ACLU at it again! Offers to support the Rev. J. Falwell!

[yllus]

Shucks, those self-serving liberal types are always pretending to be (for all of) the people and instead just help where their agenda fits, right? Here comes a rather sizeable hole in that theory:

--

ACLU supports longtime critic Falwell in property lawsuit against Virginia

LYNCHBURG, Va. (AP) -- The American Civil Liberties Union offered to support the Rev. Jerry Falwell in his challenge of Virginia laws that restrict how much property a church can own.

Though Falwell often chides the activist group, the offer was welcomed by Jerry Falwell Jr., who is representing his father in the case.

[snip]

Falwell is a longtime critic of the ACLU. Two days after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, he said on Pat Robertson's "The 700 Club" show that God allowed the attack because of the work of abortion rights supporters, feminists and civil liberties groups, specifically the ACLU. Falwell later apologized.

Article link

--

Those hypocritical bastards!

Edit: Grammar.

 

[EbonyExperience]

I will alwats love the ACLU because they wrote a letter for me that let me start a Gay awarness club at my school.

 

[ImTyping]

Yeah, it is funny how the right-wing lunatics think that the Constitution was written with THEIR ideals in mind, and nobody else. Their constant criticism of the ACLU stems from the fact that they want to divert attention from their own pimping of the constitution for their own means.

 

[gopunk]

yea, the aclu is one of the least hypocritical organizations (of any type) out there.

having said that, i am rather disappointed with my school's aclu chapter... all they want to talk about is privacy issues. i don't give a FVCK! in fact, i rather like the idea of an id card. so sue me. i really don't think any harm will come to me out of it.

<---- disgruntled member of aclu uw chapter.

 

[Amused]

<< Yeah, it is funny how the right-wing lunatics think that the Constitution was written with THEIR ideals in mind, and nobody else. Their constant criticism of the ACLU stems from the fact that they want to divert attention from their own pimping of the constitution for their own means. >>



My only criticism of the ACLU is their misguided and revisionist stance on the Second Amendment. However, since they don't activly fight against gun rights, I've got no real problem with them.

Yeah, they've gone slightly over the top a time or two in some cases, but not bad enough for me to oppose them outright.

 

[Amused]

<< yea, the aclu is one of the least hypocritical organizations (of any type) out there.

having said that, i am rather disappointed with my school's aclu chapter... all they want to talk about is privacy issues. i don't give a FVCK! in fact, i rather like the idea of an id card. so sue me. i really don't think any harm will come to me out of it.

<---- disgruntled member of aclu uw chapter. >>



Always remember, and never forget that the more a government knows about you, the more it can use against you if it ever becomes tyranical. Just as the more you demand your government take care of you, the more the government can control your life.

In my opinion, the ACLU doesn't go far enough when it comes to privacy issues.

 

[Balt]

How embarrassing for Falwell, his son has made him into a hypocrite.

Not that I really care, as I already disliked him.

 

[flawedecision]

Yeah, it is funny how the right-wing lunatics think that the Constitution was written with THEIR ideals in mind, and nobody else. Their constant criticism of the ACLU stems from the fact that they want to divert attention from their own pimping of the constitution for their own means

This would be the same ACLU defending NAMBLA... the same ACLU who's honolulu chapter made reference to Clarence Thomas as an Uncle Tom?

And would you care to offer a few credible examples to support your claims so that I am not left with the assumption that you are a typical liberal swinging from a tree of emotion supported by the roots in his neighbors yard.

Speaking of intolerance... I think we have a new record here from a representative of the left.

 

[gopunk]

Always remember, and never forget that the more a government knows about you, the more it can use against you if it ever becomes tyranical. Just as the more you demand your government take care of you, the more the government can control your life.

that's not the issue. the issue is whether it is constitutional. and i don't think it is unconstitutional to require an id card. this would of course, differ, depending on your interpretation of the constitution. i think my chapter may be a bastard chapter in that it is more concerned with personal opinion than what is constitutional, but this is why i like the aclu (parent org). because they base their stances on the constitution, not what may or may not happen.

 

[gopunk]

This would be the same ACLU defending NAMBLA...

in a wrongful death suit, which alleged that nambla somehow incited it's members to murder young boys. remember, it's about the law, not your personal opinion.

the same ACLU who's honolulu chapter made reference to Clarence Thomas as an Uncle Tom?

if my posts are any indication, the chapters kinda suck, imho. they're full of environmentalists and people who fear the government. wtf is up with that?

Speaking of intolerance... I think we have a new record here from a representative of the left.

that's called disagreeing with conservatives, not intolerance of them.

 

[Amused]

<< Always remember, and never forget that the more a government knows about you, the more it can use against you if it ever becomes tyranical. Just as the more you demand your government take care of you, the more the government can control your life.

that's not the issue. the issue is whether it is constitutional. and i don't think it is unconstitutional to require an id card. this would of course, differ, depending on your interpretation of the constitution. i think my chapter may be a bastard chapter in that it is more concerned with personal opinion than what is constitutional, but this is why i like the aclu (parent org). because they base their stances on the constitution, not what may or may not happen. >>



I had this conversation with someone else here earlier. Just because it's not in the BoRs, does not mean it's not a right.

The whole premise of a Constitutionally limited government is to keep it out of our private lives as much as possible. No where in the Constitution is the federal GOVERNMENT given the right to issue ID cards, or require the people to apply for one. In all actuality, the federal government was to have no powers extending beyond what was listed in the Constitution. But that original concept has long been discarded, to the detriment of all our freedoms.

 

[Logix]

Every time this organization pops its head up, it reminds me of how appropriate this old Onion article is: ACLU Defends Nazis' Right To Burn Down ACLU Headquarters

 

[gopunk]

The whole premise of a Constitutionally limited government is to keep it out of our private lives as much as possible. No where in the Constitution is the federal GOVERNMENT given the right to issue ID cards, or require the people to apply for one. In all actuality, the federal government was to have no powers extending beyond what was listed in the Constitution. But that original concept has long been discarded, to the detriment of all our freedoms.

that would be a conservative reading of the constitution. i'm not about to get into a debate over how to interpret the constitution, i don't have the time, and i don't care enough.

but you are correct, the orignal concept has long been discarded. or else, we wouldn't have driver's licenses. the constitution didn't provide for that power.

 

[Amused]

<< The whole premise of a Constitutionally limited government is to keep it out of our private lives as much as possible. No where in the Constitution is the federal GOVERNMENT given the right to issue ID cards, or require the people to apply for one. In all actuality, the federal government was to have no powers extending beyond what was listed in the Constitution. But that original concept has long been discarded, to the detriment of all our freedoms.

that would be a conservative reading of the constitution. i'm not about to get into a debate over how to interpret the constitution, i don't have the time, and i don't care enough.

but you are correct, the orignal concept has long been discarded. or else, we wouldn't have driver's licenses. the constitution didn't provide for that power. >>



Drivers licenses have nothing to do with that. That's a state issue. The Constitution does not limit states, with the exception of the 14th amendment which only holds states to the BoR.

The Constitution only defines, and limits, the federal government, not the states. Which is why each state has it's own state constitution.

And it's not a "conservative" view, it's a libertarian view. And it's the original intent of the document.

Redefining documents, instead of changing them outright is VERY dangerous, for obvious reasons.

 

[gopunk]

Drivers licenses have nothing to do with that. That's a state issue. The Constitution does not limit states, with the exception of the 14th amendment which only holds states to the BoR.

fine, take telecommunications then... happy?

And it's not a "conservative" view, it's a libertarian view. And it's the original intent of the document.

there are people who grapple with this kind of stuff for a living. i'm going to go ahead and make the assumption that you don't know anything they don't already know, on this subject. i have yet to hear a convincing argument either way. i prefer to leave interpretation up to the supreme courts.

and it is a conservative interpretation. it's not like that's an insult...

 

[Amused]

<< Drivers licenses have nothing to do with that. That's a state issue. The Constitution does not limit states, with the exception of the 14th amendment which only holds states to the BoR.

fine, take telecommunications then... happy?

And it's not a "conservative" view, it's a libertarian view. And it's the original intent of the document.

there are people who grapple with this kind of stuff for a living. i'm going to go ahead and make the assumption that you don't know anything they don't already know, on this subject. i have yet to hear a convincing argument either way. i prefer to leave interpretation up to the supreme courts.

and it is a conservative interpretation. it's not like that's an insult... >>



No insult taken. As I'm making an effort to preserve our liberty, the term "conservative" kinda fits

The problem I've had with the Supreme Courts on a few occations is reading something into the Constitution that just isn't there, or redefining things out that are there.

The greatest threat to our liberty has always been the lawyers, who, with artful language and revisionist twisting can make anything plainly written to mean one thing, sound like it means another.

Instead of leaving my liberty up to others, I'd rather find out for myself what liberties I'm entitled to.

Oh, and on telecommunications, since it is commerce crossing state lines, it's covered under the interstate commerce clause (Article one, section eight), and therefore can be regulated by the federal government

 

[gopunk]

The problem I've had with the Supreme Courts on a few occations is reading something into the Constitution that just isn't there, or redefining things out that are there.

i agree. i would have no problem with no id cards if they decided to not have the fcc license people. i think the fcc is unconstitutional, and it sounds like you would too. but as it is, they are already well established, i don't think they're going anywhere, so i base my judgements keeping the fcc in mind. if they're allowed, then a constitutional argument against id cards is hypocritical, and thus invalid in my mind.

The greatest threat to our liberty has always been the lawyers, who, with artful language and revisionist twisting can make anything plainly written to mean one thing, sound like it means another.

this is true, but i think they're inevitable. as long as there are people who disagree over what the constitution means, there is at least group of people twisting words. and i doubt we'll ever get everybody to agree.

Instead of leaving my liberty up to others, I'd rather find out for myself what liberties I'm entitled to.

i think i'm a little more defeatist than you i know that i will never exert enough effort to get the supreme court to reverse it's rulings, so i base my opinions regarding these matters on their interpretations, since it's useless for me to do otherwise.

 

[flawedecision]

in a wrongful death suit, which alleged that nambla somehow incited it's members to murder young boys. remember, it's about the law, not your personal opinion.

disliking a group which advocates unacceptable relationships between men and boys, and participates in the organization of group travel to young boys orphanages overseas is not a matter of personal opinion. It is a matter of fact.



if my posts are any indication, the chapters kinda suck, imho. they're full of environmentalists and people who fear the government. wtf is up with that

They appear to fear balanced debate.


that's called disagreeing with conservatives, not intolerance of them.



Screaming 'hypocrites' in every post of every thread is not tolerant. Putting all conservatives in one category is not tolerant. Disagreement and intolerance will typically co-exist.

 

[Amused]

I take it my edit on interstate commerce came in before you started to reply to the rest of my post. Sorry , I'll repeat it here:

Oh, and on telecommunications, since it is commerce crossing state lines, it's covered under the interstate commerce clause (Article one, section eight), and therefore can be regulated by the federal government

 

[gopunk]

disliking a group which advocates unacceptable relationships between men and boys, and participates in the organization of group travel to young boys orphanages overseas is not a matter of personal opinion. It is a matter of fact.

i agree, it is probably a fact that you dislike them, but this does NOT mean they can be held responsible for a death they aren't responsible for. the aclu did not defend the ideals of nambla, they defended nambla against the wrongful death accusations.

They appear to fear balanced debate.

well, yes i just wish there were more people that thought like the main org does...

Screaming 'hypocrites' in every post of every thread is not tolerant. Putting all conservatives in one category is not tolerant. Disagreement and intolerance will typically co-exist.

i think we're using different definitions of the word "tolerant". it was good while it lasted though...

 

[flawedecision]

The problem I've had with the Supreme Courts on a few occations is reading something into the Constitution that just isn't there, or redefining things out that are there.

Just you?

Bench legislation seems to be common practice these days.

 

[gopunk]

I take it my edit on interstate commerce came in before you started to reply to the rest of my post. Sorry , I'll repeat it here:

np

Oh, and on telecommunications, since it is commerce crossing state lines, it's covered under the interstate commerce clause (Article one, section eight), and therefore can be regulated by the federal government

ah, more lawyers bastardizing the constitution

what you say is true, yet the fcc regulates non-profit radio/tv stations. this is not commerce. they are non profit.

 

[Amused]

<< I take it my edit on interstate commerce came in before you started to reply to the rest of my post. Sorry , I'll repeat it here:

np

Oh, and on telecommunications, since it is commerce crossing state lines, it's covered under the interstate commerce clause (Article one, section eight), and therefore can be regulated by the federal government

ah, more lawyers bastardizing the constitution

what you say is true, yet the fcc regulates non-profit radio/tv stations. this is not commerce. they are non profit. >>



Hmmm, you have a point there. I'll have to think about that one

 

[gopunk]

Hmmm, you have a point there. I'll have to think about that one

hehe... yea i never thought about the interstate commerce thing. i had totally forgotten about that dumb little clause

i think the reason why non-profits are still regulated is because the fcc doesn't like to admit that it's unconstitutional, and nobody's put up a decent fight over it yet. but let me know if you find a "more legal" reason

 

[Amused]

<< Hmmm, you have a point there. I'll have to think about that one

hehe... yea i never thought about the interstate commerce thing. i had totally forgotten about that dumb little clause

i think the reason why non-profits are still regulated is because the fcc doesn't like to admit that it's unconstitutional, and nobody's put up a decent fight over it yet. but let me know if you find a "more legal" reason >>



As I'm sitting here thinking, I can't find a legal reason. On that note, our nation created the FBI as essentially the morality police. And it's gotten worse ever since. Therefore the FCC stepping up and regulating content on the airwaves falls into place, even if it is essentially unconstitutional.

Congress twists this clause: ...provide for the Common Defense and general Welfare of the United States... into meaning not only our moral welfare on the conservative side (unconstitutional in my opinion), but on a more liberal level, individual welfare. How the hell they were able to make a judge accept that general welfare meant payments to individuals is beyond me, but they pulled it off :disgust: