aclu

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2003-04-17 02:52pm

the aclu visited my class today, handed out lots of pamphlets. what is the general opinion of them at this board?

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2003-04-17 03:00pm

They're good to have around.

Companion Cube · Post by **Companion Cube** » 2003-04-17 03:04pm

aclu?

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2003-04-17 03:09pm

American Civil Liberties Union.

Good on some issues such as free speech and the rights of the accused.
Not so good on other issues such as the second amendment.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-04-17 03:22pm

A mixed bag, IMHO.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-04-17 03:24pm

I would much rather have it around than not have it around. As often as I disagree with it.

Sam Or I · Post by **Sam Or I** » 2003-04-17 03:58pm

Durran Korr wrote:I would much rather have it around than not have it around. As often as I disagree with it.

Well put. I agree.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-04-17 04:06pm

They're the masters of wasting time, money, public image and political capital on pointless nonsense like manger scenes in the town square. They're good to have around if some fucknut wants to outlaw rock music or stick gays in the stockade in East Donkeylove, MS, but really, I wish they weren't the most visible civil liberties organization. Still, I'd rather have them around than not.

Tsyroc · Post by **Tsyroc** » 2003-04-17 04:46pm

I wish they were really interested in fighting for all of the Bill of Rights but they are worth having around for what they do fight for.

Queeb Salaron · Post by **Queeb Salaron** » 2003-04-17 05:54pm

The ACLU has saved my ass more than once. And for that I am forever indebted. They're good to have around when you need them, but as far as things like gun control go, I dunno. They're consistent, though. I'll give them that much. I like 'em.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2003-04-17 06:40pm

I was unaware of them having anti-gun stances. What have they done regarding the 2nd admendment?

Also, with the ACLU you have to remember that you must take the good with the bad. Sure they'll defend you if you want to hold a gay pride parade through Po'Dunk, Texas, but they will also defend the Nazis if they want to have a parade through your home town.

Sokar · Post by **Sokar** » 2003-04-17 06:41pm

They are steady, consistent and at times infuriating, but are always useful. You always need someone to play devils advocate or to stand infront of the devil when he gets out of hand.

Sokar · Post by **Sokar** » 2003-04-17 06:43pm

The ACLU's a reminder that in a free society you have to take the beauty with the beast, depending on your pov.

Queeb Salaron · Post by **Queeb Salaron** » 2003-04-17 06:54pm

Wicked Pilot wrote:Also, with the ACLU you have to remember that you must take the good with the bad. Sure they'll defend you if you want to hold a gay pride parade through Po'Dunk, Texas, but they will also defend the Nazis if they want to have a parade through your home town.

I would support the premise of having Nazis parade through my town. As soon as they set foot on my property, though, they're open season.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-04-17 08:03pm

They're a mixed bag. They'll defend anyone and that's the problem, quack cases got as much time and more attention as legtimate ones. For a case in point, the pledge case; the dad's obviously doing it for the wrong reasons and has a case shakier than a Parkinson's patient on speed. Yet they piss off the whole country over it and will probably lose in the end.

They've got sound principles but they need a little bit of discretion.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-04-17 08:39pm

The good work they often do accomplish is totally off set by the bullshit cases they take up all too often.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2003-04-18 02:04am

I was unaware of them having anti-gun stances. What have they done regarding the 2nd admendment?

The ACLU believes that the 2nd is a collective right of the states to maintain militias.

ACLU on gun control

Never mind that the amendment itself specifies the right of 'the people', not the states. The authors of the bill of rights were very specific in their use of words. When they meant the rights of the states, they used the words 'state' or 'states'.

When they meant the rights of individuals, they used 'the people'.
See amendments 1, 4, 5, 9, and 10 for instances where 'the people' mean just that, the people, not the states which are referred to as 'states'.

Professor Eugene Volokh of the UCLA law school wrote an excellent article on the meaning of the second amendment.

The Commonplace Second Amendment

From his conclusion:

For better or worse, interpreting legal texts is a mushy business. Lawyers who support a particular result on policy grounds can often come up with an interpretation that reaches this result, and even persuade themselves that it's the best interpretation.

At the same time, I write from the premise that interpreting a text is not the same enterprise as reading the text to achieve whatever policy result one prefers. Legal texts should to some extent constrain their interpreters, and interpreters should try to subordinate their policy views (even if they cannot ignore them entirely) to the inquiry into what the text says. Sometimes, the interpreter must say, "Too bad, the best reading of the text is one that produces a result I dislike, but I guess I'm stuck with it." Interpretation means sometimes having to say you're sorry.

One way of testing one's interpretive approach -- of distinguishing honest interpretation from mere inscription of one's own policy preferences on the text -- is applying it to a wide array of texts of different political valences. It's easy enough to craft an interpretive trick that reaches the result one wants in the case for which it was crafted. But when one tests it against other provisions, one sees more clearly whether it's a sound interpretive method.

My modest discovery is that the Second Amendment belongs to a large family of similarly structured constitutional provisions: They command a certain thing while at the same time explaining their reasons. Because some of the provisions appeal to liberals and some to conservatives, they offer a natural test suite for any proposed interpretation of the Second Amendment. If the interpretive method makes sense with all the provisions, that's a point in its favor. But if it reaches the result that some may favor for the Second Amendment only by reaching patently unsound results for the other provisions, we should suspect that the method is flawed.

Indeed.

Let's try it.

A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.

Does this limit the right to own books to a state? Of course not.
So why does the ACLU insist on a collective interpretation in this single instance when the BoR says 'right of the people'?

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2003-04-18 02:12am

Because they're politically corrupted.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-04-18 09:49am

Illuminatus Primus wrote:Because they're politically corrupted.

Not corrupt persay but decidely left leaning. That's really the key to it; they simply selectively interperate the amendmant in a way that supports their bias.

Yogi · Post by **Yogi** » 2003-04-18 11:57am

Glocksman wrote:A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.

Does this limit the right to own books to a state? Of course not.
So why does the ACLU insist on a collective interpretation in this single instance when the BoR says 'right of the people'?

Actually an even interpretation would mean that only the electorate would be able to keep and read books, something I don't have a big problem with.

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2003-04-18 12:11pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:The good work they often do accomplish is totally off set by the bullshit cases they take up all too often.

I'll have to agree with that. They have to spend less time whining about little things that really don't hurt anyone, and more time actually defending the rights of others.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2003-04-18 12:41pm

Actually an even interpretation would mean that only the electorate would be able to keep and read books, something I don't have a big problem with.

Let's try this again.

A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.

If you read my linked article, Volokh explains that the Second Amendment follows a common pattern of constitutional drafting from the early republic: There is a "justification clause," followed by a main clause.

For example, Rhode Island's 1842 freedom-of-the-press provision declared: "The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish sentiments on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty." This provision requires courts to protect every person's right to "publish sentiments on any subject" — even when the sentiments are not "essential to the security of freedom in a state," or even when they are detrimental to freedom or security.

In our example, the justification for the right to own books is the creation of a well-schooled electorate. It's not to limit the right to own books to those who are well-schooled.

Volokh explains further:

I believe the justification clause may aid construction of the operative clause but may not trump the meaning of the operative clause: To the extent the operative clause is ambiguous, the justification clause may inform our interpretation of it, but the justification clause can't take away what the operative clause provides. And because we know that operative clauses may be at times broader and at times narrower than justification clauses, we should accept that the two clauses will sometimes point in different directions.

Interpreting our example to mean that only the electorate may own books is letting the justification clause take away what the operative clause 'the right of the people to keep and Books' grants because you're limiting the right to a subset of the people.