ACLU & Second Amendant

[STAGE 2]

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

Yes, and its my right to do so. Nothing about that is inconsistent with anything anywhere in our constitution.


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.

Ignoring the cases the ACLU doesn't take, I'm more disturbed by the cases the ACLU does take. For example, in my own backyard, the ACLU has been trying to take down a giant cross thats part of a WWII memorial on top of Mt. Soledad simply because its on public land. THis is after the residents of San Diego county have overwhelmingly voted twice to keep the cross there.

The ACLU's reasoning is that the cross is promoting an establishment of religion. The first amendment restricts congress from passing a law respecting an establishment of religion. Its says nothing about prayer in school or erecting a cross on pubilc land.

I submit to you that the ACLU's position violates the free exercise clause of the 1st amendment.

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?

If by weakened you mean condoned advocating child molestation as protected speech yes.

 

[Slugthrower]

Man boy love. I see the problem.

Don't you know that you cannot criticize a gay person?

Better be PC or the thought police might convict you of a hate crime.

 

[gc70]

It seems to me that the ACLU spends a lot of energy defending the Bill of Rights at the fringes, possibly on the 'slippery slope' theory. At any rate, they appear to be quite successful at throwing sand into the gears of government, which may or may not be a good thing, depending on your point of view.

 

[SecDef]

Ignoring the cases the ACLU doesn't take, I'm more disturbed by the cases the ACLU does take. For example, in my own backyard, the ACLU has been trying to take down a giant cross thats part of a WWII memorial on top of Mt. Soledad simply because its on public land. THis is after the residents of San Diego county have overwhelmingly voted twice to keep the cross there.

The ACLU's reasoning is that the cross is promoting an establishment of religion. The first amendment restricts congress from passing a law respecting an establishment of religion. Its says nothing about prayer in school or erecting a cross on pubilc land.

I submit to you that the ACLU's position violates the free exercise clause of the 1st amendment.

Congress DID have to pass a law, and that happens to be the budget. In this particular case, it was on December 8, 2004, when President Bush signed the omnibus appropriation bill, with Representative Cunningham's rider intact, into law. Not so out of left field as you'd like us to believe.

You also seem to easily overlook Prop K where San Diegans had a chance to resolve it in a constitutional way, and rejected it. I don't see why you expect that local voters can override the constitution by the way.