PDA

View Full Version : Why Doesn't the ACLU Fight for 2A Rights?


_Odin_
12-23-2008, 4:07 PM
Seems like they should after the heller decision - it's an individual right after all.

They don't really seem to take a stance on the issue.

bigmike82
12-23-2008, 4:10 PM
That's the only thing that's preventing me from actually liking the ACLU. They're utterly hipocritical when it comes to the 2nd Amendment.

Kid Stanislaus
12-23-2008, 4:13 PM
The guy who started the ACLU was a card carrying member of the CPUSA. That's why.

Ironchef
12-23-2008, 4:28 PM
I think like any group, money talks. They've got a full roster of paying members who have shaped the ACLU's rights' intpretations for the 2A as being collective and for sporting purposes, etc. If they had a surge of paid memberships from real 2A supporters, then of course Heller would be used properly by them.

If they started a campaign along side the NRA, how quick do you think their funds would dry up?

Has the OP or anyone here asked them about this? It would be a nice surprise I'm sure to get a response, let alone a good reason.

spsellars
12-23-2008, 4:31 PM
Because they apparently know better than SCOTUS, and view the 2A as a collective right. Link (http://www.aclu.org/crimjustice/gen/35904res20020304.html)

Sutcliffe
12-23-2008, 4:32 PM
It will tell you that the Supreme Court got it wrong and that firearms are a collective right that are open to restriction. Cowardly pukes then left it open to comments. Over a thousand angry members and non members told them where to stick it. Despite overwhelming evidence that the people of this country find their stand sickening they still cling to their same old tired line.

Captain Evilstomper
12-23-2008, 4:37 PM
they would be for your 2a rights if you were a communist.

M. D. Van Norman
12-23-2008, 4:51 PM
Why doesn’t the ACLU fight for 2A rights?

Ideological inconsistency. It affects otherwise intelligent people everywhere.

.454
12-23-2008, 4:55 PM
Hope this answer your question:


http://www.constitutioncenter.org/timeline/flash/assets/asset_upload_file83_12161.jpg

I am for socialism, disarmament, and ultimately for abolishing the state itself as an instrument of violence and compulsion. I seek social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class. Communism is the goal.
Roger Baldwin--ACLU Founder

OldGunTard
12-23-2008, 5:54 PM
... pukes then left it open to comments. Over a thousand angry members and non members told them where to stick it ...

Sutcliffe, thanks for the reference. I added my comment.

JohnJW
12-23-2008, 6:48 PM
I think ACLU has its hands full in defending other parts of our constitution where NRA specializes in 2A issues. Do a quick search online or on NRA.org and you'll find cooperations between ACLU and the NRA.

With regards to Roger Baldwin, if you do a quick search you'll find that he is not a communist, or at least not in terms of the authoritarian type of communist government that we know of.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Nash_Baldwin
"In St. Louis, Baldwin had been greatly influenced by the radical social movement of the anarchist Emma Goldman. He joined the Industrial Workers of the World. In 1927, he had visited the Soviet Union and wrote a book, Liberty Under the Soviets. He later denounced communism in his book, A New Slavery, which condemned "the inhuman communist police state tyranny" [2]. In the 1940s, Baldwin led the campaign to purge the ACLU of Communist Party members [3]."

I am glad to have both the ACLU and the NRA. Sure, they don't agree on all the issues, but at least they are both headed in the right direction.

Fate
12-23-2008, 7:45 PM
Bedwetters. The lot of them.

Gator Monroe
12-23-2008, 7:47 PM
It would be like Henry Rollings doing Cabela's commercials ...:eek:

rayra
12-23-2008, 11:05 PM
The guy who started the ACLU was a card carrying member of the CPUSA. That's why.

This.
And the ACLU is only interested in supporting individual freedoms when they can be used as a fulcrum to undermine US governments or to support Deconstructionist filth like NAMBLA.

You want to read about the ongoing scumbaggery practiced by the ACLU in the name of 'freedom', just go read here - http://www.stoptheaclu.com/

rayra
12-23-2008, 11:11 PM
I think ACLU has its hands full in defending other parts of our constitution where NRA specializes in 2A issues. Do a quick search online or on NRA.org and you'll find cooperations between ACLU and the NRA.

With regards to Roger Baldwin, if you do a quick search you'll find that he is not a communist, or at least not in terms of the authoritarian type of communist government that we know of.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Nash_Baldwin
"In St. Louis, Baldwin had been greatly influenced by the radical social movement of the anarchist Emma Goldman. He joined the Industrial Workers of the World. In 1927, he had visited the Soviet Union and wrote a book, Liberty Under the Soviets. He later denounced communism in his book, A New Slavery, which condemned "the inhuman communist police state tyranny" [2]. In the 1940s, Baldwin led the campaign to purge the ACLU of Communist Party members [3]."

I am glad to have both the ACLU and the NRA. Sure, they don't agree on all the issues, but at least they are both headed in the right direction.

Quoted for rose-colored hilarity.

Y'all see the ACLU suit brought forth by the granddaughter of the Rosenbergs during the height of the train-bombing concern in NYC. Called it 'freedom' but was timed to help would-be bombers.

Or how about their incessant war against religious expression, under teh fraudulant guise of 'seperation of church and state'?

Their campaign to allow child porn?

Their incessant attacks on teh Boy Scouts?

"headedin the right direction" this guy says. Obscene.

freakshow10mm
12-23-2008, 11:12 PM
Because the ACLU doesn't recognize the Second Amendment as a civil liberty.

69Mach1
12-23-2008, 11:15 PM
Because the ACLU doesn't recognize the Second Amendment as a civil liberty.

How does the ACLU count to 10?

1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

dreyna14
12-24-2008, 12:30 AM
Because the ACLU likes to selectively choose their own definition of "the people" from amendment to amendment. Their hypocrisy has no bounds.

M. D. Van Norman
12-24-2008, 12:36 AM
To be fair, hypocrisy abounds on both sides of the Second Amendment divide.

Quiet
12-24-2008, 12:56 AM
The Nevada affiliate of the ACLU is taking a different stand on the Second Amendment than national ACLU organization.

The ACLU of Nevada (http://www.aclunv.org/aclu-nevada-supports-individual%E2%80%99s-right-bear-arms)

In light of the United States Supreme Court's decision concerning the D.C. handgun ban (District of Columbia v. Heller) the ACLU of Nevada considers it important to clearly state its position regarding the right to bear arms. The Nevada ACLU respects the individual's right to bear arms subject to constitutionally permissible regulations. The ACLU of Nevada will defend this right as it defends other constitutional rights. This policy was formulated by our afilliate Board in light of both the U.S. Constitution and the clearly-stated individual right to bear arms as set out in the Nevada Constitution's Declaration of Rights.

STAGE 2
12-24-2008, 1:00 AM
To be fair, hypocrisy abounds on both sides of the Second Amendment divide.

How so.

Gnome
12-24-2008, 1:06 AM
Because they're too busy championing the rights of incarcerated criminals.:D
Don't even get me started...:censored:

M. D. Van Norman
12-24-2008, 1:26 AM
How so.

There are plenty of gun owners who beat their chests about the right to arms and individual freedom while supporting all manner of other restrictive, authoritarian measures.

STAGE 2
12-24-2008, 1:42 AM
There are plenty of gun owners who beat their chests about the right to arms and individual freedom while supporting all manner of other restrictive, authoritarian measures.

Because a measure is restrictive does not mean it is necessarily unconstitutional. It would only be hypocrisy if they were advocating for the 2nd on one hand and advocating for an unconstitutional measure on the other.

M. D. Van Norman
12-24-2008, 2:06 AM
They do this, and they do it with straight faces.

STAGE 2
12-24-2008, 2:11 AM
For example.

M. D. Van Norman
12-24-2008, 2:24 AM
Censorship, religious freedom, privacy rights, property rights, torture, travel rights, etc.

cranky
12-24-2008, 2:56 AM
same reason why the ACLU chose not to defend Joe the Plummer when his privacy was invaded..... they're just a SCUMBAG organization that doesn't give a RAT'S *** about your civil liberties.

nicki
12-24-2008, 3:21 AM
The ACLU selectively defends the bill of rights, since the 2A isn't one part they want to defend, they don't.

Nicki

Aleksei Vasiliev
12-24-2008, 3:36 AM
They don't defend the 2nd Amendment, and then they get **** for defending groups like Neo-Nazis.

Guess what? Of the rights they do recognize, they defend them indiscriminately. They don't say "Everybody has the right to free speech... but not the Nazis." It doesn't work like that.

Fire in the Hole
12-24-2008, 6:45 AM
This is from the ACLU's official website. It is their policy statement concerning the 2A:

Second Amendment


Updated: 7/8/2008
The Second Amendment provides: "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."

ACLU POSITION
Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right. For seven decades, the Supreme Court's 1939 decision in United States v. Miller was widely understood to have endorsed that view.

The Supreme Court has now ruled otherwise. In striking down Washington D.C.'s handgun ban by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court's 2008 decision in D.C. v. Heller held for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, whether or not associated with a state militia.

The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court's conclusion about the nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment. We do not, however, take a position on gun control itself. In our view, neither the possession of guns nor the regulation of guns raises a civil liberties issue.

ANALYSIS
Although ACLU policy cites the Supreme Court's decision in U.S. v. Miller as support for our position on the Second Amendment, our policy was never dependent on Miller. Rather, like all ACLU policies, it reflects the ACLU's own understanding of the Constitution and civil liberties.

Heller takes a different approach than the ACLU has advocated. At the same time, it leaves many unresolved questions, including what firearms are protected by the Second Amendment, what regulations (short of an outright ban) may be upheld, and how that determination will be made.

Those questions will, presumably, be answered over time.

truthseeker
12-24-2008, 7:29 AM
"Heller takes a different approach than the ACLU has advocated. At the same time, it leaves many unresolved questions, including what firearms are protected by the Second Amendment, what regulations (short of an outright ban) may be upheld, and how that determination will be made.

Those questions will, presumably, be answered over time."

The way I interpret this statement is they want law abiding citizens to waste their money to fight for our right to bear arms and then when some precedents are set in regards to the questions that they think still are unresolved they will support the 2A.

I think the quote from them above is a lie!!

mbrown
12-24-2008, 8:04 AM
The ACLU is an amoral, godless group who uses America's own goodness and openness against her. They actively seek to tear down many of the pillars which have made our society great. The 2A, as an individual right, doesn't fit into their agenda, so they punt by using some left-wing, law-school contrived sophistry to explain it away.

7x57
12-24-2008, 8:21 AM
Ideological inconsistency. It affects otherwise intelligent people everywhere.

They are not inconsistent--they simply have different presuppositions than perhaps you think. Operationally (in other words, this is how they behave), they believe that texts don't have fixed, discoverable meanings, only an evolving understanding. Arguments over meaning are not, in the end, analyses of either the text nor of the context in which it was written, but rather efforts to defend or advance what the current state of consensus is. In effect, they work very hard to push courts toward reading the Constitution very similarly to many postmodern kinds of textual criticism.

Thus, they believe the First Amendment is reasonably absolute, not because anything in the text says so, but because they think that would be good policy. Getting court decisions going your way is how you advance your preferred interpretation. On the other hand, they think what the Second Amendment actually says is horrible policy. They argue for the neutered non-right of the collective theory ultimately not because it is correct textually or historically--those are meaningless concepts--but because they wish to push the consensual interpretation that way. Nothing in the text or history suggests it is less absolute, or less deserving of treatment like strict scrutiny, than the First, but neither text nor history are relevant according to their presuppositions about the nature of textual analysis.

The problem with all this is not inconsistency with self--the worldview they are applying probably is self-consistent--but rather inconsistency with both reality and with the very concept of the rule of law. According to more ethically sane presuppositions, their worldview is a deadly lie that is entirely incompatible with liberty. The same mechanism that makes the Second Amendment a meaningless non-right can be used with equal success to nullify *any* piece of law. Working within their rules, there are *no* legal rights and can be no legal rights in the sense I would use the word. In effect, they must assume that neither fear nor the wrong people will ever use their textual tools for bad ends. That's insane.

And that's the problem: the two worldviews are incompatible, and cannot coexist in the same society because they make directly contradictory claims about the very mechanism and meaning of the law. The ACLU and I cannot both believe that the law is functioning sanely.

What scares me more than the ACLU's interpretative scheme, however, is that there seem to be a lot of gun owners who think it would be OK if it just supported the second amendment too. To some extent, that indicates just how far their particular brand of insanity has spread.

7x57

Fire in the Hole
12-24-2008, 8:39 AM
I can remember a case about 12 years ago where the Aryan Brotherhood, and the KKK applied for a parade permit. They jumped through all the hoops, crossed every "t" and dotted every "i". Their permit was denied by the city council, after much booohaha. It was the city attorney that said that allowing this group their first ammendment rights would be abhorent to common decency. Perhaps tongue in cheek, the KKK requested assistance from the ACLU. The ACLU declined to represent them on a 1A issue. The KKK has their own lawyers, so the appeal went to court. The KKK won, and was permitted to enter the parade. It was ironic to see a newspaper photograph of two black PD officers standing on the parade route, making sure that the KKK was permitted to walk the route without interference.

fairfaxjim
12-24-2008, 9:30 AM
What scares me more than the ACLU's interpretative scheme, however, is that there seem to be a lot of gun owners who think it would be OK if it just supported the second amendment too. To some extent, that indicates just how far their particular brand of insanity has spread.

+1 Just because a deal with the devil gets you what you want, it doesn't mean it was a great deal.

MudCamper
12-24-2008, 9:55 AM
In some states they do. Texas. Nevada. But for the most part they do not. But they defend the 1A, 4A, and 5A vehemently. I am a member of the NRA because they defend the 2A. I am a member of the ACLU because they defend other rights that I also value. I don't see a problem. Oh, that's right, I'm an immoral godless commie bedwetter. Thanks for pointing that out everyone.

valleyguy
12-24-2008, 9:57 AM
I am for socialism, disarmament, and ultimately for abolishing the state itself as an instrument of violence and compulsion. I seek social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class. Communism is the goal.
Roger Baldwin--ACLU Founder

That's semi-FUD --
Per Wikipedia article on him (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Nash_Baldwin):

....[Baldwin] later denounced communism in his book, A New Slavery, which condemned "the inhuman communist police state tyranny" [2]. In the 1940s, Baldwin led the campaign to purge the ACLU of Communist Party members

For perspective, Reagan used to be a hard-core liberal before he met Nancy, so obviously everyone can change.

Canute
12-24-2008, 7:48 PM
In some states they do. Texas. Nevada. But for the most part they do not. But they defend the 1A, 4A, and 5A vehemently. I am a member of the NRA because they defend the 2A. I am a member of the ACLU because they defend other rights that I also value. I don't see a problem. Oh, that's right, I'm an immoral godless commie bedwetter. Thanks for pointing that out everyone.

Hear! Hear! I wish they supported the second, but they don't.
At least, from what I've seen, they don't campaign actively against it.
Such is life.

rayra
12-25-2008, 12:20 AM
ACLU Challenges Border Patrol's Searches
NEWS MAX
Dec 22, 2008
AP
www.newsmax.com/us/ACLU_border_searches/2008/12/22/164277.html
SEATTLE –– The note from U.S. Attorney Jeff Sullivan to the U.S. Border Patrol was short and to the point: Stop sending petty marijuana cases to his office.

"It is our long-standing policy to use limited federal resources to pursue the sophisticated criminal organizations who smuggle millions of dollars of drugs, guns and other contraband across our borders," Sullivan wrote in November.

Sullivan's note is one in a string of flare-ups as the Border Patrol expanded its influence and manpower here in recent months. The marijuana busts had come from inland road blocks on state highways.

Sheriff's offices, farmers, and a U.S. Congressman have all made their opinion about the patrol's increased presence known, and not all of it has been friendly.

The clashes cast light on the expanded power of the agency along the country's northern border.

More than 1,100 agents have been added to the Canadian border since Sept. 11, 2001, four times its presence before the terrorist attacks. Hundreds more agents are to be hired next year.

Agents can set up road blocks up to 100 miles from the border, board passenger buses, and patrol transportation hubs that are not near the border. Elsewhere, the Border Patrol, which is part of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, has set up road blocks in other northern states, including Vermont, New York and Maine.

This authority, relatively new to the people of Washington, has stirred controversy.

"It's the newness and the heightened presence of the Border Patrol that has brought this issue to the forefront," said John Bates, the patrol's chief for the western half of Washington. "We've been utilizing checkpoints for more than 75 years. Obviously when you use a new tactic in the border, people are going to have questions, and rightfully so."

Bates wants people to speak out if agents are rude at the checkpoints, one of complaints he has heard. But the checkpoints aren't going away, said Bates, who calls them an integral part of the agency's security strategy.

Advocates say intrusive operations - such as boarding passenger buses - are threatening civil liberties.

The American Civil Liberties Union has led the challenge of Border Patrol's powers. They call the patrol's 100-mile belt of jurisdiction a "Constitution-Free Zone" occupied by two-thirds of the country's population.

"Our concern is not just what they're doing now. But what this expanded interpretation of what they can do, can expand into," said Shankar Narayan, legislative director for Washington's ACLU chapter. "They can eventually claim a range of authority away from the border, who can say where that stops?"

Narayan said the ACLU expects to file a lawsuit challenging the road blocks when it finds the right case.

There are no checkpoints in largely rural eastern Washington and none are planned, though spokeswoman Danielle Suarez said the patrol reserves the right to set them up. Suarez said that eastern Washington's rugged terrain calls for different tactics.

The last checkpoint operated in western Washington happened in October, although border agents are now patrolling bus terminals.

In Vermont, the Border Patrol reinstated a traffic checkpoint 97 miles from the Canadian border on an interstate in 2007. The checkpoint has drawn criticism from U.S. Sen. Patrick Leahy, who questioned its effectiveness. The Border Patrol, however, also provides manpower and technical aid to local police in the region.

In Washington, small protests have also taken place in the towns of Port Angeles and Forks, two towns on the Olympic Peninsula that have seen an increased presence of border agents. The peninsula can only be reached from Canada by ferry.

In 1999, Ahmed Ressam, an Algerian national who was convicted on multiple counts for plotting to bomb Los Angeles International Airport around Jan. 1, 2000, was caught by custom agents with explosives in the trunk of his car when he drove off a ferry.

"Canada does have lax polices, there are dangerous people who have gotten into Canada," said Ira Mehlman of the Washington, D.C.-based Federation for American Immigration Reform. "They have these checkpoints in close proximity to the southern border, and there's no reason why they can't have them in the northern border."

Democrat U.S. Rep. Norm Dicks has criticized agents for being too gruff, and said the agency should focus on protecting the coastlines.

Farmers say Border Patrol's crackdown on illegal immigration is scaring away workers.

"We're going to become a military zone in effect, where the federal government has dozens of police on the street, stopping people at will," said Eric Chester of Port Townsend, Wash.

Bates argues that border agents are trying to protect a challenging, porous and busy border. Cocaine being smuggled north from Mexico, and marijuana from Canada are some of the drugs traffickers carry in this corridor, Bates said.

Bates also said the agency will likely refer petty drug cases to local prosecutors, instead of Sullivan's office.

The patrol also opposes the use of the term "road blocks," saying that "checkpoints are not designed to block the entry of vehicles into an area," spokesman Michael Bermudez said.

The checkpoints, Bates says, provide a last line of defense.

"There's a learning curve for us with the community, we need to keep those lines of communications open," Bate said. "Some of those questions will keep coming up, until people are used to the Border Patrol."

Gray Peterson
12-25-2008, 1:15 AM
A few things.

One, I direct your attention to this ACLU blog posts:

http://blog.aclu.org/2008/07/01/heller-decision-and-the-second-amendment/#comments

The amount of comments on that post is 1,213. The average amount of posts on the blog is usually anywhere from 2 to 10.

If you read through the amount of posts, you have literally hundreds of members essentially ripping up their letters to renew their membership and tell them that they will never join as long as ACLU keeps up their position as stated, and did not massively reverse it.

A few things did happen after that firestorm of controversy. First, the ACLU is a non-profit organization, and therefor has rules and guidelines when something like changing a policy statement. Basically, the executive director (Anthony Romero) and President (now Susan N. Herman) absolutely do not have the power to change that policy statement, even in light of a supposedly new Supreme Court precedent. Only the Board of Directors have that ability, due to previous abuses by previous executive directors and presidents who unilaterally changed policy statements without consulting the BoD. Believe me, the Heller decision has caused what can be defined as a schism within the ACLU. As far as I can tell, there are two camps within the ACLU: The anti-gun "collective rights" rights camp that is based either in generally bad case law, or just a general hatred of anything Justice Scalia writes, and the "individual rights" camp, which runs the gamut of those who are "reasonable restrictions" to "we need to defend the Second Amendment as hard as we do the First, or we lose our way as an organization".

As a result of the Heller decision, as well as the MASSIVE amount of feedback in the blog posting, the Executive Committee of the Board of Directors directed a subcommittee to review the Heller decision for a report. I am working on trying to open up the committee process to feedback so that outside scholars and others can contribute other than the angry retributive posts in the blog posting have already done. The Board only meets 4 times a year, and the committee, as far as I know, has only begun this process.

Folks, if we can get the ACLU on our side in this ever evolving war against our 2nd amendment rights (which is still being waged by all sides, make no mistake), it'll be the beginning of the end of the gun control movement in this country. If ACLU states that the 2nd amendment is an individual right, it'll cause a massive re-alignment of politics of this country. We'll add even more supporters to the right to keep and bear arms (yes, folks, there are people who just supports the ACLU's positions lockstep, and that's the only reason they believe 2nd to be a collective right, just the same with the Republican Party Platform or the NRA), and we'll be able to push forward with even more support for our position.

Until then, I am taking the same position with ACLU that I'm taking with CRPA. Until they change their situations, my only leverage is to deny them money and membership.

As an aside, every time someone sends them an errant email (this is distinctly different from commenting on their blog, btw) accusing them of being "communists" or other forms of name calling makes it that much more difficult for those of us trying to rehabilitate the organization's perspective. We want the "Second Amendment rights must be fought as hard as we fight on the First Amendment" folks to win.

CABilly
12-25-2008, 1:29 AM
ACLU Challenges Border Patrol's Searches
NEWS MAX
Dec 22, 2008
AP
www.newsmax.com/us/ACLU_border_searches/2008/12/22/164277.html
SEATTLE –– The note from U.S. Attorney Jeff Sullivan to the U.S. Border Patrol was short and to the point: Stop sending petty marijuana cases to his office.

"It is our long-standing policy to use limited federal resources to pursue the sophisticated criminal organizations who smuggle millions of dollars of drugs, guns and other contraband across our borders," Sullivan wrote in November.

Sullivan's note is one in a string of flare-ups as the Border Patrol expanded its influence and manpower here in recent months. The marijuana busts had come from inland road blocks on state highways.

Sheriff's offices, farmers, and a U.S. Congressman have all made their opinion about the patrol's increased presence known, and not all of it has been friendly.

The clashes cast light on the expanded power of the agency along the country's northern border.

More than 1,100 agents have been added to the Canadian border since Sept. 11, 2001, four times its presence before the terrorist attacks. Hundreds more agents are to be hired next year.

Agents can set up road blocks up to 100 miles from the border, board passenger buses, and patrol transportation hubs that are not near the border. Elsewhere, the Border Patrol, which is part of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, has set up road blocks in other northern states, including Vermont, New York and Maine.

This authority, relatively new to the people of Washington, has stirred controversy.

"It's the newness and the heightened presence of the Border Patrol that has brought this issue to the forefront," said John Bates, the patrol's chief for the western half of Washington. "We've been utilizing checkpoints for more than 75 years. Obviously when you use a new tactic in the border, people are going to have questions, and rightfully so."

Bates wants people to speak out if agents are rude at the checkpoints, one of complaints he has heard. But the checkpoints aren't going away, said Bates, who calls them an integral part of the agency's security strategy.

Advocates say intrusive operations - such as boarding passenger buses - are threatening civil liberties.

The American Civil Liberties Union has led the challenge of Border Patrol's powers. They call the patrol's 100-mile belt of jurisdiction a "Constitution-Free Zone" occupied by two-thirds of the country's population.

"Our concern is not just what they're doing now. But what this expanded interpretation of what they can do, can expand into," said Shankar Narayan, legislative director for Washington's ACLU chapter. "They can eventually claim a range of authority away from the border, who can say where that stops?"

Narayan said the ACLU expects to file a lawsuit challenging the road blocks when it finds the right case.

There are no checkpoints in largely rural eastern Washington and none are planned, though spokeswoman Danielle Suarez said the patrol reserves the right to set them up. Suarez said that eastern Washington's rugged terrain calls for different tactics.

The last checkpoint operated in western Washington happened in October, although border agents are now patrolling bus terminals.

In Vermont, the Border Patrol reinstated a traffic checkpoint 97 miles from the Canadian border on an interstate in 2007. The checkpoint has drawn criticism from U.S. Sen. Patrick Leahy, who questioned its effectiveness. The Border Patrol, however, also provides manpower and technical aid to local police in the region.

In Washington, small protests have also taken place in the towns of Port Angeles and Forks, two towns on the Olympic Peninsula that have seen an increased presence of border agents. The peninsula can only be reached from Canada by ferry.

In 1999, Ahmed Ressam, an Algerian national who was convicted on multiple counts for plotting to bomb Los Angeles International Airport around Jan. 1, 2000, was caught by custom agents with explosives in the trunk of his car when he drove off a ferry.

"Canada does have lax polices, there are dangerous people who have gotten into Canada," said Ira Mehlman of the Washington, D.C.-based Federation for American Immigration Reform. "They have these checkpoints in close proximity to the southern border, and there's no reason why they can't have them in the northern border."

Democrat U.S. Rep. Norm Dicks has criticized agents for being too gruff, and said the agency should focus on protecting the coastlines.

Farmers say Border Patrol's crackdown on illegal immigration is scaring away workers.

"We're going to become a military zone in effect, where the federal government has dozens of police on the street, stopping people at will," said Eric Chester of Port Townsend, Wash.

Bates argues that border agents are trying to protect a challenging, porous and busy border. Cocaine being smuggled north from Mexico, and marijuana from Canada are some of the drugs traffickers carry in this corridor, Bates said.

Bates also said the agency will likely refer petty drug cases to local prosecutors, instead of Sullivan's office.

The patrol also opposes the use of the term "road blocks," saying that "checkpoints are not designed to block the entry of vehicles into an area," spokesman Michael Bermudez said.

The checkpoints, Bates says, provide a last line of defense.

"There's a learning curve for us with the community, we need to keep those lines of communications open," Bate said. "Some of those questions will keep coming up, until people are used to the Border Patrol."

In this case, I agree with the ACLU 100%. I don't know what your intent was in posting that article, other than maybe highlighting the chilling fact that there are federal agents setting up checkpoints far away from their intended jurisdictions and questioning all they encounter. And from the sound of it, it sounds like they aren't even saying "please" when asking for citizens' papers.

And their attitude regarding the angry reaction to their expansion of power? The public's just not used to them yet. Yes, like the old frog in the pot, all we need is time and incrementalism.

Then there's the issue of federal agents "referring petty drug cases to local DAs". Just another blatant attempt at expansion of federal power.


I can imagine a response from some being along the line of relating me to some bleeding heart, terrorist-loving, America-hating communist not deserving of the very right I'm exercising now in saying this. Maybe not, but if that's what anyone's thinking, I have to counter that it's a thumbsucking, apron string-clinching, shivering scaredy-cat authoritarian who would welcome such an expansion of federal authority and intrusion in our everyday lives. Their own prosecutors are telling them to buzz off. We should be doing the same. Work the border and leave it at that. If you want to do other things, join another agency that practices within the scope you'd like to work.

STAGE 2
12-25-2008, 2:44 AM
Censorship, religious freedom, privacy rights, property rights, torture, travel rights, etc.

Thats pretty vague. If we are going to be constitutional about this, there really isn't a right to privacy, and there are no prohibitions on torturing terrorists. Again, I'm not seeing this mass group of hypocrites. No doubt there are some but I don't think they rise anywhere to the level of the ACLU.

SOneThreeCoupe
12-25-2008, 7:45 AM
Thats pretty vague. If we are going to be constitutional about this, there really isn't a right to privacy, and there are no prohibitions on torturing terrorists. Again, I'm not seeing this mass group of hypocrites. No doubt there are some but I don't think they rise anywhere to the level of the ACLU.

There is a right to privacy, and there are prohibitions on torturing ANYONE.

Right to privacy:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated"

Torture:
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

A lot of non-gun-owners look at the Second as an amendment giving the militia the means to fight foreign governments. What they should see is it giving the right of the individual to protect himself or herself.

Max-the-Silent
12-25-2008, 8:02 AM
Seems like they should after the heller decision - it's an individual right after all.

They don't really seem to take a stance on the issue.

Because the national leadership of the ACLU are intellectually dishonest *****s. They see the 2nd as referencing some ambiguous collective right subject to the whims of the legislature and popular opinion.

The Nevada state ACLU put out a press release stating that they agree with Heller and will defend Second Amendment issues with no less vigor than they defend the rest of the Bill of Rights - good on them.

STAGE 2
12-27-2008, 2:33 AM
There is a right to privacy, and there are prohibitions on torturing ANYONE.

Right to privacy:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated"

Umm... no. That says the government cannot UNREASONABLY search or seize things. Reasonable searches and seizures are just fine. If I had a right to privacy, it wouldn't matter if a search was reasonable or not.

Reading something into the constitution thats not there is just as repugnant as reading something out of it.


Torture:
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

Wrong again. That simply means that a judicial body cannot hand out a punishment that is cruel or unusual. That doesn't say anything about how the police can interrogate a suspect (covered elsewhere) or how the CIA can interrogate a terrorist (not covered at all).

hoffmang
12-27-2008, 9:57 AM
Thats pretty vague. If we are going to be constitutional about this, there really isn't a right to privacy, and there are no prohibitions on torturing terrorists. Again, I'm not seeing this mass group of hypocrites. No doubt there are some but I don't think they rise anywhere to the level of the ACLU.

You're moving the goal posts a bit. Rights aren't granted in the Constitution - some are enumerated but the 9th makes what that means pretty clear.

I've watched all manner of gun rights supporters attempt to deny a right to marry a person of a person's choice have third party restrictions by gender.

I doubt you're out defending Lawrence v. Texas either.

I find it odd that gun owners want to force the majority to accept the right to defend themselves but then vote with the majority to take identifiable right to choose their own partners.

Now back OT: I'm interested to see where ACLU ends up on this. It's high time that the left be forced to confront reality on the 2A too and this will be the schism that is most likely the canary in this particular coal mine.

-Gene

hoffmang
12-27-2008, 9:58 AM
Reading something into the constitution thats not there is just as repugnant as reading something out of it.


Reading the 9th Amendment out is pretty repugnant as well.

-Gene

yellowfin
12-27-2008, 10:32 AM
The 10th has been pretty sadly neglected too. I have never once seen it enforced.

STAGE 2
12-27-2008, 10:28 PM
You're moving the goal posts a bit. Rights aren't granted in the Constitution - some are enumerated but the 9th makes what that means pretty clear.

Except that "privacy" is not a right retained by the people. The constitution makes it clear that the government can stick its big nose into your business if it has the proper justification. If you had privacy rights, it could do this. I could smoke dope and drink absynthe all day long (wouldn't that be fun) in the privay of my own home and the government could do a thing about it even if they knew because I have a right to privacy.

However there is no right to privacy. Never has been. Thats why they can kick down doors when judtified.


I've watched all manner of gun rights supporters attempt to deny a right to marry a person of a person's choice have third party restrictions by gender.

Sorry Gene, but because you call something a right doesn't make it one.


I find it odd that gun owners want to force the majority to accept the right to defend themselves but then vote with the majority to take identifiable right to choose their own partners.

I don't want to get on the topic of gay marriage because thats beyond the scope here. Suffice it to say that comparing marriage (not a right) to bearing arms (a right) isn't a valid argument. Therefore you shouldn't find it odd.

hoffmang
12-27-2008, 10:42 PM
Suffice it to say that comparing marriage (not a right) to bearing arms (a right) isn't a valid argument. Therefore you shouldn't find it odd.

And as I was pointing out, your definition of rights is enumeration. I'll remind you of a very important point in the Constitution:


The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


You don't call a lot of things rights because you don't like them. For example, I think you'd be hard pressed to find a lot of Americans who don't think they have a right to privacy...

-Gene

Mulay El Raisuli
12-28-2008, 5:44 AM
However there is no right to privacy. Never has been. Thats why they can kick down doors when judtified.


Not quite. You don't have an ABSOLUTE Right to privacy, just as you don't have an ABSOLUTE Right to anything else.
Example; you'll agree that we have a Right to life. Yet, The State can take your life if justification for doing so can be shown (like a jury trial). In the same way, your Right to privacy keeps The State from walking thru your door willy-nilly any time they want to, but it doesn't keep them from doing so when justified (like after getting permission from a judge).

The Raisuli

Canute
12-28-2008, 2:51 PM
I don't want to get on the topic of gay marriage because thats beyond the scope here. Suffice it to say that comparing marriage (not a right) to bearing arms (a right) isn't a valid argument. Therefore you shouldn't find it odd.

I consider it an issue of liberty. What is the state doing sticking its nose into the romantic relationships of consenting adults?
In other news, I just donated to the Nevada ACLU. The national ACLU is off my list until they change their minds on the second amendment.

DPC
12-28-2008, 4:27 PM
That's becuase ACLU stands for American Communist Lawyers Union. The organisation is founded by Communist...

STAGE 2
12-28-2008, 10:41 PM
And as I was pointing out, your definition of rights is enumeration. I'll remind you of a very important point in the Constitution:


You don't call a lot of things rights because you don't like them. For example, I think you'd be hard pressed to find a lot of Americans who don't think they have a right to privacy...

-Gene

Sorry Gene, but that doesn't wash. There are many rights that people have that are not in the constitution but are rights nonetheless. The right to travel, procreative rights, etc. I don't dispute this.

What I do dispute is people incorrectly labeling something a right merely because it is an important issue to them. "Marriage" isn't a right. Hasn't been since the inception of this nation. Thats why the federal government can pass laws regulating it as well as states.

Everything that we like that floats around in the ether isn't a right. Stating that it is simply bastardizes the 9th amendment into something it wasn't meant to be.

STAGE 2
12-28-2008, 10:43 PM
Not quite. You don't have an ABSOLUTE Right to privacy, just as you don't have an ABSOLUTE Right to anything else.
Example; you'll agree that we have a Right to life. Yet, The State can take your life if justification for doing so can be shown (like a jury trial). In the same way, your Right to privacy keeps The State from walking thru your door willy-nilly any time they want to, but it doesn't keep them from doing so when justified (like after getting permission from a judge).

The Raisuli

No, the 4th amendment keeps the government from walking in willy nilly. Not some mythical right to privacy. There isn't anything that I can do in private that is against the law and not be prosecuted for it. Privacy isn't a right. Period.

hoffmang
12-29-2008, 12:02 AM
What I do dispute is people incorrectly labeling something a right merely because it is an important issue to them. "Marriage" isn't a right. Hasn't been since the inception of this nation. Thats why the federal government can pass laws regulating it as well as states.

Everything that we like that floats around in the ether isn't a right. Stating that it is simply bastardizes the 9th amendment into something it wasn't meant to be.

The right to marriage is certainly a derivative of the well understood right to contract. You just don't like it.

I notice you now back off complaining about the un-enumerated right to privacy.

-Gene

STAGE 2
12-29-2008, 12:45 AM
The right to marriage is certainly a derivative of the well understood right to contract. You just don't like it.

If you want to view it as a right to contract thats fine. Of course there are all sorts of restrictions on with who you can contract with and what you can contract about. This is no different.


I notice you now back off complaining about the un-enumerated right to privacy.

-Gene

I haven't backed off of anything. There is no right to privacy. It was a ridiculous bit of judicial fluff created in Griswold so the court could overturn the ban on contraceptives. Even some of the justices themselves saw the stupidity of the courts decision and commented on it.

The 4th amendment prohibits the government from coming into my home any time it pleases. Its a restraint. However merely because the government is restrained does not mean that there is some mythical right to privacy.

To believe this would be to believe that the 1st amendment grants you the right to say anything you want at any time or that the 2nd means you can build a nuclear bomb in your garage.

hoffmang
12-29-2008, 12:55 AM
If you want to view it as a right to contract thats fine. Of course there are all sorts of restrictions on with who you can contract with and what you can contract about. This is no different.


The state is supposed to enforce contracts - not proscribe them absent very compelling state interests (slavery, exploitation, fraud, etc.)

You clearly don't subscribe to the founding vision of a republic of the people.

Reasonable men can differ on whether the right to privacy extends to where the court has said it extends, but it's pretty unreasonable that you're so hung up on the results that the right to privacy led to that you can't admit there is a natural and fundamental right to privacy that predates the Constitution.

Again, you prefer that many rights be much more circumscribed to fit your world view. Your right to arms should be pretty healthy and wide and other peoples rights to do as they please when they don't directly or through actual externalities hurt you - well, if they don't comply with your moral compass those are rights they shouldn't have and you like the state making them awfully narrow.

I tend to call that a form of hypocrisy, but I can pretty safely guess that your morality is self denying enough to make sure that you don't have to face that. People wanting to make choices different than yours are somehow less deserving of rights.

-Gene

Theseus
12-29-2008, 1:08 AM
Oh! That is why I couldn't quote...it was removed....

Then I will not stay with that.

The problem that some see is that they believe we have only the rights the constitution says we do....that is in fact false. The Constitution doesn't cover all the rights endowed y our creator and it even admits that! It only outlines some what were considered to be the most important and vital to preserve in the face of a tyrannical government.

Rights didn't start and they will not end with governments....well.....actually they may end with them....but the point still remains and my argument is irrefutable!

anthonyca
12-29-2008, 1:26 AM
When I was in highschool my history class had an ACLU poster on the wall with the bill of rights. Each amendment had a cartoon depicting their interpretation of that right. I asked the teacher why the 2nd amendment was omitted and at first could not get and answer. The teacher then told me by interrupting my discussion with other students that it was not part of the bill of rights.

He went on to tell the class about how all the other rights, which I cherish also, were what made this country possible. I told him that guns also had an important hand in making this country free. He just became very angry and said its outdated anyway even if it was intended to be there but it wasn't so we are leaving it at that.

STAGE 2
12-29-2008, 2:10 AM
The state is supposed to enforce contracts - not proscribe them absent very compelling state interests (slavery, exploitation, fraud, etc.)

Then why can't I contract for a gram of coke and 30 minutes with a hooker?


You clearly don't subscribe to the founding vision of a republic of the people.

So its your position that the framers would have agreed with you that homosexual marriage was a right?



Reasonable men can differ on whether the right to privacy extends to where the court has said it extends, but it's pretty unreasonable that you're so hung up on the results that the right to privacy led to that you can't admit there is a natural and fundamental right to privacy that predates the Constitution.

I'm hung up on the results because they have taken us to an absurd place in constitutional law. It is not the function of the judiciary to invalidate bad laws. The are merely there to invalidate unconstitutional ones. "Privacy" was created so the court could rule on equitable matters rather than constitutional ones.

And on a baser level, the right to "privacy" is just a silly concept. If I have a right to privacy then why isn't it a defense if I do illegal things in private. The answer is because there really is no right to privacy. If there were, nearly every criminal law would violate your right to privacy to the extent that it applied in your home.

I understand the concept of privacy, and it is beyond question that the 3rd and 4th amendments were an effort to secure a degree of privacy for citizens, however that does not translate into some independent right.

In this case, there are merely constitutional restraints on when the government can intrude in your life. Nothing more.



Again, you prefer that many rights be much more circumscribed to fit your world view.[quote]

No, I prefer that things which are rights be respected and things which are not rights be understood in that fashion.


[quote]Your right to arms should be pretty healthy and wide and other peoples rights to do as they please when they don't directly or through actual externalities hurt you - well, if they don't comply with your moral compass those are rights they shouldn't have and you like the state making them awfully narrow.

Again Gene, you make the mistake of calling something a right when it is not. The law simply isn't on your side here. You doing this would be no different than the DOJ simply labeling uppers as firearms. After all they are guns right?

As far as a moral compass it should be no secret that this nation has been legislating morality since its inception. Some folks might not like it, but there isn't anything wrong or unconstitutional about it. I have no doubt that if we survive long enough gay marriage will be accepted. Thats fine. I don't have any problem with it just so long as we dont create law out of thin air to hasten its arrival. Thats the beauty of our system and thats how its supposed to work.


I tend to call that a form of hypocrisy, but I can pretty safely guess that your morality is self denying enough to make sure that you don't have to face that. People wanting to make choices different than yours are somehow less deserving of rights.

But thats the beauty of it Gene. I believe everyone should have equal rights and they do. Every person in the US has the opportunity to marry someone of the opposite sex and recieve the privileges and benefits that go along with it. Some people won't, but that doesn't mean they don't have the opportunity to.

And if you don't like that one how bout this. Its only hypocrisy if I was advocating for more rights on one hand and less rights on the other. I'm not. I'm advocating for rights on one hand and arguing that the public at large should be able to decide about a social issue on the other.

If the government can take it all away tomorrow (which many people here advocate via getting out of the marriage business) its not a right.

anthonyca
12-29-2008, 2:23 AM
Then why can't I contract for a gram of coke and 30 minutes with a hooker?


For most of our history you could. The government should not be interfering with the oldest profession and contracts between two adults wether I agree with that they are doing or not.

bulgron
12-29-2008, 9:00 AM
The only reason why government is in the business of licensing marriages is because the post-civil-war south didn't want blacks marrying whites.

Government has no business regulating marriage. It should leave that to the churches and instead care only about contracts between people.

Our various constitutions pretty clearly outline what powers our governments have. Everything else is reserved for the people. But our governments have by now so far overstepped the bounds of what they're allowed to do by our own constitutions that I suppose that argument doesn't fly anymore.

Which is how we find ourselves in this gun grabbing mess in the first place, but clearly people even on this board have trouble making that connection.

hoffmang
12-29-2008, 11:03 AM
Then why can't I contract for a gram of coke and 30 minutes with a hooker?

Government out of morality please. You're acting like I don't support the legalization of both with only regulation where there is compelling public interest (ease issues with addiction, mandatory STD testing). Decriminalizing and regulating these two items would go very far in restoring the 2A, 4A etc.


So its your position that the framers would have agreed with you that homosexual marriage was a right?

I'm quite clear that the framers didn't know what all the rights of citizens were. It was one of the major arguments against enumerating some in the first place. For example, it didn't occur to the framers that governments would pass laws not letting some people work inside the city limits. I think you'd be hard pressed to argue that the framers wouldn't see that sort of thing as entrenching on a certain right to contract and work in that context.


I'm hung up on the results because they have taken us to an absurd place in constitutional law. It is not the function of the judiciary to invalidate bad laws. The are merely there to invalidate unconstitutional ones. "Privacy" was created so the court could rule on equitable matters rather than constitutional ones.

And on a baser level, the right to "privacy" is just a silly concept. If I have a right to privacy then why isn't it a defense if I do illegal things in private. The answer is because there really is no right to privacy. If there were, nearly every criminal law would violate your right to privacy to the extent that it applied in your home.

As I say in my quote. You're from the right and you don't like rights. I and my forefathers didn't create a government to annoy me in my home and rifle through my papers. I'm pissed off every time I have to go through airport screening. Government's incentive is to make life easy for Government and not for the people. However, that's not the deal. Why you like the deal is beyond me - it probably rests in some sad desire to impose your morality on others. That fails because if you give government the tools to violate your rights then the guys with the morals you don't like take the reins and eg. take away your gun rights.


I understand the concept of privacy, and it is beyond question that the 3rd and 4th amendments were an effort to secure a degree of privacy for citizens, however that does not translate into some independent right.

In this case, there are merely constitutional restraints on when the government can intrude in your life. Nothing more.

Bull crap. I don't live my life for the ease of government or betterment of society. If I choose to do good deeds, that's my choice but I do not consent to a government that is merely "restrained." It is my servant and the only place it gets to act like a sovereign should be when my rights honestly and concretely infringe on other's rights. I don't get to kill people. I don't get to just skip paying taxes. I do get to tell a cop to F off unless I've actually done something that violates the social contract - the one that doesn't try to impose social mores because it makes some folks feel better to control the choices of others.


No, I prefer that things which are rights be respected and things which are not rights be understood in that fashion.

So I guess you'd agree that had Heller gone 5-4 the wrong way we'd have no right to keep and bear arms? Rights are unalianeable and unlisted.


Again Gene, you make the mistake of calling something a right when it is not. The law simply isn't on your side here. You doing this would be no different than the DOJ simply labeling uppers as firearms. After all they are guns right?

As far as a moral compass it should be no secret that this nation has been legislating morality since its inception. Some folks might not like it, but there isn't anything wrong or unconstitutional about it. I have no doubt that if we survive long enough gay marriage will be accepted. Thats fine. I don't have any problem with it just so long as we dont create law out of thin air to hasten its arrival. Thats the beauty of our system and thats how its supposed to work.


This nation also started with Slavery. We need to stop legislating morality just like we stopped Slavery. Look at all the good legislating morality has done like the NFA...


And if you don't like that one how bout this. Its only hypocrisy if I was advocating for more rights on one hand and less rights on the other. I'm not. I'm advocating for rights on one hand and arguing that the public at large should be able to decide about a social issue on the other.

No, you're advocating that some rights deserved to be protected and the ones you don't like shouldn't. Kind of like the ACLU's position.

-Gene

STAGE 2
12-29-2008, 2:02 PM
Government out of morality please. You're acting like I don't support the legalization of both with only regulation where there is compelling public interest (ease issues with addiction, mandatory STD testing). Decriminalizing and regulating these two items would go very far in restoring the 2A, 4A etc.

I'm not acting like you don't support it. I'm citing it as an example of valid government power. You don't have to like it or agree with it, but thats beside the point. The government can lawfully exercise its power to prohibit thing such as this. Thats why you can't play with lawn darts anymore however fun it may be.


I'm quite clear that the framers didn't know what all the rights of citizens were. It was one of the major arguments against enumerating some in the first place. For example, it didn't occur to the framers that governments would pass laws not letting some people work inside the city limits. I think you'd be hard pressed to argue that the framers wouldn't see that sort of thing as entrenching on a certain right to contract and work in that context.

I agree. However because the constitution wasn't supposed to be an exclusive list of rights doesn't mean that EVERYTHING that one can come up with is a right.


Bull crap. I don't live my life for the ease of government or betterment of society. If I choose to do good deeds, that's my choice but I do not consent to a government that is merely "restrained." It is my servant and the only place it gets to act like a sovereign should be when my rights honestly and concretely infringe on other's rights.

Then you need to retake civics. While our government is limited in nature, within the confines of its limited power it gets to act as it sees fit. That is the tradeoff for having a government.



So I guess you'd agree that had Heller gone 5-4 the wrong way we'd have no right to keep and bear arms? Rights are unalianeable and unlisted.

No because I can point to a specific and clearly written right that states my right to own and carry a gun. Anyone who states otherwise is trying to rewrite what is already there.



This nation also started with Slavery. We need to stop legislating morality just like we stopped Slavery. Look at all the good legislating morality has done like the NFA...

Morality, in part, is what brought about the end of slavery. Most of our laws are based on morality. This nation was formed on judeo-christian principles which are based in morality.


No, you're advocating that some rights deserved to be protected and the ones you don't like shouldn't. Kind of like the ACLU's position.

-Gene

Sorry Gene, but you are calling something a right that isn't. Again, th feds and a majority of states have banned gay marriage. The courts have correctly let these bans stand because marriage isn't a right.

For someone who complained when some DA considered a loaded mag separate from a gun a loaded firearm its really hypocritical for you to lable something a right willy nilly.

rayra
12-29-2008, 2:55 PM
I'd like to thank hoffman for providing such a fine example of the sort of lawyerly sophistry that is practiced by the scumbags at the ACLU with regards to the 2nd Amendment. Kudos, sir, for your service.

Gryff
12-29-2008, 2:56 PM
Seems like they should after the heller decision - it's an individual right after all.

They don't really seem to take a stance on the issue.

Because the ACLU is only staffed by liberals. Conservatives all have real jobs.

Gray Peterson
12-29-2008, 3:19 PM
I'd like to thank hoffman for providing such a fine example of the sort of lawyerly sophistry that is practiced by the scumbags at the ACLU with regards to the 2nd Amendment. Kudos, sir, for your service.

Is that isn't sarcasm, I don't know what is.

Anyway:

:inquis:

dfletcher
12-29-2008, 3:40 PM
There is a right to privacy, and there are prohibitions on torturing ANYONE.

Right to privacy:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated"

Torture:
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

A lot of non-gun-owners look at the Second as an amendment giving the militia the means to fight foreign governments. What they should see is it giving the right of the individual to protect himself or herself.

Perhaps off topic (well I guess that ship has already sailed) but in a recent interview Justice Scalia opined that torture during interrogation may not be a violation of "cruel and unusual punishment" because such treatment did not come as the result of a court decision - in other words, punishment per se can come only as a result of the court passing sentence. Until that time, it's just some fellow beating the hell out of you. There may be other constitutional prohibitions against torture but based on the concept of punishment coming from the court only, the Justice may believe otherwise. It's an interesting approach and offers an insight, I think, into how the courts examine words and their meaning.

N6ATF
12-29-2008, 6:33 PM
Bull crap. I don't live my life for the ease of government or betterment of society. If I choose to do good deeds, that's my choice but I do not consent to a government that is merely "restrained." It is my servant and the only place it gets to act like a sovereign should be when my rights honestly and concretely infringe on other's rights. I don't get to kill people. I don't get to just skip paying taxes. I do get to tell a cop to F off unless I've actually done something that violates the social contract - the one that doesn't try to impose social mores because it makes some folks feel better to control the choices of others.


Not sure how the two bolded parts relate.

hoffmang
12-29-2008, 8:00 PM
Not sure how the two bolded parts relate.

I like having interstates, an FAA, and a capable military. I'm happy to pay my fair share to support those costly items that require collective action. I'd really prefer that we not pay for a bunch of other crap that the Fed has no business in but I'm pretty confident that paying for military expenditure has been, since before the founding even, part of the social contract. When people don't pay their share too, I take issue with it.

That leaves plenty of room to argue about "fair share" and what we spend it on, but I'm quite comfortable that there are expensive things that we want to group buy in our more perfect union.

-Gene

N6ATF
12-30-2008, 1:32 AM
Just not sure how the government's system of income taxation has anything intrinsically to do with rights. I don't believe we have the right to have interstates any more than we have the privilege to drive. In fact, interstates should be funded by gas and new vehicle purchase tax (since you can't have one without the other), and not the inescapable income tax. The FAA should be funded by flight-related things such as taxing av fuel, pilot license fees, and airfare.

Don't even get me started on the military. The social contract is for national defense, not a capable military that can be used and abused for practically any purpose whatsoever. The ONLY exception I'll allow for is humanitarian missions such as tsunami relief. Things which people donate money to willingly anyway.

I always get the impression that group buys are supposed to get the best deal for everyone involved. Well I don't feel that's the case anymore, and the contract is broken except for a small fraction of the military actively defending the nation right here.

And I guess that's as far OT as I should go in this thread.

SOneThreeCoupe
12-30-2008, 9:40 AM
Perhaps off topic (well I guess that ship has already sailed) but in a recent interview Justice Scalia opined that torture during interrogation may not be a violation of "cruel and unusual punishment" because such treatment did not come as the result of a court decision - in other words, punishment per se can come only as a result of the court passing sentence. Until that time, it's just some fellow beating the hell out of you. There may be other constitutional prohibitions against torture but based on the concept of punishment coming from the court only, the Justice may believe otherwise. It's an interesting approach and offers an insight, I think, into how the courts examine words and their meaning.

Any torture is a violation of the Constitution because if it occurs prior to a trial, it violates the Sixth Amendment. If it occurs as a punishment after a trial, it violates the Eighth. If it occurs to extract a confession or admission of wrongdoing, it violates the Fifth.

A private citizen torturing a private citizen is wrong and a felony, but if an agent of the government does it, it's okay as long as it's not court-sanctioned? Scalia may have kindasortamaybe helped us in Heller, but he's quite wrong quite often.

Also, regarding earlier comments made by other posters, please review the wording and word order of the Fourth Amendment. Protection against unjust warrants is not its only protection.

The Ninth Amendment covers any privacy issues claimed to be waived by the Fourth, as the Fourth cannot deny or disparage any other rights retained by the people.

STAGE 2
12-30-2008, 12:14 PM
A private citizen torturing a private citizen is wrong and a felony, but if an agent of the government does it, it's okay as long as it's not court-sanctioned? Scalia may have kindasortamaybe helped us in Heller, but he's quite wrong quite often.

Thats not what Scalia said. He simply stated that the 8th amendment doesn't prohibit torture becuase it is restricted to judicial punishments. If you don't have a court or a sentence, you don't have judicial punishment. This isn't to say that its not addressed elsewhere in the constitution, just that the 8th has no bearing on it.

SOneThreeCoupe
12-31-2008, 7:12 AM
How is the Eighth restricted to judicial punishments, though?

"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

There is no statement at the end saying "by the courts." The Bill of Rights protects us against the whole government, not only the judicial system.

hoffmang
12-31-2008, 3:30 PM
How is the Eighth restricted to judicial punishments, though?

"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."


That interpretation that the 8th is broader than the courts does run into tension with the President and Congress' war making powers. I mean, it's hard to argue that the US Armed Forces is restricted to not using flame throwers and I can think of only a few more cruel and unusual ways to die.

-Gene

STAGE 2
12-31-2008, 3:49 PM
How is the Eighth restricted to judicial punishments, though?

"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

There is no statement at the end saying "by the courts." The Bill of Rights protects us against the whole government, not only the judicial system.

There doesn't need to be. Who sets bail? Who imposes fines? Who gives punishments. The judicial system of course.

Kid Stanislaus
12-31-2008, 4:08 PM
they would be for your 2a rights if you were a communist.


See post #3.

MP301
01-08-2009, 1:27 AM
Well, some of the ACLU likes the 2nd Amendment! Gotta love Nevada!

Report this postReply with quoteNevada ACLU supports right to keep and bear arms
by CharlesLBurnett » Sat Jul 12, 2008 2:46 am

\" The Nevada ACLU has declared its support for an individual’s right to bear arms, apparently making it the first state affiliate in the nation to buck the national organization’s position on the Second Amendment.

The state board of directors reached the decision this month after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects the rights of individuals to own handguns.

“The Nevada ACLU respects the individual’s right to bear arms subject to constitutionally permissible regulations,” a statement on the organization’s Web site said. “The ACLU of Nevada will defend this right as it defends other constitutional rights.”.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/ju ... n-control/