# What do righties have against the ACLU? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 7, 2008, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-righties-have-against-the-aclu/444257 "2008-04-07T01:02:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2008, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-righties-have-against-the-aclu/444257/61 "2008-04-07T02:42:56Z")
[QUOTE=JohnnieEnigma] Communism is the lack of capitalism which takes away a man’s rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. it is the removal of personal and religious freedom. That’s the short version. Where am I wrong? [/QUOTE] Start [here.](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/communism). Continue [here.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism) Get more information [here.](http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/communism.htm) Learn. ---
**Author:** ![Anomalous\_Reading](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b3f665/32.png) [@Anomalous\_Reading](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anomalous_Reading)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2008, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-righties-have-against-the-aclu/444257/62 "2008-04-07T02:46:12Z")
[QUOTE=focusonz] Teenagers today have nothing better to do today than shoot each other. The ACLU has been stopping the use of public schools by Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts so teenagers can’t find fellowship there. What next for the ACLU, attacking Future Farmers of America because working in the soil infringes on the rights of illegal Mexicans, or 4H clubs because picking clovers will contribute to global warming. [/QUOTE] They could always use the church… And they don’t stop it, “so teenagers can’t find fellowship there.” They stop it because they are an exclusive, belief-based group. If they changed a few things, they’d be ok. But I highly doubt that will be happening… Given the way you wound down your paragraph, I’m not even sure why I’m replying to you, but… I hate seeing mistruth in any form. ---
**Author:** ![Syntropy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/65b543/32.png) [@Syntropy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Syntropy)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2008, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-righties-have-against-the-aclu/444257/63 "2008-04-07T02:48:29Z")
[QUOTE=Two and a Half Inches of Fun] I do not understand what you are trying to communicate. [/QUOTE] You made a vague assertion about what the ACLU has been a part of in regard to the “radical” re-interpretation of the Constitution in the second half of the 20th century. As quite a few of those decisions in regard to civil rights came down on the side of women and minorities, I assumed your assertion was that those “unelected judges” made decisions that, popular or not, upheld the rights of all citizens, not merely the rights of what had previously been the white male majority. If that’s not what you were asserting, you should be more clear. ---
**Author:** ![spayced](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9fc29f/32.png) [@spayced](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spayced)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2008, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-righties-have-against-the-aclu/444257/64 "2008-04-07T02:48:45Z")
You don’t need religion to be a good person. We have plenty of enriching after-school activities that don’t involve religion at all. Freedom of religion means not that the religion cannot be in the school, only that it cannot get preferential treatment, it has to pay $$$ for the hearts and minds of your child just like Pepsi and Frito-Lay. Since religions don’t have to pay taxes like pepsi and frito-lay, and the majority of american donations go to religions, I think they have plenty of head start to work with already. ---
**Author:** ![Anomalous\_Reading](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b3f665/32.png) [@Anomalous\_Reading](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anomalous_Reading)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2008, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-righties-have-against-the-aclu/444257/65 "2008-04-07T02:49:17Z")
[QUOTE=Two and a Half Inches of Fun] I do not understand what you are trying to communicate. [/QUOTE] What redefinition were you alluding to? You seemed to take it as a matter of faith that it was just so evident. Could you be more specific? I don’t understand what you were trying to communicate. And **Maureen** had a solid point - that was a considerable redefinition she alluded to. ---
**Author:** ![Two\_and\_a\_Half\_Inches\_of\_Fun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ea666f/32.png) [@Two\_and\_a\_Half\_Inches\_of\_Fun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Two_and_a_Half_Inches_of_Fun)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2008, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-righties-have-against-the-aclu/444257/66 "2008-04-07T03:02:46Z")
[QUOTE=Maureen] You made a vague assertion about what the ACLU has been a part of in regard to the “radical” re-interpretation of the Constitution in the second half of the 20th century. As quite a few of those decisions in regard to civil rights came down on the side of women and minorities, I assumed your assertion was that those “unelected judges” made decisions that, popular or not, upheld the rights of all citizens, not merely the rights of what had previously been the white male majority. If that’s not what you were asserting, you should be more clear. [/QUOTE] Yeah, that is part of what I was getting at. Some people do not like those decisions and/or do not think it is appropriate for the courts to re-interpret the Constitution. Add to this the radical expansion of what is permissible under the commerce clause, the radical expansion of the rights of criminal defendants, the creation of rights from “penumbras” and “emanations” of the Constitution, and the creation of rights under privacy and you get a radical re-interpretation of the Constitution. Do you deny that this re-interpretation was radical? Do you think the understanding the Constitution has not radically changed from how it was understood in 1900? Are you saying that people cannot legitimately oppose this radical re-interpretation? Are you saying that people cannot legitimately feel that the appropriate ways to enact these changes are through legislation and constitutional amendments? ---
**Author:** ![spayced](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9fc29f/32.png) [@spayced](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spayced)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2008, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-righties-have-against-the-aclu/444257/67 "2008-04-07T03:12:09Z")
[QUOTE=Two and a Half Inches of Fun] Yeah, that is part of what I was getting at. Some people do not like those decisions and/or do not think it is appropriate for the courts to re-interpret the Constitution. Add to this the radical expansion of what is permissible under the commerce clause, the radical expansion of the rights of criminal defendants, the creation of rights from “penumbras” and “emanations” of the Constitution, and the creation of rights under privacy and you get a radical re-interpretation of the Constitution. Do you deny that this re-interpretation was radical? Do you think the understanding the Constitution has not radically changed from how it was understood in 1900? Are you saying that people cannot legitimately oppose this radical re-interpretation? Are you saying that people cannot legitimately feel that the appropriate ways to enact these changes are through legislation and constitutional amendments? [/QUOTE] The world changes. The car changed travel. Machine guns changed warfare. Computers changed information. We thought we KNEW these things. The world changes, you need your laws to keep up. I’m less concerned about the interpretation of the constitution than the growing power of the executive branch to be lawmaker, judge, jury, and executioner. ---
**Author:** ![Syntropy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/65b543/32.png) [@Syntropy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Syntropy)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2008, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-righties-have-against-the-aclu/444257/68 "2008-04-07T03:16:05Z")
[QUOTE=Two and a Half Inches of Fun] Do you deny that this re-interpretation was radical? [/quote] Well, again, your examples were somewhat vague, but no, I don’t think that judges upholding rights of individual citizens regardless of race, creed or gender is all that radical. > [@](#): > > Do you think the understanding the Constitution has not radically changed from how it was understood in 1900? Are you saying that people cannot legitimately oppose this radical re-interpretation? Are you saying that people cannot legitimately feel that the appropriate ways to enact these changes are through legislation and constitutional amendments? I think that expecting interpretation to remain exactly the same as it was 100 years ago (or 200 years ago) is naive, to say the least. Societies change and grow. We cannot expect our interpretations to remain the same, because they eventually become obsolete. Civil rights apply to all citizens. Am I not a citizen? Aren’t all citizens afforded equal consideration under the law? Why does gender matter? Or race? How is it radical that we should afford those rights to all citizens? People _can_ legitimately feel that the appropriate way to enact change is through legislation. So long as that legislation does not fly in the face of the constitution, and rights are protected from the tyranny of the majority. ---
**Author:** ![Syntropy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/65b543/32.png) [@Syntropy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Syntropy)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2008, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-righties-have-against-the-aclu/444257/69 "2008-04-07T03:17:53Z")
[QUOTE=spayced] The world changes. The car changed travel. Machine guns changed warfare. Computers changed information. We thought we KNEW these things. The world changes, you need your laws to keep up. I’m less concerned about the interpretation of the constitution than the growing power of the executive branch to be lawmaker, judge, jury, and executioner. [/QUOTE] I greatly appreciate your posts and would be happy to sponsor your membership, should you decide to stay. ---
**Author:** ![Randy\_Seltzer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ee7513/32.png) [@Randy\_Seltzer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Randy_Seltzer)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2008, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-righties-have-against-the-aclu/444257/70 "2008-04-07T03:23:23Z")
[QUOTE=spayced] The world changes. The car changed travel. Machine guns changed warfare. Computers changed information. We thought we KNEW these things. The world changes, you need your laws to keep up. I’m less concerned about the interpretation of the constitution than the growing power of the executive branch to be lawmaker, judge, jury, and executioner. [/QUOTE] The world changes, and the constitution can change as well. But there’s a procedure for changing the constitution. Check out Article V. Changing it in any other way undermines its legitimacy. ---
**Author:** ![Two\_and\_a\_Half\_Inches\_of\_Fun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ea666f/32.png) [@Two\_and\_a\_Half\_Inches\_of\_Fun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Two_and_a_Half_Inches_of_Fun)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2008, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-righties-have-against-the-aclu/444257/71 "2008-04-07T03:34:24Z")
[QUOTE=Maureen] Well, again, your examples were somewhat vague, but no, I don’t think that judges upholding rights of individual citizens regardless of race, creed or gender is all that radical. [/quote] I did not say that judges upholding rights of individual citizens regardless of race, creed, or gender is radical.\* I said the way the courts interpret the Constitution is radically different from how it was historically understood. If you do not feel there was a radical re-interpretation, would you be OK with going back to how the Constitution was historically understood? > [@](#): > > I think that expecting interpretation to remain exactly the same as it was 100 years ago (or 200 years ago) is naive, to say the least. Societies change and grow. We cannot expect our interpretations to remain the same, because they eventually become obsolete. I completely agree; however, there are people that have intellectually honest disagreements with this position. > [@](#): > > Civil rights apply to all citizens. Am I not a citizen? Aren’t all citizens afforded equal consideration under the law? Why does gender matter? Or race? How is it radical that we should afford those rights to all citizens? > > People _can_ legitimately feel that the appropriate way to enact change is through legislation. So long as that legislation does not fly in the face of the constitution, and rights are protected from the tyranny of the majority. Let’s take a specific right. The right to birth control. The Supreme Court ruled that a state could not prohibit the sale of birth control because such a law would violate a right of privacy that while not actually in the Constitution was in “penumbras” and “emanations” of other constitutional protections.\*\* Are you saying that people cannot legitimately feel a court should not find/create such a right? \*Considering human history it is extremely radical. \*\* Big-time simplification ---
**Author:** ![Randy\_Seltzer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ee7513/32.png) [@Randy\_Seltzer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Randy_Seltzer)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2008, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-righties-have-against-the-aclu/444257/72 "2008-04-07T03:35:00Z")
**Maureen** , just because it has changed for the better doesn’t mean it hasn’t changed. The entire bill of rights, as originally written, guaranteed rights only against intrusion from the federal government. In 1800, it would have been perfectly constitutional for a State to make a law that said “No one shall speak ill of the government.” The 14th Amendment was the first reference in the Constitution to the relationship between the States and the individual with regard to civil liberties. And in the past 80 years or so, the Supreme Court has expanded their interpretation of the 14th Amendment substantially from its original scope. It is hardly recognizable any more. Now I applaud my increased liberties. But I would prefer that they were granted by legislative fiat instead of trampling on the Constitution. And I hate to say it but the ACLU has done more than any other private organization to centralize power in Washington D.C. (instead of the individual States) and emasculate the legislature (in favor of the judiciary). ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2008, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-righties-have-against-the-aclu/444257/73 "2008-04-07T03:40:25Z")
[QUOTE=Two and a Half Inches of Fun] Yeah, that is part of what I was getting at. Some people do not like those decisions and/or do not think it is appropriate for the courts to re-interpret the Constitution. [/quote] Actually, the job of the Supreme Court is _precisely_ to interpret the Constitution. Your persistantly repeated word “re-interpret” is semantically null. They are not _re_-interpreting, each court and each generation is simply _interpreting_ as it is their Constitutional duty to do. If the interpretation changes over the years, that is only a function of each new Justice and each new iteration of the Supreme Court. In some cases, previous courts have been wrong or dishonest or disingenuous or bound by generational prejudice and have had to be corrected by more enlightened successors. I notice that your own posts have complained about the _exapansion_ of civil rights and individual liberties, but you have not provided an example of wither the ACLU or the courts working to _remove_ any rights, so you;ve done little to enlighten me as to what the righties object to. What do you have against the expansion of civil liberties? Simply complaining about judges interpreting the Constitution is like complaining about Congress passing bills or the President signing them into law. That’s what they’re _supposed_ to do. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2008, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-righties-have-against-the-aclu/444257/74 "2008-04-07T03:42:16Z")
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic] This is not a cite for the ACLU trying to take anyone’s rights away. [/QUOTE] You asked for a reason as to what “righties” have against the ACLU and you were given a quote from the founder who clearly has an ax to grind against religion. The ACLU has done everything in it’s power to remove any suggestion of God from government. Your original question, which was not in the form of a debate, has been answered. You apparently didn’t like the answer and morph’d your question into a completely different topic where you demand proof that the ACLU has taken away someone’s rights. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2008, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-righties-have-against-the-aclu/444257/75 "2008-04-07T03:44:43Z")
[QUOTE=Two and a Half Inches of Fun] Let’s take a specific right. The right to birth control. The Supreme Court ruled that a state could not prohibit the sale of birth control because such a law would violate a right of privacy that while not actually in the Constitution was in “penumbras” and “emanations” of other constitutional protections.\*\* Are you saying that people cannot legitimately feel a court should not find/create such a right? [/QUOTE] People can _feel_ whatever they want but they’re wrong on the law. The Constitution says whatever the Supreme Court _says_ that it says. I also think it’s asinine to complain about beind granted _more_ rights. The refrain from the right is that the ACLU and the “activist courts” are _taking away_ civil rights. I’m still waiting for a single example of the ACLU trying to take away a right. ---
**Author:** ![Two\_and\_a\_Half\_Inches\_of\_Fun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ea666f/32.png) [@Two\_and\_a\_Half\_Inches\_of\_Fun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Two_and_a_Half_Inches_of_Fun)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2008, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-righties-have-against-the-aclu/444257/76 "2008-04-07T03:46:46Z")
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic] I notice that your own posts have complained about the _exapansion_ of civil rights and individual liberties, but you have not provided an example of wither the ACLU or the courts working to _remove_ any rights, [/QUOTE] We could ask Farmer Filburn about his right to what he pleased with his own wheat on his own farm. ---
**Author:** ![Two\_and\_a\_Half\_Inches\_of\_Fun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ea666f/32.png) [@Two\_and\_a\_Half\_Inches\_of\_Fun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Two_and_a_Half_Inches_of_Fun)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2008, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-righties-have-against-the-aclu/444257/77 "2008-04-07T03:49:29Z")
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic] People can _feel_ whatever they want but they’re wrong on the law. The Constitution says whatever the Supreme Court _says_ that it says. [/QUOTE] Do you do realize that there are intellectually honest positions that disagree with viewpoint? Why does the Constitution say whatever the Supreme Courts says? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2008, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-righties-have-against-the-aclu/444257/78 "2008-04-07T03:55:08Z")
[QUOTE=Magiver] You asked for a reason as to what “righties” have against the ACLU and you were given a quote from the founder who clearly has an ax to grind against religion. The ACLU has done everything in it’s power to remove any suggestion of God from government. [/quote] You mean the ACLU has tried to remove _religion_ from the government and he Constitution did that first. The ACLU is just trying to protect it it. Are you admitting that conservative complains about the ACLU are grounded in a frustrated theocratic agenda. Is there any reason that conservatives should not _agree_ that the government has no right to endorse, or favor or offer any opinion on the truth or falsity of any religious view. You apparently didn’t like the answer and morph’d your question into a completely different topic where you demand proof that the ACLU has taken away someone’s rights. [/QUOTE] My reason for starting the thread was to try to assertain what kind of _justified_ complaint that righties have against the ACLU. I’ve already admitted that I could have phrased my title better, but I think it’s pretty obvious what I meant. It’s not a question of “not liking” the answer (which was really no answer at all but a reiteration of the complaints I was asking righties to justify), it’s an attempt to get to the heart of the issue. ---
**Author:** ![Randy\_Seltzer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ee7513/32.png) [@Randy\_Seltzer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Randy_Seltzer)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2008, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-righties-have-against-the-aclu/444257/79 "2008-04-07T03:57:38Z")
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic] I’m still waiting for a single example of the ACLU trying to take away a right. [/QUOTE] Okay, how about this: In _Griswold v. Connecticut_, the ACLU entered an amicus brief opposed to state regulations on marital contraception. The Supreme Court found 7-2 in favor of declaring the State Law unconstitutional. Great, right? Now no State can deny its married citizens the right to contraception. Everyone’s rights increase right? Well, not really. You see, now my State legislators have less power to write laws that will apply to me. So my vote for my State legislators has less net effect. My vote for federal legislators is only 1/50th as powerful as my vote for my State legislators, and now the Supreme Court has made my most powerful democratic tool that much less powerful. The ACLU has taken away my right to democracy. There. Happy? (Waiting for “No True Scotsman” rebuttal.) > [@2.5"](#): > > Why does the Constitution say whatever the Supreme Courts says? Because the Supreme Court said so. _Marbury v. Madison_ ---
**Author:** ![Two\_and\_a\_Half\_Inches\_of\_Fun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ea666f/32.png) [@Two\_and\_a\_Half\_Inches\_of\_Fun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Two_and_a_Half_Inches_of_Fun)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2008, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-righties-have-against-the-aclu/444257/80 "2008-04-07T03:58:11Z")
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic] Simply complaining about judges interpreting the Constitution is like complaining about Congress passing bills or the President signing them into law. That’s what they’re _supposed_ to do. [/QUOTE] There are disagreements on the proper modes of interpretation for the Supreme Court to take. Are you saying people cannot legitimately disagree on this? I suppose you have no problem with the Supreme Court’s decision to allow restrictions on intact dilation and extraction procedures because that is what the Constitution says? I suppose you further would not object to the Supreme Court re-interpreting the Constitution to a pre-_Roe_ state because if the Supreme Court did that that would be what the Constitution would say? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-righties-have-against-the-aclu/444257.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-righties-have-against-the-aclu/444257.md?page=5)