is that the ACLU’s position was guided by their general support for abortion rights. I see nothing wrong with this position. I’m pro-choice, too. All I’m saying is that the ACLU’s free speech position is guided in part by their support of a woman’s right to choose.
Yes. Or, more precisely, I consider the Constitution somewhat ambiguous, and I contend that the ACLU chose their position partly because they are less supportive of religion. That’s OK with me. I’m not religious. All I contend is that to some degree they have a social agenda.
I agree that it’s a stretch to argue that MOS is needed for free expression. I also think it’s a stretch to argue that it violates the establishment clause. After all, the student is free to pray in any religion, or to think about philosophical matters. Many of us would use the MOS as an opportunity to think about sex. Again, I think the ACLU position is partly due to their negative feeling about religion. (
However, I must admit that they may be guided by their very expansive view of the establishment clause, rahter than opposition to religion. In practice, there’s not much difference.
No, I don’t mean to make this argument. All I’m saying is that the ACLU expansive view of the establishment clause makes them look anti-religion.
I don’t know why I’m bothering trying to explain anything to december, as december has yet to understand anything I’ve tried to explain so far. Maybe I’m not a very good explainer. or maybe december isn’t very bright. All things are possible.
Re abortion protestors. I don’t know what the official position of the ACLU is. But the various “bubble” cases were argued because two constitutional rights of two different groups of people were in conflict. When this happens, courts try to apply a balancing test between the two impugned rights. IMHO, requiring anti-choice protestors to stay far enough away from those seeking to enter and exit building to allow them to enter while still permitting protestors to demonstrate was the best solution. It’s now established law that states may set up a buffer zone around abortion clinics. Now the cases are about how large that buffer zone may be and whether the number of people who protest may be regulated.
I didn’t think that the bubble was restricted to “anti-choice” protesters. I thought the bubble applied to everyone, so as to satisfy the content-neutral requirement of the First Amendment.
I think the bubble passes constitutional muster, but only if it is indeed content neutral.
december said:
I’m not sure I follow the parallel. It looks inverted to me. The flag burners are not the ones starting the violence, whereas the abortion protesters are typically the ones getting violent. Perhaps we should enforce buffer zones around flag burners for consistency?
Correct me if I’m wrong. I’m trying to understand your point and am filling in the blanks. You’re saying that the ACLU’s defense of abortion is predicated on their interpretation of the pro-life/pro-choice definition. In other words is the embryo/fetus a full human or not. Sure, that makes sense. How can you define an embryo as a full human and still give the right to terminate that life? That’s the whole murder angle. So the interpretation of the status of the embryo/fetus is the basis for determining whether abortion is murder or not. I agree. But I’m not sure what your objection is. Because they have the view they have on that determination, they are liberals?
I don’t agree that they are less supportive of religion. Many ACLU members and activists are religious. But you’re saying they interpret the ambiguities in a liberal manner, that makes the ACLU liberal at heart. Is that your contention?
It is telling that you think opposing forced religion is opposition to religion, when it is supportive of all religion instead of one particular religion. The establishment clause is what allows very disparate religions in this country to flourish.
Only to a christian (i.e. the ones with the cultural heritage of being in charge). If through history your religion has gotten away with things that are violations of other peoples’ rights, and the ACLU supports removing those violations, that sure looks like it is taking “rights” away from the people who have been following those practices. But of course that’s telling of my position, isn’t it.
Fair enough. But, that the wider buffer zone applies to non-violent protesters. If the protest becomes violent, the police always had the right to stop it.
The ACLU opponents complain that the buffer zone is so wide that the pregnant women cannot hear what the proptesters are saying. This could have been considered a free speech case by the ACLU, but they’re so pro-choice that such a position would be unthinkable IMHO.
Let me put it this way. I’m strongly pro-choice, I like the result of Roe v. Wade, but believe it was wrongly decided. I have some company in the POV, e.g. Columbia U. philospher Nisbit.
In theory, there could be pro-life ACLU leaders who believe that the Constitution requires that abortion be legal. These hypothetical ACLUers would support Roe v. Wade purely on Constitutional grounds, even thought they disapproved the result.
My contention is that there are no such people. That is, IMHO the ACLU supports abortion rights in part because they believe that’s good policy. So their legal view is driven partly by their social view.
The hyopothetical pro-life advocate of Roe v. Wade would be a conservative, but I contend that they don’t exist.
I haven’t done a survey, but in my ACLU member days I always felt that an atheist like me was very welcome.
Yes.
Yes, that’s true in principle. Still, in the period of 1948 - 56, prayers were read at Friday assembly in my school. I believe that was common. Still, many different religions flourished at that time.
My point is, it isn’t necessary to follow the current more strict view of the establishment clause. Diverse religions did just fine throughout the long history of the US, when that clause had a different meaning than it does today.
Well, I’m Jewish by culture. The ACLU has also taken away the opportunity for public schools to have songs and displays celebrating Jewish holidays. I think that’s a loss to all students.
I am thankful that the ACLU has taken up the task of defending the constitutional rights of even the most dispicable individuals. Without someone playing this role we would all have fewer liberties today.
Right. The statutes refer to demonstrators within a certain distance from the clinic or the person entering the clinic, without regard to the type of demonstration. Of course the statutes were passed because of anti-choice protests but anyone protesting around a clinic would be subject to them.
Regarding the ACLU’s position on them, I could not find anything specific on the “bubble” ordinances but I did find this from April 4, 1996:
The U.S. Supreme Court has since upheld the constitutionality of the statutes in question.
december said:
Just where is it spelled out you have the right to be heard by a particular audience? If you write an Op-ed piece and I don’t read that newspaper, have I violated your free speech rights by not listening? They can always hold up signs and banners.
I’m not sure about that. How can someone find abortion constitutional if it is murder? That’s why I have trouble with the whole abortion debate - how people draws the lines defines where they come down, and while I may argue with how a person draws that line, I can see their point. I guess I’d need a clearer explanation of your theoretical position above.
Yes, I’m sure, and a number are atheists. Doesn’t mean all are.
It cultivates an attitude that one religion or cluster of religions is approved and others are disproved, and being irreligious is disproved. A clear demonstration is protests against Wiccans holding ceremonies in the military, but having a paid chaplain.
Thats mostly due to the religion and culture being so confusingly intertwined. What’s a religious observance, and what’s a cultural observance? Of course we have the same problem with other American cultural practices with roots in christianity.
OK. ruadh interpreted me as having repeatedly said that the ACLU “always sides with the Democrats.” Here’s the difference between “always siding with Dems” and being “essentially a Dem. organization”: The former statement would be false if the ACLU ever failed to side with Democrats, even one time. The latter statement is true as long as the ACL sides Dems. most of the time. It allows some exceptions.
Compare abortion clinic picketing with picketing by striking workers. Suppose a law were passed providing such a wide buffer zone that the replacement workers couldn’t hear the picketing strikers. I’m confident that the ACLU would consider this a violaton of freedom of speech. I sure would. BTW confrontations between picketers and scabs often lead to violence, a lot more often than picketing at abortion clinics does.
Should the buffer zone be wider at abortion clinics than for striking workers? The ACLU supported such a law. That’s not because the Constitution specifies some difference in the treatment of these two groups. It’s because the ACLU is more supportive of abortion-seekers than they are of strike-breakers. This is an example where their position is based on which activities they agree with, not just pure legal principles.
I have no problem with their views. However, I do object to twisting our Constitution to support their political preferences. I’d prefer them to lobby Congress and state legislatures to pass laws they favor. That’s what the rest of us do.
december, may I refer you to another of your statements:
Emphasis added.
Case closed.