Maybe the real reason righties hate the ACLU is because the ACLU has

[zbdent]

A CLU(e) ...

[TheDebbieDee]

1. Cute! : ^ )

[rollopollo]

2. I heard that Bob Barr

...former GOP congressman and consultant with the ACLU has switched to the libertarian party. His reason is that the GOP has abandoned its concern for civil liberties, esp. with the Patriot Act. So its not just independents who are tiring of this administration's direction.

[SteveM]

12. Surprising, given the garbage he pumped about the W.O.D.

But I guess it's better then having him still gas about maintaining drug prohibition, or does he still cling to this position now that he is libertarian?

[thefamethrowa]

3. Let me take a stab at this one....

I can't speak for conservatives, but I know that libertarians (that is, REAL liberals, not socialists in favor of federal hegemony) hate the ACLU because it only advocates for the enforcement of Constitutional clauses that it supports. If you were to hang out with ACLUers enough, you'd think that the Constitution was a preamble followed immediately by a list of amendments that skips the numbers "2" and "10" like they were the 13th floor in a high-rise apartment. Can you say "commerce clause"? (Without retching.)

To be sure, they'll argue otherwise, saying that they are not ignoring unfavorable parts, but that they are simply interpreting them correctly--which is to say, so that they have no meaning. (E.g., the "active" commerce clause, the "collective rights" interpretation of the second amendment, and either the "living document" or "ink-blot" rationalizations of the tenth amendment.)

Someone is surely going to try telling me that the ACLU is now on the side of a passive commerce clause, or that the "general welfare" clause is not a carte blanche, but let's be honest about what those positions would imply: complete elimination or devolution of Social Security, Welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, regulation of intrastate drug and firearm commerce, education funding, and God knows what else. All ACLU supporters here, let's see a show of hands by those who would support such a massive devolution.

What I don't understand is why if we can interpret the "general welfare" clause (as if it weren't a mere statement of purpose for the explicitly enumerated power to tax) to mean that the federal government can do whatever it must for the sake of the people's general welfare, why it couldn't just as well interpret the Bill of Rights in a way that allows for the kind of police tactics that would make Harry Callahan blush.

[IDARNG_Loki]

4. aCLUeless

I personally can't stand the ACLU. To me they are hypocrits.

[Quantess]

5. The ACLU is remarkably consistent.

I'm not sure why you think they are hypocrites. They follow well defined principles that sometimes go against common sense, such as defending Fred Phelp's right to free speech. The ACLU defends anybody's right to speak freely, now matter how unpopular the speaker. Nobody likes Fred Phelps, but they will support his right to free speech. If they were hypocrites, then they would decide who should have rights and who should not, based on their personal beliefs. Like them or not, the ACLU are definitely NOT hypocrites.

Edit for html

[wickedcity]

6. Except...

For claiming to support the constitution while speaking out against the second amendment.

[Quantess]

7. Oh. You got me there.

I didn't realize the ACLU "speaks out against the 2nd amendment". I have no idea what their stance is on the 2nd amendment-- I wasn't aware they HAVE a stance on the right to bear arms.

Are you sure the ACLU is against the 2nd amendment? That's a strong statement.

[wickedcity]

8. Yes

According to them..."except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected." They support the Second Amendment in the same sense that someone who supports suppressing dissenting speech supports the First Amendment.

[benEzra]

9. Here's the ACLU's position on the Second Amendment:

"IN BRIEF
The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns.

Most opponents of gun control concede that the Second Amendment certainly does not guarantee an individual's right to own bazookas, missiles or nuclear warheads. Yet these, like rifles, pistols and even submachine guns, are arms.

The question therefore is not whether to restrict arms ownership, but how much to restrict it. If that is a question left open by the Constitution, then it is a question for Congress to decide.

ACLU POLICY
"The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms." --Policy #47

ARGUMENTS, FACTS, QUOTES

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The Second Amendment to the Constitution

"Since the Second Amendment. . . applies only to the right of the State to
maintain a militia and not to the individual's right to bear arms, there
can be no serious claim to any express constitutional right to possess a firearm."

<http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14523res20020304.html >

They use exactly the same logic on the 2ndA that Jerry Falwell uses to justify infringements of the 1stA, which goes something like this:

"The Moral Majority is neutral on the issue of book control. We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of books. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register books.

Most opponents of book control concede that the First Amendment certainly does not guarantee an individual's right to own child porn or detailed plans for nuclear weapons. Yet these, like novels, manuals, and even encyclopedias, are books.

The question therefore is not whether to restrict book ownership, but how much to restrict it. If that is a question left open by the Constitution, then it is a question for Congress to decide."

Exact same approach. And it's just as ludicrous when applied to the 1stA as the 2ndA.


Also, the 2ndA does NOT say "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms"; it says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms", with the militia only mentioned as a justification for the main clause.


In my opinion, you can't have it both ways; either you read the Bill of Rights broadly, in which it contains an individual right to privacy (the foundation of Roe v. Wade, BTW), an individual right to keep and bear arms, and an individual right to be free from warrantless searches and seizures. OR, you can read the Bill of Rights in a hyper-literal fashion, in which the right to privacy doesn't exist because it isn't mentioned, the separation of church and state is only a limit on Congress (not other branches of the government), the right to keep and bear arms applies only in the context of militia service, and some warrantless searches are allowed. But you don't get to pick Amendments 1, 4, and 5 from view A, and Amendment 2 from view B...

[Solon]

10. The Moral Majority's justifications are much weaker than the ACLU's...

"The Moral Majority is neutral on the issue of book control. We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of books. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register books.

Most opponents of book control concede that the First Amendment certainly does not guarantee an individual's right to own child porn or detailed plans for nuclear weapons. Yet these, like novels, manuals, and even encyclopedias, are books.

The question therefore is not whether to restrict book ownership, but how much to restrict it. If that is a question left open by the Constitution, then it is a question for Congress to decide."

The 1st Amendment protects PRODUCERS of written materials under the "Freedom of Speech/Press" sections in the Amendment. However, this doesn't legalize crimes committed to produce such materials, nor does it exempt you from those particular crimes when you consume said products.

Child Porn is a classic example of this, the producer will have to commit a crime, the sexual molestation of a child, in order to produce the product. Being a consumer of that product means you gave material support for a felony, usually in the form of money, hence neither you nor the producer of the material are protected by the First Amendment.

As far as the second example, actually, you CAN own the detailed plans to build a nuclear weapon, gathering the materials to actually build one is another question entirely(2nd Amendment?). Also, you can possess books that describe child pornography or pedophilia, as long as no underlining crime is committed.

You seem to assume that the ACLU is a POLITICAL Advocacy Group, they are NOT, they are a group of people who LEGALLY advocate for people. Those are TWO separate issues, one group advocates through the legislature, the other through the courts. The ACLU, to be blunt about it, COULD take up 2nd Amendment cases, however, they know this is fruitless, a waste of time and resources. The courts have consistently taken the position the ACLU describes, and it doesn't look like its going to change anytime soon.

The ACLU doesn't go to legislatures to beg for laws that strengthen the Bill of Rights, they watch the legislature to see if they do something stupid, and watch other places, and when violations of the BoR occur, they are there to bitchslap those who violated the Bill of Rights.

Has any 2nd Amendment advocacy group challenged U.S. v. Miller yet? If not, why not?

[wickedcity]

14. Because...

"Has any 2nd Amendment advocacy group challenged U.S. v. Miller yet? If not, why not?"

Because United States vs. Miller was probably the most extreme pro-gun ruling in United States history. It essentially ruled that the second amendment protects the right of individuals to own military weaponry. We have no need to challenge it.

[Paladin]

11. Thank You, Chief Justice BenEzra

The ACLU's position on the 2nd is based on a solid interpretation of the Constitution. You're dealing in nothing more than wishful thinking, as usual. Get the Supreme Court to weigh in on your side of this issue and I'll change my stance. Nothing less will do......

[SteveM]

13. It certainly doesn't include Laurence Tribe's view anymore.

He used to argue along the same ACLU lines -- until 1999 when he conceded that 2A was an individual right protected by the Constitution. Funny, I thought the Miller decision discussed militias as bodies which when called up, could require the individual to bring his/her own arm; sort of a BYOG affair. Doesn't this suggest that this right is protected; indeed, an antecedent to the militia? In any case, 2A (as part of the Bill of RIGHTS) doesn't seem to enjoy the "protection" of Ducks Unlimited forums; hence, the dank clanking hallways of ...the GUNGEON!

[LeVeL_HeAdEd_OnE]

15. But how do they....

choose which case to support?