ACLU and "conservative" causes?

[Al Norris]

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.

A recent decision, went against the State of Utah (Brigham City v. Stuart) and it's expanded rights.

And, of course, they can run their affairs however they see fit.

Really? Have you actually read the Raich decision?

They lost because they did not show the Justices a photograph of a sawed-off shotgun in use during WW1.

Not exactly. "They lost because the SCOTUS took a case wherein only one side was represented; The Government. "They" lost because the Government prosecutor lied to the Court about the weapons usage. "They" lost because the case was remanded back to the trial court to settle the question of suitability of a sawed off shotgun to the militia and Miller was dead. No court. No issue settled.

 

[GoSlash27]

A recent decision, went against the State of Utah (Brigham City v. Stuart) and it's expanded rights.

An expanded right to have the police barge into our homes uninvited and start bustin' heads? Maybe I don't understand what you're getting at...

Really? Have you actually read the Raich decision?

Yes, and I'm very unhappy about it. Look....I'm not saying that things are as they should be according to the Constitution (far from it), I'm saying that's how it's *supposed* to be.


Re. Miller, you're absolutely correct. Point is, it started out as "you have no RKBA except for infantry weapons" and now it's "you have no RKBA of infantry weapons". See my point?

 

[johnbt]

"We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership."

Or barriers to reasonable regulations of free speech, but that's beside the point when discussing gun rights.

It's clear to me which side of the fight the ACLU is on. And it's not ours.

John
NRA Endowment Member
Member www.vcdl.org

 

[Redworm]

Or barriers to reasonable regulations of free speech, but that's beside the point when discussing gun rights.

It's clear to me which side of the fight the ACLU is on. And it's not ours.

John
NRA Endowment Member
Member www.vcdl.org

Someone here asked a very poignant question...is the ACLU a bad organization because it defends all but one right yet the NRA is a good organization because it only defends one right?

o rly?

 

[DonR101395]

Thanks Antipitas, GS,
After reading the article you post GS, I just can't support them. I don't believe 2A is the only issue, it is however a huge issue for me and my lifestyle and as long they decide to exclude it as an individual right I'll oppose them. I see it as them choosing what is an individual right. They fight tooth and nail against controversial issues like the patriot act, yet turn a blind eye to a basic right like arms ownership. Personally I'd rather support one group who honestly supports one of my rights and doesn't pretend to support all of my rights than a group who claims to support my civil liberties, but turns a blind eye to the one they find offensive. They use the IMO the courts opinion as justification to turn a blind eye, if the courts ruled that the founding fathers didn't really intend for neo-nazis to have the right to protest or free speech would the ACLU then stop supporting their right to protest and free speech? IMHO I don't think so. If they wanted to support a skin heads unrestricted right to free speech and my unrestricted right to own arms equally I would fully support them in any way possible.


Thanks
Don

 

[Kelly J]

I do not have the legal knowledge to pose an argument to defend or to deny the ACLU, but I do have two questions, that are unanswered to my mind, and if you can answer the two without any biased opinions then I would appreciate it.

1. How can an ACLU Lawyer make this statement, “Anything that has to do with Faith in the Public Schools is Unconstitutional”? Given the fact that this phrase "Separation of Church and State”, does not appear anywhere in the writings of the Constitutional Document.
2. How can the ACLU justify the defense of the group MAMBLA, when their stated policy is the Right to rape young boys, how is this stance one of legal support when the act itself is against the laws of both God and Man.

I find no real reason to support the ACLU for any reason, regardless of the good they claim to do, and I have read the arguments, that they have done some good and would not take that away from them, but by the same token Rattlesnakes eat rodents and that too is a good thing but I wouldn’t want one in my house, or yard for that matter.

The second amendment argument is always based on the same premise that, it is for the Militia not the individual, but I still see these words, that are in the wording that people seem to ignore, “the Right of the People”, are these just filler words or do they in fact mean what they say, the argument has been raised that if the second amendment was what we believe it to be, then we should be able to possess Rockets, Missals, Nukes, and any other Military weaponry, I do not agree with this statement and anyone in their right mind would not for this reason, The Constitution was not written in today’s world it was written in the 1700’s when these weapons did not exist, and the weapons that were intended to be available to the People were the common weapons of the day, Rifle, Musket, Pistol so I fail to see the validity of the argument of War Weapons such as those mentioned, that is ridicules to even consider, but it is a common statement made by those that argue against personal position of weapons, granted by the Second Amendment.

I for one really do not understand how the simple words, “the Right of the People”, can only be valid where it is to the advantage of the opposition!

 

[Marko Kloos]

1. How can an ACLU Lawyer make this statement, “Anything that has to do with Faith in the Public Schools is Unconstitutional”? Given the fact that this phrase does not appear anywhere in the writings of the Constitutional Document.
2. How can the ACLU justify the defense of the group MAMBLA, when their stated policy is the Right to rape young boys, how is this stance one of legal support when the act itself is against the laws of both God and Man.

Your problem is that you misunderstand (or do not understand at all) the cases in question.

First, the ACLU (or its lawyers) never stated that "anything that has to do with faith in public schools is unconstitutional". They've gone to bat for the religious rights of Christians as well as Jews or Wiccans or what-have-you. The point of contention here is that religion in public schools is unconstitutional when it is pushed by the teacher or the school, because they are representatives of the government. Religious expression, bible studies, prayer clubs etcetera are perfectly legal in public schools as long as these activities are initiated and run by the students, and the resources given to one religious group are also available to all other religious groups.

Second, the ACLU defended NAMBLA's right to free speech, not their non-existent "right to rape young boys." Their philosophy may be despicable, but they have a right to speak their minds just like every other American. You should read up on the lawsuits in question, and not just form your opinion based on hearsay.

 

[STAGE 2]

but they have a right to speak their minds just like every other American.

No, they dont. The marketplace of ideas has its limits and if advocating child molestation isn't outside these limits then we need to sit down as a nation and rethink what it is we really stand for.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Would a debate over the legal age of consent be something that should be banned by the state as it varies between locales?

Would a debate over what sexual acts should be against the law also be banned by the state?

While pedophilia is horrific, the examples I cite at one time would be something that a selection of folks not want to discuss.

We debate what is constitutional all the time. Rabid supporters of the 2nd can be as violently opposed to what another group thinks is a constitutional right - like privacy.

 

[Marko Kloos]

No, they dont.

Yes, they do.

If you make the right to free speech subject to majority approval, then it ceases to exist.

I'd rather see these people out in the open, so everyone can see what a bunch of sickos they are, than drive them underground and out of sight...especially if doing so would also mean that I put a bullet into the First Amendment.

Funny how quickly constitutional absolutists turn into constitutional relativists when they aren't comfortable with the exercise of rights other than the ones about religion or guns.

 

[Kowboy]

So if history looks down upon the views of the founders of an organization that makes the organization bad today?

I'm not wild about slavery, but I'm not willing to repudiate the country Thomas Jefferson and his slave-owning friends put together. According to the logic around here, I should.

Kowboy

 

[Alakar]

I have to say that I am pleasantly surprised by the tone of this debate. I post in several political forums (almost all conservative), and this has been one of the most thoughtful, respectful, and open minded debates on the ACLU that I have seen. It really shows the intelligence and depth of thought of most gun owners.

I just wish the people in this forum could replace some of the knuckleheaded pundits on TV. We might actually get some real issues debated.

 

[STAGE 2]

Funny how quickly constitutional absolutists turn into constitutional relativists when they aren't comfortable with the exercise of rights other than the ones about religion or guns.

The second amendment doesn't guarantee me the right to own an nuclear bomb or an F14. It has its limitations. The first has its limitations also. It always has. It wasn't so long ago that people served time in federal prison for dissenting during wartime. A line has to be drawn somewhere, and if so, then it should be drawn to exclude people who advocate the criminal abuse of children.

On a side note, why is it you come to the defense of nambla, but when someone here starts to hack on islamic fundamentalists its an immediate taboo? Isn't the purpose to protect those with unpopular opinions?

 

[Alakar]

The second amendment doesn't guarantee me the right to own an nuclear bomb or an F14. It has its limitations. The first has its limitations also. It always has. It wasn't so long ago that people served time in federal prison for dissenting during wartime. A line has to be drawn somewhere, and if so, then it should be drawn to exclude people who advocate the criminal abuse of children.

The only problem with that is "Who gets to draw the line?". Me? You? Michael Moore? Pat Robertson? Once you start down the road of limiting one groups speech, it becomes very easy to limit other groups.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

This being a private forum can do what it wants with unwanted topics. The issue of the right of the state to limit discussions. Again, we debate all the time what is legal, should be illegal or made legal. The state should not censor such discussions.

One should also pay attention to the argument. It is not defending Nambla, it is discussing whether the ACLU should defend free speech rights of obnoxious groups, if the principle of free speech is to be valued.

One can easily say that a line has to be drawn somewhere, and if so, then it should be drawn to exclude people who advocate using firearms to overthrow legislation based by the elected representatives of the people. Thus, all the 'shall we fight boys' worried about Bush signing AWB II should have been prevented by the state from posting on TFL?

Defending the right to speak is not defending the proposition of the speaker.

 

[Marko Kloos]

On a side note, why is it you come to the defense of nambla, but when someone here starts to hack on islamic fundamentalists its an immediate taboo? Isn't the purpose to protect those with unpopular opinions?

First off, I don't come to the defense of NAMBLA, I come to the defense of free speech, regardless of who may exercise it. The fact that you haven't grasped this distinction even after I've made multiple attempts to make it clear only tells me that you're either unwilling or unable to understand it. To wit: if every member of NAMBLA dropped dead suddenly tomorrow morning, I wouldn't shed a tear (and might even open a bottle of the good stuff in celebration), but until they do, they have a right to run their yappers just like the rest of us.

Second, I am not the government, and TFL is not subject to the Bill of Rights. TFL Staff cannot by definition restrict your right to free speech, because TFL is not a public venue, and its Staff are not the government.

As I pointed out in a thread I closed earlier, religious debates are a no-no because many of our members are not mature and level-headed enough to discuss the subject in a responsible and productive manner. They always turn into "our God is better than theirs" and "nuke the ragheads" shouting matches, which are unproductive and do not cast a good light on TFL. What's more, they bore me to tears. Since I'm not the government, I cannot infringe on your free speech rights by telling you to drop the subject while you're kicking it in Rich's living room.

Defending the right to speak is not defending the proposition of the speaker.

A-men. Somebody gets it.

As somebody else once said, "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." If you don't stand behind that statement 100% without ifs, whens or buts, then you don't really give a rat's behind about the First Amendment. "I love America" and "Kittens are great" is not speech that needs the protection of the Bill of Rights.

 

[Rimrod]

Religion in schools also comes under seperation of church and state. Many people complain because prayer has been taken out of the public school system.

But you must understand, there are hundreds of religions practiced in the U.S. from Atheism to Zionism. Which one do you want your child to be subjected to? Or does it not matter?

And if they practiced all of them, when would a child get the education the school is there to provide for?

Send your child to school for an acedemic education and take them to the church of your choice for their religious education.

 

[STAGE 2]

First off, I don't come to the defense of NAMBLA, I come to the defense of free speech, regardless of who may exercise it. The fact that you haven't grasped this distinction even after I've made multiple attempts to make it clear only tells me that you're either unwilling or unable to understand it. To wit: if every member of NAMBLA dropped dead suddenly tomorrow morning, I wouldn't shed a tear (and might even open a bottle of the good stuff in celebration), but until they do, they have a right to run their yappers just like the rest of us.

I'm going to have to disagree with you. No matter what anyone else wants to believe there are limits to speech. This has been established time and again by SCOTUS. What the limits are has changed over the past 75 years, sometimes for the worse and sometimes for the better. Nevertheless the fact remains that there are limits, albeit broad ones, and by in large they are arbitrarily drawn by 9 men and women.

From Holmes' clear and present danger test all the way to whatever the test is now, it is not a stretch at all to think that the advocacy of child molestation is not protected speech.

Second, I am not the government, and TFL is not subject to the Bill of Rights. TFL Staff cannot by definition restrict your right to free speech, because TFL is not a public venue, and its Staff are not the government.

I realize that. I just think its kind of odd that a person holds themselves up to be a champion of free speech and drops the hammer on lots of hot topics. Yes I know this is private and yes I know other set the rules. I just think its odd on a personal note.

 

[Al Norris]

I'm going to have to disagree with you. No matter what anyone else wants to believe there are limits to speech. This has been established time and again by SCOTUS. What the limits are has changed over the past 75 years, sometimes for the worse and sometimes for the better.

Wrong. Say it a thousand times more, and you will still be wrong.

What the Courts have ruled is that the Government may regulate the time, place or manner of the speech, but not the speech itself. There has recently been only one decision that blocks speech itself, and I think we all agree that the Court was wrong in its decision on the BCRA (note: even most liberals think the decision was wrong). That specific case aside, the Government has a duty to allow speech in all its forms. But it may regulate when, where or how that speech is delivered.

A pity that you equate time, place and manner restrictions with a restriction on the speech itself. It isn't. Shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater is an example of such regulation. The government wouldn't care at all what you shouted, if the theater was empty or at least not crowded. But in a crowded environment, regulation was necessary to prevent chaos and injury as people stampeded towards the exits.

 

[STAGE 2]

Wrong. Say it a thousand times more, and you will still be wrong.

Maybe in your eyes, but not according to SCOTUS.

From Brandenburg v. Ohio.

The constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a state to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action

What is advocated on the NAMBLA webside and by its members does and has incited unlawful action. I don't have the time to google all of the members that have been arrested for molesting children, and organizing trips and other perverse things that they do.

Just because someone isn't standing in the public square with his pants around his ankles in front of a 7 year old does not mean that he isn't inciting imminent lawless action.

While I agree with you that speech by in large is regulated by time and place as opposed to content, there are certian exceptions that have been carved out. I can't have a webpage that states how I'm going to kill the president and I can't run around and make defamatory statements about people.

The question about what constitutes imminent lawless action is an arbitrary standard, and there's no reason to protect this kind of speech.