Go back to majority rule?: Forget ACLU?

[Suddenly]

I’m not so arrogant as to think that my interpretation should prevail. But the ACLU's "interpretation" of the second amendment is a flagrant perversion of what the 2nd amendment really is. They have no evidence to justify their "interpretation" of it.

Their interpretation is a resonable one considering case law. It's that darned first clause, you know, the one about the militia? Roughly 100% of the case law, starting with the Miller case agrees that this is a restriction. Most make it a substantial restriction.

There are some people that argue a false contrapositive of Miller's holding, and there has been one Federal Circuit Court that has also followed this path. I'm usually diplomatic and call it a "Circuit Split" but it is likely better described as a renegade opinion.

If you want to get into substance, fine, but the vast majority of caselaw favors a very weak interpretation of the second amendment. Most examples of attempts to show otherwise rely on that one case I describe above along with out of context snippets from non-gun cases.

If you want to dispute the above, bring some cites and make an argument about the caselaw. You may want to do a search for my screen name and the words "Individual" and "Collective" if you want a more detailed explanation of the above. Then start a new thread or bump one of those to avoid hijacking this one. I'll be out of town starting tommorrow morning through the weekend, so you have time to collect your sources as to this point.

 

[gnome]

Ultimately, I support both groups; I just have some beef with the ACLU.

An unexpected and productive statement. That's more reasonable than what I thought you were arguing.

 

[Suddenly]

I am having a hard time getting my thoughts to gel in a coherent manner as to the problem I have over the "separation of church and state" issue, but I'll give it a shot.

I am not sure that the real issue is about church and state more than it is about offensiveness. The counter-argument about putting Satan on the Town Hall front lawn seems to indicate that.

I've always seen it as a creeping problem. A cross on the courthouse lawn isn't a big deal, it's when later someone claims that we are a Christian Nation because we have crosses on the courthouse lawn. Like with the money, "in God we trust" is on there mainly as it was argued that it was "harmless tradition" or some such. But then we get people saying "of course this nation is based on God. Just look at the money!"

I think the ACLU demonstrated their lack of understanding of this when they defended the Nazis' right to march through the Jewish community of Skokie, IL way back in the 80s.

They seem to have tunnel vision. An obsession with one form of "rights" at the expense of other rights. Perhaps that is what Tony means, but I don't know.

I don't know about the Nazis. It is pretty clear that the only restrictions on speech that are legitimate are "time, place, and manner" speech, so it is a tough call for me to advocate disallowing a right based on the content of ideas. Sometimes principle causes unsavory results, and this seems to be one of those times for me.

On the other hand, if nothing else, allowing the Nazis to march is a nice reminder that there are still people like that out there. I doubt it raised their profile with any reasonable person, and prevented them from claiming that they are treated unfairly as the government is afraid of them or some such.

 

[Tmy]

Does anyone live near an ACLU office. I wonder if/what kind of Xmas decorations they have in the office.

 

[Tony]

I was listening to Mike Gallagher this morning..even though he so often gets under my skin. Today's topic is the ACLU and Christmas.

He says now, not only does the ACLU want to get rid of nativity scenes, but (get ready)...even what SECULAR Christmas has as it's symbol; Santa Claus!

It maybe sounds kind of nutty...like the ACLU can't make up it's mind WHAT it really wants. But Mike said the reason is...that they want to do away with ANYTHING that has to do with Christmas. That they would just as soon do away with Christmas.

I found this:

And in Kansas, a school district buckled under pressure from the American Civil Liberties Union and did away with its yearly visit from Santa. All this despite a Fox News poll recently released that showed 96 percent of Americans celebrate Christmas, which could mean all Grinches, beware.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,105451,00.html

 

[pgwenthold]

Re: Re: Go back to majority rule?: Forget ACLU?

I found this:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And in Kansas, a school district buckled under pressure from the American Civil Liberties Union and did away with its yearly visit from Santa. All this despite a Fox News poll recently released that showed 96 percent of Americans celebrate Christmas, which could mean all Grinches, beware.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,105451,00.html

Personally, I would wait to hear the real story instead of this brief snippet. Moreover, you also fail to mention the following:

In New York City, there's a lawsuit challenging the district's policy of encouraging schools to display menorahs and the Islamic crescent and star, while prohibiting Nativity scenes

What are the chances this is an ACLU backed measure? Care to guess which side the ACLU is going to sit on?

 

[Tony]

Re: Re: Re: Go back to majority rule?: Forget ACLU?

Moreover, you also fail to mention the following:

Yeah, because I was addressing the issue of the ACLU removing Santa Claus. That other stuff is irrelevant to what I was addressing.

 

[Tmy]

http://www.thekansascitychannel.com/education/2679284/detail.html

My bullshiznit sense was tingling so I checked on the story.

Turns out the "fair and balanced" Fox news forgot to mention that the Kansas SANTA was really a minister who "reportedly referred students who were judged in need of guidance to Christian resources. " Kinda changes the story huh.

Once agian Foxnews is misleading us.

 

[Tony]

http://www.thekansascitychannel.com/education/2679284/detail.html

Turns out the "fair and balanced" Fox news forgot to mention that the Kansas SANTA was really a minister who "reportedly referred students who were judged in need of guidance to Christian resources. " Kinda changes the story huh.

Yeah, it does change the story. I only posted it because I stumbed across it and saw that it might be relevant to the discussion here. I didnt research the matter any further than that.

 

[Tmy]

Your not expevted to know the details Tony, you were mislead by the news article. The truth is that the ACLU wanted THIS PARTICULAR Santa out ofthe school.

Bill Oreilly always bitches about The New York Times being bias in their reporting, yet he doesnt talk about FoxNews doingthe same.

 

[Luke T.]

Does anyone live near an ACLU office. I wonder if/what kind of Xmas decorations they have in the office.

I would be there are more Hannukah decorations than Christmas ones.

Doesn't matter. It is not public property.

 

[pgwenthold]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Go back to majority rule?: Forget ACLU?

Yeah, because I was addressing the issue of the ACLU removing Santa Claus. That other stuff is irrelevant to what I was addressing.

I disagree. If the ACLU were supporting a lawsuit against the banning of christian themed holiday stuff, it would completely contradict your attempted point.

Moreover, now given TMY's insight, it is more relevent than ever.

But you gotta say, the old "Fair and balanced" FOX News has exposed itself as completely incompetent once again.

 

[Luke T.]

I've always seen it as a creeping problem. A cross on the courthouse lawn isn't a big deal, it's when later someone claims that we are a Christian Nation because we have crosses on the courthouse lawn. Like with the money, "in God we trust" is on there mainly as it was argued that it was "harmless tradition" or some such. But then we get people saying "of course this nation is based on God. Just look at the money!"

I do believe this land was built by God-fearing people. There were your ruffians and profiteers, but I don't think they had much to say about the establishment of a democracy.

I don't know about the Nazis. It is pretty clear that the only restrictions on speech that are legitimate are "time, place, and manner" speech, so it is a tough call for me to advocate disallowing a right based on the content of ideas. Sometimes principle causes unsavory results, and this seems to be one of those times for me.

On the other hand, if nothing else, allowing the Nazis to march is a nice reminder that there are still people like that out there. I doubt it raised their profile with any reasonable person, and prevented them from claiming that they are treated unfairly as the government is afraid of them or some such.

The Nazis had been allowed to have public rallies in Chicago. Then Chicago banned them from having rallies. So the Nazis retaliated by saying they would march through Skokie. Skokie had holocaust survivors living there who didn't need any reminders. The issue was going before the Supreme Court when Chicago backed down and allowed the Nazis to have public rallies in the parks again as long as they agreed not to march through Skokie, which they did. It never did go all the way to the Supreme Court as a result, IIRC.

 

[specious_reasons]

The Nazis had been allowed to have public rallies in Chicago. Then Chicago banned them from having rallies. So the Nazis retaliated by saying they would march through Skokie. Skokie had holocaust survivors living there who didn't need any reminders. The issue was going before the Supreme Court when Chicago backed down and allowed the Nazis to have public rallies in the parks again as long as they agreed not to march through Skokie, which they did. It never did go all the way to the Supreme Court as a result, IIRC. [/B]

I hate Illinois Nazis.

 

[pgwenthold]

The Nazis had been allowed to have public rallies in Chicago. Then Chicago banned them from having rallies. So the Nazis retaliated by saying they would march through Skokie. Skokie had holocaust survivors living there who didn't need any reminders. The issue was going before the Supreme Court when Chicago backed down and allowed the Nazis to have public rallies in the parks again as long as they agreed not to march through Skokie, which they did. It never did go all the way to the Supreme Court as a result, IIRC. [/B]

I guess I don't understand your point. It is absolutely correct that the city of Chicago (or Skokie) had no grounds for preventing the Illinois Nazis from having a rally.

This is the entire essence of free speech: the government cannot prevent someone from speaking just because it doesn't like the message.

The ACLU is 100% correct on this issue.

As much as I hate Illinois Nazis, I support the constitution. Even slimeballs have protected rights in the US.

 

[Tmy]

You hate "Illinois Nazis"?? ARe you implying that you like Nazis from other states? Are New Mexico Nazis kinda likeable?

 

[gnome]

Re: Re: Re: Go back to majority rule?: Forget ACLU?

What are the chances this is an ACLU backed measure? Care to guess which side the ACLU is going to sit on?

My guess is two-way:

Either: There are critical details missing from this description
Or: The ACLU's sides with the plaintiffs on the grounds of unequal treatment.

Note: 90% of all anecdotes I have heard against the ACLU are missing details that change the whole context.

 

[specious_reasons]

You hate "Illinois Nazis"?? ARe you implying that you like Nazis from other states? Are New Mexico Nazis kinda likeable?

I hope I was quoting from "The Blues Brothers", that's what I remember Jake saying before trying to run some down.

Of course, I may have just remembered the "editied for TV" version, where "Illinois" is replaced by stronger language.

 

[Luke T.]

I hope I was quoting from "The Blues Brothers", that's what I remember Jake saying before trying to run some down.

Of course, I may have just remembered the "editied for TV" version, where "Illinois" is replaced by stronger language.

No. You have it right. Blues Brothers is one of my top ten favorites.

 

[Luke T.]

I guess I don't understand your point. It is absolutely correct that the city of Chicago (or Skokie) had no grounds for preventing the Illinois Nazis from having a rally.

This is the entire essence of free speech: the government cannot prevent someone from speaking just because it doesn't like the message.

The ACLU is 100% correct on this issue.

As much as I hate Illinois Nazis, I support the constitution. Even slimeballs have protected rights in the US.

There is an expression about this that I can't accurately recall. But the basic idea is that you don't have the right to impinge on my rights. There is a limit to free speech.