20-08-2003 08:22									#31
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by SlowwHand No, Berz. The ACLU is against school prayer in any form. If you really want, I'll track down "official" info.

I triple-dog-dare you to. The ACLU is not opposed to people being religious in school, except when when it is a school function or impares the rights of those who are not fellow pray-ers.

The ACLU is defends the Bill of Rights. That's all they do. If you don't like the Bill of Rights, don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way to China.

	20-08-2003 08:26									#32
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Notice how Sloww seems to forget the ACLU has fought to defend the rights of Christians to practice their beliefs, too.

http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLibert...?ID=10147&c=142

	20-08-2003 08:44									#33
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

That doesn't fit in with the reactionaries view of the ACLU as rabid liberals. Maybe if they'd just stop trying to force everyone to agree to their views and just accept the Constitution, the ACLU wouldn't have to fight them most of the time.

	20-08-2003 09:11									#34
	Full PM-box? Change here!

I'm calling bullshit! The ACLU must certainly does have an ideological bone to pick and they are constintently looking to set up double standards. For instance the ACLU calls to terminate all voucher programs and tuition tax credits on the grounds that it is not fair unless poor people get a larger voucher then middle and upper income people ( ), they've claimed that students don't even have the right to bring a bible to school to read on their own time yet perversely sued to allow a muslim organization the right to use a school after hours on the grounds there wasn't a community center availible for the muslims to use (either don't allow any religions to use public property or allow them all but playing favorities just smacks of liberal bias), Deny the tax-exempt status of all churches on the grounds they dabble in politics--yet maintaining it for themselves as well as for various no christian groups who do the exact same thing, they argue that quotes forcing companies to hire black people just because of their race is equal protection, I can go on and on...

The ACLU is a rabidly political organization just accept it. Most of their positions have very little to do with the law and a whole lot to do with ideology. Is that necissarially bad? No, but let's ditch the fake cloak about them just being here to protect the people's rights because that's not what the ACLU is about at all. When it comes down to it the ACLU is just another PAC out to pay off politicians and to litigate their bigoted little views.

	20-08-2003 09:50									#35
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Boris -

quote: Blah blah blah more bile against the ACLU. Can anyone produce a documented instance of them acting to "taking away" people's freedoms? Nonsense.

Oerdin just ran down a few.

quote: Oh, and in the 2002 election, the ACLU was trying to make sure voting was fair. But when it's all 50 states voting nationwide instead of the circus we have in California now, things don't get as noticed.

True, but as even chegitz points out, the ACLU agreed to have the machines replaced "after" Davis' re-election, but now the ACLU is backtracking on that deal by insisting this recall take place later to match the terms of that agreement.

quote: I thank the ACLU, as they have been an invaluable force for preserving civil liberties everyone here seems to take for granted.

Not when they seek to destroy our freedoms.

chegitz -

quote: The ACLU sued California in 2001 over the continued use of these machines. The State of California settled with the ACLU and agreed to replace these machines by March 1st, 2004. Since the election falls so close to the replacement date, their position is that it's not an imposition on the state to wait so that all of California's voters have the same rights to vote.

Apparently it is an imposition on those who voted for the recall in accordance with the law since I doubt they were wanting Davis recalled some time next year, but notice how the ACLU was content to wait until after Davis' re-election then and now take a position conspicuously advantageous to Davis?

	20-08-2003 10:48									#36
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara The ACLU sued California in 2001 over the continued use of these machines. The State of California settled with the ACLU and agreed to replace these machines by March 1st, 2004. Since the election falls so close to the replacement date, their position is that it's not an imposition on the state to wait so that all of California's voters have the same rights to vote.

So the ACLU consented to letting the 2002 election proceed under the old system, and raised no issues with its results.

Yet now, without any evidence that California's voting system as it exists now is anywhere nearly as ****ed up as Florida's allegedly was, the ACLU wants a Federal court, for the first time in US history, to stay a state office election before the election has even taken place. Yep, that's right, those great "constitutional" advocates want the Federal judiciary to stick it's nose where it has no basis being, on the hypothetical question of what might happen. Let's not let those damned voters actually vote. Let's tell them it would be unfair, before they've actually had the chance, and stall the election. And what a coincidence, it happens to help a tax and spend liberal's darling boy, even if he is inept.

	20-08-2003 15:28									#37
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

At the time of the state settlement with the ACLU, the assumption by both sides was that the machines would be replaced before the next major statewide election (ie, one in which statewide elective office is at stake). Thus the March 1, 2004 effective date.

The ACLU's position here is consistent with the spirit of that agreement: there should be no new statewide elections on the old machinery. One can disagree, but it's hard to argue that the ACLU is being ridiculously out of line or partisan. Unless you're a wing-nut or something.

	20-08-2003 16:30									#38
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

The ACLU did not demand the machines be replaced before the 2002 election so the urgency now is suspect.

	21-08-2003 05:58									#39
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Berzerker The ACLU did not demand the machines be replaced before the 2002 election so the urgency now is suspect.

The 2001 lawsuit was entirely based on the 2002 elections. The ACLU was suing to make sure THOSE elections were fair. The State of California settled with the ACLU, promising to have things fixed by the date in 2004, on the presumption that would be the next statewide election. The ACLU accepted California's position that the demands were impossible to meet by 2002, but wanted to make sure it would all be in place before the next election.

They did not expect the recall, which brought about the statewide election far earlier than thought. Since the ACLU made the settlement under the presumption that things would be fixed by the next election, their position here is entirely consistent with their past actions.

And Oerdin didn't cite any specific cases, just the typical hysteria over the ACLU. I want to see the details of those instances and the exact position of the ACLU and why it took the stance it did. Too often, I see right wingers froth at the mouth based on second- and third- hand information that is a distortion of the actual cases.

Now, I have certainly disagree with their stances on many issues, especially the recent Florida case of the Muslim woman and her driver's license, but I've yet to see any example of them working to deprive people of their rights. Mostly, I see people blissfully ignoring all the times they have stood up for the rights of individuals, regardless of who they are.

	21-08-2003 06:44									#40
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Boris - A judge has just ruled against the ACLU based on their inability to show that voter "dis-enfranchisement" occured in 2002 and that it will happen again. Of course the ACLU couldn't know a recall would happen, but the terms of the agreement were to have the machines replaced by 2004, their presumptions aside. If the ACLU accepted that the state did not have the time to replace the machines between 2001 and the election in 2002, then it is inconsistent to demand this election be delayed. The voters who want the recall vote have the expectation their wishes will be honored in accordance with the law, not the schedules of the ACLU and Gray Davis.

As for specific cases of the ACLU taking away our freedoms, Oerdin did cite a number of cases. The ACLU does support Affirmative Action which is taking away our freedom. The ACLU does oppose voucher programs which would give parents some relief (a restoration of some freedom) when making decisions about the education of their children. Where is the ACLU when localities take away the right to own guns? Where is the ACLU in the drug war? I can cite cases of the ACLU taking away freedoms and standing by as others take away our freedoms.

	21-08-2003 07:06									#41
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Berzerker Boris - A judge has just ruled against the ACLU based on their inability to show that voter "dis-enfranchisement" occured in 2002 and that it will happen again. Of course the ACLU couldn't know a recall would happen, but the terms of the agreement were to have the machines replaced by 2004, their presumptions aside. If the ACLU accepted that the state did not have the time to replace the machines between 2001 and the election in 2002, then it is inconsistent to demand this election be delayed. The voters who want the recall vote have the expectation their wishes will be honored in accordance with the law, not the schedules of the ACLU and Gray Davis.

The current ruling aside, the State of California settled with the ACLU in 2001 over the issue and promised to address the situation, so obviously there were problems. That the ACLU is suing over the recall now and trying to have it delayes isn't comparable to the 2002 election, since one is a constitutionally-mandated election whose date is set, and the other is an extraordinary election where the date is flexible. The ACLU's primary concern is that EVERY voter, whether they support the recall or not, has a fair and equal opportunity to vote. I don't see anything inconsistent between their position then and now.

quote: As for specific cases of the ACLU taking away our freedoms, Oerdin did cite a number of cases. The ACLU does support Affirmative Action which is taking away our freedom. The ACLU does oppose voucher programs which would give parents some relief (a restoration of some freedom) when making decisions about the education of their children. Where is the ACLU when localities take away the right to own guns? Where is the ACLU in the drug war? I can cite cases of the ACLU taking away freedoms and standing by as others take away our freedoms.

No, Oerdin listed cases without any supporting information. Sorry, but considering the number of times I've seen people distort the positions and actions of the ACLU, I'm not inclined to take his word for it. I want to see the ACLU's actual position. Affirmative Action taking away freedoms? Ludicrous. Whose freedom does it take away? The same is true for vouchers--what freedom is guaranteed that allows someone to use public tax dollars to fund private schools?

http://archive.aclu.org/library/aaguns.html

"The ACLU has often been criticized for "ignoring the Second Amendment" and refusing to fight for the individual's right to own a gun or other weapons. This issue, however, has not been ignored by the ACLU. The national board has in fact debated and discussed the civil liberties aspects of the Second Amendment many times.

We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government. In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles. The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration."

You may not agree with it, but I think it's consistent with standard Constitutional interpretation.

The drug war?

http://archive.aclu.org/issues/drug...drugpolicy.html

"The ACLU has opposed the outright criminalization of drugs since 1968, believing that the best way to deal with drugs is regulation, not incarceration."

The ACLU has been consistent in opposing unfair drug searches and other enforcement practices.

Citing cases where the ACLU was "standing by" is meaningless, since they can't be everywhere at all times.

	21-08-2003 07:12									#42
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov You may not agree with it, but I think it's consistent with standard Constitutional interpretation.

I'm not exactly sure about that, esp. in light of recent cases or from looking at the text.

	21-08-2003 07:34									#43
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

The ACLU got shot down by a court in San Fransisco of all places. If the liberals can't even when in the most liberal court circuit in the country then maybe they should rethink their position.

	21-08-2003 07:45									#44
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Some of those computerized machines have been used to steal elections. Sen. Chuck Hegel, who owned the company which made them

"recieved" 83% of the vote.The fraud in Florida is nothing compared to what these machines have done.

	21-08-2003 08:00									#45
	Tired of ads?

quote: Affirmative Action taking away freedoms? Ludicrous. Whose freedom does it take away?

The claim they made was that affirmitive action was always continutional and should always remain constitutional. I.E. making race the controling factor in hireing shouldn't be seen as a violation of the constitution's guaranty that all citizens would be equal before the law and recieve equal protection from the law. Even the furthest left liberals on the supreme court knew this was an outriht lie and instead voted saying it was a temperary measure needed to cure racism.

quote: The same is true for vouchers--what freedom is guaranteed that allows someone to use public tax dollars to fund private schools?

You're putting the burden in the wrong place. The constitution guarantees the states have all powers not expressly granted to the federal government yet the ACLU has sued in Federal court claiming it is unconstitutional to let parents decide which school their child should attend. As usual the ACLU is dead wrong and they will lose the case but it just goes to show you how utterly politicized an organization the ACLU is.

I'm not saying the ACLU is evil. I am saying they're not the "Guardians of the Constitutial liberties" which the ACLU claims itself to be. They're a PAC just like any other PAC.

	21-08-2003 08:51									#46
	Got spare money?

The ACLU has been, and still is, one of the most important organizations in our country (me proud member of the ACLU ). I don't agree with everything they do of course, but for the most part they act responsibly. Of course, this is one instance where they seem to act a little silly.

quote: For instance the ACLU calls to terminate all voucher programs and tuition tax credits on the grounds that it is not fair unless poor people get a larger voucher then middle and upper income people ( ),

Sure sounds like a good idea to me , but as far as I know, the ACLU argues against the constitutional merits of vouchers based on the establishment clause of the First Amendment.

quote: they've claimed that students don't even have the right to bring a bible to school to read on their own time yet perversely sued to allow a muslim organization the right to use a school after hours on the grounds there wasn't a community center availible for the muslims to use (either don't allow any religions to use public property or allow them all but playing favorities just smacks of liberal bias),

I'd have to call bullshit on that. Would you mind providing a source that the ACLU defended the right of a school (presumably a public school, otherwise your point is moot) to prohibit kids from bringing Bibles to school and reading them during their free time?

Besides, that doesn't even make any sense. Why the hell would a state (i.e. the folks who run the public school) decide to pick the ACLU to handle their case? I can't remember the last time the ACLU defended a state. Hell, I'd be suprised if a state ever chose the ACLU as their defense.

quote: Deny the tax-exempt status of all churches on the grounds they dabble in politics--yet maintaining it for themselves as well as for various no christian groups who do the exact same thing,

I have no idea where you get that idea. They did oppose a law, the Houses of Worship Political Speech Protection Act, because it allowed religious non-profits that dabbled in politics to be tax exempt, but didn't confer the same priviledge to secular organizations.

quote: they argue that quotes forcing companies to hire black people just because of their race is equal protection, I can go on and on...

Source please. And keep in mind that affirmative action is by no means a quota system.

	21-08-2003 09:03									#47
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Boris -

quote: The current ruling aside, the State of California settled with the ACLU in 2001 over the issue and promised to address the situation, so obviously there were problems.

And the court just ruled there was insufficient evidence that voters in 6 counties would be "dis-enfranchised".

quote: That the ACLU is suing over the recall now and trying to have it delayes isn't comparable to the 2002 election, since one is a constitutionally-mandated election whose date is set, and the other is an extraordinary election where the date is flexible.

Where in the law regarding the recall does it say the recall election is so "flexible" to allow for a 5-6 month delay? It would seem to me that a recall election has an even more urgent mandate since the voters signing the petition have deemed the current incumbant unfit to hold office, a voter's impeachment.

quote: The ACLU's primary concern is that EVERY voter, whether they support the recall or not, has a fair and equal opportunity to vote. I don't see anything inconsistent between their position then and now.

The ACLU agreed to "dis-enfranchise" all those voters the last time, but now the election must be delayed.

quote: No, Oerdin listed cases without any supporting information.

Does he really need to track down the specific cases for your satisfaction - let's just use what you've said below about gun rights and AA.

quote: Affirmative Action taking away freedoms? Ludicrous. Whose freedom does it take away?

The freedom of employers to decide which people to hire and the freedom of people to contract with employers for employment. AA coerces an employer to hire one person because of their skin color instead of the person they want to hire, the freedom of the employer and the freedom of the rejected applicant have been taken away.

quote: The same is true for vouchers--what freedom is guaranteed that allows someone to use public tax dollars to fund private schools?

Those "tax" dollars were the property of the parents. If you "tax" me to pay for a public school, then my freedom to seek a private education for my child has been violated. It's no different than a law requiring you to buy a Ford before the car of your choice. Would you call that law an infringement of your freedom?

quote: http://archive.aclu.org/library/aaguns.html "The ACLU has often been criticized for "ignoring the Second Amendment" and refusing to fight for the individual's right to own a gun or other weapons. This issue, however, has not been ignored by the ACLU. The national board has in fact debated and discussed the civil liberties aspects of the Second Amendment many times. We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government.

And there you have your proof. A "collective right" that can be ignored because collective rights really don't exist and "the right of the people" to keep and bear arms has been "interpreted" by the ACLU to be a "state right" to maintain militias. So the only right mentioned in the 2nd Amendment was not a right of the people, but a state's "right" to ignore the people's right to own guns. Is the right of the people to be free from unreasonable searches, etc., a "collective right" that the states can ignore? The only right mentioned in the 2nd Amendment is the right of the people to keep and bear arms and the writings of the Founders repeatedly affirm this is an individual right just as all the other rights in the BOR, but feel free to show us what other rights are "collective rights" the states can ignore. The very notion of a "collective right" is illogical because rights belong to individuals - that's why the Framers make a distinction between the rights of people and the powers of the state which are effectively "collective" as expressed thru elections. Is the right to religious freedom a "collective right"? How can that be? Does that mean the majority gets to decide which religion everyone else must follow?

quote: In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles.

No, we the people of the states were meant to be the army and it is we who will have to defend ourselves if the standing army fails. The Founders didn't even want a permanent standing army and sought to prevent it by restricting appropriations to 2 years. You may consider that anachronistic, but if we had to go up against a country like China and our military was defeated badly enough to allow a Chinese invasion of the country, you'd see that an armed populace is, nor ever will be an anachronism. It's no coincidence brutal dictators try to disarm people before the mass murder comes, and the Founders weren't oblivious to this fact.

quote: The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration."

So what other rights in the BOR does the ACLU consider "collective" and subject to dis-solving? Why do they find only this right to be "collective" and therefore subject to dismissal?

quote: You may not agree with it, but I think it's consistent with standard Constitutional interpretation.

It wasn't the "interpretation" of the people who wrote the Constitution.

quote: The drug war? "The ACLU has opposed the outright criminalization of drugs since 1968, believing that the best way to deal with drugs is regulation, not incarceration."

Where were they before 1968? And how have they "opposed" the criminalisation of drugs since 1968?

quote: The ACLU has been consistent in opposing unfair drug searches and other enforcement practices.

Irrelevant.

quote: Citing cases where the ACLU was "standing by" is meaningless, since they can't be everywhere at all times.

Yeah, while the drug war has taken away our freedoms on a massive scale, the ACLU couldn't do anything because they were off defending neo-Nazis marching in Skokie or trying to prevent football players praying before games.

	21-08-2003 09:13									#48
	Support Apolyton

quote: What fraud? I thought the big problem in Florida was voter confusion with ballots.

Nah, the big problem in Florida was Jeb Bush deciding to, several weeks before the lection, disenfranchising thousands of ex-cons who had the right to vote under Florida law and people he falsely accused to be ex-cons.

	21-08-2003 09:56									#49
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Those "tax" dollars were the property of the parents. If you "tax" me to pay for a public school, then my freedom to seek a private education for my child has been violated. It's no different than a law requiring you to buy a Ford before the car of your choice. Would you call that law an infringement of your freedom?

Deosn't fly Constitutionally, regardless of your opinion on property taxes. I don't think the founders decided that the feds should subsidize Joe 18th-Century's farm equipment because protective tariffs infringed on his freedom to buy such products.

quote: Yeah, while the drug war has taken away our freedoms on a massive scale, the ACLU couldn't do anything because they were off defending neo-Nazis marching in Skokie or trying to prevent football players praying before games.

As far as I know, the ACLU has pretty consistently opposed the War on Drugs. The problem is, there hasn't been much of a constitutional basis for such opposition unless you radically re-interpret the Constitution from the status quo, so they can't effectively oppose the WoD itself in the courts. However, they do bring to court cases regarding better established civil liberties arising from the war on drugs (illegal searches, property seizures, etc.). Which is pretty damn admirable IMO.

	21-08-2003 09:59									#50
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: I.e. prayer in school. if some group of kids want to get together before class and pray together so that they might pass the test, the ACLU rises from the mirk and starts bashing these kids and the school... The kids shouldn't be allowed to pray in school! they hollar... what about those kids personal freedoms?

Another bald assertion. When has the ACLU opposed students' rights to voluntary prayers not during class time/school events?

	21-08-2003 10:33									#51
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Ramo -

quote: Deosn't fly Constitutionally, regardless of your opinion on property taxes. I don't think the founders decided that the feds should subsidize Joe 18th-Century's farm equipment because protective tariffs infringed on his freedom to buy such products.

First, the question was how the ACLU has helped take our freedom and I've explained how. Second, there is a difference between tariffs and protective tariffs, but both are infringements on freedom...and freedom was the issue.

quote: As far as I know, the ACLU has pretty consistently opposed the War on Drugs. The problem is, there hasn't been much of a constitutional basis for such opposition unless you radically re-interpret the Constitution from the status quo, so they can't effectively oppose the WoD itself in the courts.

That's because the ACLU is not an organisation that ascribes to a literal reading of the Constitution, so they can't play both sides of the coin by reading it literally one time only to "interpret" it the next. Has the ACLU ever challenged drug laws based on a literal reading of the Constitution?

quote: However, they do bring to court cases regarding better established civil liberties arising from the war on drugs (illegal searches, property seizures, etc.). Which is pretty damn admirable IMO.

Yes, but no one here says the ACLU always tries to take our freedom so pointing out times they try to defend freedoms isn't relevant.

quote: Nah, the big problem in Florida was Jeb Bush deciding to, several weeks before the lection, disenfranchising thousands of ex-cons who had the right to vote under Florida law and people he falsely accused to be ex-cons.

That wasn't ballot fraud which is what this debate is about. And I wouldn't call it fraud to clean voter lists of ex-cons who lost the privilege to vote so I'd need actual proof these mistakes were intentional. Gore's attempt to have recounts only in his strongest bases of support was intentional and dis-ingenuous and not condemned by those who complained about "dis-enfranchising" voters.

	21-08-2003 10:36									#52
	Suffering from ads?

Having said that, congrats to Chegitz, I didn't know the ACLU sued before the 2002 election so that certainly diminishes my feeling they are being inconsistent now.

	21-08-2003 10:41									#53
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov The current ruling aside, the State of California settled with the ACLU in 2001 over the issue and promised to address the situation, so obviously there were problems.

Settling is also a way to simply avoid cost of litigation and PR / political heat. So it's far from "obvious" that there were any problems at all. San Diego County is one of the six counties that were the claimed object of the current ACLU suit. Prior to moving south of the border, I did volunteer duty with the registrar of voters for three election cycles in the 90's, both primary and general elections, from polling place peasant to polling place supervisor, volunteer coordinator and trainer, and count observer.

The reasons for the 2001 suit were simple business. The ACLU is a membership and PR driven organization, with a primarily liberal and democrat support base. The ACLU is dependent on "issues" for it's support, and after the 2000 election, voting machines were the hot issue of the moment for the left. California got sued because the state (and the counties that have to do the legwork and foot much of the bill) didn't feel that it's election system (which worked great for Democrats ) was broken to anything near the point where it was urgent to mandate an expensive and rapid transition to a new voting machine system, especially in lieu of other administrative priorities. The ACLU sues, the state doesn't care since they were gonna do it eventually anyway, and they work out a deal that doesn't put too much pressure on most counties. ACLU gets big publicity boost, and nobody politically takes any heat. Problem? Nope, just California political PR.

quote: That the ACLU is suing over the recall now and trying to have it delayes isn't comparable to the 2002 election, since one is a constitutionally-mandated election whose date is set, and the other is an extraordinary election where the date is flexible.

Well, you get points for creativity, at least. The Federal Constution merely defines terms of office and qualification for elected Federal officeholders, and that elections shall be held for those offices. The time, place and manner of choosing is left to the states, and is accomplished by the states by their constitutions and statutes. The recall is governed by the same body of law, the California constitution and the California Elections Code, as any other election within the state.

quote: The ACLU's primary concern is that EVERY voter, whether they support the recall or not, has a fair and equal opportunity to vote. I don't see anything inconsistent between their position then and now.

The whole purpose of an election is popular expression and selection with regard to political officeholders. We have confirmation elections for judges, so when Rose Bird and the Supremes alienated too much of the electorate, the electorate threw several of their asses out. The point of an election is to vote, not to advance or delay "election" a la some third world countries, for the incumbents to gain advantage. The timing for a recall election is set for a reason - in the event that the electorate is so opposed to an officeholder's continued presence that they're willing to take the extraordinary step of petitioning in adequate numbers for recall, that the matter be resolved quickly. A delay in a recall election for five months, solely on the basis of an unsupported assumption about what might happen in the election, is not "giving equal opportunity." It is playing in favor of the incumbent, when the electorate has reached the point where a sizeable number of them believe he should be replaced, and that the popular will exists to replace him.

If there's an issue with the outcome of the election, or it's conduct, let the ACLU raise it then, on the basis of alleged facts, not unsupported assumptions about future events.

quote: http://archive.aclu.org/library/aaguns.html "The ACLU has often been criticized for "ignoring the Second Amendment" and refusing to fight for the individual's right to own a gun or other weapons. This issue, however, has not been ignored by the ACLU. The national board has in fact debated and discussed the civil liberties aspects of the Second Amendment many times. We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government. In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles. The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration." You may not agree with it, but I think it's consistent with standard Constitutional interpretation.

The most current interpretation, and certainly the most thorough, is United States v. Emerson, a Fifth Circuit case. SCOTUS hasn't addressed Emerson, or any recent Second Amendment cases, because there haven't been any where the issue of Second Amendment rights was the sole basis for legal action.

BTW, I used to believe the collective rights line, but the judicial research contained in the Emerson opionion by the Fifth Circuit clearly shows that the intent was based on an individual right. The ACLU is merely sticking with the interpretation it likes.

	21-08-2003 11:22									#54
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: First, the question was how the ACLU has helped take our freedom and I've explained how. Second, there is a difference between tariffs and protective tariffs, but both are infringements on freedom...and freedom was the issue.

I believe that the argument was over the freedoms that are guaranteed, i.e. the Bill of Rights. And the ACLU position is certainly consistent with the Bill of Rights.

quote: That's because the ACLU is not an organisation that ascribes to a literal reading of the Constitution, so they can't play both sides of the coin by reading it literally one time only to "interpret" it the next.

Sure they can. Why can't they?

quote: Has the ACLU ever challenged drug laws based on a literal reading of the Constitution?

Probably not, but that's simply because arguing a case based on a literal reading of the Constitution instead of a thorough reading of the extensive judicial precedent relating to prohibition would mean a lost case.

quote: That wasn't ballot fraud which is what this debate is about.

I thought the discussion was on any voter fraud in Florida. Couldn't find any qualifiers in what you wrote.

quote: And I wouldn't call it fraud to clean voter lists of ex-cons who lost the privilege to vote

1. Jeb's actions were illegal (even wrt to the real ex-cons). Despite regaining the right to vote in other states, they were disenfranchised just prior to the election in Florida.
2. Even if it were not illegal, it's totally immoral (as is the case with the other ex-cons).

And from a literal reading of the 15th Amendment, it's unconstitutional (to paraphrase, the vote shall not be denied on account of previous condition of servitude).

quote: so I'd need actual proof these mistakes were intentional.

Why? So if some crazy computer error declared half of the voters in an election ex-cons, that's just fine?

quote: Gore's attempt to have recounts only in his strongest bases of support was intentional and dis-ingenuous and not condemned by those who complained about "dis-enfranchising" voters.

Never supported the re-counts since that didn't address the real problem.

	21-08-2003 11:25									#55
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Ramo Sure they can. Why can't they?

Consistency in approach is less annoying when it comes to legal interpretation.

	21-08-2003 11:28									#56
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Well sh!t, now MtG has restored my skepticism.

	21-08-2003 11:40									#57
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Consistency in approach is less annoying when it comes to legal interpretation.

The ACLU has no law to interpret, the US does.

	21-08-2003 11:46									#58
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Ramo -

quote: I believe that the argument was over the freedoms that are guaranteed, i.e. the Bill of Rights. And the ACLU position is certainly consistent with the Bill of Rights.

Boris asked us for proof the ACLU had worked to take away freedom(s). There are only a handful of freedoms mentioned in the BOR and the ACLU has not been consistent even with those few rights.

quote: Sure they can. Why can't they?

Because they are not being consistent when they protect a freedom based on a literal reading of the Constitution while taking away a freedom based on an "interpretation".

quote: Probably not, but that's simply because arguing a case based on a literal reading of the Constitution instead of a thorough reading of the extensive judicial precedent relating to prohibition would mean a lost case.

And we have the ACLU to thank for helping to create that judicial precedent nullifying a literal reading of the Constitution. It is inconsistent, e.g., for the ACLU to support a federal power to create the FDA only to turn around and tell us a literal reading of the Constitution doesn't authorise Congress to decide what we can or cannot consume.

quote: I thought the discussion was on any voter fraud in Florida. Couldn't find any qualifiers in what you wrote.

Cuz I was responding to others who established the context of the discussion.

quote: 1. Jeb's actions were illegal (even wrt to the real ex-cons). Despite regaining the right to vote in other states, they were disenfranchised just prior to the election in Florida.

I believe all states clean voter roles of those who are no longer allowed to vote, dead, or moved away. Some, like Illinois, may take a bit longer.

quote: 2. Even if it were not illegal, it's totally immoral (as is the case with the other ex-cons).

Why? All the states will remove the privilege of voting for certain crimes.

quote: And from a literal reading of the 15th Amendment, it's unconstitutional (to paraphrase, the vote shall not be denied on account of previous condition of servitude).

That was for ex-slaves (servitude), not felons.

	21-08-2003 11:55									#59
	Put an end to popups!

quote: The ACLU has no law to interpret, the US does.

Umm...Boris quoted the ACLU's "interpretation" of the 2nd Amendment calling the right to keep and bear arms a "collective" right that can be ignored by the states because, according to the ACLU, the 2nd Amendment was created to empower the states to have militias. So the only right in the 2nd Amendment doesn't even exist...

	21-08-2003 12:21									#60
	Get a bigger avatar today!

the aclu has done a lot of good things

theyu have also often been batshit crazy

Jon Miller