That evil ACLU...

[muddyboots]

T2, you must of missed the fact that I am a gun toting firearm owing redneck. Well, connass actually. I asked BW to delete that because it's just downright insulting. As for the constitution, I have never said it needs to be bent or misinterpreted. I have said that EVERYONE, no matter how slimy he or she may be, deserves the protections it affords. The ACLU tries to do that. Simple as that. as long as there are people who want to short other people teir rights, I'm going to side with the ACLU. Get rid of the Mcarthys and the Bush's, and maybe we can talk. Till then, I think they serve a valid purpose in this country.[list=][/list]

[Broken-Wrench]

All I want to know is how come the ACLU can't help this guy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hY8BkoyH8m4

[bdk]

Charles Jaynes, 25, reportedly viewed the group’s web site shortly before the killing of Jeffrey Curley, a 10 year old boy, slain in 1997. Jaynes also had in his possession some of NAMBLA’s publications.

I don't understand what connection viewing the website or reading a brochure has with the murder. Are you saying this organization condones murder?

[Broken-Wrench]

Heck I don't know.. I just googled the article .I'll have to read it again! It gave me the creeps reading that mbla stuff

[muddyboots]

well, you got that goin for you... (caddyshack ref)

[T2 Ernie]

Sure we can say anything we like but sometimes it is best to do what's right to get along and respect other people.. It has nothing to do with the ACLU. Not to counsel you but what's lacking to day is respect for others...

You missed my point then. Muddy's comments & subsequent retraction, no matter how or why it was motivated, was just too good an example of one of the most signifanct aspects of the ACLU that I despise.

T2, you must of missed the fact that I am a gun toting firearm owing redneck. Well, connass actually. I asked BW to delete that because it's just downright insulting.

Nope, I didn't miss that fact at all, read my last sentence. You've obviously missed my point.

As for the constitution, I have never said it needs to be bent or misinterpreted.

No, you didn't. The ACLU has done that by invoking certain portions in their version of literal interpretation.

I have said that EVERYONE, no matter how slimy he or she may be, deserves the protections it affords.

Yep - so did I.

The ACLU tries to do that. Simple as that. as long as there are people who want to short other people teir rights, I'm going to side with the ACLU.

You're cutting your own throat, but it's a free country. You may side with whomever you like.

A wise man once told me, 'he who controls the lexicon controls the world.'

I'm more of a libertarian than a republican, but I have a very conservative leaning. I have a copy of the Constitution on my coffee table & it's been there for at least 12 years; it's dog-eared and well worn. The most basic right, the most basic freedom, is that of choice. Once we start categorizing things & drawing lines in the sand where one side is good & the other is bad, we're in a losing death spiral. The labels on each side of that line should be agreeable & disagreeable, not right & wrong. There are, of course, exceptions. However, by labeling them agreeable & disagreeable, we can then exercise our right to choose what we watch, listen to, do, etc. without being labled wrong. Within the bounds of reason (read on).

Similiarly, there are exceptions to freedom. By choosing to live in this society under this government, we have given our implied consent that we will abide by the laws set down. Our Republic was formed for the greater good - not the good of a few special interest groups. That means it is a utilitarian society - to put it in Spock's words, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one."

If the ACLU was an apolitical organization, it would be a noble cause. However, no organization, no assemblage of people, can ever be completely apolitical. There are always agendas, no matter how noble. Agendas are only "bad" if they don't agree with yours - typically. But they are there nonetheless.

Another apropos saying right about now is, 'the road to h*ll is paved with good intentions.'

Read John Locke & Thomas Hobbs (social contract theory, Leviathan, etc.) to better understand how our government is supposed to work. Political philosohpy is so much more than republican vs democrat...

[muddyboots]

I've read both, more than the average guy. Let's leave Hobbes alone. I am an atheist, and considering he espoused government control of religion and demanded that atheists be outlawed because they couldn't "enter into a covenant" I'd say he ranks pretty low on my writers of interest scale.
Locke, however, I liked a great deal. Especially that one of the primary tenants of his philosophy was tolerance. Without tolerance of the different you end up with chaos again. Whcih was where the idea of civil liberties came from. Without them to protect the rights of each and every individual, you end up demanding that those individuals fall into lock step...or die. Considering both Hobbes and Locke wrote in a period of great social upheaval caused primarily by intolerance, I would think you could see their point. Guess not.
It's fantastic that you have the constitution on your coffee table.I suggest you read the 14th again. It's that which the ACLU defends. And which for some reason mnay Americans loathe. For someone who reads the constitution while taking his constitutional, I'm somewhat surprised that you seem to think it's disposable at your whim.

[T2 Ernie]

I've read both, more than the average guy. Let's leave Hobbes alone. I am an atheist, and considering he espoused government control of religion and demanded that atheists be outlawed because they couldn't "enter into a covenant" I'd say he ranks pretty low on my writers of interest scale.

Yes, well, I wasn't suggesting that we abide by it scripture & verse, rather as a framework of discussion - social contract theory, collective good, etc. You don't have to subscribe to his belief system to understand his logic. Personally, I'm a non-practicing agnostic!

Locke, however, I liked a great deal. Especially that one of the primary tenants of his philosophy was tolerance. Without tolerance of the different you end up with chaos again. Whcih was where the idea of civil liberties came from. Without them to protect the rights of each and every individual, you end up demanding that those individuals fall into lock step...or die. Considering both Hobbes and Locke wrote in a period of great social upheaval caused primarily by intolerance, I would think you could see their point. Guess not.

Again, the written word here seems to get lost amongst the emotion. You cannot allow everyone to do anything they want or that is anarchy & chaos. There must be some order to the machine. It is precisely this twisting of our Constitution (and specifically the 14th) that subrogates the rights of the collective for the individual. It is not enough for the ACLU that certain things are tacitally allowed, the ACLU wants them specifically allowed, this results in an exclusionary society & it pains me that this is not obvious to someone as obviously well-educated as yourself.

It's fantastic that you have the constitution on your coffee table.I suggest you read the 14th again. It's that which the ACLU defends. And which for some reason mnay Americans loathe. For someone who reads the constitution while taking his constitutional, I'm somewhat surprised that you seem to think it's disposable at your whim.

This devolution to name-calling is telling & typical of the ACLU, "You're not with us, so you must be a racist/fascist/bad-guy/evil-doer/etc." (and no, just for clarification, I'm not saying you're calling me a racist...)

The meat of my last post has been ignored & instead, an emotional argument has been made for & against long-dead authors - such was not my intent.

Sadly, this is a discussion best left for a beer rather than the internet...

[muddyboots]

probably is a better beerbust talk. But I stand by what I said. You keep claiming that the 14th is being twisted, but it's a pretty clear Amendement--much easier to decipher than the second. It's basic tenant is pretty simple: we all have the same rights and no citizen may be deprived of them. As far as I kow, the ACLU has never professed anything but that. I'd be interested to know how you think they've twisted that, especially since it's such a clear and concise passage.

Section 1
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So that we know what we're talking about.

Now, if I am not mistaken it was originaly intended to apply only to the states and the Supreme court extended it to the federal government. But it seems pretty clear to me. Is the fact that the ACLU has defended everyone from white supremacists to Ollie North to NAMBLA when they have been deprived of those civil rights some indication that they are twisting the Constitution, or is it that some Americans believe that not everyone deserves those rights? I'm just askin, cause you know, that's what it looks like to me. And to an awful lot of OTTHER law abiding Americans who have been successfully defended by the ACLU when other Americans attempted to deprive them of their constitutionally protected rights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._B ... _Education
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACLU_v._NSA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_v._Ferber

Yeah. So that's a short list of important stuff they've done, according to wikipedia. There are more, but it's been a few years since I was a poly sci major, and my memory has deteriorated after all these years. Not sure how all this can be construed as "twisting the constitution". Especially since all were Supreme Court cases and were won by the ACLU. But then, that leads us to another topic: how the courts have taken over the legslative process and turned America into a nation where it's dangerous to be a white male or a child. Oooooh those nasty judges, reading things into the constitution that were never intended to be there in the first place. Like the right to basic civl rights. darn. If the Congress had intended people to actually have RIGHTS, they would of said so somewhere, right? Oh wait. They made an amendment.
Are you sure you haven't been using your copy of the constitution as a coffe coaster? I know I do that with my Janes Armored vehicles. It would be an easy mistake to make

[T2 Ernie]

probably is a better beerbust talk. But I stand by what I said. You keep claiming that the 14th is being twisted, but it's a pretty clear Amendement--much easier to decipher than the second. It's basic tenant is pretty simple: we all have the same rights and no citizen may be deprived of them. As far as I kow, the ACLU has never professed anything but that. I'd be interested to know how you think they've twisted that, especially since it's such a clear and concise passage.

When taken to any extreme at the expense of the collective good, individual rights can be harmful. Now please don't twist that to mean that I think we should be in a dictatorship, on the contrary.

For the ACLU, it's not enough to say "we can all practice whatever religion we want to" - they want to say, "We can practice Satanism" "We can practice Judaism" "We can practice atheism" "We can practice Catholicism" "We can practice groupsexism" "We can practice whateverism" They're not happy until they have enunciated each & every right, they tie up the courts, they waste taxpayers dollars proving the obvious, & in the process are pushing an agenda of multi-cultural, secular (to the extreme), "progressive" government - in short, they are trying to overthrow our existing form of government through the legal process.

They do it through fear; the fear of being labeled a hater. They say, "Look at these people, they are being denied rights, it's because they are green with purple stripes, we need to have a law that says green with purple striped people must be protected." If you dare speak out against them, you're labled a green-and-purple-striped-phobe who is filled with hatred & wants to oppress these poor green & purple striped people.

There is no context.

I will concede that they have done some good in their quest for their version of the perfect socieity. For example, I believe they recently fought for Veterans to have Wiccan symbols on headstones in National Cemetaries. (Just the most recent thing to pop in my head) Now I'm not a Wiccan, nor do I know any (that I know of), but this falls squarely into religious freedom. But if you delve deeper into this, I doubt the Feds really care what's on a headstone, but somehow it got codified & the Wiccans got left out. I'm sure it went something like this:

Fed: You can engrave name, dates, and XX characters of text if related to federal service, and a relgious symbol.
Someone: Can we have a cross?
Fed: Yes a cross would be fine.
Someone else: What about a Star of David?
Fed: Yes, yes - a Star of David too. Anymore questions?
Scribe: OK, got it.

Unfortunately, there were no Wiccans around to ask if they could have a Pentacle. Enter the ACLU.

The moral of the story is, once you start enumerating specifics, you have to cover literally everything or else you risk excluding someone. If you exclude someone, maybe the ACLU will take up your fight if you're offended enough. Maybe they'll take up your fight if they're offended FOR you (my favorite) even if you don't care.

What really should happen in the parody above is all enumerations should be excluded & the original context should be restored. "A religious symbol" perhaps with some minor elaboration "...as desired by NOK" & everyone is happy, the courts get to deal with real crimes, & the ACLU has to figure out another way to push their exclusionist society.

Despite the fact they do manage to do some good, that does not mean they do not have a political agenda & are pushing that agenda via litigation.

There already exists a process to effect change in our government, it's called a ballot box. No government will make everyone happy & when enough people are unhappy, the government changes. This is called democracy & while it's not foolproof, it works reasonably well. If it moves too slowly, don't litigate, move! The "instant gratification" social setting we find ourselves in can't seem to wait for that & the needs of the few seem more important than the needs of the greater majority. Which brings us back to social contract theory - you want to live here, you live by the rules. If you're not happy with the rules, or the way they're enforced, change the government - vote.

Not sure how all this can be construed as "twisting the constitution". Especially since all were Supreme Court cases and were won by the ACLU. But then, that leads us to another topic: how the courts have taken over the legslative process and turned America into a nation where it's dangerous to be a white male or a child. Oooooh those nasty judges, reading things into the constitution that were never intended to be there in the first place. Like the right to basic civl rights. darn. If the Congress had intended people to actually have RIGHTS, they would of said so somewhere, right? Oh wait. They made an amendment.
Are you sure you haven't been using your copy of the constitution as a coffe coaster? I know I do that with my Janes Armored vehicles. It would be an easy mistake to make

Ignoring the sarcasm & insults, I can only assume I've failed to convey my point effectively.

I used to think I was arrogant. I thought if I could just explain what I know, lay out the going-in assumptions & points of view, logically, the other person would have no recourse but to come to the same conclusion as I. Therefore, when I failed to convince someone of something that seems so obvious to me, it was a failing on my part; a lack of eloquence perhaps. If after several attempts, I was still unsuccessful, it could only be because my logic was superior; hence my arrogance. But I've grown to realize there are some hard-wiring differences between people - as hard as that is to imagine. I guess it's like being left-handed or right-handed. Sadly, the world is lacking many ambidextrous people (I know I'm not one).

I'll likely retire from this discourse as I am failing to make my point (and I won't resort to slower & louder).

[muddyboots]

I see your point. I simply don't agree with it. The whole Wiccan thing actually started at Fort Hood while I was at Arlington. There were Wiccans who were flat out denied the right to freely worship by the Army. They turned to the ACLU (which was sort of illegal but lets leave that aside as UCMJ is a whole different issue I don't know enough about). The ACLU brought it to the Supreme Court for the soldiers, and won. Now, by fighting and winning to have the Army recognize the religion, it meant the VA had to as well...dat da dat da dah, right? I never saw a Wiccan symbol on a tombstone, but I expect we'll see one this go round. If we lose enough people there will always be one green and purple striped one in the pile of bodies we ship home. I figure if they die in the service of their country, they deserve to be recognized as they wish. Least we can do. I do agree that iot would make more sense to simply say "an appropriate religious symbol and have the person choose," but the bean counters and Church of the beancounters and pinheads will always find a way to screw some poor unwashed soul. Soul we enumerate so the disticks don't have a way to worm out of it. In the Army we called them the "church," they're so enmeshed in Dogma that they can't see reality any more. Always hated them and always will. And it unfortunately seems to take enumeration to put a stop to them. Or at least make them act in a fashion that is somewhat fair...

I a, not sure that I can agree that individual rights can be taken to an extreme that will damage society. Since those rights are the cornerstone of our nation, they ought to be as inviolate as we can make them. You pointed out that they tie up our courts. Any more than corporate lawsuits do? I doubt it. Any more than civil lawsuits over whose dog peed on whose tree and killed it? doubt it. Certainly no more than all the fighting about whatsername the Florida cucumber that Jeb vowed to rescue from "death."

As for fear. Has it occured to you that the fear that green and purple people have is real and justified? After all, human beings have never really been very good at accepting differences of skin color, religion, etc...
Me, I'd rather simply ensure that the basic rules of number 14 stand for ALL of us, no matter what. That way when the spotlight gets turned on me because I have white skin, am a Christain (I'm not btw) and male, why, I can rest assured that I have that 14th Amendment, tried and true, fought for over 50 years by the ACLU, to protect me.

And before you roll your eyes at the idea that we white folks will be the majority forever, think about how much of our population is made up of minorities, and how much it will be in twenty years when you and I are old farts sitting on the porch with beers in our hands. We're goig to be a minority before long, 'pard. We're going to be outnumbered. I'd like to be able to point to how hard I fought for everybody to have the same rights, when they come for me (if past history is any example, they will.) I'm not being altruistc here, just plain selfish.

Try and understand, Ernie. My views are tainted by a lot of years of watching one group of people dominate and abuse another group of people because of one of those 14th issues. It is a very real and very dangerous fence we have managed to straddle here in America. There is no other nation which has managed it as well. I believe that is in part due to the ACLU and it's arm waving and high pitched squeels of indignation. (they bug me too)

But as a libertarian/conservative I CAN understand your views, and empathise with your fear that the great crowd of memememe's out there wil overwhelm the greater good. It hasn't so far, in the two hundred plus years of our nationhood. But that doesn't mean it can't happen. It's part of what brought Rome down, after all. I think the difference is that in America we have a history of fighting for each other. When one person gets beat down and needs help, we believe in fighting for him. In my opinion it's what makes America great. No other factor in our community defines us better. I have, and I bet you have, reached out to a perfect stranger who needed a hand. I once had a truck driver loan me 20 bucks so I could get home on time to make roll call. Middle of the night, the man didnt know me from Adam, or have any reason to believe he would ever get his money back. THAT is what for me defines America. I'm almost positive you've done the same at sometime or another. Because your parents and community instilled in you the idea that when a person in need is there, it's your job to help him. That's not Christian. That's American. Something we share, I'd bet. It's not even something we feel pride in for ourselves. Just sort of grateful that we were able to help out a little bit.

And to me the ACLU exemplifies that ideal. To the lowest poorest and most despised, they reach out a hand. I dig that.

Sorry if you've taken my poking as insults. Never meant it as such. I am always being accused of being a jerk when I am actually trying to be funny. You're a WIXer I always enjoy hearing from, and have come to respect. I hope I haven't irevocably ruined your opinion of me. And at that, I'll go shut up and sit in the corner with a dunce hat on my head, and my nose in a circle of chalk...

Last edited by muddyboots on Tue Dec 11, 2007 5:53 am, edited 1 time in total.

[muddyboots]

All I want to know is how come the ACLU can't help this guy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hY8BkoyH8m4

no one who wears his belt above his belly button deserves the help of the ACLU. He is obviously to far gone to be helped by the likes of the court system. I suggest hanging by his toes until his waistband falls to the appropriate postion, or he dies, or both. THEN we can bring him to trial.

[muddyboots]

Charles Jaynes, 25, reportedly viewed the group’s web site shortly before the killing of Jeffrey Curley, a 10 year old boy, slain in 1997. Jaynes also had in his possession some of NAMBLA’s publications.

I don't understand what connection viewing the website or reading a brochure has with the murder. Are you saying this organization condones murder?

Of course it does. That man read that brochure, was enlightened and all his years of headaches were sudden;ly gone. He grabbed an axe, some duct tape and that brochure and RAN out the door

[CAPFlyer]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._B ... _Education
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACLU_v._NSA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_v._Ferber

Here's the problem with listing those cases -

At least 2 involved blatant legislation from the bench by an admittedly liberal Supreme Court. Roe v Wade involved the creation of the idea of "right to privacy", something not in the constitution, and thus not the right of the Court to decide its existence. That was a decision for the Legislative and illegally abrogated by the Supreme Court. The problem was (and is) that the legislative is controlled by people of similar beliefs so they choose not to do their constitutional duty and maintain the balance of powers because to do so would be to work against their own belief (which I don't expect any politician to do, which is sad, but true).

ACLU v NSA was another attempt by the ACLU to get the Court to rule from the bench. The Court, does not have the power (as enumerated in the Constitution) to regulate international actions taken by the Government of the United States. That, again, is the purview of the Legislative Branch.

The failure of the ACLU to properly distinguish the difference between those powers enumerated to the Legislative and those enumerated to the Judicial is part of the problem.

BTW, while you're continuing to espouse the 14th, let me remind you of another part of the Constitution which the ACLU conveniently ignores on numerous occasions -

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Also, there is the matter of judicial powers, which no where includes determining new law or force of law through judgement -

Article III, Section 2 -

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

'

and Amendment 11 -

AMENDMENT XI

Passed by Congress March 4, 1794. Ratified February 7, 1795.

Note: Article III, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by amendment 11.

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

In addition, the ACLU continues to file suit against the government for the purpose of assigning Constitutional rights conferred specifically unto Citizens to non-citizens. These rights are not guaranteed by the Constitution and to attempt to force those rights upon non-citizens without a Constitutional Amendment which does so is an abrogation of the Constitution and thus illegal. They don't seem to care because it doesn't fit their agenda though.

[Bill Greenwood]

Capflyer, If you take an honest view, the courts interpret all the time, sometimes it seems one sided, other times it seems correct and necessary. Freedom of speech, is a fundamental, but they had no telephone much less internet in 1789. Do we limit it to only what is said in person, literal, or to all forms of communication? I'd guess you are all for owning guns, but nowhere does it say private citizens can own guns. Few clauses are less specific and more open to opinion than that one. Did you oppose the Supreme Court when it stopped the Florida vote count? Is that function listed specifically as a power of the court?