ACLU & Second Amendant

JAKESWENSONMT: Please provide the names of either some die-hard libs or hardcore democrats that support the #2 amendment, I'd like to know who they are. Liberal does not always = democrat, & verse visa, but I percieve that to be the trend. And, yes, I am both a republican & a conservative. I belong to the NRA and support the ILA when I can. Do you consider the second amendment to be important, if so, do you support an organization that promotes the second amendment?

Of course, I had forgotten that Bill Clinton was "pro-gun", he said he believed every American sholuld have the right to own a rifle for hunting ducks.

Maybe Shakespeare was right.
 
Its kinds like if Charles Manson walked inot my office and wanted me to represent him because he had a legitimate case of police brutality. He may have a solid case, but I'm still not going to deal with him both becasue of who and more importantly WHAT he is.
So sometimes you care about principle and sometimes you only care about the law when it's convenient for you?
 
So sometimes you care about principle and sometimes you only care about the law when it's convenient for you?

I always care about principle and I care about the law in so much that I want to see it reflect justice. There is NO law that says I have to take a persons case if I don't want to.

I don't associate with crooked or evil people period. Whether they have a valid claim about something doesn't change who they are. That might not be fair, but life isn't and they should have probably thought about that before they started advocating or doing whatever (rape and molestation in namblas case).
 
I always care about principle and I care about the law in so much that I want to see it reflect justice. There is NO law that says I have to take a persons case if I don't want to.
But you've clearly said before "THE LAW IS THE LAW" so if they law is the law then doesn't Mr Manson deserve the same representation as any other individual abused by the police? Not saying that you have to represent him but he still deserves that representation. Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm reading that as you won't fight for justice if it's for someone you don't like.

I don't associate with crooked or evil people period. Whether they have a valid claim about something doesn't change who they are. That might not be fair, but life isn't and they should have probably thought about that before they started advocating or doing whatever (rape and molestation in namblas case).
I try not to associate with crooked or evil people, either, but then again our definitions of crooked and evil are probably different. While we can both agree that NAMBLA sickos are sickos they are still sickos with rights to say whatever they damn well please. I may not like what they have to say but then again a lot of people didn't like what the civil rights movement had to say. Not all causes are just and NAMBLA's cause is so heinous that it'll never gain ground but they all deserve that voice because the most dispecable thought (whites and blacks attending the same school?!?? HOW SINFUL!) can end up being a basic tenant of freedom.
 
But you've clearly said before "THE LAW IS THE LAW" so if they law is the law then doesn't Mr Manson deserve the same representation as any other individual abused by the police? Not saying that you have to represent him but he still deserves that representation. Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm reading that as you won't fight for justice if it's for someone you don't like.

Yes. The law is the law. And nowhere does it say that I, or anyone else for that matter has to represent him. As the saying goes, deserves got nothing to do with it. In an ideal world no one would take his case. However since there is no shortage of dirtbag attorneys he won't have that problem. Do keep in mind however, choosing not to represent someone is NOT the same as denying them their day in court. He is fully able to call upon some good old pro se representation.


I try not to associate with crooked or evil people, either, but then again our definitions of crooked and evil are probably different. While we can both agree that NAMBLA sickos are sickos they are still sickos with rights to say whatever they damn well please. I may not like what they have to say but then again a lot of people didn't like what the civil rights movement had to say. Not all causes are just and NAMBLA's cause is so heinous that it'll never gain ground but they all deserve that voice because the most dispecable thought (whites and blacks attending the same school?!?? HOW SINFUL!) can end up being a basic tenant of freedom.

Well I guess here is where we are going to part ways. Not all speech is protected. What nambla does is a combination of child porn and advocating illegal action. The cute disclaimers on their website don't change this. With most things I'm fine with the marketplace deciding. However this isn't one of them.

The ACLU has picked sides and its with the child molesters. If thats fine with you then thats your business.
 
I also noticed no one bothered to address those pesky little words in the first amendment the ACLU loves to ignore.
 
I also noticed no one bothered to address those pesky little words in the first amendment the ACLU loves to ignore.

I'll let real lawyers discuss this. Your previous post shows some fairly opaque blinders to the big picture. You know why they did it and ignore it to your own short-sited interpretation of right and wrong.
 
[Communism] does not necessarily remove the concept of private property.

Secdef, this is an unfair statement. Communism qua Communism means common ownership of the means of production. Communism, as derived from More's Utopia, most certainly rejects private accumulation of goods (that is, private ownership of anything, including one's place of residence).

Certainly, Communism is incredibly broadly interpretable, and in that sense one can slip out of any argument by creating an entirely new brand of communism. However, if we tackle one of the two major branches of Communism, Marxism, as stated by Marx and Engles in The Communist Manifesto, we find:

In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.

(12th paragraph in Part II of the 1888 edition, edited by Engles).

If we're willing to accept Marx on Communism, I do think your statement was unfairly put, to say the least.
 
Even if you don't own your property (in the residence sense) the 4th amendment still applies, no? Or does communism mean that I have to shower with the curtain open?

Property (in the objects sense) is certainly alive and well under communism.

My point is simply that communism and the bill of rights aren't exactly anti-matter and matter coming together. They might not seem so based on the cartoon perceptions most people have of communism (maybe it is because of Hollywood movies, but it seems many people associate communism with censored press, inability to congregate without "show me your papers", mail in and out read like you were a prisoner, etc)

Looking over the Bill of Rights, it is not inconceivable that they could remain intact under a communist regime. Of course, authoritarian states are a different thing, and the BoR wouldn't stand a chance, but that's different.
 
Looking over the Bill of Rights, it is not inconceivable that they could remain intact under a communist regime. Of course, authoritarian states are a different thing, and the BoR wouldn't stand a chance, but that's different.

As much as I hate to further this tangent, are there any examples of communist regimes that didn't either start out as or rapidly become authoritarian states?
 
I'll let real lawyers discuss this.

I see. So now my credentials suddenly don't apply on the internet:rolleyes: Perhaps you'd like to let us in on your legal experience?


Your previous post shows some fairly opaque blinders to the big picture. You know why they did it and ignore it to your own short-sited interpretation of right and wrong.


The big picture is that the ACLU supporte their interpretation of the constitution and that interpretation is severely skewed. I gave you a prefect example of the 1st amendment and you didn't say anything about it.
 
Not that I know of. That is what seems to be the achilles heel of the concept and why it only works with groups of hippies 20 or less in the desert. But if I am going to be quoted from the Communist Manifesto, I am going to respond in kind. :D

Does the Communist Manifesto talk about the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights? I tried to read it but I keep laughing at the word "bourgeoisie" and rapidly falling asleep.

Here is what is says soon after the "abolition of private property"
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.

So, since these can all happily coexist with the Bill of Rights, I fail to see how the ACLU's founders roots in communism alter the ability of the ACLU to defend the bill of rights.
 
I see. So now my credentials suddenly don't apply on the internet Perhaps you'd like to let us in on your legal experience?

I was trying to suggest that I let the actions of the lawyers involved speak for themselves. They can certainly state their arguments better than I can. I didn't realize it would be perceived as an attack on you.

If you fail to see whether it is important to SOMETIMES defend issues regardless of the defendant, then what could I possibly say? You haven't exactly shown yourself open to discussion on the matter.

The big picture is that the ACLU supporte their interpretation of the constitution and that interpretation is severely skewed. I gave you a prefect example of the 1st amendment and you didn't say anything about it.

Why should I defend their interpretation? I already wasted breathe once reiterating that they are CONSISTENT with their interpretation. You chose to ignore what I said and why I said it and want to launch some kind of heated battle as if I represent the ACLU.

You should stop reading into things and just take the words for what they are.
 
The ACLU has never defended anyone that has actually molested a child.

The ACLU defended NAMBLA. A large majority of nambla members are convicted child molesters. What else is there to say?


Why should I defend their interpretation? I already wasted breathe once reiterating that they are CONSISTENT with their interpretation. You chose to ignore what I said and why I said it and want to launch some kind of heated battle as if I represent the ACLU.

The brady campaign is also consistent in their interpretation and equally wrong. I don't understand why consistency is the benchmark for anything. The ACLU picks which rights it want's to uphold willy-nilly. They don't touch the 2nd amendment because they are liberal organization, and they don't properly uphold the 1st amendment because they are liberal organization.

If thats fine with you then its fine with me, I just don't like it when people hold them up to be anything other than a partisan group with an agenda.
 
and they don't properly uphold the 1st amendment

.. this coming from someone that decides whether to support a case based on the defendant and not the merits? Interesting.

Maybe you could elaborate on "properly uphold" ?

My take is that ACLU has limited resources, and expends them in cases that it deems worthy. If it chooses NOT to participate in a particular case, it shouldn't be deemed as a negative.

Even if you disagree with ACLU taking on the NAMBLA case, do you feel it weakened the first amendment? i.e. that it wasn't properly upheld?
 
Convicted child molesters? Majority? Proof?

Criminal cases
Although NAMBLA itself has never been prosecuted, there have been a number of prosecutions of alleged NAMBLA members for sexual offences involving children or adolescents.

One cases involved a number of men arrested by the FBI in Los Angeles and San Diego in February 2005. Seven men were charged with planning to travel to Mexico to have sex with boys, the FBI said. An eighth man was charged with distributing child pornography.[4] According to a media report,[4] the FBI believes that at least one of the arrested men is a member of NAMBLA's national leadership, a second organized the group's national convention last year and a third said he had been a member since the 1980s.

Roy Radow, a self-described pedophile and member of the NAMBLA Steering Committee sometimes described as its chairman or spokesman, was arrested in 1996 for masturbating in front of a 12-year old boy. The trial ended in a hung jury.[26]

John David Smith, a San Francisco man, unwittingly spoke of his crimes to an undercover investigator who had infiltrated NAMBLA. Upon obtaining a warrant, the investigator also found child pornography in Smith's apartment. He was arrested in 1996 and was subsequently convicted of sexually assaulting an 11-year-old boy he was babysitting. Smith's membership in NAMBLA was raised at trial to prove his lascivious intent.[27][28][29]

Paul Shanley, a Catholic priest convicted of abusing children as young as six years old over a period of three decades, allegedly participated in NAMBLA workshops and advocacy, according to contemporaneous accounts of the events obtained by the Boston Globe.[30][31]

Johnathan Tampico was convicted of child molestation in 1989 and paroled in 1992 on condition that he not possess child pornography. After moving without informing authorities of his new address, he was found after a broadcast of America's Most Wanted. He was arrested and convicted on child pornography charges. In his sentencing, the court stated that Tampico was a member of NAMBLA, and that he and others frequently traveled to Thailand to have easy access to young boys. The court cited a number of Polaroid pictures provided by Thai officials depicting Tampico with young Thai boys sitting on his lap as evidence of the latter claim.[32][33]

James C. Parker, a New York man who, according to court records, told the police that he was a member of NAMBLA, was arrested in 2000 and convicted in 2001 of committing sodomy with a young boy.[34]

Alan J. Horowitz, an Orthodox Rabbi and adolescent psychiatrist, pleaded guilty in 1992 of sodomizing three boys ages seven to nine, and molesting one girl, aged 14. He had previously been convicted of molesting two boys in 1983. While in prison he wrote for the NAMBLA newsletter.[35]



This is just a short list. And this of course does not include the number of people that are pedophiles but have not been caught.
 
Back
Top