PDA

View Full Version : ACLU Friend or Foe.


TroysBadDawg
11-01-2007, 04:22 AM
Is the ACLU truely an American friend or is it an affornt to the American people and govenment?

Does it truely prtect the people or select groups? I asked my self this and went digging, and this is what I found, you be the judge and please discuss:

The ACLU will fight for anything that is against the military, for drugs, against main stream religion, and main stream morals. They have very deep pockets with it appears unlimited funding paid for by the American tax payer.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51907

Roger Baldwin: Founder, American Civil Liberties Union founder long time director of the American Civil Liberties Union wrote “I am for socialism, disarmament, and ultimately for abolishing the state itself as an instrument of violence and compulsion. I seek social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class… Communism is the goal.”

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/sep/05092102.html

Following are some of the stated goals of the ACLU, from its own published Policy Issues:
 the legalization of prostitution (Policy 211);
 the defense of all pornography, including CHILD PORN, as "free speech" (Policy 4);
 the decriminalization and legalization of all drugs (Policy 210);
 the promotion of homosexuality (Policy 264);
 the opposition of rating of music and movies (Policy 18);
 opposition against parental consent of minors seeking abortion (Policy 262);
 opposition of informed consent preceding abortion procedures (Policy 263);
 opposition of spousal consent preceding abortion (Policy 262);
 opposition of parental choice in children's education (Policy 80)
-- not to mention the defense and promotion of euthanasia, polygamy, government control of church institutions, gun control, tax-funded abortion, birth limitation, etc. (Policies 263, 133, 402, 47, 261, 323, 271, 91, 85).
http://www.dianedew.com/aclu.htm


From its inception, the ACLU has worked to create a new America. To do so, the ACLU found it necessary to achieve two main things: first, the abolishment of Constitutional barriers to governmental power and second, the enervation of man’s soul to make him weak and dependent on government. Both of which move America towards a progressive state and, according to Dr. Krannawitter, are advanced by “removing God from the American mind.”

http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article3775.html

The ACLU in my opinion is BAD.

MasterOfPuppets
11-01-2007, 08:56 AM
the ACLU is the most dangerous organization in america.

Jman
11-01-2007, 10:05 AM
Quite disturbing...

augustashark
11-01-2007, 04:13 PM
"Communism is the goal"

What is sad is that there are many americans that agree with this quote. Personally, I will fight this way of thinking my entire life and be happy doing so!

Atlanta Dan
11-01-2007, 04:20 PM
the ACLU is the most dangerous organization in america.

Ahead of the New England Patriots?

augustashark
11-01-2007, 04:24 PM
Ahead of the New England Patriots?

Nope, ACLU is 1b.

revefsreleets
11-01-2007, 05:58 PM
One of my best friends is a lawyer and a member of the ACLU. His core argument is that they ultimately are all about protecting civil rights and privacies.

I've always felt that they spent an inordinate amount of energy protecting the the tiniest niche "causes" to the detriment of other causes that effect the greater majority. From their own site:
"If the rights of society's most vulnerable members are denied, everybody's rights are imperiled."

But the fact is that if the vast majority has to have their way of life or culture forcibly changed, at great discomfort and expense just to accommodate the tiny little minority, when it makes all the common sense in the world for the minority to simply assimilate, then we have drifted far from the principles and ideals this country was founded upon. The ACLU is simply WAY too much of a good thing. It's a great idea that has spun wildly out of control.

Godfather
11-01-2007, 08:12 PM
A lot also depends on the local chapter. In Michigan they sued on behalf of a high school senior who wanted a quote from Jeremiah next to her picture in the yearbook.

In Louisiana, they blocked a New Orleans ordinance limiting the volume of the music played by street musicians outside St. Louis Cathedral during Mass (there was a problem with the performances being so loud they disrupted church services). The ordinance was written more broadly--ie noise level, distance from the church, during services--but that was the impetus.

In the first case, the ACLU was pro-religious freedom; in the second, they violated the right of people to practice their religion..

Mosca
11-01-2007, 10:38 PM
TBD,

Your last quote is opinion, and not worthy of the rest of your argument.

Generally speaking, the rights of the minority are the ones that need defended. That is why the ACLU exists.

Forcing a change in the way of life or culture of the majority... is that bad, when the change is for the better? What about the striking down of racial barriers that were a way of life for America for over a hundred years? I'm sure the majority was just fine with things the way they were.

Every change has been adapted to and assimilated, and they have been vastly for the better. No one has LOST rights, and some have gained rights, or had them affirmed.

Beware of the bogeyman, beware of bogeyman issues. Don't fall prey to fear. What could someone else asserting their rights take from YOU? There are organizations out there trying to make you think that your rights don't need to be defended. But they do need to be.

Yeah, they're a PITA. But they perform a valuable service. Even when they lose, they help to define where the line is. They do the fight, in the niches and the corners, so that you don't have to do it every day.

TroysBadDawg
11-01-2007, 10:51 PM
Mosca, the quotes I posted are for discussion, seeing different issues that are complex and need to be addressed. The last is an opinion of a student at Hillsdale College. They are all presented for discussion.

cubanstogie
11-01-2007, 10:57 PM
"They do the fight, in the niches and the corners, so that you don't have to do it every day" very true they just usually choose the wrong person to protect. They care more about people on death row or in prison, than the families of, or the individuals that were harmed or killed. Definitely a foe for 99 % of the people in the US.

GBMelBlount
11-01-2007, 11:00 PM
TBD,

Your last quote is opinion, and not worthy of the rest of your argument.

Yeah, they're a PITA. But they perform a valuable service. They do the fight, in the niches and the corners, so that you don't have to do it every day.

Huh? I hope you're not saying that his last comment (his opinion) invalidates the complete validity of the rest of his post in anyway. Also please explain the valuable service this oganization provides? What niche ? Please explain, I am totally confused.

Hines0wnz
11-01-2007, 11:11 PM
Always have been and always will be a foe to the US. They do not remotely have peoples' rights in mind only what serves their interest at the time. How they still exist just goes to show how inept the government is these days.

Mosca
11-01-2007, 11:28 PM
Huh? I hope you're not saying that his last comment (his opinion) invalidates the complete validity of the rest of his post in anyway. Also please explain the valuable service this oganization provides? What niche ? Please explain, I am totally confused.

No, that's not what I meant. He quoted two sources that demonstrated instances where he felt the ACLU was wrong, which is a strong basis for his point; and then his third quote is:

From its inception, the ACLU has worked to create a new America. To do so, the ACLU found it necessary to achieve two main things: first, the abolishment of Constitutional barriers to governmental power and second, the enervation of man?s soul to make him weak and dependent on government. Both of which move America towards a progressive state and, according to Dr. Krannawitter, are advanced by ?removing God from the American mind.?

I was chiding him for using strong source material and then falling back to quoting opinion, rhetoric. The first part of his argument was powerful. He should have stuck with that.

It's 11:30 and I'm fighting a cold, and I have to go to bed and get up and go to work tomorrow. But I'll answer, eventually. It's not like the thread will be locked. There are so many sides to the ACLU.

GBMelBlount
11-01-2007, 11:33 PM
No, that's not what I meant. He quoted two sources that demonstrated instances where he felt the ACLU was wrong, which is a strong basis for his point; and then his third quote is:



I was chiding him for using strong source material and then falling back to quoting opinion, rhetoric. The first part of his argument was powerful. He should have stuck with that.

It's 11:30 and I'm fighting a cold, and I have to go to bed and get up and go to work tomorrow. But I'll answer, eventually. It's not like the thread will be locked. There are so many sides to the ACLU.

Get well. No hurry.

revefsreleets
11-02-2007, 09:08 AM
Woah. I was talking about causes, not rights. Just take a look at the ACLU's website and click on the immigrant tab. You'll see them refer to illegal immigrants as "illegal" immigrants, as if it's open to interpretation whether people here illegally are really here illegally. Yes, these people should be afforded basic human rights, but not US Citizens rights. This is just a quickie example of the ACLU's good intentions paving the road to hell. Great concept but poor and misguided execution.

Read this paragraph:
"It is true that the Constitution does not give foreigners the right to enter the U.S. But once here, it protects them from discrimination based on race and national origin and from arbitrary treatment by the government. Immigrants work and pay taxes; legal immigrants are subject to the military draft. Many immigrants have lived in this country for decades, married U.S. citizens, and raised their U.S.-citizen children. Laws that punish them violate their fundamental right to fair and equal treatment."

Look at how the quote is talking only about legal immigrants, but implying that ALL immigrants pay taxes, join the military, etc. This is deliberate manipulation of the language with the sole intent of muddying the waters and making it sound like illegal immigrants should be afforded the same rights and treatment as legal immigrants. Nonsense.

pitt
11-02-2007, 03:44 PM
Its a disgusting and dangerous organization.

Mosca
11-02-2007, 04:16 PM
Very quickly addressing TBD's first point: The ACLU was founded in 1917, in response to the treatment of conscientious objectors to WWI under the Sedition act. At the time, the founder, Roger Baldwin, was in favor of communism. Other founding members were Helen Keller and Felix Frankfurter, who was later an associate Supreme Court justice.

Like many people of that time, his views changed.

Baldwin became less happy with the Popular Front [an American Communist Party organization--Tom]approach and concerned about the very existence of the ACLU after the announcement of the Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact in August 1939. The following spring, in an effort to stave off criticisms of the organization and the cause he had devoted much of his adulthood to, Baldwin orchestrated a campaign to revise the ACLU charter. Henceforth, those affiliated with totalitarian organizations would not be allowed to serve on the ACLU board. The immediate target was the former-Wobbly and present Communist Party member, Elizabeth Gurley Flynn. An organizational "trial" of Flynn ensued, resulting in her ouster and establishing a pattern for anti-communist policies and programs that flourished during the Cold War. In the meantime, Baldwin and the ACLU wrestled with the issue of internment of Japanese-Americans and Japanese aliens, which had been demanded by the U.S. military. In contrast to many of his longtime colleagues at the ACLU, Baldwin continued to challenge such violations of civil liberties, but he also sought to maintain good relations with the federal government. He opposed the prosecution of native fascists and Trotskyists alike, just as he later challenged the moves by government officials to abridge the rights of communists.

(http://www.harvardsquarelibrary.org/unitarians/baldwin.html)

The ACLU's own history documents the internal debate and turmoil on this issue; you can read about them here (http://diglib.princeton.edu/ead/eadGetDoc.xq?id=/ead/mudd/publicpolicy/MC001.01.EAD.xml). I think they are fairly even-handed. Example:

The ACLU's long-standing debate regarding its relationship to the Communist Party in many ways limited its response to the Cold War anti-Communist crusade that followed the war. One faction on the board, led by Norman Thomas and Morris Ernst, was strongly anti-Communist. Others, led by Arthur Garfield Hays, Osmond Fraenkel and Walter Gellhorn, opposed any attempt to restrict political beliefs and associations.

The basic elements of the post-war attack on civil liberties were already in place even before the war began: HUAC, the Smith Act, state loyalty oaths and FBI surveillance of individuals and organizations. When President Truman issued E.O. 9835 establishing the federal loyalty program, the ACLU opted for quiet court tests and lobbying of Attorney General Tom Clark instead of a public opposition to the basic tenets of the order.

Baldwin, an activist throughout his life, had associations with many of the organizations found on the Attorney General's list of Communist Party affiliates, so he protected himself by regular attacks on the Communist Party which only served to limit his ability to oppose the internal security crusade. The ACLU sought to protect the rights of HUAC witnesses rather than take on HUAC itself.

Stlrs4Life
11-02-2007, 05:42 PM
TBD,

Your last quote is opinion, and not worthy of the rest of your argument.

Generally speaking, the rights of the minority are the ones that need defended. That is why the ACLU exists.

Forcing a change in the way of life or culture of the majority... is that bad, when the change is for the better? What about the striking down of racial barriers that were a way of life for America for over a hundred years? I'm sure the majority was just fine with things the way they were.

Every change has been adapted to and assimilated, and they have been vastly for the better. No one has LOST rights, and some have gained rights, or had them affirmed.

Beware of the bogeyman, beware of bogeyman issues. Don't fall prey to fear. What could someone else asserting their rights take from YOU? There are organizations out there trying to make you think that your rights don't need to be defended. But they do need to be.

Yeah, they're a PITA. But they perform a valuable service. Even when they lose, they help to define where the line is. They do the fight, in the niches and the corners, so that you don't have to do it every day.



Exactly, great post Mosca.

revefsreleets
11-02-2007, 06:46 PM
I'd like to further clarify since my point clearly isn't being made.

The US is the great melting pot. Through assimilation combined with cooperation and acceptance, we have formed our own culture. When a tiny minority comes in and is suddenly awarded with an incredibly lopsided advantage and ability to affect the larger culture, things are backward. Take the language issue. The accepted practice forever was that you come to America, you learn to speak English. Now the practice has been stood on it's ear and all of a sudden accepted and practiced culture has to change to accommodate the minority. That's not right.

Furthermore, this mess has gotten so out of hand that the progressives and liberals can't even keep up with their own BS. College campuses are supposedly bastions of free speech, but it's almost common practice now that speech from the far right id quelled while the far left is encouraged. Look at some of the recent school issues. Kids aren't allowed to wear shirts that have certain messages. According to the ACLU, free speech is only free when it meets a certain weird litmus test. You are free to offend the majority all you like, but the rights of the tiny minorities are strictly off limit. This is ridiculous and backwards.

I'm sure that most reasonable and logical people would all agree that the ACLU has a noble intent, but they only want to play by their rules. Again, great idea, but horrible execution.

revefsreleets
11-02-2007, 06:59 PM
Another great example is passing out bibles in school. The ACLU hates it, even though all the students have to do is refuse. But I absolutely guarantee that if a student started passing out the Koran, the ACLU would swoop in and defend that student. Indefensible.

Mosca
11-02-2007, 07:14 PM
I get your point, rev. I'd counter by asking you, like I did before, how does a minority keeping their civil liberties affect you REALLY? Other than inconvenience, I mean. Other than the majority having to change accepted practice (like racial barriers and attitudes, to pick an obvious example) to accomodate a minority?

I think they are a real PITA sometimes. But they serve a valuable function, and that is to keep things fair for those who don't think they should have to assimilate; after all, they don't. Maybe they should assimilate, but they aren't required to.

And it isn't backwards. The majority has no need for defense of its rights. The majority WILL, however, impose itself onto others' rights. For example, the hot issue of Christian displays on public property, funded with tax dollars. I'd like to make something clear; I love Christmas. I love its religious aspect; I find the Christmas story deeply moving. I love the carols, both secular and religious. I PERSONALLY have no problems with religious Christmas displays on public property, with public money. You want to use my personal tax dollars for that? No problem. I personally LIKE them.

But I DO have a problem with using my Jewish neighbor's money for that. I DO have a problem with using the money of all the non-Christians in the community to support a religion that isn't theirs, and that actually wants to convert them from their native religion to Christianity.

I have a lot of Christian friends who don't understand this stance; they think that it's harmless... the minority should just go along with the majority on this one.

But if you think really hard about it, and about what America is about, then you can't help but come to the conclusion that the proper place for such displays is church property, or private property. And that is the common sense solution. Because there always is one, you know. Take the religious Christmas displays and put them up at your church (hopefully where I can see them); put them in your house, or at your place of business. But it isn't right to make non-Christians pay for YOUR displays.

I think that they piss off people pretty much equally, by the way. They defended Oliver North. I think what pisses people off the most is their attitude more than what they actually do; they're like the guy at the company softball game who is always pulling out the rule book.

revefsreleets
11-02-2007, 07:20 PM
Christmas is a poor example. It is a federally recognized Holiday, and the only one of 100% Christian origin. And I know lots of Jews, and not a single one has a problem with Christmas. They recognize it as a Holiday of the majority. I'm not a Christian, and I have no problem with the holiday. This is just such a bad example...our culture has a long history, which is literally tied into the very health of our retail economy, all based on Christmas. So, to the .005% who have a problem, LIGHTEN UP! Christmas benefits us all.

Mosca
11-02-2007, 07:35 PM
And now you're missing my point. I chose a real issue where the ACLU was instrumental in making a change in the governmental policy, and spelled out why the change occured. I, too, have no problem with the holiday... but I also have no problem with the people who DO have a problem with it.

Communities are free to celebrate Christmas with bells and secular displays; but not baby Jesus on public square, which used to be ubiquitous.

It isn't the expression of the spirit that is the issue; it is the use of tax money and public property that is the issue.

revefsreleets
11-02-2007, 07:36 PM
I have a couple more examples. Tis could go on and on, but it's Friday night and I don't want to get all bummed out by doing research on how such a good idea went bad.

In 1997, a box was found in LA that turned out to contain 54 aborted fetuses. A church group stepped forward and asked the coroner for the fetuses so they could be buried. The ACLU stepped in and protested, based solely because the people who wanted to bury the fetuses were Christians. Common sense prevailed and the ACLU was shut down, but I ask what civil liberties or privacies were at risk of being violated by formally burying dead babies?

How about the Boy Scouts? The Boy Scouts exercised their constitutionally protected right to exclude gays, and the ACLU has been on a mission to kill the organization since. This isn't the public schools, but a very old and very respected private organization. Just silly. Let the Boy Scouts be tried in the court of popular opinion, not civil court.

Finally, there is a lot of hypocrisy involved. The ACLU fights tax exemptions for Christian Churches, but defend the same exemptions for fringy weirdo cults like Wiccans and such.

revefsreleets
11-02-2007, 07:54 PM
And now you're missing my point. I chose a real issue where the ACLU was instrumental in making a change in the governmental policy, and spelled out why the change occured. I, too, have no problem with the holiday... but I also have no problem with the people who DO have a problem with it.

Communities are free to celebrate Christmas with bells and secular displays; but not baby Jesus on public square, which used to be ubiquitous.

It isn't the expression of the spirit that is the issue; it is the use of tax money and public property that is the issue.

And that is exactly my argument. Thanks! These 3 out of 1,000,000 busybodies who got a bee in their bonnet about Christmas bitched about a fictitious holiday concerned with a display that featured an equally fictitious baby that just so happened to be funded by a teeny tiny bit of the zillions of tax bucks brought in by all the people who go out and drop a ton of cash at the end of the year to celebrate that same fictitious holiday. They literally are shooting themselves in the foot with their misplaced zealotry, and, really, it's all about trying to tell everyone else exactly what we can and cannot do, which, ostensibly, is the very thing they were supposed to be fighting in the first place.

Silly and hypocritical, and not nearly as highbrow and noble as they would have us all think. But it was a good idea at it's inception. So was the Edsel.

Mosca
11-02-2007, 09:08 PM
it's all about trying to tell everyone else exactly what we can and cannot do, which, ostensibly, is the very thing they were supposed to be fighting in the first place.


No; the law and the Constitution tells everyone what they can and can't do. The ACLU, like it or not, protects those rights from people who think they are irrelevant.

GBMelBlount
11-02-2007, 11:18 PM
I get your point, rev. I'd counter by asking you, like I did before, how does a minority keeping their civil liberties affect you REALLY? Other than inconvenience, I mean. Other than the majority having to change accepted practice (like racial barriers and attitudes, to pick an obvious example) to accomodate a minority?

The ACLU is hell bent on reverse discrimination IMO.

If you kill somebody it is wrong. But if they "decide" you killed somebody for "racial" reasons does that make the murder worse? Also, they are the first to play the "race card" in such instances and it gets national media attention. However, when the situation is reversed, or a minority hate crime is perpetrated on a majority individual, it is usually ignored by the ACLU & AP & swept under the rug or never deemed a "hate" crime at all.

GBMelBlount
11-02-2007, 11:35 PM
No; the law and the Constitution tells everyone what they can and can't do. The ACLU, like it or not, protects those rights from people who think they are irrelevant.

IMHO, it gives priority rights in most cases, to those who who don't deserve it.

Mosca
11-03-2007, 10:07 AM
The "deserving" part is written in the law. If you don't like it, don't blame the ACLU; work to change the law. But remember that most of the issues are constitutional in nature.

Preacher
11-03-2007, 01:32 PM
No; the law and the Constitution tells everyone what they can and can't do. The ACLU, like it or not, protects those rights from people who think they are irrelevant.

I gotta disagree... and that is the biggest problem with our government right now.

People, especially those in power, think our govt. has the right to tell people what they CAN do by law...

yet, that is the reverse of the framers of the constitution. American law is put into place (originally) to tell people the FEW things they COULDN'T do. They were free to do the rest. That is why the Bill of Rights was so controversial... not because people didn't want others to have the rights, but because people thought that by doing so, future generations would see it as an attempt to limit what rights a person DOES have...

Amazing foresight those people had.

Mosca
11-03-2007, 02:06 PM
Preacher, I don't see how that makes my statement wrong; it seems to agree with it. The ACLU doesn't MAKE law. It brings lawsuits IN ACCORDANCE WITH the law.

Don't be a player hater, I guess it the point. If you want to change the law, change the law.

Who can help me out here; do you know the definition of the word "fascism"? It is Latin in origin, and it refers to a bundle of sticks, all lined up in the same direction and all of the same length, tied together.

http://www.liceodavincitv.it/didatt/fasc/origini/immagini/foto/fasci.gif

The idea is to make everyone the same, and out of that you get power.

I think we are all against fascism. But you need to know what it is, so that you can keep it from creeping in when you aren't looking. There is far more strength in diversity than there is in conformity.

Atlanta Dan
11-03-2007, 02:50 PM
I gotta disagree... and that is the biggest problem with our government right now.

People, especially those in power, think our govt. has the right to tell people what they CAN do by law...

yet, that is the reverse of the framers of the constitution. American law is put into place (originally) to tell people the FEW things they COULDN'T do. They were free to do the rest. That is why the Bill of Rights was so controversial... not because people didn't want others to have the rights, but because people thought that by doing so, future generations would see it as an attempt to limit what rights a person DOES have...

Amazing foresight those people had.

Preacher - It is not as if judicial review of the constitutionality of a statute is some sort of liberal power grab that was invented by Earl Warren and William Brennan.

Marbury v. Madison has been around since 1803. The decision was written by Chief Justice Marshall, who led the fight for ratification of the Constitution in Virginia. The decision upheld the actions of two other founders (President Jefferson and the author of the Bill of Rights, Secretary of State Madison) to halt a judicial appointment made in the last days of the Adams administration. The decision denied the appointee's request for relief by declaring the statute by which petitioner Marbury sought such relief to be unconstitutional.

I note that decision for the propositions that: any claims the founders did not anticipate an active role for the judiciary that might not necessarily adopt the popular will are not necessarily supported by the words or deeds of the founders; and that just because the popular will may be reflected by some action (such as an act of Congress) does not mean the founders would necessarily regard that action as being within the letter and spirit of the Constitution or the balance of powers that still is supposed to exist between the three branches of the federal govt. Lots of popular actions over the years have been stopped by judicial review that has applied the Bill of Rights to protect those who have not been in step with the will of the majority.

On a much more important note (at least insofar as why we post here) I hope you packed warm clothing and have a great time Monday night:cheers:.

revefsreleets
11-03-2007, 06:29 PM
Look, this is simple. The ACLU has an agenda that is not in step with what the original intent was. If you want to form an organization that looks after the rights and privacies of all the citizens, that organization needs to be as blind as lady justice. The ACLU does not blindly defend all those that have been wronged. The ACLU defends causes that fit into it's agenda. And they defend causes that fall into lockstep with their collective interpretation of the constitution, not the constitution itself. And that's the problem.

I'm not saying the ACLU should be eradicated, because they do serve an important function. But they are not always a benevolent organization, and it's important to monitor their activities and make sure they don't spin too far out of control.

Atlanta Dan
11-03-2007, 07:06 PM
Look, this is simple. The ACLU has an agenda that is not in step with what the original intent was. If you want to form an organization that looks after the rights and privacies of all the citizens, that organization needs to be as blind as lady justice. The ACLU does not blindly defend all those that have been wronged. The ACLU defends causes that fit into it's agenda. And they defend causes that fall into lockstep with their collective interpretation of the constitution, not the constitution itself. And that's the problem.

I'm not saying the ACLU should be eradicated, because they do serve an important function. But they are not always a benevolent organization, and it's important to monitor their activities and make sure they don't spin too far out of control.

And who should conduct that "monitoring" and how should it occur?:smile:

I do not think anyone is contending the ACLU is embarked solely on an altruistic search for truth - every organization that goes into court,, up to and including the U.S. Justice Dept., has an agenda.

revefsreleets
11-03-2007, 07:15 PM
I'm calling this blind allegiance to the ACLU to the mat. I say, in answer to the original question this thread was predicated upon, that the ACLU is both friend AND foe.

Mosca
11-03-2007, 09:44 PM
They piss me off sometimes too, but which freedom am I willing to give up in order to not sometimes be pissed off? Let me think... none of them.

THERE HAS TO BE a proper adversarial role to the status quo. It doesn't always have to win (the ACLU doesn't always win); but it has to be there challenging, making sure that the majority properly justifies its actions. Sure, that is going to piss people off. Sure, it is going to attract a lot of fringe. But you can't expect the fox to guard the chicken coop, can you?

revefsreleets
11-03-2007, 10:02 PM
Sometimes the ACLU is the chicken, and sometimes they are the fox. It's just as important to realize that they are necessary as it is to realize that sometimes they are aggressively pursuing an agenda that runs counter to their stated purpose.

GBMelBlount
11-03-2007, 10:16 PM
Preacher, I don't see how that makes my statement wrong; it seems to agree with it. The ACLU doesn't MAKE law. It brings lawsuits IN ACCORDANCE WITH the law.

Don't be a player hater, I guess it the point. If you want to change the law, change the law.

Who can help me out here; do you know the definition of the word "fascism"? It is Latin in origin, and it refers to a bundle of sticks, all lined up in the same direction and all of the same length, tied together.

http://www.liceodavincitv.it/didatt/fasc/origini/immagini/foto/fasci.gif

The idea is to make everyone the same, and out of that you get power.

I think we are all against fascism. But you need to know what it is, so that you can keep it from creeping in when you aren't looking. There is far more strength in diversity than there is in conformity.

Huh? The ACLU determines with a strong hand what is right & wrong. They hate christians & love Muslims. If you have any doubt, please read the following. The fact they did nothing about this IMO shows they completely support this:

WASHINGTON – Abdurahman Alamoudi, an alleged senior terrorist operative, is behind bars on an 18-count indictment. But he can take satisfaction in the fact that a court in California has just given the green light to schools following ACLU’s religion-in-the-classroom guidelines, which he helped to formulate.

A federal judge judge has now upheld the constitutionality of an intensive three-week course in California government schools that requires children to choose a Muslim name, wear Islamic garb, memorize verses from the Koraan, pray to Allah, play “jihad games, and simulate worship activities related to the Five Pillars of Islam.”


The next step: likely an appeal to the notoriously left-wing 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which deems the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional.


But hasn't American Civil Liberties Union lectured us that religious instruction in school violates what it describes as “separation of church and state” (a phrase that appears nowhere in the U.S. Constitution)? Read on. That injunction seems to depend on which religion is involved.


The guidelines in ACLU's document is in effect a warning (some would say an implied threat) to schools as to how they can avoid legal challenges from the same ACLU on church/state issues in the classroom.

Preacher
11-03-2007, 10:28 PM
MOSCA..... AD

All I was referring to was this specific part....

No; the law and the Constitution tells everyone what they can and can't do.

Specifically, this part here...

Constitution tells everyone what they can... do.

My argument... and my ONLY argument... was that the consitution only limited a few rights... IT did not GIVE rights.. because the basis of belief was that rights were given by God (Dec. of Indep.) I wasn't arguing anything else.

Mosca
11-03-2007, 11:01 PM
rev, you are arguing with my semantics. If I took out the ""can", would that substantially change the essence of the post? Are you debating the word, or the idea?

This is an internet message forum, not a constitutional law briefing. My point remains the same; the ACLU defends the constitutional rights of those who would otherwise get pushed aside by the majority. I am surprised that you don't recognize that your argument AGAINST the ACLU is the exact reason that they are needed; you argue that the rights of the minorities are irrelevant in the face of overwhelming majority preference.

The ACLU doesn't determine AT ALL what is right and wrong. They go to court, and the courts decide what is right and wrong. If the court decides to follow the ACLU guidelines, then that is THE COURT'S decision, not the ACLU's. It looks to me like that decision is going to get appealed until we get one that makes sense.

All I'm doing is repeating myself over and over. There are some good games this weekend, and I'm going to watch them. So, post whatever you want, and then look to this sentence for my answer:

The ACLU raises the issues and files the suits. THE COURTS render the decisions, based on THE CONSTITUTION.

Just paste that in after whatever you write, and it will be like I was here all along.

GBMelBlount
11-03-2007, 11:19 PM
[QUOTE]My point remains the same; the ACLU defends the constitutional rights of those who would otherwise get pushed aside by the majority.

If you read my earlier post you will see they do it selectively in certain instances and only when it supports their agenda.

The ACLU doesn't determine AT ALL what is right and wrong.

Perhaps not by themselves, but with the complicity of the main stream media they dictate what is perceived to be right and wrong in the court of public opinion, which is largely comprised of people who are uninformed as to both sides of the argument.

Preacher
11-04-2007, 01:07 AM
They piss me off sometimes too, but which freedom am I willing to give up in order to not sometimes be pissed off? Let me think... none of them.

THERE HAS TO BE a proper adversarial role to the status quo. It doesn't always have to win (the ACLU doesn't always win); but it has to be there challenging, making sure that the majority properly justifies its actions. Sure, that is going to piss people off. Sure, it is going to attract a lot of fringe. But you can't expect the fox to guard the chicken coop, can you?


OH COME ON!!!

The freedom to be a Browns fan? The freedom to be a Ravens fan? The Freedom to be a Bengals fan?

I would GLADLY give up those three freedoms!!! Wouldn't you?

:wink02::wink02::wink02::wink02::wink02:

tony hipchest
11-04-2007, 01:05 PM
Woah. I was talking about causes, not rights. Just take a look at the ACLU's website and click on the immigrant tab. You'll see them refer to illegal immigrants as "illegal" immigrants, as if it's open to interpretation whether people here illegally are really here illegally. Yes, these people should be afforded basic human rights, but not US Citizens rights. This is just a quickie example of the ACLU's good intentions paving the road to hell. Great concept but poor and misguided execution.

Read this paragraph:
"It is true that the Constitution does not give foreigners the right to enter the U.S. But once here, it protects them from discrimination based on race and national origin and from arbitrary treatment by the government. Immigrants work and pay taxes; legal immigrants are subject to the military draft. Many immigrants have lived in this country for decades, married U.S. citizens, and raised their U.S.-citizen children. Laws that punish them violate their fundamental right to fair and equal treatment."



Look at how the quote is talking only about legal immigrants, but implying that ALL immigrants pay taxes, join the military, etc. This is deliberate manipulation of the language with the sole intent of muddying the waters and making it sound like illegal immigrants should be afforded the same rights and treatment as legal immigrants. Nonsense.

wow. did litp write that? i can smell an litp argument muddying the waters a mile away. for instance-

Firstly, the rams were far from sucky in the 90's when Faulk played for them - in fact they were regularly dominant during that period.

Faulk's first year was 1999 and the Rams record was 13-3.
2000 = 10-6
2001 = 14-2
2002 = 7-9
2003 = 12-4
2004 = 8-8

Thats a combined record of 64-32 which is a dominating record.

:banging:

Preacher
11-04-2007, 02:00 PM
Tony... LOLOL

That is hilarious.

Hines0wnz
11-04-2007, 03:19 PM
the ACLU defends the constitutional rights of those who would otherwise get pushed aside by the majority.

All I'm doing is repeating myself over and over.

If it serves their agenda, you are 100% correct.


And I feel others have been repeating themselves on that point as well.

Preacher
11-04-2007, 03:21 PM
Preacher - It is not as if judicial review of the constitutionality of a statute is some sort of liberal power grab that was invented by Earl Warren and William Brennan.

Marbury v. Madison has been around since 1803. The decision was written by Chief Justice Marshall, who led the fight for ratification of the Constitution in Virginia. The decision upheld the actions of two other founders (President Jefferson and the author of the Bill of Rights, Secretary of State Madison) to halt a judicial appointment made in the last days of the Adams administration. The decision denied the appointee's request for relief by declaring the statute by which petitioner Marbury sought such relief to be unconstitutional.

I note that decision for the propositions that: any claims the founders did not anticipate an active role for the judiciary that might not necessarily adopt the popular will are not necessarily supported by the words or deeds of the founders; and that just because the popular will may be reflected by some action (such as an act of Congress) does not mean the founders would necessarily regard that action as being within the letter and spirit of the Constitution or the balance of powers that still is supposed to exist between the three branches of the federal govt. Lots of popular actions over the years have been stopped by judicial review that has applied the Bill of Rights to protect those who have not been in step with the will of the majority.

On a much more important note (at least insofar as why we post here) I hope you packed warm clothing and have a great time Monday night:cheers:.

AD... Your right...

but what is interesting... is that I have heard many people also point to that very issue to show the SC beginning its powergrab from the other branches of govt.

revefsreleets
11-05-2007, 11:06 AM
rev, you are arguing with my semantics. If I took out the ""can", would that substantially change the essence of the post? Are you debating the word, or the idea?

This is an internet message forum, not a constitutional law briefing. My point remains the same; the ACLU defends the constitutional rights of those who would otherwise get pushed aside by the majority. I am surprised that you don't recognize that your argument AGAINST the ACLU is the exact reason that they are needed; you argue that the rights of the minorities are irrelevant in the face of overwhelming majority preference.

The ACLU doesn't determine AT ALL what is right and wrong. They go to court, and the courts decide what is right and wrong. If the court decides to follow the ACLU guidelines, then that is THE COURT'S decision, not the ACLU's. It looks to me like that decision is going to get appealed until we get one that makes sense.

All I'm doing is repeating myself over and over. There are some good games this weekend, and I'm going to watch them. So, post whatever you want, and then look to this sentence for my answer:

The ACLU raises the issues and files the suits. THE COURTS render the decisions, based on THE CONSTITUTION.

Just paste that in after whatever you write, and it will be like I was here all along.



The ACLU selectively defends people who's rights have been trampled. If they weren't so selective, or if their agenda were more consistent, I'd have no problem with them. And it's fine to defend a minorities rights or culture, but NOT AT THE EXPENSE OF THE RIGHTS OR THE CULTURE OF THE MAJORITY. That's completely counterintuitive. You don't force the majority to assimilate to the ways of the minority, what you do is allow an opening for the minority to be included in the with the rest of the majority without persecuting them in the process.

I'll take the poor Christmas argument and frame it in a more logical scenario. If some immigrant wants to celebrate festivus in the US, and his right is refused, or he is persecuted for his beliefs, the ACLU is right and proper to step in. And that should be the beginning and ending of their role. Don't attempt to change the culture of the majority, especially when it's a Federally recognized Christian Holiday, and a culturally ingrained into the fabric of the Country.

It's remarkable that something so simple is hard for people to comprehend.

revefsreleets
11-05-2007, 11:08 AM
rev, you are arguing with my semantics. If I took out the ""can", would that substantially change the essence of the post? Are you debating the word, or the idea?

This is an internet message forum, not a constitutional law briefing. My point remains the same; the ACLU defends the constitutional rights of those who would otherwise get pushed aside by the majority. I am surprised that you don't recognize that your argument AGAINST the ACLU is the exact reason that they are needed; you argue that the rights of the minorities are irrelevant in the face of overwhelming majority preference.

The ACLU doesn't determine AT ALL what is right and wrong. They go to court, and the courts decide what is right and wrong. If the court decides to follow the ACLU guidelines, then that is THE COURT'S decision, not the ACLU's. It looks to me like that decision is going to get appealed until we get one that makes sense.

All I'm doing is repeating myself over and over. There are some good games this weekend, and I'm going to watch them. So, post whatever you want, and then look to this sentence for my answer:

The ACLU raises the issues and files the suits. THE COURTS render the decisions, based on THE CONSTITUTION.

Just paste that in after whatever you write, and it will be like I was here all along.

I'm sorry that you are misinterpretting what I'm saying, since it seems quite clear. It's frustrating for me, too, since you clearly aren't getting the broad strokes and have reverted to basically questioning my reading comprehension skills. But a lot of people tend to get emotional about these things, I guess. I'll try one more time here.

The ACLU selectively defends people who's rights have been trampled. If they weren't so selective, or if their agenda were more consistent, I'd have no problem with them. They arbitrarily determine, based on their own agenda, which rights should be defended and which rights shouldn't.

And it's fine to defend a minorities rights or culture, but NOT AT THE EXPENSE OF THE RIGHTS OR THE CULTURE OF THE MAJORITY. That's completely counterintuitive. You don't force the majority to assimilate to the ways of the minority, what you do is allow an opening for the minority to be included in the with the rest of the majority whiloe protecting the rights and privacies of both groups in the process.

I'll take the poor Christmas argument and frame it in a more logical scenario. If some immigrant wants to celebrate festivus in the US, and his right is refused, or he is persecuted for his beliefs, the ACLU is right and proper to step in. And that should be the beginning and ending of their role. Don't attempt to change the culture of the majority, especially when it's a Federally recognized Christian Holiday, and culturally ingrained into the very fabric of the Country.

It's remarkable that something so simple can be so hard for people to comprehend. The ACLU would do well to adopt the Hippocratic Oath: First do no harm.

lamberts-lost-tooth
11-05-2007, 12:57 PM
The ACLU selectively defends people who's rights have been trampled. If they weren't so selective, or if their agenda were more consistent, I'd have no problem with them. And it's fine to defend a minorities rights or culture, but NOT AT THE EXPENSE OF THE RIGHTS OR THE CULTURE OF THE MAJORITY. That's completely counterintuitive. You don't force the majority to assimilate to the ways of the minority, what you do is allow an opening for the minority to be included in the with the rest of the majority without persecuting them in the process.

I'll take the poor Christmas argument and frame it in a more logical scenario. If some immigrant wants to celebrate festivus in the US, and his right is refused, or he is persecuted for his beliefs, the ACLU is right and proper to step in. And that should be the beginning and ending of their role. Don't attempt to change the culture of the majority, especially when it's a Federally recognized Christian Holiday, and a culturally ingrained into the fabric of the Country.

It's remarkable that something so simple is hard for people to comprehend.


I agree.
The ACLU falls along the same lines as the NOW organization...both propose that they are "standing up for the rights" of Americans, yet are nowhere to be seen if that "American" doesnt represent a liberal cause....Look at Anita Hill & then Paula Jones and tell me why one became the poster child for sexual harrassment and the other recieved no support from these alleged champions of "the people".
To say that the ACLU has no agenda is easily challenged. The law of country specifically states that our Government is to remain "neutral" in regards to religion...yet the ACLU is adamantly anti-Christian and has to be challenged in court on a regular basis to stop them from taking away the right of church organizations to use public buildings that are rented to all other groups without question.

Mosca
11-05-2007, 04:26 PM
Judge Andrew P. Napolitano, Fox News Channel's Senior Judicial Analyst:

"The constitution was written to keep the government in check; to prevent it from taking away too much of our freedoms. Our freedoms are natural gifts from God."

He says nothing about the rights belonging solely to the majority, and neither does the constitution. The rights are INDIVIDUAL'S rights.

OF COURSE the ACLU has an agenda; they exist to defend the rights of individuals when they are in danger of getting trampled by the majority. Although I didn't go through all the posts and check, I do think I've written that a couple times in this thread.

Now, if you are against people asserting their right to be different from you, and from the majority, and not be compelled to go along, that is a completely different argument, isn't it? And (to use the example that has already been decided in court) if you feel that people shouldn't have the right to not pay for your religious displays on their shared public property with shared tax dollars (something that I personally have no problem with, btw), again, that is a different argument.

The ACLU IS NOT A GOVERNMENT AGENCY. It is made up of CITIZENS. They bring suits, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE LAND, AS IS THEIR RIGHT.

Now repeat after me: The ACLU files the suits, and the court decides if they are right. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONSTITUTION.

Atlanta Dan
11-05-2007, 06:49 PM
AD... Your right...

but what is interesting... is that I have heard many people also point to that very issue to show the SC beginning its powergrab from the other branches of govt.

A classmate in my first year constitutional law class (who by that point had reached the conclusion that law school was total bullshit) answered a convoluted hypothetical involving the power of judicial review with this answer:

Who decides who decides?:sofunny:

Of course he flunked out, but that zen response pretty much sums up the ongoing debate on the role of the judiciary in this society

Preacher
11-06-2007, 02:03 AM
A classmate in my first year constitutional law class (who by that point had reached the conclusion that law school was total bullshit) answered a convoluted hypothetical involving the power of judicial review with this answer:

Who decides who decides?:sofunny:

Of course he flunked out, but that zen response pretty much sums up the ongoing debate on the role of the judiciary in this society

You know... He probably failed because he scared the pee out of the professors with that correct of an answer!

revefsreleets
11-06-2007, 07:56 PM
Judge Andrew P. Napolitano, Fox News Channel's Senior Judicial Analyst:

"The constitution was written to keep the government in check; to prevent it from taking away too much of our freedoms. Our freedoms are natural gifts from God."

He says nothing about the rights belonging solely to the majority, and neither does the constitution. The rights are INDIVIDUAL'S rights.

OF COURSE the ACLU has an agenda; they exist to defend the rights of individuals when they are in danger of getting trampled by the majority. Although I didn't go through all the posts and check, I do think I've written that a couple times in this thread.

Now, if you are against people asserting their right to be different from you, and from the majority, and not be compelled to go along, that is a completely different argument, isn't it? And (to use the example that has already been decided in court) if you feel that people shouldn't have the right to not pay for your religious displays on their shared public property with shared tax dollars (something that I personally have no problem with, btw), again, that is a different argument.

The ACLU IS NOT A GOVERNMENT AGENCY. It is made up of CITIZENS. They bring suits, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE LAND, AS IS THEIR RIGHT.

Now repeat after me: The ACLU files the suits, and the court decides if they are right. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONSTITUTION.

I'm sorry you didn't bother to read my post. But this reminds me of a Steven King book. One of the characters stuttered, and in order to cure himself, he needed to ignore everything happening around him and repeat to himself every time he stuttered "He thrusts his fists against the post and still insists he sees the ghost".

By the logic of your argument above, the ACLU is good for the same reason that ambulance chasers are good. But ambulance chasers aren't good, and that's a problem. Just because one CAN do something doesn't necessarily mean one should. Hence the whole "First do no harm" thing that you ignored. Furthermore, in the case of the ACLU, it's probably more about their NOT acting at times they really should that bothers me.

Either way, I'm going to just quietly walk away from this one now. I don't insist on seeing ghosts, so I refuse to thrust my fists against the posts.

Mosca
11-06-2007, 08:13 PM
No, I read it. And your entire argument boils down to "I don't like people who are different from me. I wish they would just go away."

There is a difference between civil suits and constitutional law that seems to have escaped you.

revefsreleets
11-06-2007, 08:26 PM
Trust me friend, nothing escaped me on this one. I'm so sorry you feel the way you do.

Mosca
11-06-2007, 08:52 PM
My point is that the ACLU exists because people feel the way you do. If the majority didn't insist that the minority cave to their will, then the ACLU would be unnecessary.

MasterOfPuppets
11-06-2007, 08:52 PM
:popcorn:.....:chug:........good debate.....:popcorn:

GBMelBlount
11-06-2007, 09:14 PM
:popcorn:.....:chug:........good debate.....:popcorn:

:toofunny: Nothing like a master debater!

TroysBadDawg
11-06-2007, 09:27 PM
Better than being a Master Baiter (as in fishing)

Get your mind out of the Gutter


Sorry Preacher, But I just had to say it.

Actually GB made me say it. Really he did, he twisted my arm even.

MasterOfPuppets
11-06-2007, 09:32 PM
:toofunny: Nothing like a master debater!:chuckle:...good one !!!

revefsreleets
11-06-2007, 09:37 PM
My point is that the ACLU exists because people feel the way you do. If the majority didn't insist that the minority cave to their will, then the ACLU would be unnecessary.


The ACLU exists because of people like me. Yes. That is exactly right. Think about that again IN CONTEXT for a moment before you tell me exactly how I (don't really) think and feel again.

I'm a member of the vast majority, and I express tolerance and temperance and moderation and agree that the ACLU has a valued place in our society as long as they, too recognize and practice tolerance and temperance and moderation, but you TELL me that I'M the problem.

Too rich.

RoethlisBURGHer
11-06-2007, 10:11 PM
The ACLU is friend and foe.

I refused the Mexican driver's lisence of a Mexican customer a few weeks ago when he tried to buy alcohol at the gas station I work at. I told him if he cannot provide me with an American ID card, American drivers lisence, American passport, or American military ID, I will not be selling alcohol to him or any of the people with him.

An ACLU lawyer took me to court, saying I obstructed his right to buy alcohol (which isn't a right to begin with since it can be stripped by a judicial order). Luckily, the judge saw it my way, that in America to buy age-restricted products you must be able to provide a valid American ID.

But if my ID (which is real) was turned away because the cashier thought it was a fake ID, would the ACLU defend me? No, I am white and the majority.

In my area we have a lot of Mexicans. Most of them are legal immigrants, but I know some of them are illegal. Well a few Mexicans were turned down for jobs due to poor English. The ACLU defended them in court and they ended up getting the jobs. In that case, the ACLU did their job because the minority's right was being taken away.

revefsreleets
11-07-2007, 09:06 AM
I find it curious that my mind has been made up for me by someone far, far to the left of my moderate position. I've pointed out before that the very liberal love to tell people what to think and how to think it, and by some weird twisting of language I've been told that I THINK people different from me should go away and that the majority has the right to crush the minority under foot. I've been told these are my positions.

These are not my positions, and I'm a little unhappy that my words have been twisted around to make an argument "fit" against me. I challenege anyone reading or posting in this thread to find one post where I've stated that the majority has the right to trample the rights of the minorities. Show me where I've said that I don't like people who are differnt, or that I want them to go away. It can't be done, because I've never stated anything even remotely close.

My position is this. The ACLU has an agenda that I don't care for. They take some cases they shouldn't, and won't take others that they should. They are not even-handed. They select cases in places known to have liberal courts sympathetic to their "cause" knowing in advance what the likely outcome will be in order to establish case precedent.

But they do a lot of good as well. Somehow that part of my argument conveniently gets ignored. So, yes, to repeat, the ACLU is both friend and foe.

Mosca
11-07-2007, 10:33 AM
OK, I'll buy that. But I think that there is some degree of truth that your stance in that last post is a lot clearer than it was in some of your others.

I have to show my reasoning in defending the ACLU through an analogy, if you don't mind.

I work in a dirty business; I'd rather not say what it is. I am a pure capitalist. Surprised, aren't you? My focus, 11 hours out of every day, is how much money I can make. My job, which I love, is maximizing income. I do it 100% above the board. I am certified in ethical and technical standards. I have no problems being fair and in doing my job well, and in being very good at it, THE RIGHT WAY.

But, and this is a big but: The way I was taught to do my job 20 years ago is illegal now, and would land me on 60 Minutes at best, or in jail at worst. Back then, it was considered completely honest and ethical; it was called "close and disclose", and it was the accepted standard.

What happened? The courts happened. Someone took a look at the way we were selling and processing contracts, they went to court and sued, and it was decided that they were right. Some companies had to pay a lot of money in judgements, and we had to change the way we operate.

What does this have to do with the ACLU? Well, it's an analogy. The world was operating just fine by my standards before the lawsuits were filed. Everything was disclosed to my customers before they signed anything. Why change anything?

Well, customers weren't being told that they had choices; clauses in the contract weren't being disclosed as "optional" (well, they were, but not clearly and explicitly enough for the courts).

What happened afterwards? Well, the world is still just fine. But instead of contracts being presented "of a piece", as one contract, they are now offered in levels of service, and the customer can choose their level. But funny thing; profitability hasn't been affected. it may have even gone up! Customers still choose about the same thing as we would have fed them before. But what is different is that the customers are now aware that they have choices, and we now have to explain those choices and sell features, advantages, and benefits. So, we have to work harder, but our customers are now signing with full knowledge of the circumstances. If anything, the contracts and relationships are stronger.

This change was forced by the courts. It was a real PITA for us. I mean, REAL. I had a friend who did go to jail, 6 months for "packing" contracts. Many of us are still working the old way (not me). But it has been a great change for our customers.

The analogy is that a change which might appear unnecessary, and which might not even be an issue for the group that benefits (most of our customers didn't care or were unaware), can still be beneficial for everyone as a whole.

As far as the ACLU goes, even when they are ridiculous, it points out a place where the law is unclear and should be modified. Many of their challenges are because the applicable law is unclear and overly vague. That is sloppy legislating, which is a fault of our legislatures. Sometimes it is hard to get into law that which we intend in our minds, and we don't always elect the brightest bulbs to positions of power (for whatever reason, not knocking anyone in particular).

I think of the ACLU as "a necessary foe". Or, better yet, they are our friend by being our foe. We need them to keep the keel even. We need them sometimes to point out the idiocy of our ways (when their suits make sense), and sometimes to point out the idiocy of our laws (when their suits do NOT make sense). So even when we hate them, they are our good medicine. They show us what we need to change, and they show us how to structure the change so that it is fair and balanced.

RoethlisBURGHer, I love your examples. To me, they show how the ACLU can lose and clarify the law, or win and support a minority. In each case, society as a whole benefits.

I agree that they ACLU is selective; I'm arguing that that selectivity is OK. In your case of fake ID, it doesn't fit the possible scenario of pervasive discrimination. But the question of immigrants with foreign IDs does. In the end, there are people in the ACLU making decisions about where to allocate resources, and they aren't looking things up on a chart. They have to use the funds and the personnel available to the greatest value, and that means choosing some and passing on others.

revefsreleets
11-07-2007, 10:39 AM
In that, we concur. They are a necessary evil. And it's fine that they are there because there are counterbalances (with whom I dislike equally) on the far right promoting their own agenda, too.

cubanstogie
11-07-2007, 12:45 PM
My question relating to roethlisBURGHers story about the mexicans is, why would the aclu represent people who are here illegally. Its just like the story back east where a van full of 10 illegals was pulled over by an officer. The ACLU represented the illegals stating it was racial profiling. No shit it was , 10 mexicans an a van. That officer would have been negligent if he didn't pull them over. Total bullshit. People who break the law by coming here should not get the same rights as american citizens. What about the atheist in CA who wants all the xmas manger scenes removed from town centers and so forth. ACLU represents him, sues the city . Next thing you know no more manger scenes. The majority actually like the manger scenes. Are we not a democratic state here. I could go on with stories like this forever. I say screw the ACLU, send the illegals home, give people welfare for 1 year than kick them off. All these liberal , secularists, aclu pinheads demand freedom of speech and all this crap, but I cant say what I want because it might offend someone who doesn't agree with me. Then I get sued. The ACLU may have had good intentions when it started, but has strayed off the right path.

Mosca
11-07-2007, 01:25 PM
And, there is my proof. revefsreleets. There are some people who simply won't let other people be different.

By losing that case, the ACLU helped define the law.

cubanstogie
11-07-2007, 01:41 PM
I have no problem about people being different. I just want people to be accountable for their themselves and their actions. I don't take the view that ACLU helped define the law by taking a case and losing. Its their stance on issues. Its ok to have gay and lesbian parades in the streets but you cant have mangers, use the word christmas or sing carols at school. Nice logic. Lets protect the gay and secular minority at the expense of tradition and family values.

Mosca
11-07-2007, 04:13 PM
I have no problem about people being different. I just want people to be accountable for their themselves and their actions. I don't take the view that ACLU helped define the law by taking a case and losing. Its their stance on issues. Its ok to have gay and lesbian parades in the streets but you cant have mangers, use the word christmas or sing carols at school. Nice logic. Lets protect the gay and secular minority at the expense of tradition and family values.

Define family values, please. Does it include turning your back on your brother or son, or sister, or daughter, or your parents, for their sexuality?

Anyone who can afford a parade permit is allowed to have a parade. Even Nazis in Skokie.

cubanstogie
11-07-2007, 04:49 PM
Family values is ambiguous, meaning different things to all that use the term. I don't claim to define it for everyone. It is my moral beliefs and the belief that family is the base of our nation. Without stable families cultures don't survive. I personally don't have a problem with gays and lesbians in general. It does bother me that they have more of a right to parade down streets sometimes offensively and a manger or the word christmas offends people to the extent that a lot of cities, towns, etc. cant have them up or use certain words. The fact is the majority want them, and a few radicals ruin for the rest. I dont like radicals on either side , left or right. Thats who ACLU represents though , radical left. I would never turn my back on my daughter. I would support anything she wants. All I can do is love her, provide for her, teach her, and let her make her own decisions. Even if she were gay I would not have problem with that, although I will still tell her I believe marriage between man and women, but i am fine with civil unions. i have many more beliefs I am sure you and others could give a crap about so I will stop there. As far as your parade comment, thats the problem anyone can have one. I think there is a time and place for everything. I wouldn't even have a problem with it, although I would be nowhere near there, except for the double standard. Xmas, prayers, mangers, pledge of the allegiance are harmless. The don't injure people, cause corruption, or hurt anyone. Its sad that a bunch of angry radicals want to screw up tradition.

MasterOfPuppets
11-07-2007, 06:44 PM
when i hear the word democracy, one of the first things that come to mind, is the right to vote. whats the point of voting ? to appease the majority ? i have no problem with a group sticking up for minority rights ,when it comes to quality of life issues !!! when that same group wastes taxpayers time and money ( judges courts,etc ), by taking up the cause of someone who's only purpose is to piss off the masses , then that group loses all credibility with me.....:coffee:

Preacher
11-08-2007, 02:00 AM
And, there is my proof. revefsreleets. There are some people who simply won't let other people be different.

By losing that case, the ACLU helped define the law.

Mosca...

1. By your description of what you do... I think I may know your job, but won't guess in the open!

2. The only problem that I have with what you said, is that I have a hard time seeing in the constitution where the COURTS define the law. In my understanding, defining the law is part of the larger process of making law... and should be given back to congress when a law is not clear.

3. It is people like you that make capitalism as good as it is.

Preacher
11-08-2007, 02:06 AM
It is true that a true democracy will protect the minority from the majority.

However, when the majority continues to be told how what they can and can't do according to the needs and wants and sensibilities of the minority, we start moving to an oligarchical government.

That is a major problem with our govt. now.

Our exec. branch governs through a republic government, but our court system seems to be trying to govern by an oligarchical govt, and that is NOT their job.