BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Let's continue our disscusion here...
Justin, let's start with your link of ACLU playing favorites.
Justin, let's start with your link of ACLU playing favorites.
Last edited:
ACLU
- Thread starter BVS
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
http://www.thomasmore.org/
The American Civil Liberties Union is investigating a Rhode Island state trooper who apprehended 14 illegal immigrants during a traffic stop, charging "racial profiling" and insisting the officer had no right to ask for ID.
The Rhode Island affiliate of the ACLU filed the case after the driver and several passengers alleged Trooper Thomas Chabot overstepped his authority during the July 11 traffic stop by taking immigration enforcement into his own hands, the Providence Journal reported.
However, asking for identification during traffic stops is a department procedure, and when the passengers could not provide valid ID, Chabot contacted officials with the Department of Homeland Security's Immigration and Customs Enforcement division.
The federal authorities eventually determined the 14 passengers entered the U.S. illegally and now face deportation.
The complaint by the ACLU, an advocate of rights for illegals, also alleged Chabot threatened to shoot anyone who tried to escape the van as it was escorted to Providence by federal agents, the Journal reported.
Chabot, posted at a speed checkpoint, stopped the van's driver for failing to signal a lane change. After the driver provided him with a license and ID, the trooper asked the passengers for identification. Only a few could do so, prompting him to ask if any could prove their citizenship, according to his report.
The complainants seeking a probe, Astrid and Wendy Cabrera, charge Chabot engaged in "racial profiling."
"We believe that our van was pulled over, at least in part, because of our ethnicity," their compaint says. "As passengers, we also object that we were required to provide identification and asked about our immigration status, even though we had done nothing wrong. We do not think the trooper had any right to force us to go to ICE headquarters. We believe we were treated unfairly."
Steven Brown, executive director for the ACLU, said his group is seeking an internal review "because we find the incident as described in the complaint quite troubling."
He called the traffic stop "an egregious case of racial profiling, from beginning to end," the Providence paper reported.
The complaint also asks for clarification of state policies regarding how police collaborate with the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
A preliminary review of the case did not corroborate the Cabreras' account of the incident, particularly with regard to the trooper's alleged threat to shoot anyone who tried to escape the van, the Journal said.
"You should know, we take any allegation, and I stress allegation, seriously but our preliminary investigation did not bear any fruit, particularly regarding these threats," said Maj. Steven O'Donnell, a state police spokesman..
O'Donnell said the preliminary review was based in part on the in-car videotape that was running during the incident.
Chabot remains on duty, O'Donnell said.
"Anybody has a right to file a complaint; it doesn't mean it has merit," he said. "We don't react by disciplining someone where it's an allegation. That is different from, for example, situations where a trooper is suspended from duty pending investigation of a suspect's shooting."
The American Civil Liberties Union is investigating a Rhode Island state trooper who apprehended 14 illegal immigrants during a traffic stop, charging "racial profiling" and insisting the officer had no right to ask for ID.
The Rhode Island affiliate of the ACLU filed the case after the driver and several passengers alleged Trooper Thomas Chabot overstepped his authority during the July 11 traffic stop by taking immigration enforcement into his own hands, the Providence Journal reported.
However, asking for identification during traffic stops is a department procedure, and when the passengers could not provide valid ID, Chabot contacted officials with the Department of Homeland Security's Immigration and Customs Enforcement division.
The federal authorities eventually determined the 14 passengers entered the U.S. illegally and now face deportation.
The complaint by the ACLU, an advocate of rights for illegals, also alleged Chabot threatened to shoot anyone who tried to escape the van as it was escorted to Providence by federal agents, the Journal reported.
Chabot, posted at a speed checkpoint, stopped the van's driver for failing to signal a lane change. After the driver provided him with a license and ID, the trooper asked the passengers for identification. Only a few could do so, prompting him to ask if any could prove their citizenship, according to his report.
The complainants seeking a probe, Astrid and Wendy Cabrera, charge Chabot engaged in "racial profiling."
"We believe that our van was pulled over, at least in part, because of our ethnicity," their compaint says. "As passengers, we also object that we were required to provide identification and asked about our immigration status, even though we had done nothing wrong. We do not think the trooper had any right to force us to go to ICE headquarters. We believe we were treated unfairly."
Steven Brown, executive director for the ACLU, said his group is seeking an internal review "because we find the incident as described in the complaint quite troubling."
He called the traffic stop "an egregious case of racial profiling, from beginning to end," the Providence paper reported.
The complaint also asks for clarification of state policies regarding how police collaborate with the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
A preliminary review of the case did not corroborate the Cabreras' account of the incident, particularly with regard to the trooper's alleged threat to shoot anyone who tried to escape the van, the Journal said.
"You should know, we take any allegation, and I stress allegation, seriously but our preliminary investigation did not bear any fruit, particularly regarding these threats," said Maj. Steven O'Donnell, a state police spokesman..
O'Donnell said the preliminary review was based in part on the in-car videotape that was running during the incident.
Chabot remains on duty, O'Donnell said.
"Anybody has a right to file a complaint; it doesn't mean it has merit," he said. "We don't react by disciplining someone where it's an allegation. That is different from, for example, situations where a trooper is suspended from duty pending investigation of a suspect's shooting."
OP
OP
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Look here's the thing with the ACLU it's going to defend certain people, groups, etc that we may not like. That's just the price of freedom. If we didn't fight for the rights of those that say or do things we may not agree with but are still within legal rights to do so, then we aren't really a free country.
Now as far as the story above, the ACLU is only arguing to as if the procedure was lawful, that's it. It doesn't mean they are taking a side as far as no one should be deported. This is what people don't get.
Was the cop within his rights to start carding everyone but the driver? That is the question, nothing else.
Now as far as the story above, the ACLU is only arguing to as if the procedure was lawful, that's it. It doesn't mean they are taking a side as far as no one should be deported. This is what people don't get.
Was the cop within his rights to start carding everyone but the driver? That is the question, nothing else.
Last edited:
yolland
Forum Moderator
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2004
- Messages
- 7,471
Just as an FYI...
http://forum.interference.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=3944295#post3944295
...for anyone who's unclear as to which discussion is being continued here; just start at the linked post and read forward, eh, about 50 posts. Since many of the subsequent replies address multiple issues simultaneously, I'm not going to attempt a split and merge on this one.
Thanks BVS for creating a new thread.
http://forum.interference.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=3944295#post3944295
...for anyone who's unclear as to which discussion is being continued here; just start at the linked post and read forward, eh, about 50 posts. Since many of the subsequent replies address multiple issues simultaneously, I'm not going to attempt a split and merge on this one.
Thanks BVS for creating a new thread.
But tell me the ACLU is supposed to follow the LAW correct? So then why are they not following the law when it comes to immigration as such from the story above. What if Arnold contacted the ACLU to help prove to the people that yes border security is a high priority? That illegal aliens do not and should not get the same rights as people who came through the channels legally?
Do you think
Al-Qaeda
Hamas
Illegal immigrants
KKK
Neo Nazis are all Card club carrying members?
Do you think
Al-Qaeda
Hamas
Illegal immigrants
KKK
Neo Nazis are all Card club carrying members?
nathan1977
Rock n' Roll Doggie
I grew up in RI. Was stopped a few times for traffic violations. Officers always asked for IDs for me and whoever I was with. I presume that's not the issue.
OP
OP
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Justin24 said:
Their purpose is to "defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States." Securing borders doesn't fall under individual rights.
You still haven't shown me anything resembling communism or the example I asked for.
Critics of the ACLU
The ACLU's involvement in hundreds of legal cases over the years has led to a great deal of criticism from numerous points of view. In many situations, the criticism may be focused on the ACLU's stance in a particular case or group of cases; in others, the criticism focuses on the general principles that guide the ACLU's choices of what cases to take a position on.
A wide variety of groups oppose some or all of the ACLU's positions listed above; several general themes of criticism are discussed here.
[edit]
Conservative critics
Many critics of the ACLU consider themselves, or are commonly regarded as, conservatives. Such critics often allege that the ACLU does not truly dedicate itself to the defense of constitutional rights, but that it seeks to advance a Leftist or liberal agenda (see, e.g., [46], [47]). Some point to its opposition to capital punishment, which has been declared constitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States since 1976, although it had been declared unconstitutional in practice from 1972 to 1976. The ACLU continues to argue that the death penalty violates the Eighth Amendment restriction against "cruel and unusual punishment," the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of equal protection, and that it is contrary to international human rights norms.
The 1980 Polovchak v. Meese case is also sometimes considered evidence of liberal sympathies on the part of the ACLU. Walter Polovchak was a 12-year-old from Ukraine (at that time part of the Soviet Union) visiting the United States with his parents. When his parents were returning to Ukraine, he tried to stay in the U.S. and claim political asylum against the wishes of his parents. The ACLU attempted to block him from doing so. In 1999 the Florida chapter of the ACLU referred to the ACLU's role in the Polovchak case in their brief for the Elián González case.
Critics also argue that the ACLU has not been consistent in defending all civil liberties, pointing out that it is not active in protecting gun rights. Critics claim gun rights enjoy similar constitutional protection to other civil rights and should be treated equally by the ACLU if it is not motivated by a partisan agenda. The organization declares itself officially "neutral" on the issue of gun control, pointing to previous Supreme Court decisions such as United States v. Miller to argue that the Second Amendment applies to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, and that "except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected." [48] Some contend that, unlike the First Amendment, the Second Amendment does not provide individual rights. The courts have made conflicting rulings on the topic.
Some critics argue that this position is inconsistent with their stated philosophy, and have suggested that the ACLU may only adopt this stance to appease liberal-leaning supporters of the group who also support gun control. Critics also point out that the ACLU does not take up cases that involve possible abuses by the ATF that go beyond the debate over the private ownership of firearms. [49] The ACLU has been involved in a few gun rights cases; most recently the ACLU of Texas joined with the NRA in favor of a proposed Texas law, HB 823, in 2006, and claiming that current legislation allowed for the harassment of gun owners [50].
In 1982, the ACLU became involved in a case involving the distribution of child pornography (New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 [51].) In an amicus brief, the ACLU argued that the New York state law in question "has criminalized the dissemination, sale or display of constitutionally protected non-obscene materials which portray juveniles in sexually related roles," while arguing that child pornography deemed obscene under the Miller test deserved no constitutional protection and could be banned [52]. The ACLU's stance on this case has drawn great criticism from conservatives [53]. In a 2002 letter, the ACLU stated that it "opposes child pornography that uses real children in its depictions," but that material "which is produced without using real children, and is not otherwise obscene, is protected under the First Amendment." [54].
The group has also come under fire, again mostly from conservative critics, for fighting against Megan’s Law, a law whose supporters say protects children from sex offenders. Though the ACLU has fought Megan’s Law(s) in many states, it has been unable to attain significant victories in these cases.
Bill O'Reilly has frequently and variously referred to the ACLU as "the most dangerous organization in America," a "terrorist group," and as an "anti-American" and "fascist organization" on his various broadcasts, during which he frequently criticizes the group.[55][56]. In "Profile in sanity" [57], for instance, he suggests basic hypocrisy is at hand when he points out that "the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) sued when the NYPD instituted random bag searches on the subway. Yet a sign at the NYCLU building warned that the organization had the right to search the bags of all people entering there."
Michael Medved has referred to the ACLU sarcastically as the "American Criminal Lawyer Union," due to its frequent stances defending the rights of the accused and convicted. The construction of alternative backronyms is something of a sport; others invented by critics include "American Communist Lawyers Union" [58]. The group "Stop the ACLU" ran a backronym contest [59]. The thirty entries variously implied that the ACLU was atheist, Communist, lesbian, aligned with Lucifer, or overly litigious. The most frequent assertion, made in a plurality of eleven entries, was that the union was anti-Christian.
[edit]
Religious critics
The ACLU also has religious critics. At the grassroots level, the ACLU often involves itself in cases involving the separation of church and state. Some Christians, including many who may be considered conservative Christian, take issue with its positions. Many in this community contend that the ACLU is part of an effort to remove all references to religion from American government.
In 2004, for example, the ACLU of Southern California (ACLU/SC) threatened to sue the city of Redlands, California if it did not remove a picture of a cross from the city's seal. The ACLU/SC argued that having a cross on the seal amounted to a government-sponsored endorsement of Christianity and violated separation of church and state. The city complied with the ACLU/SC and removed the cross from all city vehicles, business cards, and police badges. However, the issue was put on the November 2005 ballot [60]. The ACLU/SC also threatened Los Angeles County, California if it did not remove an image of a cross from its seal, yet the centerpiece of the Pagan goddess Pomona was not mentioned. As in the Redlands case, the county board complied with the demands and voted to remove the cross and Pomona from its seal as well. There was a petition against the changing of the seal, which ended on August 15, 2005 [61].
In 1990, Pat Robertson founded the American Center for Law and Justice, as a counterweight to the ACLU, which Robertson characterizes as "liberal" and "hostile to traditional American values." Another non-profit legal center, the Thomas More Law Center, also describes itself as "Christianity's answer to the ACLU." [62]
After the September 11, 2001 attacks, the Rev. Jerry Falwell remarked that the ACLU, by trying to "secularize America," had provoked the wrath of God, and therefore caused those terrorist attacks. Falwell later apologized for the remark. Other critics of the ACLU do not make such strong accusations, but claim that the organization pushes the concept of separation of church and state beyond its original meaning.
On the other hand, the ACLU and Jerry Falwell sometimes find themselves on the same side. Notably, the ACLU filed an amicus brief supporting a suit by Falwell against the state of Virginia. The suit, which was successful, overturned the Virginia constitution's ban on the incorporation of Churches. In addition, the ACLU has defended the right of a Christian church to run anti-Santa ads on Boston subways, the right to religious expression by jurors, and the right of Christian students to distribute religious literature in school. [63]
While the ACLU does oppose the use of crosses in public monuments [64], [65], there have been false allegations that the ACLU has urged the removal of cross-shaped headstones from federal cemeteries and has opposed prayer by soldiers; such charges have been deemed to be urban legends. [66]
Many minority religious groups like Jehovah's Witnesses and Muslims have at times been defended by the ACLU. In the Mormon community, the ACLU is viewed positively by some, who cite Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe, a case litigated by the ACLU on behalf of a Mormon student concerning school prayer [67]. However, a good number of Mormons, including some local leaders, are strongly against the activities of the ACLU [68].
Jehovah's Witnesses were involved in twenty-three Supreme Court rulings between 1938 and 1946 over religious objections to serving in the armed forces and over saluting the flag and reciting the pledge of allegiance [69], over local and state ordinances prohibiting the Witnesses from publishing criticisms of the Roman Catholic church [70], as well as over government reluctance to prosecute anti-Witness vigilantes. The ACLU was directly involved in these cases [71]. The ACLU's involvement with Jehovah's Witnesses continues, and they joined the Witnesses in a 2002 case over doorbell-ringing [72].
[edit]
Feminist critics
Some anti-pornography activists, including Nikki Craft and Catharine MacKinnon, who oppose pornography on feminist grounds, are also strong critics of the ACLU; in her lifetime, Andrea Dworkin's positions on pornography also led her to similar stances. Craft started a group in the early 1990s called "Always Causing Legal Unrest (ACLU)"; the resultant acronym confusion led the then-director of the ACLU of Northern California Dorothy M. Ehrlich to send a letter of protest [73], but the Union did not pursue legal action against Craft's group.
[edit]
Leftist and liberal critics
The ACLU has been subject to criticism from the political left. Some critics object to the organization's advocacy for corporations' protection by the Bill of Rights known as corporate personhood. [74] [75] In contrast to the ACLU's position, the National Lawyers Guild passed a resolution in October 1996 which opposed corporate personhood. [76]
In addition many leftists, including the Spartacist League (modern) and Liberation News (Internationalist), criticize what they see as a stronger willingness on the part of the ACLU to defend the civil liberties of groups such as the KKK and the American Nazi Party. [77] This perception of the police can be seen in a League for the Revolutionary Party statement that preceded an anti-Klan demonstration in New York City:
"As they have done in the past, the cops will aim to keep us under their control and far from the fascists whom they aim to protect. In city after city, every time the fascists rear their ugly heads, the cops are there with their guns and batons turned against us...."[78]
In October 1999 the Spartacist League organized a demonstration against a KKK rally in New York and listed amongst the obstacles placed in their way "the American Civil Liberties Union, which continued its revolting decades-long defense of 'constitutional rights' for the fascist terrorists." This was in reference to the lawyer for the KKK, Norman Siegel of the New York ACLU, that brokered a deal allowing the KKK to march with police protection and a sound permit, but denied even a sound permit for the labor/black mobilization against the Klan.[79] Under political pressure that deal was later struck down and the sound permit was allowed.[80]
In contrast to the ACLU, Partisan Defense Committee attorney Rachel Wolkenstein declared, "The response to our call for 'All Out to Stop the KKK on October 23!' has resonated among thousands of outraged New Yorkers who intend. . . to let these killers know that there is no way they are going to rally in this city."[81]
[edit]
Libertarian critics
While some refer to the ACLU as a libertarian organization and while the ACLU has defended the US Libertarian Party in some cases [82], a number of libertarians and Objectivists oppose the ACLU for its support of laws that they view as distinctly anti-liberty, such as affirmative action and anti-discrimination laws that apply to private property. One objection held by some libertarians is the belief that private business owners, rather than the government, should have the authority to decide which customers they serve and which employees to hire, even if these private business owners choose to base criteria on such things as race or gender.
Former ACLU member Nat Hentoff has criticized the organization in a libertarian vein for promoting affirmative action and for supporting what he sees as government protected liberal speech codes enacted on college campuses and the workplace [83].
Law professor David Bernstein's book "You Can't Say That! The Growing Threat to Civil Liberties from Antidiscrimination Laws" takes the ACLU to task for frequently seeking to undermine expressive rights when they conflict with antidiscrimination laws, as in the 2000 Supreme Court case of Boy Scouts of America v. Dale. Some libertarians have formed an organization they describe as the "libertarian ACLU" [84] the Institute for Justice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aclu
The ACLU's involvement in hundreds of legal cases over the years has led to a great deal of criticism from numerous points of view. In many situations, the criticism may be focused on the ACLU's stance in a particular case or group of cases; in others, the criticism focuses on the general principles that guide the ACLU's choices of what cases to take a position on.
A wide variety of groups oppose some or all of the ACLU's positions listed above; several general themes of criticism are discussed here.
[edit]
Conservative critics
Many critics of the ACLU consider themselves, or are commonly regarded as, conservatives. Such critics often allege that the ACLU does not truly dedicate itself to the defense of constitutional rights, but that it seeks to advance a Leftist or liberal agenda (see, e.g., [46], [47]). Some point to its opposition to capital punishment, which has been declared constitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States since 1976, although it had been declared unconstitutional in practice from 1972 to 1976. The ACLU continues to argue that the death penalty violates the Eighth Amendment restriction against "cruel and unusual punishment," the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of equal protection, and that it is contrary to international human rights norms.
The 1980 Polovchak v. Meese case is also sometimes considered evidence of liberal sympathies on the part of the ACLU. Walter Polovchak was a 12-year-old from Ukraine (at that time part of the Soviet Union) visiting the United States with his parents. When his parents were returning to Ukraine, he tried to stay in the U.S. and claim political asylum against the wishes of his parents. The ACLU attempted to block him from doing so. In 1999 the Florida chapter of the ACLU referred to the ACLU's role in the Polovchak case in their brief for the Elián González case.
Critics also argue that the ACLU has not been consistent in defending all civil liberties, pointing out that it is not active in protecting gun rights. Critics claim gun rights enjoy similar constitutional protection to other civil rights and should be treated equally by the ACLU if it is not motivated by a partisan agenda. The organization declares itself officially "neutral" on the issue of gun control, pointing to previous Supreme Court decisions such as United States v. Miller to argue that the Second Amendment applies to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, and that "except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected." [48] Some contend that, unlike the First Amendment, the Second Amendment does not provide individual rights. The courts have made conflicting rulings on the topic.
Some critics argue that this position is inconsistent with their stated philosophy, and have suggested that the ACLU may only adopt this stance to appease liberal-leaning supporters of the group who also support gun control. Critics also point out that the ACLU does not take up cases that involve possible abuses by the ATF that go beyond the debate over the private ownership of firearms. [49] The ACLU has been involved in a few gun rights cases; most recently the ACLU of Texas joined with the NRA in favor of a proposed Texas law, HB 823, in 2006, and claiming that current legislation allowed for the harassment of gun owners [50].
In 1982, the ACLU became involved in a case involving the distribution of child pornography (New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 [51].) In an amicus brief, the ACLU argued that the New York state law in question "has criminalized the dissemination, sale or display of constitutionally protected non-obscene materials which portray juveniles in sexually related roles," while arguing that child pornography deemed obscene under the Miller test deserved no constitutional protection and could be banned [52]. The ACLU's stance on this case has drawn great criticism from conservatives [53]. In a 2002 letter, the ACLU stated that it "opposes child pornography that uses real children in its depictions," but that material "which is produced without using real children, and is not otherwise obscene, is protected under the First Amendment." [54].
The group has also come under fire, again mostly from conservative critics, for fighting against Megan’s Law, a law whose supporters say protects children from sex offenders. Though the ACLU has fought Megan’s Law(s) in many states, it has been unable to attain significant victories in these cases.
Bill O'Reilly has frequently and variously referred to the ACLU as "the most dangerous organization in America," a "terrorist group," and as an "anti-American" and "fascist organization" on his various broadcasts, during which he frequently criticizes the group.[55][56]. In "Profile in sanity" [57], for instance, he suggests basic hypocrisy is at hand when he points out that "the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) sued when the NYPD instituted random bag searches on the subway. Yet a sign at the NYCLU building warned that the organization had the right to search the bags of all people entering there."
Michael Medved has referred to the ACLU sarcastically as the "American Criminal Lawyer Union," due to its frequent stances defending the rights of the accused and convicted. The construction of alternative backronyms is something of a sport; others invented by critics include "American Communist Lawyers Union" [58]. The group "Stop the ACLU" ran a backronym contest [59]. The thirty entries variously implied that the ACLU was atheist, Communist, lesbian, aligned with Lucifer, or overly litigious. The most frequent assertion, made in a plurality of eleven entries, was that the union was anti-Christian.
[edit]
Religious critics
The ACLU also has religious critics. At the grassroots level, the ACLU often involves itself in cases involving the separation of church and state. Some Christians, including many who may be considered conservative Christian, take issue with its positions. Many in this community contend that the ACLU is part of an effort to remove all references to religion from American government.
In 2004, for example, the ACLU of Southern California (ACLU/SC) threatened to sue the city of Redlands, California if it did not remove a picture of a cross from the city's seal. The ACLU/SC argued that having a cross on the seal amounted to a government-sponsored endorsement of Christianity and violated separation of church and state. The city complied with the ACLU/SC and removed the cross from all city vehicles, business cards, and police badges. However, the issue was put on the November 2005 ballot [60]. The ACLU/SC also threatened Los Angeles County, California if it did not remove an image of a cross from its seal, yet the centerpiece of the Pagan goddess Pomona was not mentioned. As in the Redlands case, the county board complied with the demands and voted to remove the cross and Pomona from its seal as well. There was a petition against the changing of the seal, which ended on August 15, 2005 [61].
In 1990, Pat Robertson founded the American Center for Law and Justice, as a counterweight to the ACLU, which Robertson characterizes as "liberal" and "hostile to traditional American values." Another non-profit legal center, the Thomas More Law Center, also describes itself as "Christianity's answer to the ACLU." [62]
After the September 11, 2001 attacks, the Rev. Jerry Falwell remarked that the ACLU, by trying to "secularize America," had provoked the wrath of God, and therefore caused those terrorist attacks. Falwell later apologized for the remark. Other critics of the ACLU do not make such strong accusations, but claim that the organization pushes the concept of separation of church and state beyond its original meaning.
On the other hand, the ACLU and Jerry Falwell sometimes find themselves on the same side. Notably, the ACLU filed an amicus brief supporting a suit by Falwell against the state of Virginia. The suit, which was successful, overturned the Virginia constitution's ban on the incorporation of Churches. In addition, the ACLU has defended the right of a Christian church to run anti-Santa ads on Boston subways, the right to religious expression by jurors, and the right of Christian students to distribute religious literature in school. [63]
While the ACLU does oppose the use of crosses in public monuments [64], [65], there have been false allegations that the ACLU has urged the removal of cross-shaped headstones from federal cemeteries and has opposed prayer by soldiers; such charges have been deemed to be urban legends. [66]
Many minority religious groups like Jehovah's Witnesses and Muslims have at times been defended by the ACLU. In the Mormon community, the ACLU is viewed positively by some, who cite Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe, a case litigated by the ACLU on behalf of a Mormon student concerning school prayer [67]. However, a good number of Mormons, including some local leaders, are strongly against the activities of the ACLU [68].
Jehovah's Witnesses were involved in twenty-three Supreme Court rulings between 1938 and 1946 over religious objections to serving in the armed forces and over saluting the flag and reciting the pledge of allegiance [69], over local and state ordinances prohibiting the Witnesses from publishing criticisms of the Roman Catholic church [70], as well as over government reluctance to prosecute anti-Witness vigilantes. The ACLU was directly involved in these cases [71]. The ACLU's involvement with Jehovah's Witnesses continues, and they joined the Witnesses in a 2002 case over doorbell-ringing [72].
[edit]
Feminist critics
Some anti-pornography activists, including Nikki Craft and Catharine MacKinnon, who oppose pornography on feminist grounds, are also strong critics of the ACLU; in her lifetime, Andrea Dworkin's positions on pornography also led her to similar stances. Craft started a group in the early 1990s called "Always Causing Legal Unrest (ACLU)"; the resultant acronym confusion led the then-director of the ACLU of Northern California Dorothy M. Ehrlich to send a letter of protest [73], but the Union did not pursue legal action against Craft's group.
[edit]
Leftist and liberal critics
The ACLU has been subject to criticism from the political left. Some critics object to the organization's advocacy for corporations' protection by the Bill of Rights known as corporate personhood. [74] [75] In contrast to the ACLU's position, the National Lawyers Guild passed a resolution in October 1996 which opposed corporate personhood. [76]
In addition many leftists, including the Spartacist League (modern) and Liberation News (Internationalist), criticize what they see as a stronger willingness on the part of the ACLU to defend the civil liberties of groups such as the KKK and the American Nazi Party. [77] This perception of the police can be seen in a League for the Revolutionary Party statement that preceded an anti-Klan demonstration in New York City:
"As they have done in the past, the cops will aim to keep us under their control and far from the fascists whom they aim to protect. In city after city, every time the fascists rear their ugly heads, the cops are there with their guns and batons turned against us...."[78]
In October 1999 the Spartacist League organized a demonstration against a KKK rally in New York and listed amongst the obstacles placed in their way "the American Civil Liberties Union, which continued its revolting decades-long defense of 'constitutional rights' for the fascist terrorists." This was in reference to the lawyer for the KKK, Norman Siegel of the New York ACLU, that brokered a deal allowing the KKK to march with police protection and a sound permit, but denied even a sound permit for the labor/black mobilization against the Klan.[79] Under political pressure that deal was later struck down and the sound permit was allowed.[80]
In contrast to the ACLU, Partisan Defense Committee attorney Rachel Wolkenstein declared, "The response to our call for 'All Out to Stop the KKK on October 23!' has resonated among thousands of outraged New Yorkers who intend. . . to let these killers know that there is no way they are going to rally in this city."[81]
[edit]
Libertarian critics
While some refer to the ACLU as a libertarian organization and while the ACLU has defended the US Libertarian Party in some cases [82], a number of libertarians and Objectivists oppose the ACLU for its support of laws that they view as distinctly anti-liberty, such as affirmative action and anti-discrimination laws that apply to private property. One objection held by some libertarians is the belief that private business owners, rather than the government, should have the authority to decide which customers they serve and which employees to hire, even if these private business owners choose to base criteria on such things as race or gender.
Former ACLU member Nat Hentoff has criticized the organization in a libertarian vein for promoting affirmative action and for supporting what he sees as government protected liberal speech codes enacted on college campuses and the workplace [83].
Law professor David Bernstein's book "You Can't Say That! The Growing Threat to Civil Liberties from Antidiscrimination Laws" takes the ACLU to task for frequently seeking to undermine expressive rights when they conflict with antidiscrimination laws, as in the 2000 Supreme Court case of Boy Scouts of America v. Dale. Some libertarians have formed an organization they describe as the "libertarian ACLU" [84] the Institute for Justice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aclu
OP
OP
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Justin24 said:
Well this is a controversial issue that our country has been dealing with for a long time. But think about the complete opposite, what if they automatically had no rights what so ever? Could we lock them up forever, slavery, etc. It's a slipery slope on both sides. This is why we have the ACLU.
Well aren't they already our new slave?? Low wages and shit. If they came through properly then they would not have this problem. If Osamas rights were being violated would you be content with the ACLU defending him?
OP
OP
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Nice cut and paste job, but I don't see a consitent point.
Once again I don't see anything communist.
I see a group who has equally pissed off everyone.
Let's see specifics.
Once again I don't see anything communist.
I see a group who has equally pissed off everyone.
Let's see specifics.
OP
OP
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Justin24 said:
If Osama crossed these borders do you think he would be alive?
Scarletwine
New Yorker
Justin24 said:
This pretty
insulting.I'm from the south and always held a contempt for the ACLU because they upheld the right of the Klan to march. But when I read the Patriot Act (hear I read it) I joined the ACLU. It's the classic - They came for them and I wasn't until they come for you.
And the Commie shit is really old. I grew up next to 3 bases, Air Force TAC headquarters, east coast Navy aircraft carrier headquarters and Army tactical command. I dreamed of nuclear bombs on my head thinking at least I'll go fast.
The real emeny of our democracy is from within. Read some of our forefathers words.
edited to add
When I grew up I decided it was always a real danger but was hyped to permit the spending of trillions of $ on weapons. Now terrorism is the new boogeyman.
Last edited:
Do you really think they would want to put them selves out there saying oh look were communist????????? no. And you never answered my question about members and the founders of the Not in our name being communist. The ACLU is a biased organization who like chavez of Venezuela like to get the minority and poor on there side to build up membership. And with communism you know they always go for the weak and poor to there side and to build an army. If I were president I would Ban the ACLU.
Scarletwine
New Yorker
Justin24 said:
You can't ban shit as President. I don't care about NION, so what? I get emails from ANSWER who is an umbrella for many organizations some communist, becasue I participated in the first march to prevent the war in Iraq. BIG F"N deal.
OP
OP
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Justin24 said:
My god, you don't get it!!! Justin, saying "do you really think they are going to say..." You accused them, the burden of proof is on you, and you or anyone else hasn't proven a damn thing.
That's like me saying you are a terrorist. Well of course you aren't going to say you are. But without proof it's shit.
Start showing me bias and communism, PLEASE!!!
Because right now you are full of it.
Scarletwine
New Yorker
:UP:
OP
OP
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Justin24 said:
Osama would be dead or in holding, and yes while in holding he would still have certain rights.
Now let's stick to the issue.
OP
OP
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Justin24 said:
And I've asked for the link 5 times, I don't know where you are talking about. Could you please just post me a link to the original article like I asked you?
OP
OP
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Justin24 said:
I guess you missed my post when mac tried to post the same thing, well here it is:
However, he later denounced communism in his book, A New Slavery, which condemned "the inhuman communist police state tyranny". In the 1940s, Baldwin led the campaign to purge the ACLU of Communist Party members.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Nash_Baldwin
But once again, don't let facts get in the way of your hate.
He may have resined but it doesnt mean other members have. How am I hateful did I say "hate" anywhere? So automatically I am labeled a person of hate because I dont like this organization. An organization that needs restructering.
Scarletwine
New Yorker
No it doesn't it more effective than ever.
Yeah at protecting Nambla, Al-Qaeda, Illegal immigrants who Broke the law of the land, Religous groups so they can pray in school as long as it's not toward Jesus or God, Jeohova etc...
And then when people who want to protect there land with the law there called racists and racial profilers for stopping them from coming over illegally and this goes for any country not just Mexico ok.
And then when people who want to protect there land with the law there called racists and racial profilers for stopping them from coming over illegally and this goes for any country not just Mexico ok.
OP
OP
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Justin24 said:
It was left over from my last post, but honestly you are bordering on it, for you're going on and on and you haven't shown one piece of evidence, just other people's rhetoric.
He resigned and purged members. You honestly think in 2006 there would even be any members left from 1940, come on Justin.
NOW SHOW ME SOMETHING REAL!!! OR THIS WHOLE THREAD IS POINTLESS...
OP
OP
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Justin24 said:
Well you haven't shown me anything. You showed me the one article about illegals and that's it. So I'm not sure where your stance is coming from. You still haven't shown me the link you keep talking about and the rest of what you showed me were either cut and paste items with no details or items that I showed you to be wrong.
So you can continue with your view, it just seems sadly misinformed.
Similar threads
