aclu exposed

[SonomaCat]

She just called ... and didn't sound happy. Yep, I better run!

[Grizlaw]

I guess where our differences lie is that I don't think the original framers had in mind that the 1st amendment would someday extend to a group of people who advocate and condone this crap against helpless young boys. Do you honestly think that when the Bill of Rights was written, that group of men had this kind of thing envisioned?

This is the one argument in all of this that I wanted to address. I'm not picking on lifeloyalsig, but this is an argument that gets made all the time by people on both sides of the aisle whenever any Constitutional issue comes up for debate, and every time I hear it, a vein in my left temple starts pulsating, my right hand automatically clenches into a fist, and I feel my soul dying a little on the inside. (Well not really, but you get the point. )

What I'm talking about, of course, is the "the Framers didn't intend X" argument. In the gun control debate, it's the "liberals" arguing that "the Framers didn't intend to allow average people to own semiautomatic weapons when they wrote the Second Amendment." In the school prayer debate, it's "the Framers didn't intend to disallow prayer in school when they wrote the Establishment Clause." And in this debate, it's "the Framers didn't intend freedom of speech to protect groups like NAMBLA." (As a sidenote, I believe the NAMBLA case actually has more to do with due process than freedom of speech, but the issue is the same for purposes of this discussion.)

What did the Framers "really" intend when they wrote the vague document that we now call the Bill of Rights? Who knows? I think they intended to craft a document that provided a set of rules of general applicability, and a document that would be flexible enough to provide guidance to a nation that, although they could not foresee it, would be very different 200 years after the document was drafted. Regardless of what they intended, that is how the Constitution has been treated throughout our nation's history, and I think that's a positive thing.

In all probability, the Framers likely did not foresee that, someday, this country would be a place where children everywhere would attend free public schools at the expense of state and local governments. If they had foreseen that, they could have saved us a lot of trouble by making the First Amendment a little more specific and telling us whether a teacher-led prayer (or recitation of a pledge that includes the phrase "under God") in such a school constitutes an "establishment of religion" for purposes of the First Amendment. Since they didn't, though, we are left to decide that issue for ourselves, through the court system. Of course, it's fine to disagree with the conclusions that the courts reach, but simply arguing that "the Framers didn't intend" for the rule to apply in such a way defeats the whole point of the Constitution being a living document. The Framers certainly didn't foresee every possible situation that would arise, but I think what they intended was for the document to establish principles that would govern such situations.

The same logic applies to the gun control example, the NAMBLA example, and any other Contitutional case that might arise.

--GL

[Ponycat]

I'm not sure if I'm following this Bizzaro world scenario but it seems a big difference is being over looked. Gun manufacturers don't give you a manual on how to kill someone with the gun you just bought. NAMBLA does tell you how to entice young boys and how to get away with it, ie. cover it up, legal methods etc. Big difference.

BAC are you aware of where the ACLU stands on Military recruiters in public schools.

Secondly way to go with bashing Fox viewers. A favorite past time of liberals who can't figure out what Fox News offers. Go forbid you get two points of view in a segment.

Thirdly on the school prayer thing, my understanding is it has nothing to do with anyone being forced to pray but whether there is a time set aside for it in a school day. My understanding is that when prayer in school was common you could always not pray, just like you don't have to say the Pledge of Allegiance.

Lastly, I've said this before and it is why I disagree with the ACLU so much. Freedoms come with responsibilities. If the constitution and Bill of Rights were interpreted like the ACLU wants it would be pretty similar to call Anarchy, except you wouldn't be able to pray or talk to a military recruiter.

Lots to respond to I know but I haven't seen this post until this morning.

BAC, I'll give you the last word.

[SonomaCat]

The point of the analogy wasn't to create the exact same fact pattern of the case -- it was to point out that the real argument was the legal principle involved, and not a defense of the organization itself. And, if one vigorously defends the legal principle, how they will be smeared by those who don't like them because of the defendent while ignoring the legal principles (and ignoring the implications that an unfavorable verdict would have on our legal system for future, less sensational cases).

Don't know anything about the recruiting in schools thing. I guess I'll have to do some research when I get a chance to find out what their position is.

Fox viewers ... I have watched enough Fox, especially O'Reilly, to know that getting two points of view is not the objective of much of their programming. Bringing in a dunce from the other side and then yelling at them whenever they try to talk just doesn't cut it. In the immediate example above, Bill shows absolutely no interest in nuanced debate and is just throwing sh%^ against the wall to see if it will stick, which bugs me. I really like open debate programs that have some objectivity, but I haven't seen that very often on Fox (although Colmes is kind of funny in how wimpy he is).

School prayer -- similar to the discussion about the Pledge, in a school setting, there really is no such thing as a voluntary anything (kids being kids and being drawn to pummeling kids that are different). If a school sets aside time for prayer, that's an arm of the state telling kids they should be religious and should be praying. That's not how our country works, fortunately. If kids want to pray, I have a feeling that they can find plenty of time to do so during the school day, and they don't need a teacher to instruct them all to do so. They can use that time to teach intelligent design, instead.

I agree that if the ACLU were allowed to arbitrarily impose their ideal level of freedoms on society, it may not work out all that well. However, going for 100% is what their role is as an advocacy group (just like the NRA). If they get about 70% of what they want, it is probably perfect, but they wouldn't get that 70% if they didn't fight for 100%. Having their voice in our society balances out those forces who would like to limit freedoms to only 10%. Therefore, even if we don't always agree with every one of their stances, they are a necessary component of our society and serve a very important purpose. We likely don't even realize how many freedoms we do have that we wouldn't if it weren't for groups like them. Ultimately, the courts make the final decisions, but the courts can't work unless there are people presenting intelligent arguments on both sides of the issue. Their job is to push the envelope to the side of freedom as hard as they can. The courts then decide how valid their position really is, and balances it against the many other factors that need to be considered.

All in all, the system works pretty well.

That's all the time we have for this segment. Tune in tomorrow when we sit down with Bill Bennett and discuss the pros and cons of gambling all night and aborting black babies in a controlled experiment to see if it really does reduce crime, right here on the Factor.

[briannell]

wow! didn't know i would cause Brad to be distracted so much.

don't want D mad at me, wont even meet up with you two until Nov.

Don't worry Brad i'm sure i'll like her better than you anyway

anyway, I just get sick about some "clients" the ACLU takes on. some organizations like NAMBLA shouldn't get the treatment ACLU provides. NAMBLA is Sick!!!!! they all belong in jail. everyone who has read my posts knows how i feel about these type of organizations, so i wont beat a dead horse.

-sidenote- Brad the house will be really nice, good "perks"

[grizbeer]

Ah, here's what he was talking about ... and his analysis of it isn't even close to reality, as per usual. I even pulled this link from a right-wing site, and it even manages to get the facts right. The ACLU is monitoring the vigilante guards at the border to make sure that no abuses of illegals occurs -- very different from being "opposed to a protest" or trying to limit anyone's freedom of speech in any way, shape or form.

Here is a link to the ACLU statement on the Minutemen:

"The Minuteman project has created a powder-keg situation with the potential to go beyond harassment and false imprisonment to real violence," Eisenberg said. "As we have said, the Minutemen have a right to engage in constitutionally protected First Amendment activity. However, they do not have a right to violate the civil liberties of others. We call on the Cochise County Sheriff’s Department to thoroughly investigate this incident."

http://www.aclu.org/ImmigrantsRights/Im ... 17965&c=22

I don't think it is unreasonable to say the ACLU is opposed to the minuteman protest, although they acknowledge that they have the right to protest. For example, why does the ACLU feel the need to monitor the "Vigilante" guards at the border to protect illegal immigrants civil rights? Do the ACLU monitor other groups protests? For example, during the WTO protests in Seattle the ACLU defended the groups protesting, despite the fact that those groups obviously violated the civil rights of others, including violence, vandalism and theft. Why isn't the ACLU monitoring the anti-Minuteman protesters to make sure that Minuteman right to protest isn't interfered with? I think it is fair to say the ACLU is not neutral on this issue when they throw around terms like "powder keg" and "potential ... real violence" to describe the group's activities.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a big fan of groups like the Minutemen, and IMO groups like the ACLU that support the unpopular and stand on principle are extremely important to maintaining civil rights, and preventing 1 group from imposing their morality on others. I just wish the ACLU would be as vigilant in defending the rights of those whose position they can't support as they are in defending the rights of those they do support.

[SonomaCat]

It doesn't appear to me that the ACLU is opposed to any kind of "protest," but is rather monitoring the actions (not words) of the minutemen.

However, I wholeheartedly agree that I wish they would take a similar stand in similar situations where groups on the left are poised to do similar harm to people and/or property. Your example of the WTO conference, as well as the anti-war protests we saw here in SF, come quickly to mind.

[Ponycat]

I'm pulling an Orielly here, I said you had the last word but I lied

Fox viewers ... I have watched enough Fox, especially O'Reilly, to know that getting two points of view is not the objective of much of their programming. Bringing in a dunce from the other side and then yelling at them whenever they try to talk just doesn't cut it. In the immediate example above, Bill shows absolutely no interest in nuanced debate and is just throwing sh%^ against the wall to see if it will stick, which bugs me. I really like open debate programs that have some objectivity, but I haven't seen that very often on Fox (although Colmes is kind of funny in how wimpy he is).

School prayer -- similar to the discussion about the Pledge, in a school setting, there really is no such thing as a voluntary anything (kids being kids and being drawn to pummeling kids that are different). If a school sets aside time for prayer, that's an arm of the state telling kids they should be religious and should be praying. That's not how our country works, fortunately. If kids want to pray, I have a feeling that they can find plenty of time to do so during the school day, and they don't need a teacher to instruct them all to do so. They can use that time to teach intelligent design, instead.

I watch/listen on Sirius Radio to Fox and MSNBC, very seldom do I listen to CNN.

I really enjoy both and yes I enjoy ORielly l and agree with him probably 70% of the time. However, I think the rest of the Fox programming is what separates them form other programs other than maybe Hardball. My favorite to watch was Dennis Millers show on MSNBC but I think it's cancelled. I loved it when he had Horowitz on. I'm convinced Horowitz has never been on OReilly because there is no way OReilly could compete intellectually.

As for the school thing, I guess agree to disagree.

Any way just my opinion I could be wrong.

[iaafan]

I'm like you Ponycat. I like Hardball, but instead of O'Reilly and Miller, I like Bill Maher and Jon Stewart.

[SonomaCat]

The Maher show would be great (even when I disagree with the guests) if they would just shut up the audience. I hate it when it turns into a cheering match for who can say the most obvious liberal talking point (which generally means it is the least insightful point as well).

Outside of that, it's a really interesting show.

The Daily Show is quite consistently good, and I haven't really seen Hardball in awhile.

I've always liked Miller, but he was more fun when he was a bit more irreverant. He seems kind of dark now, but still better than most.

I honestly haven't watched TV much lately, and I'm not saying that in a "Oolala, I'm so engaged in the world and snooty that I don't have any use for the idiot box." Rather, I am saddened that I haven't watched much TV lately. I need to manage my time better....

[Ponycat]

I enjoy the Daily show as well, but Maher usually gets me so made I can't watch an entire episode.

The best show of Maher's I've see was when him and Ted Nugent went at it on gun control. Good back and forth for two people that are usually out for shock value and Maher didn't resort to the "small penis" schtick he usually does when someone disagrees with him.

[briannell]

What We Do and How We Do It

The government of the United States is built on two basic principles: (1) majority rule through democratic elections; and (2) protection of individuals from any attempts by the majority to curtail individual liberties and rights, as spelled out in the Bill of Rights.

The Constitution and Bill of Rights set the ground rules for individual liberty, which include the freedoms of speech, association and religion, freedom of the press, and the right to privacy, to equal protection of the laws and to due process of law.

The ACLU was founded to defend and secure these rights and to extend them to people who have been excluded from their protection.

okay so this is the "mission" of the ACLU. however, they have in my humble opinion strayed from this original idea.

sidenote - the ACLU in the late 80's recognized my uncle Robert Sackman with it's Torch of Liberty Award. however, these days even my family is so disgusted that they support NAMBLA and other organizations they do not support the ACLU endeavors anymore.

[SonomaCat]

What We Do and How We Do It

The government of the United States is built on two basic principles: (1) majority rule through democratic elections; and (2) protection of individuals from any attempts by the majority to curtail individual liberties and rights, as spelled out in the Bill of Rights.

The Constitution and Bill of Rights set the ground rules for individual liberty, which include the freedoms of speech, association and religion, freedom of the press, and the right to privacy, to equal protection of the laws and to due process of law.

The ACLU was founded to defend and secure these rights and to extend them to people who have been excluded from their protection.

okay so this is the "mission" of the ACLU. however, they have in my humble opinion strayed from this original idea.

sidenote - the ACLU in the late 80's recognized my uncle Robert Sackman with it's Torch of Liberty Award. however, these days even my family is so disgusted that they support NAMBLA and other organizations they do not support the ACLU endeavors anymore.

Wouldn't this whole thing make for a great Grisham novel, though? You have a young idealistic constitutional law attorney out to defend liberty and freedom, but the case that comes up that tests the freedoms he holds so dear involves a group with a philosophy as repulsive as NAMBLA? Then you have the protagonist torn between defending the virtue that he holds dear (freedom of speech/due process/whatever), but being seen as "supporting" a group like NAMBLA. A protagonist with a weak character (certainly not what would happen in a book) would abandon the virtue out of fear of being associated to NAMBLA, but a heroic one would set aside the personal attacks he would surely face to secure that freedom, not for NAMBLA, but for everyone.

Lots of conflict (both internal and external) and drama -- if I didn't already have something else in mind (and knew more about the law), I might just jump on it myself.

I really can't stress how bizarre it is that so many people think/suggest/accuse the ACLU of actually supporting or condoning the philosophy of NAMBLA. Why would an organization that relies on donations ever do something that, to the casual observer, would be so bad for their public image (as even the most liberal people, contrary to conservative representations, are sternly against the seduction of young boys)? Clearly, they only took the case for the same reason they take any case, regardless of the defendent -- to defend the underlying legal principles relating to freedom. They don't "support" Rush Limbaugh just because they filed a brief on his behalf, and they don't "support" NAMBLA when they write a brief supporting their legal position in a court case.

It's a good thing that we have judges deciding cases as opposed to the general public. Otherwise, all we would need to do to establish case law is to make a claim against the KKK or NAMBLA on a weekly basis, and out of sheer disgust towards the organization, we would find for the plaintiff and would establish the case law that we could then use against everyone. It's such a good thing that we have the separation of powers that we do that prevent this kind of seeing-eye "justice" from mucking up our legal system.

['93HonoluluCat]

You can attack O'Reilly all you want and bunch conservatives in the same capacity, but does it really pain you to consider the argument from the moral sense of things?

I am happy to discuss morals in a conversation about morals. However, in this particular conversation about law and legal precedents, morals are not a factor.

"Is this the right room for an argument?" I may be a day late and a dollar short to this one, but frankly, BAC, I disagree with your statement. Morals have everything to do with our legal system in this country. What makes a law a law? An established moral standard that can be enforced.

Societal Morals have everything to do with law and laws.

[Grizlaw]

"Is this the right room for an argument?" I may be a day late and a dollar short to this one, but frankly, BAC, I disagree with your statement. Morals have everything to do with our legal system in this country. What makes a law a law? An established moral standard that can be enforced.

Societal Morals have everything to do with law and laws.

Yep -- that's why things like molesting children are illegal, because society has judged such things to be immoral.

However, I think BAC's point was that the fundamental rights granted to us in the Bill of Rights are "morality neutral," for lack of a better term. Yes, child molestation is immoral; that is why it is illegal, but that does not change the fact that groups like NAMBLA are entitled to due process and all other Constitutional rights. As long as the ACLU is only defending the group's Constitutional rights (as opposed to defending their underlying philosophy), morality should not enter the discussion.

--GL

['93HonoluluCat]

"Is this the right room for an argument?" I may be a day late and a dollar short to this one, but frankly, BAC, I disagree with your statement. Morals have everything to do with our legal system in this country. What makes a law a law? An established moral standard that can be enforced.

Societal Morals have everything to do with law and laws.

Yep -- that's why things like molesting children are illegal, because society has judged such things to be immoral.

I was hoping you'd agree...

However, I think BAC's point was that the fundamental rights granted to us in the Bill of Rights are "morality neutral," for lack of a better term.

Okay...if you see it that way, how does one measure the neutrality of morals? I don't think anyone on the Board would disagree that America's morals have shifted in the past 230 or so years. At what period of time do you take your "snapshot" of moral neutrality?

Yes, child molestation is immoral; that is why it is illegal, but that does not change the fact that groups like NAMBLA are entitled to due process and all other Constitutional rights. As long as the ACLU is only defending the group's Constitutional rights (as opposed to defending their underlying philosophy), morality should not enter the discussion.

I never said they didn't deserve due process--as despicable as I may find NAMBLA, et al, they are just as deserving the legal system as anyone else. I merely countered BACs postulate that morals aren't an issue in the legal system.

[Grizlaw]

I never said they didn't deserve due process--as despicable as I may find NAMBLA, et al, they are just as deserving the legal system as anyone else. I merely countered BACs postulate that morals aren't an issue in the legal system.

That's the thing though; I think that was BAC's point (or at least my reading of it). He never said that morality is never an issue in the legal system; he said that it is not an issue in "this particular discussion of law and legal precedents." In my view, he was correct, because in "this particular discussion," we are talking about the Constitutional rights of groups like NAMBLA; we are not talking about whether their underlying philosophies are moral or should be illegal. (BTW, if I am misreading BAC's point, I hope he'll speak up and correct me -- unlike me, he apparently has a life and has not been in the office working and posting all weekend.)

Also, when I used the phrase "morality neutral," I was conveying the same message -- my point was simply that Constitutional rights apply the same to those we view as "immoral" as to those we view as "moral." The phrase was probably a poor choice of words, but that is the only concept I was trying to convey; I didn't intend the phrase to apply the way you seem to have read it.

['93HonoluluCat]

I never said they didn't deserve due process--as despicable as I may find NAMBLA, et al, they are just as deserving the legal system as anyone else. I merely countered BACs postulate that morals aren't an issue in the legal system.

That's the thing though; I think that was BAC's point (or at least my reading of it). He never said that morality is never an issue in the legal system; he said that it is not an issue in "this particular discussion of law and legal precedents." In my view, he was correct, because in "this particular discussion," we are talking about the Constitutional rights of groups like NAMBLA; we are not talking about whether their underlying philosophies are moral or should be illegal. (BTW, if I am misreading BAC's point, I hope he'll speak up and correct me -- unlike me, he apparently has a life and has not been in the office working and posting all weekend.)

Also, when I used the phrase "morality neutral," I was conveying the same message -- my point was simply that Constitutional rights apply the same to those we view as "immoral" as to those we view as "moral." The phrase was probably a poor choice of words, but that is the only concept I was trying to convey; I didn't intend the phrase to apply the way you seem to have read it.

I re-read his post...and I see the perspective from which you're coming. However, all I was intending to say is that morals cannot completely ruled out in any case; morals are the basis of ourlegal system.