So is anyone gonna explain the “picking and choosing” thing? Or is everyone referring exclusively to the ACLU’s lack of support for the NRA’s interpretation of the 2nd Amendment? 'Cuz they make a clear (and convincing, to me) case about why they do not share that interpretation and therefore do not take up that “cause” on their website. Or they did last year when I checked.
So is there something else?
And ** Brutus, ** * trolling *is generally defined as taking a stance, usually outrageous and often un-believed in, for the specific purpose of riling folks up and watching the fireworks. I was moved to share the receipt of my card, and I assumed, from long experience here, that at least a few people would probably want to argue the relative merits or lack thereof of the ACLU. That is not trolling.
Yeah – the case they make is that they are a bunch of godless, un-American, nuclear-family-wrecking, values-destroying, criminal-coddling, smut-peddling, flag-burning, namby-pamby bleeding-heart Constitution-huggers.
“The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court’s long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual’s right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms.” --Policy #47
To me, this seems to be a pretty one-sided reading of U.S. v. Miller, whose main point was merely that weapons not suited to militia use were not “arms” within the scope of the Second Amendment’s use of the term.
With regards to the ACLU picking and choosing their fights, they also seem to be a little over-zealous when separation of church and state comes around. For example, suing schools for allowing religiously-oriented groups to use school facilities after normal school hours, when all that is required is that the school not discriminate against any group based on its religion (ie, the school couldn’t let a Christian group use its facilities, but deny them to a Wiccan group). Also, I recall them being pretty quiet when a grammar school in California was having students dress in muslim garb and recite prayers from the Koran, when having kids recite prayers from the Bible would have them filing suits faster than you can say “godless, un-American, nuclear-family-wrecking, values-destroying, criminal-coddling, smut-peddling, flag-burning, namby-pamby bleeding-heart Constitution-huggers”.
And since you’re trolling for anti-ACLU sentiment, I also think they’re pretty wacky when it comes to workplace discrimination charges. I could go on, but I won’t.
Now that is an interesting question isn’t it? I’m not sure they would have to work to uphold that.
The point of the organization is to uphold liberty. It so happens that the Bill of Rights is the last stronghold of liberties in the American government. So they support that document.
An Amendment putting “under god” back into the pledge is pretty anti-liberty. It stands against principles for which the organization fights. Being ratified as an Amendment wouldn’t make it worthy of defense.
Consider if an Amendment against flag-burning were to be ratified. Would people who stand for the Constitution as it is now, a document of freedom and liberty, be bound to support such an Amendment that runs counter to all the principles the Constitution previously stood for? I think not.
I live in a town that puts up a nativity scene (creche) in November! I am sickened by the thought that a religious display is being put on city owned land! Please protect me from the religious zeaots who threaten me with this offensive display!!
And, I am unable to sleep at night-knowing that the slogan “IN GOD WE TRUST” is ON OUR CURRENY! I am sickened by the blatantly religious tone of this-it is so humiliating! Plus, the local news channel actuslly mentions God! Oh, the humanity! HELP!
The “card-carrying member of the ACLU” line is from Poppy Bush’s 1988 campaign against Michael Dukakis, noted for being based in large part on demeaning his patriotism. Much was made of Dukakis’ veto of a proposed state law about the Pledge of Allegiance (that’s the origin of that political theme, btw) based on the First Amendment. Bush went so far as to stage a photo op in a flag factory to hammer the point home to the thickheaded.
Naturally, he understood the historical connotations of the words “card-carrying”, especially in the context of questioning one’s patriotism. Yes, the late Lee Atwater came up with the campaign approach (“We’re going to strip the bark off that little bastard”), but Bush went along with it willingly, including the sneering tone he used in speeches when saying the word “Liberal”. Unlike Atwater, though, who repented and asked forgiveness literally on his deathbed, Bush never has stated publicly (AFAIK) that there was anything dishonorable about his conduct. And, like father, like son, apparently.
Congrats, *Stoid, for your courage in supporting principle even when it’s inconvenient or uncomfortable in specific cases. It’s too bad that not more participants in public life do the same.
If you are a “card carrying” member, are you bound to uphold everything the ACLU fights for? Or is it like giving money to any other group…You hope for the best?
For instance, it is doubtful that I would be a “card carrying” member of any organization, as I hardly ever agree with all of their views.
Example: (As I stated before)
If you are a gay activist, would you stand behind Eminem for freedom of speech, even though he routinely makes fun of “fags”?
Yeah, but it was seeing Congress proposing it that made me think about.
For me, it just means that I have the membership card in my wallet. It replaced a long-expired summer membership to Boston College’s recreational complex, and is between my Boy Scout membership card and my Brooklyn Botanic Garden membership card.
I don’t think one is “bound”, of course, all I did was give them money. But as it happens, I have always found the ACLU to be consistent in their views, so I have never objected.
Such as your last example, which is a variation on the classic: I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it. After I got over the shock of the Skokie business (the famous Nazi march), I realized what a beautiful thing it was. The ACLU is about defending our freedoms, period. And they did the absolute right thing in stepping up to the plate on the Nazi’s behalf.
And I think it demonstrates that they do NOT pick and choose. If ever there were a time when it must have galled them to defend someone’s rights, that had to rank up there. But they did it.
I’m not too sure how much the ACLU were involved, but I am certainly opposed to the BSA policy on homosexuals and atheists, yet still feel comfortable with being involved on the local level (especially as my council has adopted a (admittedly weak) non-discrimination policy with respect to homosexuals).
I recall when the AARP sent me a membership application about thirty years early. I contemplated joining just for the AARP discount at hotels and stuff, but decided that I wouldn’t give money to an organization whose primary purpose seems to be to lobby Congress to take more of my money and give it to senior citizens.
I don’t think it really demonstrates that. If one were to believe that the ACLU is a liberal organization, it would stand to reason that they would be most opposed to moderate conservatism. Neo-Nazis are a politically irrelevant group, and helping them will not substantially harm the cause of liberalism. Benefitting the Bush administration would be a much clearer sign that they are impartial.
Not that I believe that they do pick and choose, though they do seem to skew a little to the liberal side. I will mention that I lost a good bit of respect for the Cato Institute for being blatantly partisan in the aftermath of the 2000 election. I agreed with them that Bush had the better legal claim, but they went rather over the top for an organization devoted primarily to market freedom. I have never seen that sort of thing from the ACLU.
Did they make sure you know something about the Constitution before they’d give you your card? Because within the last three weeks, the OP has claimed that “Under our Constitution , rights are granted to ‘citizens’ which are defined as persons born or naturalized. Fetuses are neither born or naturalized. They ain’t citizens. They don’t gots no rights.”
If this is in fact the OP’s position, that noncitizens have no Constitutional rights, I assume she supports the Bush administration’s position re: the “enemy combatants” being held in custody in this country or at Guantanamo Bay. I’d just hate to think that she wasn’t out there fighting heartily for every right that she can.
I’ll have something nice to say about the ACLU as soon as it stands up for Republican gun owners who hunt, fish, run traplines and believe that the Constitution is U.S. law that applies to U.S. citizens only until changed, not intended for interpretation by the press and special interest groups, including themselves.
If they ever have, my apologies, but I’m not aware of it ever happening.
I had a lengthy post on this topic a few years ago, but I couldn’t find it. I think the ACLU does a lot of good. I was a member for a long time, and my wife still is. In response to Stoid’s question, this post will focus on the negative.[ol][]Although the ACLU boasts about having once defended some Nazis in Illinois thrity years ago, they are pretty much a liberal, Democrat-supporting, civil liberties organization. E.g., they did not support whistle-blower Linda Tripp. A comparable conservative civil liberties organization did.[]Their support for certain issues trumps their support for civil liberties. E.g., IIRC they did not oppose laws requiring that abortion-clinic protesters stay very far away from abortion clinics. Normally, they’d be four square on the side of free speech, e.g., burning flags.[]Their support for anti-discrimination also sometimes trumps their support fro free speech. E.g, they generally have not opposed punishments for “verbal sexual harassment” in various settings.[]As has been pointed out, they did not support the Boy Scouts freedom of association, since it conflicted with their opposition to discrimination. (even though FOA is a constitutional right, freedom from discrimination due to sexual preference is not.)[]As has been pointed out, they do not support the 2nd Amendment.[]Their support for Freedom of Religion, is weak, because they will oppose FOR when it conflict with their extreme version of SOCAS.[]They routinely oppose the Tenth Amendment (limiting the federal government). I cannot ever recall seeing them support the 10th Amendment.[]They like to see legislation by the Judiciary Branch, as long as they agree with the outcome. E.g, Roe v. Wade, which is a good outcome from their POV (and mine), but which goes far beyond mere interpretation.A recent SOCAS case explored whether the Miranda Warning was absolute, or whether police could use some other method of satisfying Consitutional requirements. I do not believe that the ACLU supported the use of alternatives. So, they were content to let the SOCUS-created Miranda warning stand, as if it were an absolute law.[/ol]In short, the ACLU does a good job of supporting civil liberties, but they have a definite political agenda. If you support civil liberties and you support their particular agenda, then this is a good organization to belong to.
Now, just because the ACLU gets the press is no reason you can’t also help out some people who are working the same way, and fighting the good fight, to keep your personal data personal, your words free, and the FBI and other government agencies safely away from seizing anything they want for very little reason.
The EFF.
They’re good people, they’ve been around a while, and they’re dearly in need of cash.
Support Linda Tripp? Why the devil would they be expected to support a woman who illegally taped phone conversations, and then used that information for partisan gain?
The rest of your points are opinions. You and the ACLU obviously disagree with what constitutes a civil rights violation (FTR, I agrtee with you regarding the 2nd Amendment and the Boy Scouts [although I don’t support the Scouts, currently] and the ACLU on the others). Fair enough, but your first pont puzzles me.
