# Why Does the ACLU only Pick and Choose Rights To Protect? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 30, 2000, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-aclu-only-pick-and-choose-rights-to-protect/43453 "2000-11-30T21:57:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Flymaster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c4cdca/32.png) [@Flymaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Flymaster)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2000, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-aclu-only-pick-and-choose-rights-to-protect/43453/61 "2000-12-01T17:45:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Wildest Bill \* > **You know what is funny Flymaster. Why do you capitalize God if he doesn’t exist? 😉** Why, Bill…it’s a proper holiday, dedicated to Achristianity, my religion that I just now made up in order to answer this question. It doesn’t declare that NO gods exist, just not the Judeo-Christian God. Actually, that was my reason. I was going to capitalize every word on the banner, like most banners usually are, but then I got lazy. ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2000, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-aclu-only-pick-and-choose-rights-to-protect/43453/62 "2000-12-01T17:54:24Z")
In 1967, the Supreme Court placed a moratorium on use of the death penalty so that it might debate its constitutionality. In 1972’s _Furman v. Georgia_, the Court ruled that capital punishment violated the Eighth Amendment’s provision against cruel and unusual punishment. Four years later, in _Gregg v. Georgia_, the Court reversed its position and lifted the ban. Effectively, then, that was a ten-year period in which states were not allowed to execute criminals. “The death penalty has been legal in this country since its inception,” indeed. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Wildest\_Bill](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Wildest\_Bill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wildest_Bill)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2000, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-aclu-only-pick-and-choose-rights-to-protect/43453/63 "2000-12-01T18:08:31Z")
\*Originally posted by Flymaster \* > [@](#): > > I was going to capitalize every word on the banner, like most banners usually are, but then I got lazy. \*\* Shoot, thought I had ya. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2000, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-aclu-only-pick-and-choose-rights-to-protect/43453/64 "2000-12-01T18:10:09Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Gadarene \* > **In 1967, the Supreme Court placed a moratorium on use of the death penalty so that it might debate its constitutionality. In 1972’s _Furman v. Georgia_, the Court ruled that capital punishment violated the Eighth Amendment’s provision against cruel and unusual punishment. Four years later, in _Gregg v. Georgia_, the Court reversed its position and lifted the ban. Effectively, then, that was a ten-year period in which states were not allowed to execute criminals.** While that is true, here is an honest question (no, I really don’t know the answer to it). Didn’t the SC moratorium and ruling not apply w.r.t. the miltary’s code of justice? That is, wasn’t the death penalty still in practice and legal in the military at that point? ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2000, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-aclu-only-pick-and-choose-rights-to-protect/43453/65 "2000-12-01T18:19:34Z")
> [@](#): > > Public nativity scenes are the kind of thing the Christians do that just hacks me off. I mean, what are they worried about–some christian becoming a nonbeliever from not seeing the nativity scene? After all, it **is** Yule, a solstice holiday much older than any of the current thinly-veiled Mithras worship calling itself christianity. I wonder if they go inspect the christmas cards that are in churches to make sure there is something godly in all of them. Give me a break. What a bunch of wackos. Billy, you zeal in trying to ensure that your religion is the only one anyone ever sees and that it pervades society and government is touching. Please say “hi” to Locutus and One of Three for me, willya? ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2000, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-aclu-only-pick-and-choose-rights-to-protect/43453/66 "2000-12-01T18:51:28Z")
**Anthracite:** I don’t know the answer to that, either. Even if it were true, however, **Opus1’s** statement was still flatly wrong. For what it’s worth, a significant basis for the Eighth Amendment holding was that the application of capital punishment was too often–and inherently–discriminatory. Here are some quotes used by _Furman_: > [@](#): > > Finally there is evidence that the imposition of the death sentence and the exercise of dispensing power by the courts and the executive follow discriminatory patterns. The death sentence is disproportionately imposed and carried out on the poor, the Negro, and the members of unpopular groups. –The President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice > [@](#): > > Not only does capital punishment fail in its justification, but no punishment could be invented with so many inherent defects. It is an unequal punishment in the way it is applied to the rich and to the poor. The defendant of wealth and position never goes to the electric chair or to the gallows. Juries do not intentionally favor the rich, the law is theoretically impartial, but the defendant with ample means is able to have his case presented with every favorable aspect, while the poor defendant often has a lawyer assigned by the court. Sometimes such assignment is considered part of political patronage; usually the lawyer assigned has had no experience whatever in a capital case. –Warden Lewis Lawes, Sing Sing Prison And from the opinion itself… > [@](#): > > Former Attorney General Ramsey Clark has said, “It is the poor, the sick, the ignorant, the powerless and the hated who are executed.” One searches our chronicles in vain for the execution of any member of the affluent strata of this society. The Leopolds and Loebs are given prison terms, not sentenced to death. > [@](#): > > Those who wrote the Eighth Amendment knew what price their forebears had paid for a system based, not on equal justice, but on discrimination. In those days the target was not the blacks or the poor, but the dissenters, those who opposed absolutism in government, who struggled for a parliamentary regime, and who opposed governments’ recurring efforts to foist a particular religion on the people. Id., at 155-163. But the tool of capital punishment was used with vengeance against the opposition and those unpopular with the regime. One cannot read this history without realizing that the desire for equality was reflected in the ban against “cruel and unusual punishments” contained in the Eighth Amendment. And, finally: > [@](#): > > In a Nation committed to equal protection of the laws there is no permissible “caste” aspect 18 of law enforcement. Yet we know that the discretion of judges and juries in imposing the death penalty enables the penalty to be selectively applied, feeding prejudices against the accused if he is poor and despised, and lacking political clout, or if he is a member of a suspect or unpopular minority, and saving those who by social position may be in a more protected position. Pretty strong words. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2000, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-aclu-only-pick-and-choose-rights-to-protect/43453/67 "2000-12-01T20:57:11Z")
**egkelly:** _I used to work in Rhode Island, and for many years the standing joke (in reference to the ACLU) was their lawsuits against the City of Pawtucket. Every November, the city would erect a crèche /nativity scene, on the grounds of the city hall. As soon as the thing was set up and lit, regular as rain, the ACLU would file their lawsuit (the standard church-state separation). This was always done-in spite of the complete lack of opposition from the local rabbis-in deed, I recall reading a letter written by the rabbi of an area synagogue, expressing his total indifference to the issue. I was always amazed by how much money was wasted on such a trivial issue. It always seemed to me, that the ACLU could choose some other issue to complain about. In my opinion, the Pawtucket Chapter of the ACLU was a bunch of self-righteous idiots who had little else to do with their time._ Since I haven’t seen this issue in the RI ACLU newsletters recently, I assume that the City of Pawtucket finally managed to understand that what they were doing was plainly unconstitutional. (I find it interesting, by the way, that your response to a municipal government’s repeatedly spending time and money to do something plainly unconstitutional, and to defend it in court time after time even though the court repeatedly told them it was unconstitutional, is that it must be the **ACLU** who are the self-righteous idiots. It seems to me that that designation applies much more appropriately to the Pawtucket City Council.) We have recently had to turn our attention to the same sort of idiocy in Bristol RI, though, as you can read in this [press release](http://www.aclu.org/news/n080398b.html): > [@](#): > > Monday, August 3, 1998 > > PROVIDENCE, RI – The ACLU of Rhode Island today filed a federal lawsuit challenging the annual December display of a nativity scene on the front lawn of a public elementary school in Bristol. > > The suit, filed after many unsuccessful efforts to informally resolve the issue, claims that the creche display’s placement in front of the Colt Elementary School “delivers a message that [school district officials] endorse, sanction, promote, support and approve a religious message, and has a principal and primary effect of advancing religion” in violation of the First Amendment. > > Over the years, the ACLU has unsuccessfully asked town officials to remove the display. In addition, concerned residents and parents have complained to the ACLU in the past about the display, but none was willing to pursue a lawsuit. > > That changed last December when Bristol resident Anthony Cottone wrote the school district requesting that the display be removed. He called the display’s placement “insensitive” and unconstitutional, and noted that it not only serves “as an implicit endorsement of a particular theological viewpoint, but also as a rather unfortunate introductory civics lesson to the young children who attend the school.” > > Cottone never received a formal response but he was bitterly attacked in letters to the editor and elsewhere. Among other things, some residents asked him to leave town and advised him that Bristol is “a Christian community.” > > “It is regrettable that Bristol, which is so proud of its historical roots, would knowingly choose to ignore the importance of maintaining a clear separation of church and state,” Cottone said. “After all, this has been an issue which historically has been of special importance to Rhode Island and its citizens.” > > The lawsuit was filed by ACLU volunteer attorney Sandra Lanni on behalf of Cottone and four other Bristol residents who object to the display’s placement on public property: Stephen Brigidi, Raymond Masse, Donald Slate and Sara Slate. The suit seeks a court order barring future erection of the creche on public property. > > “While many of us choose to celebrate Christmas as a religious holiday, public officials, and especially public school officials, have no business allowing the grounds of a public elementary school to be used to promote any religious message,” said ACLU attorney Lanni. Note, by the way, that in the Bristol case as well as in the Pawtucket cases and according to their general policy, the ACLU **filed the lawsuit only on behalf of citizen plaintiffs who requested their assistance** , and that they filed suit only after several informal efforts to explain the nature of the violation to officials who remained uncooperative. \*\*WB:\*\*_That is the kind of thing the ACLU does that just hacks me off. I mean what are they worried about some atheist becoming a believer from seeing the nativity scene._ What they are worried about, as some other posters have explained to you, is that such displays on government constitute a state endorsement of religion, which is U.N.C.O.N.S.T.I.T.U.T.I.O.N.A.L, and promote the false idea that members of that religion have a special claim to its government sponsorship. (Notice the responses from Mr. Cottone’s fellow Bristol residents who asked him to leave town and told him that Bristol was a “Christian community”. In other words, “if you don’t like having our **shared, secular, taxpayer-supported** municipal government sponsor our religious activities, you don’t belong here.” Is that your idea of a nice Christian attitude for Christmas, **WB**?) _I mean afterall it is Christmas. I wonder if they go inspect the Christmas cards that are in state buildings to make sure their is nothing Godly in them._ I don’t have much hope that you can be made to understand this, but I’ll do my best. No, the ACLU does not care what religious expressions appear in and on **private property** , including any Christmas cards or other personal memorabilia that state employees may like to keep on their desks. No, the ACLU doesn’t mind if your church or your private school wants to put up a nativity scene in the front yard. No, the ACLU doesn’t mind if an atheist gets converted after seeing a nativity scene. What the ACLU minds, and I think you may have heard this before, is when **public property or resources are used to sponsor nativity scenes or any other expressions of religious belief. This violates the Constitutionally-mandated separation of church and state.** _Man, I dislike that organization. What a bunch wackos._ I think that to be disliked and called a “wacko” by somebody as prejudiced, illogical, and unreflecting as your posts have indicated you to be is an accolade of high distinction. Thank you **Bill** , I will reflect on that with pride. _IMHO I really think that are founding fathers meant that the state not get involved in the church not the way the ACLU reads it and sues about it._ Well, the judges don’t seem to agree with you. ---
**Author:** ![egkelly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/db5fbb/32.png) [@egkelly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/egkelly)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2000, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-aclu-only-pick-and-choose-rights-to-protect/43453/68 "2000-12-01T21:18:22Z")
I have some other questions: the city that I now live in puts lights in the trees, on the town common, for the Christmas season. Does this constitute an illegal endorsement of religion? Please help me rid Waltham of this horrible scourge! ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2000, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-aclu-only-pick-and-choose-rights-to-protect/43453/69 "2000-12-01T21:31:51Z")
**egk:** _I have some other questions: the city that I now live in puts lights in the trees, on the town common, for the Christmas season. Does this constitute an illegal endorsement of religion?_ Um, what religion mandates putting lights in trees as part of its religious ceremonies? As we’ve recently discussed in a different thread, there’s a difference between a religious symbol (Mary, Joseph, baby Jesus) and a secular decoration (snowmen, jingle bells, lights in trees), even if it’s often associated with a religious holiday. What your town appears to be endorsing is the secular celebration known as Holiday Shopping Season. _Please help me rid Waltham of this horrible scourge!_ Sorry, you’re not my table; you need to talk to the **Massachusetts** ACLU affiliate, but be warned, they’ll laugh you out of the office. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Flymaster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c4cdca/32.png) [@Flymaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Flymaster)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2000, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-aclu-only-pick-and-choose-rights-to-protect/43453/70 "2000-12-01T22:22:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by egkelly \* > \*\*I have some other questions: the city that I now live in puts lights in the trees, on the town common, for the Christmas season. Does this constitute an illegal endorsement of religion? Please help me rid Waltham of this horrible scourge! \*\* Waltham? Bah. I think they need to get somebody to work on changing the name of the Salem High football team. Much more pressing 😃 ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2000, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-aclu-only-pick-and-choose-rights-to-protect/43453/71 "2000-12-01T23:25:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Flymaster \* > \*\*Waltham? Bah. I think they need to get somebody to work on changing the name of the Salem High football team. Much more pressing 😃 \*\* Aw, c’mon, “Salem Witches” is a cool name, it has historic significance and instills local pride, and all that crap. Remember the city’s “official witch”, Laurie Cabot, almost getting elected mayor a few years ago? The football team can take it - they kick rump. Besides, what would they change it to - Magicians? Marblehead already has that, and they’re in the same conference. Speaking of which, my kiddies agree with me that the Witches and Magicians should play each other in Quidditch, not basketball, although the best of them might go on to play for the Washington Wizards. ---
**Author:** ![Ptahlis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a8b319/32.png) [@Ptahlis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ptahlis)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2000, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-aclu-only-pick-and-choose-rights-to-protect/43453/72 "2000-12-02T00:49:29Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Joe\_Cool \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by Ptahlis \* > > \*\*…While I am not a gun-control fanatic, and I do believe that individuals have the right to bear arms, I still cannot figure how certain gun nuts seem to believe that no possible regulation of firearms is permitted by the Constitution. > > \*\* > > The amendment in question in your post reads: > > > [@](#): > > > > A well regulated militia, Being necessary to the security of a free state, The right of the people to keep and bear arms, Shall not be infringed. > > It says, clearly, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It does not say the right shall be well-regulated. The subordinate clause (A well regulated militia being necessary…) gives the justification for the important part, not a qualification or limitation. > > It could just as easily say “Froot Loops, being an important part of this nutritious breakfast, The right of the people to keep and bear arms, Shall not be infringed.” without significantly changing its meaning. \*\* Is not the standard argument against “militia” meaning state supported activity such as the National Guard that “militia” means the whole (armed) populace? Then it follows that “well regulated militia” means that they can and indeed must regulate the members of the militia. Simply put, there is not a single guaranteed right in the Constitution that is absolute. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2000, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-aclu-only-pick-and-choose-rights-to-protect/43453/73 "2000-12-02T01:23:09Z")
Ooh, here’s where I get to use my beautiful quote from **Jodi** : \*Reasonable restrictions placed upon the means of exercising a constitutional right do not, in and of themselves, constitute a violation of that right. \* Like **Ptahlis** ’s point that no right is really absolute in practice, this seems to me like a very good response to the “we have to amend the Constitution if we want to be able to ban private possession of machine guns [or nuclear warheads, for that matter]” line of reasoning. To “restrict” a right is not the same thing as to “infringe” it. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2000, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-aclu-only-pick-and-choose-rights-to-protect/43453/74 "2000-12-02T02:25:54Z")
I think **kimstu** here has really nailed the crux of the thing here. After all, the Supreme Court has not recognized an unrestricted right to free speech that, say, allows you to yell “fire” in a crowded theater. The problem is, of course, that your rights eventually collide with someone else’s rights. For speech, they have tended to draw the line at the point where you are not merely offending someone else but are actually putting their life or liberty or property in great danger. By that standard, I think one can in fact argue for a fair number of restrictions on firearms even within the context of a constitutional right to have them! ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2000, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-aclu-only-pick-and-choose-rights-to-protect/43453/75 "2000-12-02T02:31:12Z")
Anthracite wrote: > [@](#): > > For this same reason you will **never** see any bill restricting publishing of hate-oriented materials supported by the mass media. Or partial-birth abortion bills supported by NOW, even if a majority of the members believe in restricting them. Partial-birth abortion **pills**?!? ---
**Author:** ![Monster104](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Monster104](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monster104)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2000, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-aclu-only-pick-and-choose-rights-to-protect/43453/76 "2000-12-02T02:37:46Z")
> [@](#): > > **Heck you can count me in regulating some arms too… well as long as I can have say…a TANK** Well, guess what Bill? You can own a tank! Yep, that’s right, a real life working tank. BUT, it cannot have any kind of armaments on it, and it’s not street legal. (I read in a biography of Tom Clancy that he owns an M1 Abrams tank…) ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2000, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-aclu-only-pick-and-choose-rights-to-protect/43453/77 "2000-12-02T02:38:06Z")
Oh. **bills**. [Emily Latella] Never mind. [/Emily Latella] ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2000, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-aclu-only-pick-and-choose-rights-to-protect/43453/78 "2000-12-02T02:44:25Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SPOOFE Bo Diddly \* > > A reasonable interpretation of “arms” would be “weapons that are sufficient in providing defense for you and your family”. Fine…But then this just seems to move the question to the level “Sufficient against who?” After all, if people want to talk about defending their family against the federal government (and some of these people do talk about this) then it doesn’t seem that a rifle is going to do much good against an entity that has, say, cruise missiles at its disposal. Not that I don’t think lines can be drawn…but I am just saying it is just not as cut-and-dried where to draw them (or where people will agree to draw them). ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2000, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-aclu-only-pick-and-choose-rights-to-protect/43453/79 "2000-12-02T02:51:49Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Joe\_Cool \* > > The amendment in question in your post reads: > > > [@](#): > > > > A well regulated militia, Being necessary to the security of a free state, The right of the people to keep and bear arms, Shall not be infringed. > > It says, clearly, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It does not say the right shall be well-regulated. The subordinate clause (A well regulated militia being necessary…) gives the justification for the important part, not a qualification or limitation. I will admit that your interpretation is a **possible** one, but I don’t think it is the only one. Frankly, like many things in the Constitution, it is somewhat ambiguous. I **vaguely** remember reading that if one goes back and researches some of the discussions taking place when the Admendments were written, there is considerable support for the argument that it is meant to qualify the right rather than just justify it. But, I will admit that I am going on only a vague memory on that, so I won’t claim it as fact. Does anyone else know more about this? ---
**Author:** ![pantom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/34f0e0/32.png) [@pantom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pantom)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2000, 6:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-aclu-only-pick-and-choose-rights-to-protect/43453/80 "2000-12-02T06:33:54Z")
Reading the Bill of Rights, looking for absolute and unqualified rights as opposed to qualified ones, I come up with the following: Amendments 1,6,8, and 9 are unqualified. The rest are qualified in one way or the other. The ACLU concentrates a lot of attention on 1, then, for the very good reason that it enumerates a set of unqualified, absolute rights. Unfortunately, government at all levels spends an inordinate amount of time and money trying to figure out ways to circumvent the freedoms given us by the First Amendment or, even worse, trying to establish in some sneaky way Christianity or even Judeo-Christian beliefs in general as our national religion. As to the militia, as defined and proscribed by the Constitution, the below clauses, the second of which was cited by Boris B, when juxtaposed with the Second Amendment, make for a pretty clear package: > [@](#): > > Article 1, Section 8, clauses 15 and 16: > > To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; > > To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; > > Second Amendment: > > A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. It seems to me that, by specifically using the word Militia, the writers were referring back to these clauses, thereby making it clear that the right to keep and bear arms was in that context, under a “discipline prescribed by Congress.” Seems to me that that pretty clearly means that Congress can regulate the type of arms the people can have. I can’t see how you can conclude that there is a right, implicit or explicit, to keep and bear arms unrelated to militia use \*\* as prescribed by Congress. \*\* The Congress couldn’t prevent you from owning arms at all, but it could say that you had a right to keep only a certain set of arms approved for militia use, and that all other firearms were prohibited. This would mean the Congress would have the right to outlaw any militia from keeping, for instance, nuclear arms. Also, that the arms allowed were to be used only in situations which clearly called for a militia. This appears to be what the Supreme Court ruled in 1939. I realize that this was cited earlier by Kimstu, but in the context of the complete text concerning militias from the Constitution above, the below portion becomes clear: (from the site [http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/constitution/amdt2.html](http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/constitution/amdt2.html) ) > [@](#): > > In United States v. Miller,\4\ the Court sustained a statute requiring registration under the National Firearms Act of sawed-off shotguns. **After reciting the original provisions of the Constitution dealing with the militia** , the Court observed that ``[w]ith obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted with that end in view.’’ The Court goes on to uphold a statutory requirement to register sawed-off shotguns. I can’t see how this could be any clearer than it is. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-aclu-only-pick-and-choose-rights-to-protect/43453.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-aclu-only-pick-and-choose-rights-to-protect/43453.md?page=5)