[QUOTE=Bricker]
No, no more so than my kid should stop asking for cookies.
His role as a first-grader is to push boundaries, to expand his areas of control. My role as Papito is to set reasonable boundary limits.
Similarly, the ACLU’s role is to push one of side of the see-saw down as hard as they can. It’s for the forces on the other side of the see-saw to provide opposition.
The ACLU is an advocate for a particular set of positions. They have every right to agitate effectively for the adoption of those principles. They are not elected officials – they are private actors. They can do as they please. And under our system of self-governance, they are as free as any other set of private actors to work for governmental change.
[/QUOTE]
So, your kid should stop asking for cookies when he has exceeded his “little daddy’s” limit. Momita has set the same limit we presume.
Lets say because of eating all those cookies your big kid now plays to hard on the see-saw hurting a small 1st grader. You as the Papito and your momita could agree to reduce the number of cookies or teach him to not play with fragile kids but only play with the big kids or play very gently or do nothing allowing him to run amok.
Now comes your 1st grader crying because a big kid sat on the see-saw, preventing your 1st grader from getting off and go back to class, until the big kid lost interest and decided to go bother some one else. Your are the Papito, what would you do? You would try to set boundary limits on the big kid too.
The ACLU is the big “kid”. It is not private actor as it has a papito, its membership, who has set reasonable boundary limits. The membership has told ACLU not to play with another big kid, the US. Congress. The US congress has paid a Chaplin using taxpayer money to open each session with a prayer since 1789.
Essentially the membership does not have the balls to stand behind their principals and tell the ACLU to work for government change, in the big kid playground but irresponsibly lets the ACLU run amok.
[QUOTE=Blalron]
They are probably worried about a culture of complicity being created. If all your neighbors have their houses voluntarily searched, maybe you’ll feel a lot more pressure to say “yes” if the cops knock on your door. The ACLU signs are a way of pushing back against that.
[/QUOTE]
AGAIN let me point out that the cops do NOT KNOCK ON YOUR DOOR unless you’ve already called them.
If the above is the actual ACLU rationale, then I’m convinced my ire is rightly placed. That’s a ridiculous approach.
[QUOTE=focusonz]
So, your kid should stop asking for cookies when he has exceeded his “little daddy’s” limit. Momita has set the same limit we presume.
. . .
Essentially the membership does not have the balls to stand behind their principals and tell the ACLU to work for government change, in the big kid playground but irresponsibly lets the ACLU run amok.
[/QUOTE]
Awesome rant dude. No idea what it means, but like a Zen koan, it was a pleasure to taste with my mind.
[QUOTE=focusonz]
So, your kid should stop asking for cookies when he has exceeded his “little daddy’s” limit. Momita has set the same limit we presume.
[/QUOTE]
Um…
OK, you know what? Perhaps analogies are a bad fit for you.
Can you try this point again in a more direct way?
[QUOTE=JohnnieEnigma]
I could give you many examples of where christians felt their religious rights were being violated
[/QUOTE]
Sample scenario:
[QUOTE=L. Sprague deCamp “Lest Darkness Fall”]
“You don’t like the Goths?”
“No! Not with the persecution we have to put up with!”
“Persecution?” Padway raised his eyebrows.
“Religious persecution. We won’t stand for it forever.”
“I thought the Goths let everybody worship as they pleased.”
“That’s just it! We Orthodox are forced to stand around and watch Arians and Monophysites and Nestorians and Jews going about their business unmolested as if they owned the country. If that isn’t persecution, I’d like to know what is!”
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=JohnnieEnigma]
If anyone wants to understand why the right is cautious of the aclu’s motives, this should give you a good understanding as to why.
[/QUOTE]
Well, yes, in the same sense that perusal of Nazi propaganda will give a good understanding of why people indoctrinated thereby would be worried about the International Jewish Conspiracy.
[QUOTE=JohnnieEnigma]
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.
[/QUOTE]
So far you’ve come across as a theist.
OK, you know what? Perhaps analogies are a bad fit for you.
Can you try this point again in a more direct way?
[/QUOTE]
nah I don’t wanta.
You started with the child analogy, I merely expanded it with hypothetical situations and mapped those situations to the ACLU/member/defendant relationship.
The ACLU is a big bratty kid and needs to have the crap beat out of it again until it learns to see-saw with respect,** again**.
.
[QUOTE=Randy Seltzer]
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.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Senator Jacob Howard, re the then-proposed Fourteenth Amendment]
the great object of the first section of [the fourteenth] amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the states and compel them at all times to respect these great fundamental guarantees (of the federal Bill of Rights)
[/QUOTE]
You started with the child analogy, I merely expanded it with hypothetical situations and mapped those situations to the ACLU/member/defendant relationship.
[/quote]
You’re mapping was off-kilter and based on a bad premise anyway.
What do you mean by “beat the crap out of?”
Could you also give an example of how the ACLU has ever harmed you or tried to interfere with any of your rights. I’m seeing some of the typical ACLU bashing from you, but I’m not seing you justify it with any specifics.
[QUOTE=Randy Seltzer]
Well, not really. You see, now my State legislators have less power to write laws
[/QUOTE]
Translation: You have less ability to strong-arm your neighbors (at least, unless and until you choose to grow a pair and do so in person).
You already have the ability to refrain from doing whatever it is you want them to prohibit. (If it’s an issue of wanting to excuse yourself by saying “sorry, I would if I could, but the guvmint won’t let me”, see above re growing a pair.)
No, the Founders of the Republic (who rejected “democracy” as the mob rule of two wolves and a lamb voting on the menu) did that.
[QUOTE=Steve MB]
Well, yes, in the same sense that perusal of Nazi propaganda will give a good understanding of why people indoctrinated thereby would be worried about the International Jewish Conspiracy.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t know that that’s really a good analogy, because there was no International Jewish Conspiracy, so the people opposed to it were opposed to a fantasy, but the ACLU really does want to limit things like school sponsored prayer and the portrayal of explicitly religious symbols in public spaces. You might agree with the ACLU that there the Constitution does and should ban those things, but its opponents don’t agree with that. They have a different reading of the first amendment than you do, so for them, the ACLU is backing an incorrectreading of the amendment.
“We are looking forward to a major win for the democratic process and the constitutional rights of all Californians,” said Adam Wolf, an attorney with the ACLU Drug Law Reform Project. “This ruling destroys the claim that medical marijuana laws are inherently invalid and confirms that states need not march in lockstep with the federal prohibition of medical marijuana.”
[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]
A distinction without a difference – a case based on the Constitution in which the defense argues that the “illegal” act is Constitutonally protected inherently amounts to a trial of the law’s constitutionality. For example, if Congress passed a law “Nobody can dispute SteveMB’s statements on the SDMB”, you insisted on doing so anyway, and found yourself on trial, the court case would necessarily hinge upon the question of whether Congress had the power to pass such a law in the first place, and the courts would (one hopes) rule that it did not and that the law is therefore void.
You don’t get to decry judicial activism and then buttress your argument using one of American history’s most egregious examples thereof.
[QUOTE=JohnnieEnigma]
And I come from this school of thought, “The First Thing We Do, Let’s Kill All the Lawyers” - Shakespeare
[/QUOTE]
Well, then, if you believe that the rule of law should be overturned and replaced by majoritarian mob rule (which is the “school of thought” expressed by that quote in its original context), your arguments are more understandable.
They are, however, irrelevant to the governance of a nation whose Founders and Constitution decisively reject that viewpoint.
[QUOTE=JohnnieEnigma]
nd 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.
[/QUOTE]
I’m not sure what you’re trying to say about yourself, here. That you actually believe that all lawyers should be killed? A slogan isn’t necessarily a “school of thought.” And calling it your school of thought doesn’t really add to your credibility.
Also, the way you quote, it seems to imply that it was Shakespeare’s belief that lawyers should be killed. All evidence points to the conclusion that Shakespeare quite liked his lawyers and kept them well employed.
[QUOTE=acsenray]
Also, the way you quote, it seems to imply that it was Shakespeare’s belief that lawyers should be killed. All evidence points to the conclusion that Shakespeare quite liked his lawyers and kept them well employed.
[/QUOTE]
[hijack]
Y’know, I was gonna post something about that also. But I decided to google first, not being all that familiar with that particular play. Lo and behold, I came across this analysis, which seems pretty convincing that the quote really is a slam on lawyers. Again, I’ve not read the original, and so haven’t done my own analysis.
This hijack should probably be in it’s own thread, but I thought I’d throw it in here to have on record at the point where it came up.
[/hijack]
[QUOTE=Bricker]
AGAIN let me point out that the cops do NOT KNOCK ON YOUR DOOR unless you’ve already called them.
[/QUOTE]
I’m frankly surprised that you paid so little attention to the news. The announced plan was for cops to do precisely that – go around knocking on people’s doors and requesting permission to search. At least that was the plan until opposition (provided in part by the ACLU) forced DC to back down:
[QUOTE=The Washington Post]
D.C. police have scaled back plans to go door-to-door asking residents in high-crime neighborhoods whether officers can search their homes for guns as part of a new amnesty program aimed at getting weapons off the streets.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=The Washington Times]
Police Chief Cathy Lanier wants to help parents and others who fear their own children or other family members might have a gun in the home. As part of her Safe Homes initiative, the chief announced that officers would be going door-to-door asking residents for permission to search their home and seize illegal property (guns, drugs, etc.) No warrants. Just knock, ask, agree and the latex gloves begin searching. We labeled the plan “Another dumb idea,” and last week Chief Lanier admitted she made a major boo-boo.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Could you also give an example of how the ACLU has ever harmed you or tried to interfere with any of your rights. I’m seeing some of the typical ACLU bashing from you, but I’m not seing you justify it with any specifics.
[/QUOTE]
My impression is that the argument goes something like this: “The ACLU is fighting for rights to people I don’t agree with politically, therefore my rights are being infringed upon,” without actually recognizing the fact that the same rights are being afforded to everyone.