ACLU and "conservative" causes?

Status
Not open for further replies.
the ACLU is a communist inspired, anti American group, dedicated to destroying our way of life. In my humble opinion, anyone thinking otherwise is either an ACLU running dog, or uninformed.
Click to expand...
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Wow, talk about uninformed!!!

"Running dog" - that post was really too much. It just has everything. Oh man, I am still laughing over that one.
 
Wow, talk about uninformed!!!
Click to expand...
And the pamphlet was fun reading as well.

Das Boot,
Hence the magnitude of invective heaped upon it.
Click to expand...
Of course. Criticizing the ACLU is a grand tradition of partisans of every stripe, including liberals and yes, even libertarians such as myself.
It's kind of like yelling at the ref because the call didn't go your way ;)
 
There is something else to think about. If the majority of the Circuits or the SCOTUS itself, ever came down on the side of individual rights and the 2A, you would find the ACLU changing its stance on the 2A issue.
Click to expand...

Actually, not it wouldn't. Read the ACLU's statement on the 2nd Amendment. It's board determined that there was no individual right because it decided that the results of said right (unrestricted ownership of arms) was too ridiculous and outdated a concept for the ACLU to support. So, if the courts ruled the right existed, the ACLU would probably take the same position it has with the death penalty: it may be legal, but it's working to make it illegal.

However, the ACLU has been instrumental in enhancing and preserving many of those liberties we often take for granted. This is no small feat, in and of itself.
Click to expand...

Like the "right" to be forced to study the Koran at UNC, or the "right" to be forced to write a paper on why you didn't want to study it? The ACLU defended this program on NPR, stating that the class was educational, not religious. I doubt I'd see them doing that with the Bible or the Torah.

Besides, the ACLU does pick and choose the rights it supports. It supports the 14th Amendment . . . until the issue of affirmative action comes up. Then it supports affirmative action, even though by definition that requires discrimination.
 
However, if they defend Nazis and Muslims with a legitimate case, that might offend some but they don't understand liberty.
Click to expand...

I'd love to watch you try and explain to my granddad and his buddies down at the VA how they don't "understand" liberty.:rolleyes:


As for the ACLU, a real good way of judging an organization is by looking at the makeup of its controlling members. As it stands today, the ACLU is no friend of freedom, at least not the kind that we started back in 1776.
 
"the ACLU is a communist inspired"

"The ACLU was founded by Roger Baldwin, Crystal Eastman, Albert DeSilver and others in 1920." - from the ACLU site


The 'communist inspired' was certainly true in the early days, the first 20 years or so, and tainted the organization. -
www.harvardsquarelibrary.org/unitarians/baldwin.html


As for me, I have better things to do than try to drag the ACLU anywhere if they're "kicking and screaming."

John
 
I'd love to watch you try and explain to my granddad and his buddies down at the VA how they don't "understand" liberty.
Click to expand...
Props to those vets but just because someone fought in combat does not give them an understanding of liberty. I know folks currently fighting in Iraq that would gladly support a nation-wide gun ban and a state-controlled media.
 
Props to those vets but just because someone fought in combat does not give them an understanding of liberty. I know folks currently fighting in Iraq that would gladly support a nation-wide gun ban and a state-controlled media.
Click to expand...

Most everyone from that era had/has a proper understanding of what freedom is. To compare people of today to people back then is like comparing an ed brown to a hi-point.
 
Most everyone from that era had/has a proper understanding of what freedom is.
Click to expand...
Oh I highly doubt that. I grew up in the south and there are many people there who still don't understand what freedom is.
 
Premise in question

Several posters have cited cases of the ACLU supporting Nazi's, thereby implying that they have defended "conservative" groups.

The Nazis are/were anything but a conservative, American group.

The Nazis of WWII attacked the Christian faith by burning their churches, Jews by seeking to kill them all, sought to establish government control of businesses, and banned firearm possession by private citizens. They were, after all - the National SOCIALIST party.

Do NOT believe the spinmeisters who seek to avert your eyes from the anti-Semitic moveon.org sites, anti-gun policies, disdain of Christianity, and passive/active support of anti-Israel policies all promoted by the left in our country.
 
Several posters have cited cases of the ACLU supporting Nazi's, thereby implying that they have defended "conservative" groups.
Click to expand...
I don't think anyone was implying anything of the such.
However, if you look at the various Nazi party factions, which differ greatly from the Hitler Nazi party of the 30s, you'll find some today who are the ultra-conservative, anti-socialist in their beliefs.
Also, if you do some research, you'll find that the Nazis who marched in Skokie, while claiming kinship to Hitler's Nazi beliefs, in actuality when looking at their preachings their closest leaning was limited to superiority of the white race. The typical socialist beliefs they were against.
 
The Nazis most certainly did not "burn Christian churches". In Germany, both mainstream Christian denominations were silent accomplices to the Nazi atrocities, with a few notable exceptions like Cardinal von Galen.
 
I always thought the ACLU was a bunch of liberals too. Until I looked at a more complete list of cases they handled.

I think the reason so many people feel this way is because the only cases we hear about are filtered through the liberal media.

Why would they fight for the Nazis? Because they have the right to freedom of speech. Why would they fight for the Muslims? Because they have the freedom of religion. Unless you look at the arguments presented in the cases you may never realize how important some of these really are. If Skokie was permitted to prevent the Nazis from holding their rally because they don't like what they have to say, does anyone else have the right to hold a rally? That would depend on who was in office at the time. Once the Nazis got the right to hold a rally was anyone forced to attend? That's what the ACLU looks out for, rights. We may not always like or agree with what they do, but if we start picking and choosing who is entitled to the rights guranteed by the Constitution, how long will it be before we are the ones loosing our rights?
 
Just out of curiosity, why will they not put any pressure on the courts to rule that it's an individual right? They seem to be able and willing to pressure for other items on their agenda.





IMO which don't mean jack, it doesn't fit into their liberal left wing agenda. I could be wrong, but they haven't shown otherwise. Are they only capable of defending rights that are easily explained to their left wing benifactors?
Click to expand...


Anyone, someone?? I'm not looking for an argument, in theory I think they could be a good organization, I just don't see it in practical application.
 
A little late in getting this posted, but since Don brought it back up:

gc70: "enforce conformity to national/federal standards." In other words, true nationalism. The states become simply regional areas of governorship. Gone would be the idea that the states are autonomous within their own sphere.

DonR: Which is precisely why I said they would be dragged, kicking and screaming.

buzz_knox: There is a difference between support or nonsupport of a right and an interpretation of "cruel and unusual." I don't doubt that the ACLU would do something similar. But it would be a completely seperate issue. In order to take such a stand, they would have to publicly support an amendment to repeal the 2A.

Once the Court recognizes the right, how popular would they be to support a repeal of that right? It opens them up to public scrutiny on many levels. I really don't think the public would appreciate a "civil rights" organization calling for the repeal of a civil right!!

The ACLU has gone through some major shifts in ideology in the past 60 years. Perhaps this would provide another?
 
To nate1865...

Do NOT believe the spinmeisters who seek to avert your eyes from the anti-Semitic moveon.org sites, anti-gun policies, disdain of Christianity, and passive/active support of anti-Israel policies all promoted by the left in our country.
Click to expand...

That has nothing to do with the ACLU, the fact of the matter is, the Nazis of WW2 didn't have a belief in any actual religion other than the mysticism Hitler spread through his cultish beliefs of a 1000 Golden Years of Prosperity and the idea of the Master Race. The neo-Nazis of today aren't causing violence, only exercising their right to free speech. As much as I don't agree with anyone like the KKK or neo-Nazis, I do understand that as long as they assemble peacefully and don't go destroying my property or try to harass me, I have no problem with them. If anything the KKK turn a VERY sharp right on the American political spectrum. Point being, political extremism regardless of religion is a bad thing. If America was to abandon all religions and push harsh legislation in favor of nothing but big business, that's fascism. If America were to push for a purely Christian nation, that's theocracy... last I checked either of those extremes does NOT promote freedom.


Epyon

P.S: Israel is NOT America, and not supporting Israel doesn't add up to being un-American.
 
Antipitas,
"enforce conformity to national/federal standards." In other words, true nationalism. The states become simply regional areas of governorship. Gone would be the idea that the states are autonomous within their own sphere.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. The states do have autonomy but their laws must not violate the Constitution. IOW they may expand rights above and beyond what the Constitution calls for, but they can't restrict them.
And, of course, they can run their affairs however they see fit.

Don,
They often take cases that are 'difficult to explain' to liberals, their benefactors aren't all liberal, and I don't believe that they make their decisions on who to support by such considerations.
They do make decisions that I don't agree with, but I believe that they're done in good faith.
 
ACLU on gun control:
Gun Control

"Why doesn't the ACLU support an individual's
unlimited right to keep and bear arms?"

BACKGROUND
The ACLU has often been criticized for "ignoring the Second Amendment" and refusing to fight for the individual's right to own a gun or other weapons. This issue, however, has not been ignored by the ACLU. The national board has in fact debated and discussed the civil liberties aspects of the Second Amendment many times.

We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government. In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles. The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration.

IN BRIEF
The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns.

Most opponents of gun control concede that the Second Amendment certainly does not guarantee an individual's right to own bazookas, missiles or nuclear warheads. Yet these, like rifles, pistols and even submachine guns, are arms.

The question therefore is not whether to restrict arms ownership, but how much to restrict it. If that is a question left open by the Constitution, then it is a question for Congress to decide.

ACLU POLICY
"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

ARGUMENTS, FACTS, QUOTES

"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."
The Second Amendment to the Constitution

"Since the Second Amendment. . . applies only to the right of the State to
maintain a militia and not to the individual's right to bear arms, there
can be no serious claim to any express constitutional right to possess a firearm."


U.S. v. Warin (6th Circuit, 1976)

Unless the Constitution protects the individual's right to own all kinds of arms, there is no principled way to oppose reasonable restrictions on handguns, Uzis or semi-automatic rifles.

If indeed the Second Amendment provides an absolute, constitutional protection for the right to bear arms in order to preserve the power of the people to resist government tyranny, then it must allow individuals to possess bazookas, torpedoes, SCUD missiles and even nuclear warheads, for they, like handguns, rifles and M-16s, are arms. Moreover, it is hard to imagine any serious resistance to the military without such arms. Yet few, if any, would argue that the Second Amendment gives individuals the unlimited right to own any weapons they please. But as soon as we allow governmental regulation of any weapons, we have broken the dam of Constitutional protection. Once that dam is broken, we are not talking about whether the government can constitutionally restrict arms, but rather what constitutes a reasonable restriction.

The 1939 case U.S. v. Miller is the only modern case in which the Supreme Court has addressed this issue. A unanimous Court ruled that the Second Amendment must be interpreted as intending to guarantee the states' rights to maintain and train a militia. "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument," the Court said.

In subsequent years, the Court has refused to address the issue. It routinely denies cert. to almost all Second Amendment cases. In 1983, for example, it let stand a 7th Circuit decision upholding an ordinance in Morton Grove, Illinois, which banned possession of handguns within its borders. The case, Quilici v. Morton Grove 695 F.2d 261 (7th Cir. 1982), cert. denied 464 U.S. 863 (1983), is considered by many to be the most important modern gun control case
.
Click to expand...

Now let's be clear: I do not agree with this assessment. Probably more than most people on this forum. In US v. Miller, the acid test was that any firearm in military use should be open game. They lost because they did not show the Justices a photograph of a sawed-off shotgun in use during WW1.
These days that assessment has been turned on it's ear and now infantry weapons are off-limits.


It certainly looks to me like they would at least consider supporting the RKBA if they had some court cases to hang their hat on, but the courts avoid it like the plague. And as we all know, the courts are the ultimate interpreters here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top