What do righties have against the ACLU?

Great Debates
121

[QUOTE=magellan01]
All your examples point to changes in technology. If anyone was arguing laws should NOT change based on new technologies, your examples would be apt. But since that hasn’t been asserted by anyone, they are useless.
[/QUOTE]

I don’t think you understand how dependent you are on technology for your daily survival. Food, Water, Heating, Cooling, Entertainment, Clothing, Learning, it’s practically impossible to touch anything you made yourself these days. The only reason this number of humans are alive is because of technology. From 1.6 million people to 9 billion people and you say it’s irrelevant? In the 1800s they had 7 children because they expected most to die. EVERY law is about technology my friend.

It may seem like I’m getting off topic, but I want to emphasize the danger of a dogmatic adherence to a document OR system at any point in time. The overall goal is to make things better, and neither will ever be absolutely perfect. Government is a process of improvement.

122

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]

It does when it mentions Equal Protection.

[/QUOTE]

Assuming this is a reference to the incorporation of the Bill of Rights you mean the Due Process Clause, not the Equal Protection Clause. The Equal Protection Clause has nothing to do with the Bill of Rights.

123

[QUOTE=Two and a Half Inches of Fun]
Right, but you seem to be saying that conservatives cannot legitimately hold an originalist position and oppose the work of the ACLU.
[/quote]

No, I was only saying was that it would be factually erroneous to deny that the Supreme Court is the final authority on the meaning of the Constution (i.e. “Cotus says whatever Scotus says it says”). I was not making a comment on how it can be interpreted, I was saying it would be uneducated to aver that it isn’t the last word.

I personally think an originalist position is impractical in many cases (and in some cases difficult even to divine), but anyone sitting on the Court is free to exercise that approach of he wants to. it’s not “illegitimate” in my mind, just not the most reasonable.

I would also take issue with any idea that the positions of the ACLU are necessarily always (or even usually) at odds with what the Founders intended or even if and when they are, that the Founders would be right. After all, if we take the Originalist approach to its logical conclusion, then black people and women would still have no civil rights at all.

124

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]

I would also take issue with any idea that the positions of the ACLU are necessarily always (or even usually) at odds with what the Founders intended or even if and when they are, that the Founders would be right. After all, if we take the Originalist approach to its logical conclusion, then black people and women would still have no civil rights at all.
[/QUOTE]

Except for all the civil rights legislation that has been passed, which is actually much more powerful the constitutional rights.

125

[QUOTE=Two and a Half Inches of Fun]
A lot of people do not like the radical re-interpretation of the Constitution that occurred in the 20th century (especially the second half). They further do not like the idea of a bunch of unelected judges changing what the Constitution was understood to mean. The ACLU was an instrumental part of this radical re-interpretation of the Constitution.

Whether you agree with or disagree with the results of this radical re-interpretation you cannot deny that it happened, or that the ACLU was an instrumental part of this re-interpretation.
[/QUOTE]

Right, and for anyone here surprised that some of us don’t see the aclu as the pillar of virtue they view them as is kind of short sighted; or that their motives are not as pure as some of you believe.

There’s nothing you can do about another person’s perception of things… our perceptions are influenced by our values, experiences, observations, how we internalize things … There are a few good posts in this thread that explain some real objections to the aclu. You’ve got to try to understand that they are valid reasons.

126

[QUOTE=Maureen]
That it applies to everyone, not just white men? Damn those activist judges…
[/QUOTE]

oh, white men…the reason for all the horrors in the world. :cool:

127

[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
Start here..
Continue here.
Get more information here.

Learn.
[/QUOTE]

Alright, thank you.

Before I learn, I wanted to add that I think communism is oppression, and that it breaks the spirit of the human soul. And also that it does not work.

alright, I’m off to learn now… :slight_smile:

128

[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
Start here..

[/QUOTE]

communism

  1. a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.
  2. (often initial capital letter) a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.
  3. (initial capital letter) the principles and practices of the Communist party.

A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.

Communism
A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.
The Marxist-Leninist version of Communist doctrine that advocates the overthrow of capitalism by the revolution of the proletariat.

communism

noun

  1. a form of socialism that abolishes private ownership
  2. a political theory favoring collectivism in a classless society

…

Right. Just as I thought. Communism is everything I deplore, despise and detest. I clearly do not agree with a “collective ownership of property”. This would be an outrage. I’m a capitalist of the highest order. I don’t believe in a classless society. And there’s no such thing as a classless society… in communism you would have two classes: government with all the wealth and the people in poverty living with a broken spirit with their basic rights stripped from them (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness). Communism strips us of our liberty and pursuit of happiness.

The idea of abolishing private ownership terrifies me. I could never survive an authoritarian government (might as well just put a bullet in the back of my head, because that’s what would end up happening anyway. I would clearly rebel) … I do much better in a democracy (or republic) whatever you call what we have right here.

So, am I over-reacting?

I’m off to read the next two links. :slight_smile:

129

[QUOTE=Randy Seltzer]
Try again. III.2.2 gives the Supreme Court the power to decide cases based on the constitution. It does not (as written) give the Supreme Court the power to change/declare void laws passed by Congress.
[/quote]
Let’s see how that would work, under your interpretation.

A law is passed by congress.

It is challenged and the Supreme Court rules it unconstitutional.

Since SCOTUS has no power “to change/declare void laws passed by Congress,” the law stays in effect.

Yep, that’ll work.

130

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
No, I was only saying was that it would be factually erroneous to deny that the Supreme Court is the final authority on the meaning of the Constution (i.e. “Cotus says whatever Scotus says it says”). I was not making a comment on how it can be interpreted, I was saying it would be uneducated to aver that it isn’t the last word.

I personally think an originalist position is impractical in many cases (and in some cases difficult even to divine), but anyone sitting on the Court is free to exercise that approach of he wants to. it’s not “illegitimate” in my mind, just not the most reasonable.

I would also take issue with any idea that the positions of the ACLU are necessarily always (or even usually) at odds with what the Founders intended or even if and when they are, that the Founders would be right. After all, if we take the Originalist approach to its logical conclusion, then black people and women would still have no civil rights at all.
[/QUOTE]

Good point - especially about black people and women civil rights. Look I read some of the aclu court cases, and they have done some fine work.

I think it’s just a case of feeling threatened by them, whether it’s justified or not, since some of their lawsuits appear to be a threat to some of our personal rights. And you have to admit, after reading the co-founder’s creed… if you were a wild-at-heart capitalist who values free will, you would look at the aclu as a threat too… whether the reasoning is grounded or not.

And I come from this school of thought, “The First Thing We Do, Let’s Kill All the Lawyers” - Shakespeare

so that should tell you something.

I’ll try to keep an open mind about them from now on. But if they do something that I find to be a threat to my personal freedom, I’m gonna shout out about it…

131

[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.

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.
[/QUOTE]

Well, I think complaining about the granting of rights is appropriate here. When rights are more or less invented by judicial wand waving, then the rights can just as easily be taken away. You wind up with a situation where each faction desperately tries to pack the court with judges sympathetic to its view, which is essentially what we have now. Also, having judges so blatantly base their decisions on desired social outcome does not make for good law. The net result of all this is reduced respect for the rule of law and the politicizing of the judiciary, neither of which are particularly good things imho.

132

[QUOTE=crowmanyclouds]
Statements like this one are the reason that somewhere a handful of Founding Fathers hang their heads in shame while another handful point and laugh.

CMC +fnord!
Just in case.
The single most compelling argument IMHO against adopting the “Bill of Rights” was the notion that someday someone would make the argument that the ONLY rights citizens had were those enumerated in it.
Hence the Ninth Amendment,
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

There are NO rights in the Constitution, the Constitution is a limit on the power of government to interfere with those inalienable rights.
[/QUOTE]

I would love it if one day someone could give me a satisfactory explanation of why the court in Griswold didn’t just say that privacy was one of the non-enumerated rights in the 9th amendment and save everyone 70+ years of headaches.

133

[QUOTE=MichaelQReilly]
Well, I think complaining about the granting of rights is appropriate here. When rights are more or less invented by judicial wand waving, then the rights can just as easily be taken away.
[/quote]
Which right(s) do you think were invented by judicial wand waving?

134

[QUOTE=Musicat]
Which right(s) do you think were invented by judicial wand waving?
[/QUOTE]

How about the extension of the due process clause of the 14th Amendment to things like tenure for professors? (Sorry don’t have a cite hand, I can get one later if you want.) Now, I’m not going to say that its a bad thing that a university had to be fair in granting tenure. But, in my mind anyway, there is no basis in the text or purpose of the amendment to extend it to anything like that.

Now to be fair, I am no strict originalist. Madison himself said that he hoped people didn’t interpret the Constitution based on the writer’s intent. That being said, it is frustrating to me when things like “penumbras” are cited as a means to an end. Of course I want the right to privacy. I just don’t want it to be found through stretching the interpretation of the Constitution to the breaking point.

135

[QUOTE=MichaelQReilly]
How about the extension of the due process clause of the 14th Amendment to things like tenure for professors? (Sorry don’t have a cite hand, I can get one later if you want.)
[/quote]
That’s the best (worst?) example you can find? I’m not even aware of such, and it sure doesn’t sound like a burning issue. I thought you were going to cite privacy, abortion or integration cases.

136

[QUOTE=JohnnieEnigma]
communism

  1. a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common…2. a political theory favoring collectivism in a classless society…

…

Right. Just as I thought. Communism is everything I deplore, despise and detest. I clearly do not agree with a “collective ownership of property”…
[/QUOTE]

First off, let me air a pet peeve, which is the posting of dictionary definitions as if a point were being made. Please rest assured that the vocabulary of the average Doper is perfectly adequate, thank you very much. Our hamsters are in tip-top physical condition, further excercise for its own sake is quite unnecessary.

That done, let me point out to you that you already live in a “collective”, its called “us”. “We, the people” is a collective identity. In the words of the emininent political theorist Pete Seegar, “This land is your land, this land is my land”. Amber waves, purple mountains, the whole shmeer. Ours.

The wealth that flows from exploiting those resources is the property of the self-same “We, the people”. Again, ours. When those resources are seized for the personal benefit of a person or group, it doesn’t become legitimate simply because it follows an economic theory that you hold dear. Proudhon was exaggerating when he said that “Property is theft”, but it oftimes is theft.

The progressive seeks the proper balance between collective ownership and collective justice. The “communism” that terrifies you so explicitly (“bullet in the neck”? A bit much, don’t you think? Or don’t you?..) is a wild overreaction, a case where the cure is worse than the disease. But that does not mean that the disease doesn’t exist and doesn’t need to be addressed.

Chill, comrade.

137

[QUOTE=JohnnieEnigma]
that’s the thing, I don’t think what you’re suggesting. I think that non believers should do their thing and believer should be left alone to do their own thing. How is my praying in public a problem for anyone else? I never did get that whole ‘separation’ thing anyway… I’m mostly focusing on religious freedom. It does not mean that I’m trying to take away anyone’s rights to not believe.
[/QUOTE]

Then you would have no trouble with churches paying taxes.

138

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
In this thread about a Muslim civil rights case in a prison, a couple of posters have offered up a couple of snarky comments about the ACLU and implied that it is in some way anti-Christian or in some other way unsavory.

I’ve often heard conservatives bashing the ACLU, but I’ve never heard a clear explanation as to what is supposed to be so terrible about them. So enlighten me, righties. What do you have against an organization which fights for YOUR civil rights? Does anybody want to defend the meme that they’re anti-Christian?
I suspect that no one will be able to articulate any convincing argument for why the ACLU should be viewed in a negative light. Prove me wrong.
[/QUOTE]

I suspect no argument will convince anyone
Because they perceive that the ACLU “fights for THEIR civil rights” above all other peoples rights and they won’t be deprived of ‘THEIR’ rights.
All they, and 500,000 like the them, have to do is donate $174 to the ACLU to effect that power over small family communities with a budget of $870 against the ACLU’s budget of $87,000,000.

The short explanation is the first case that the ACLU took on.

In the year of its birth the ACLU was formed to protect aliens threatened with deportation, along with U.S. nationals threatened with criminal charges by U.S. Attorney General Alexander Mitchell Palmer for their communist or socialist activities and agendas. See here
It is very telling that the ACLU’s own website does not elucidate on the particulars of that first case. see here

Then in 1940,
In hopes of correcting (cover up) their own 1920 indiscretion after it was made obvious to them that communism or socialism implemented by man results in totalitarianism which denies the liberties that they thought they were protecting,
The ACLU formally barred communists from leadership and staff positions.

I don’t care to debate communism, socialism, and totalitarianism as it relates to freedoms and specifically freedom of religion. Nor do I care to debate how the ALCU organizational culture has remained unchanged for nearly 100 years. They are a bunch of card carriers as Bush said.

Two wrongs don’t make ‘righties’ and history does repeat itself when it comes to the ACLU. Referring to the aliens defendants and the current events.

The op came from an emotion of fear with this thread. The op is afraid that no one will stand up for his rights without the ACLU. The ops last statement is automatic protection from what may be learned. May I suggest the following course to everyone, take some Life Training.

Us righties know when push comes to shove it is very personal and physical pushing and shoving that ultimately ensures freedom not a legal organization in an ivory tower.

139

[QUOTE=mswas]
OT nitpick. The Freemasons were never Masons. There used to be free masons, IE masons that could travel from country to country building churches where there was work, and they were members of masonic craft guilds, but that’s not the same as a ‘Freemason’. They were just called Masons. Freemasons as the word we know today were always the members of the order of Freemasons, that were founded off of a moral and spiritual metaphor relating the improvement of the individual to mastering the craft of masonry.
[/QUOTE]

Nitpick pick: No, actually, the first “speculative” masons were guys who were allowed to join the original craft guilds of “operative” masons and participate in the rituals without actually doing any stonework.

That’s the way I read it, anyway. Of course, there are various accounts.

140

The logic is irrefutable. The ACLU 70 years ago is the same as now. Everybody involved in the start is dead. Much change has occurred in that time including endless wars. Yet the ACLU stayed the same. Who can argue. ?
ACLU haters are like union haters. They can not see what battles they fought . They can not see what good they have accomplished. They just know that the endless press criticizing them must be right.