ACLU and NRA. Two of a kind?

[Tmy]

I was reading some editorial by some right wing hack. He was going on and on about how wonderful the NRA is cause they defend our 2nd amendment rights from those who would take them away. And I agree. Thing is that hack has also written about the ACLU, and how the are basically enemies of the state.

Isnt that hypocritical? Both orgs activly defend the constitution, they just focus on different parts. Arent they just two sides of the same coin?

 

[TragicMonkey]

I'm afraid a great many people are not sympathetic to other people's causes. If they don't have a personal stake in the matter, they couldn't care less, indeed, they might even resent people "wasting time" on those issues.

 

[davefoc]

I am not sure that the name ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) is representative of the actual positions that the organization takes.

I think it is more like a group of people with generally liberal ideas who promote those ideas mostly through court actions. Many of the things they promote fall outside the notion of civil liberties.

For instance, it was reported that they have taken a positon in opposition to the minutemen project and are sending people to the border area to advise illegal immigrants on how to avoid being seen and reported by the minutemen volunteers. So the ACLU here seems to be promoting unfettered illegal immigration into the US. Is this an American Civli liberty issue?

I think their anti-death penalty stand is arguably outside the scope of a pure civil liberty issue and more just the personal preference of some that the state not kill people as punishment for heinous crimes.

Many issues of civil liberty involve property owners and what rights they have to control their own property. Gernerally the ACLU does not argue for property owner rights.

I also don't think the ACLU argues for such civil liberties as prostitution or gambling. I think it considers such infringements on individual liberties as the proper function of the state.

 

[Gwyn ap Nudd]

In 1984, Columbia University and the Annenberg Foundation sponsored a seies of 13 seminars featuring prominant politicians, law professors, and journalists. The series was titled "The Constitution: That Delicate Balance." Each seminar posed a situation which, while hypothetical, was politically charged. Each participant explained how the Constitution's checks and balances affected the possible responses and facilitated compromise and political accomodation.

Each seminar was originally broadcast on PBS in two one-hour segments. Later they were edited into one hour tapes that are still available. http://www.learner.org/resources/series72.html

The ninth seminar (School Prayer, Gun Control, and the Right To Assemble ) covered a situation that focused on first and second ammendment issues. In the original broadcast, it eventually came out that there are two opposing philosphies of interpreting the rights guaranteed by these amendments (and the next eight). However both the conservatives (who would evolve into today's Religious Right and the gun lobby) and the liberals accepted both philosophies. The Liberals interpret the First Amendment according to the "stronger" philosophy, and the Second amendment according to the "weaker" one. The conservatives interpreted them in just the opposite manner.

When the tape was edited down to one hour, most of the details that exposed this symmetrical hypocracy were edited out.

 

[Linda]

Want to hear more about the ACLU and our civil liberties? Come to TAM 4 Jan. 26-29, 2006 in Las Vegas!

 

[Tmy]

I think their anti-death penalty stand is arguably outside the scope of a pure civil liberty issue and more just the personal preference of some that the state not kill people as punishment for heinous crimes.

Is there any greater civil liberty than NOT having your own government kill you?

 

[Art Vandelay]

I agree that many people demonize the political opposition, and the ACLU gets its share, if not more, of this. For instance, I lost a lot of respect for John Walsh, of America's Most Wanted fame, due to his comments about the ACLU (in response to their fight against Megan's Law, and similar legislation). It's one thing to hold the opinion that the Constitution shouldn't apply to child molestors, quite another to disparage anyone who holds a different view.


davefoc

I think it is more like a group of people with generally liberal ideas who promote those ideas mostly through court actions. Many of the things they promote fall outside the notion of civil liberties.

I partially agree with you; for instance, they had no business suing to stop Prop 209 (which ironically enough, was a civil rights bill), but there also have been times when they went against the "liberal" position to support civil liberties, such as their attacks on campaign finance "reform". And there have been even more situations where they haven't gotten involved in a liberal cause because there was no civil rights issue. I think that their primary focus is on civil rights, but it overwhelmingly attracts liberals, and in such a one-sided atmosphere, they start to think of more and more of their positions as "civil rights" issues. If you work hard enough, any position can be phrased as a "civil liberty". Even those in support of school sponsored prayer have claimed to be on the side of civil liberties (the liberty to promote religion through government, that is).

 

[Ladewig]

For instance, it was reported that they have taken a positon in opposition to the minutemen project and are sending people to the border area to advise illegal immigrants on how to avoid being seen and reported by the minutemen volunteers.

It was also reported that they eat Christian babies that they kidnap.

 

[Ranb]

.........Isnt that hypocritical? Both orgs activly defend the constitution, they just focus on different parts. Arent they just two sides of the same coin?

They only defend the parts they like. Their stance on the 2nd amendment is weak. They believe that "people" actually means "state", and that the idea of standing militias is "anachronistic", so they have decided they need to have a neutral stance on gun control. Instead of acknowledging that the 2nd amendment should be changed to reflect the modern weapons currently available, they choose to virtually ignore it.

I'm not impressed with the NRA's efforts either.

Ranb

 

[RandFan]

I was reading some editorial by some right wing hack. He was going on and on about how wonderful the NRA is cause they defend our 2nd amendment rights from those who would take them away. And I agree. Thing is that hack has also written about the ACLU, and how the are basically enemies of the state.

Isnt that hypocritical? Both orgs activly defend the constitution, they just focus on different parts. Arent they just two sides of the same coin?

In my opinion yes.

 

[RandFan]

I am not sure that the name ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) is representative of the actual positions that the organization takes.

I think it is more like a group of people with generally liberal ideas who promote those ideas mostly through court actions. Many of the things they promote fall outside the notion of civil liberties.

For instance, it was reported that they have taken a positon in opposition to the minutemen project and are sending people to the border area to advise illegal immigrants on how to avoid being seen and reported by the minutemen volunteers. So the ACLU here seems to be promoting unfettered illegal immigration into the US. Is this an American Civli liberty issue?

I think their anti-death penalty stand is arguably outside the scope of a pure civil liberty issue and more just the personal preference of some that the state not kill people as punishment for heinous crimes.

Many issues of civil liberty involve property owners and what rights they have to control their own property. Gernerally the ACLU does not argue for property owner rights.

I also don't think the ACLU argues for such civil liberties as prostitution or gambling. I think it considers such infringements on individual liberties as the proper function of the state.

Good post. I agree.

 

[Dancing David]

Ain't democracy grand?

I am not a big proponrnt of the NRA, they are mainly a lobby that I believe puts heavy pressure to politice any attempts to regulate guns at all.

But in response to any who don't support the ACLU, look at who opposes them, every right wing facist out there.

The ACLU does not have a liberal agenda, that is just more right wing hackery! They defended the rights of the KKK to march in Elgin and are supporting civil liberties.

Can anyone tell me that the word people in the Constitution applies only to US citizens? At the time the Constitution was written most of the 'people' were not citizens.

Most of what people say against the ACLU is crap.

The Web Site

1. Denounces review of Army abuses.

2. Portland ends participation if terrorism task force.

3.Secrecy used to avoid accountability

Are these really the issues of an organization out to destroy society?

 

[RandFan]

Ain't democracy grand?

I am not a big proponrnt of the NRA, they are mainly a lobby that I believe puts heavy pressure to politice any attempts to regulate guns at all.

I like the ACLU. If I'm ever hauled out in the middle of the night by police and believe that they have violated my civil liberties I am going to call them.

That being said I do think they take on liberal causes. Defending the KKK and Oliver North are proof that they are capable of being fair it is not proof that they don't take on liberal causes.

I worked against the ACLU in 1991 when they tried to keep child pornography legal, at least owning child pornography legal.

 

[davefoc]

Art Vandely wroter:

I partially agree with you; for instance, they had no business suing to stop Prop 209 (which ironically enough, was a civil rights bill),..

I only partially agreed with myself so assuming we only partially agreed on the same parts we are in complete agreement.

I think the ACLU's opposition to proposition 209 is an excellent example of what I was talking about.

I think their opposition to caller ID is a good example also. This pitted the civil rights of telephone salesman, prank callers and other people who wish to be able to call somebody anonymously against the civil rights of the telephone owner to know who is calling him.

The ACLU has also opposed restrictions by states to limit welfare payments to non-residents. While it might be argued that this is a civil liberties issue in that it promotes the liberty of a resident of one state to move to another state to get the best welfare deal possible for himself, it also restricts the ability of a state to set up generous welfare plans for its citizens because if the state offers too many advantages over the welfare plans of neighboring states they will swamped with people moving in to take advantage of the better welfare plans.

The ACLU also argues against legislation like proposition 187 which would restrict state benefits to illegal aliens. While this could be seen as arguing for the civil liberties of illegal aliens it certainly serves to restrict the benefits available to native citizens as services are stretched to cover illegal immigrants.

Warning. Short thread digression follows:

Proposition 209
Proposition 209 was a California initiative designed to eliminate affirmative action based on race or sex.

I initially opposed it because I think some affirmative action programs are a good idea. I absolutely think that a reasonable goal of a police department is that it have an ethic mix roughly equivalent to the people it polices is a good idea and racial preferences that are designed to accomplish this seem like a good idea to me.

I also think that some affirmative action plans that work to get more lawyers and doctors of underrepresented minorities are a good idea.

In the end though, I voted for proposition 209 for two reasons:
1. It seemed clear that the idea of affirmative action was being abused by our universities. Minorities that were gaining entrance based on affirmative action were failing at very high rates. It seemed that the affirmative action plans were implemented were flawed and that the bureacracies behind them were doing nothing to fix the problems.
2. I listened to an hispanic activist go on about how essential affirmative action was and how it was going to be debilitating to eliminate it and how racist the people were that wanted to eliminate it. I saw this guy's attitude as a clear example of the problems and failures of affirmative action. Here was a young, seemingly healthy individual with nothing but opportunity in front of him and he had become so dependent on the idea that he would fail if he didn't have special preferences that he saw the end of those special advantages as a major disaster for himself and the people he claimed to represent.

End of the proposition 209 digression

 

[gnome]

The ACLU is clearly not perfect...

But without it, I fear many of the rights we enjoy in theory would not exist in practice--and, more significantly, "rights" would be a privilege of those with the money and time to use the legal system properly. True, they don't tend to take on gun issues with the same vigor--but the NRA fills that gap well enough--it's not like 2nd amendment hawks have trouble finding substantial backing.

 

[Elind]

I was reading some editorial by some right wing hack. He was going on and on about how wonderful the NRA is cause they defend our 2nd amendment rights from those who would take them away. And I agree. Thing is that hack has also written about the ACLU, and how the are basically enemies of the state.

Isnt that hypocritical? Both orgs activly defend the constitution, they just focus on different parts. Arent they just two sides of the same coin?

Many people think that tails is just the backside of the same heads.