ACLU sues on behalf of Protestors

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,894
46
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
I don't have a link yet but the ACLU is suing the Bush Administration for selective Protest Zone enforcement.
The Protestors they represent claim that the Administration has taken away their right to protest by hiding them out of sight. For example Pro-Bush signs and people are allowed to line the curb and wave while those with Anti-Bush signs are moved a half a mile away out of sight behind a fence.
 

Miramonti

Lifer
Aug 26, 2000
28,651
98
91
They were moved to other areas because they were considered threats.

Threats to Bush's propaganda machine.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: jjsole
They were moved to other areas because they were considered threats.

Threats to Bush's propaganda machine.
Exactly.

CBS carried the story on their national news tonight, FYI.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,894
46
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: jjsole
They were moved to other areas because they were considered threats.

Threats to Bush's propaganda machine.
Exactly.

CBS carried the story on their national news tonight, FYI.
Yes, That's where I caught the tail end of the report, checked out ACLU website but sign of it yet, must be about to file.

 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Originally posted by: Genesys
i hate the aclu and want them to "dissappear"
That's cause you don't know what it means to be American...where you from..ever take a civics class?
 

Ldir

Platinum Member
Jul 23, 2003
2,184
0
0
Originally posted by: Genesys
i hate the aclu and want them to "dissappear"
Every American should join the ACLU. It guards the Constitution from totalitarianism.
 

Fencer128

Platinum Member
Jun 18, 2001
2,700
1
91
Originally posted by: Ldir
Originally posted by: Genesys
i hate the aclu and want them to "dissappear"
Every American should join the ACLU. It guards the Constitution from totalitarianism.
Apart from the fact that is doesn't "guard" *all* of the constitution. Ammendment 2 for example. It has it's merits. Defense of separation of church and state for example. Freedom of speech another. But there are reasons why one would support these aims but not support the ACLU.

Cheers,

Andy
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Who else is there Fencer128? Every major supreme court case with reguard to citizens BOR and the constitution has the ACLU's fingerprints on it.
 

Fencer128

Platinum Member
Jun 18, 2001
2,700
1
91
Originally posted by: Zebo
Who else is there Fencer128? Every major supreme court case with reguard to citizens BOR and the constitution has the ACLU's fingerprints on it.
I understand what you're saying. Not being a US citizen myself I wouldn't know about other groups - but I just wish to point out that this group has shortcomings in being regarded as a "defender of the constitution". They also have their own more subtle agenda to push. Now, if you disagree with that agenda then I still reckon them to be far and away the lesser of two evils.

For some people though it may be too much and they may not want to give them cash support. For others, like myself (if I were a US citizen) I think on balance I would give them some cash. I'm sure (hope!) that a poll would give this kind of broad support, even if not in 100% agreement with their manifesto.

Cheers,

Andy
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Originally posted by: Fencer128
Originally posted by: Zebo
Who else is there Fencer128? Every major supreme court case with reguard to citizens BOR and the constitution has the ACLU's fingerprints on it.
I understand what you're saying. Not being a US citizen myself I wouldn't know about other groups - but I just wish to point out that this group has shortcomings in being regarded as a "defender of the constitution". They also have their own more subtle agenda to push. Now, if you disagree with that agenda then I still reckon them to be far and away the lesser of two evils.

For some people though it may be too much and they may not want to give them cash support. For others, like myself (if I were a US citizen) I think on balance I would give them some cash. I'm sure (hope!) that a poll would give this kind of broad support, even if not in 100% agreement with their manifesto.

Cheers,

Andy

Thier only agenda problem AFIAK is the second...which the addition of Willaim Barr and other conservatives to the board should change.. It's happening...After the Patiot act passed quite a few pominate Republicans joined the ACLU from reagans administration...including Mr. Barr.
 

Fencer128

Platinum Member
Jun 18, 2001
2,700
1
91
Thier only agenda problem AFIAK is the second...which the addition of Willaim Barr and other conservatives to the board should change.. It's happening...After the Patiot act passed quite a few pominate Republicans joined the ACLU from reagans administration...including Mr. Barr.
Good news. Tell me, what is their stance on abortion. I believe this is a bone of contention with some.

Cheers,

Andy
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
I disagree with thier "funamental right to choose" too... but 25 out of 27 positions or so is'nt bad, right?

...again change the leadership around a bit and I think it will be more focused on the ideals which it was founded...nevertheless, I'd want them on my side when the storm troopers come knocking and it's a very signifgant org which has put off the police state a bit.

PS arn't you british getting you're own patriot act soon? heard it won't even go though parlament...just the queen and TB..
 

Fencer128

Platinum Member
Jun 18, 2001
2,700
1
91
Originally posted by: Zebo
I disagree with thier "funamental right to choose" too... but 25 out of 27 positions or so is'nt bad, right?

...again change the leadership around a bit and I think it will be more focused on the ideals which it was founded...nevertheless, I'd want them on my side when the storm troopers come knocking and it's a very signifgant org which has put off the police state a bit.

PS arn't you british getting you're own patriot act soon? heard it won't even go though parlament...just the queen and TB..
Unfortunately, we have no written constitution. Thus, Tony can do absolutely anything he likes (providing parliament agrees). Similarly the HOS is the PM's lapdog. She signs absolutely everything that is put in front of her and never dissents. If she did, the monarchy would be abolished in favour of an elected HOS. So, you see a constitutional monarchy suits UK governments down to the ground.

Anti-terror legislation has already been passed. A new raft of measures is on the way - though I shudder for civil liberties with David Blunkett (bit of a power crazed home secretary) in charge of it. For example, his view on publicly electing police chiefs is to not want such a change. He thinks "the electorate might vote in a racist". Well, it a good job the government knows not to trust us to make key descisions. EU constitution referendum anyone? Didn't think so.

Cheers ;)

Andy
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
He thinks "the electorate might vote in a racist".
Of course he really does'nt think that. It's a rouse to put in place a totalitarian bidding to the will of him rather than the people... Hope they don't buy it.


Personally I hate all of english governemnt...all with it's members of unearned privalidge and power..especially the royals.:p

On our way home from hethrow as a child we used to sing "god Bless America"...sorta bugged the limeys on board:p
 

Fencer128

Platinum Member
Jun 18, 2001
2,700
1
91
Originally posted by: Zebo
He thinks "the electorate might vote in a racist".
Of course he really does'nt think that. It's a rouse to put in place a totalitarian bidding to the will of him rather than the people... Hope they don't buy it.


Personally I hate all of english governemnt...all with it's members of unearned privalidge and power..especially the royals.:p

On our way home from hethrow as a child we used to sing "god Bless America"...sorta bugged the limeys on board:p
I agree. Unfortunately hundreds of years of apathy mean that things aren't likely to change anytime soon. Whereas in the US people get organised and act - here people sit down complain, and when someone does raise their head; they get labelled as a "loony".

Cheers,

Andy
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Unfortunately, we have no written constitution
Not to quibble..fencer..but look up constitution: "a collection of law or customs to run government" or something thereabouts...and think about magna carta.
 

Fencer128

Platinum Member
Jun 18, 2001
2,700
1
91
Originally posted by: Zebo
Unfortunately, we have no written constitution
Not to quibble..fencer..but look up constitution: "a collection of law or customs to run government" or something thereabouts...and think about magna carta.
If the magna carta were our constitution and we were living by it - we'd need to*seriously* update it. I'm guessing religious freedom and seperation of church and state aren't too well defined on that document (written in 1215) ;)

Cheers,

Andy
 

Fencer128

Platinum Member
Jun 18, 2001
2,700
1
91
Magna Carta is often thought of as the corner-stone of liberty and the chief defence against arbitrary and unjust rule in England. In fact it contains few sweeping statements of principle, but is a series of concessions wrung from the unwilling King John by his rebellious barons in 1215. However, Magna Carta established for the first time a very significant constitutional principle, namely that the power of the king could be limited by a written grant.

King John's unsuccessful attempts to defend his dominions in Normandy and much of western France led to oppressive demands on his subjects. Taxes were extortionate; reprisals against defaulters were ruthless, and John's administration of justice was considered capricious. In January 1215 a group of barons demanded a charter of liberties as a safeguard against the King's arbitrary behaviour. The barons took up arms against John and captured London in May 1215.

By 10 June both parties met and held negotiations at Runnymede, a meadow by the River Thames. The concessions made by King John were outlined in a document known as the 'Articles of the Barons', to which the King's great seal was attached, and on 19 June the barons renewed their oaths of allegiance to the King. Meanwhile the royal chancery produced a formal royal grant, based on the agreements reached at Runnymede, which became known as Magna Carta (Latin for the 'Great Charter').

Four copies of this original grant survive. Two, including this one, are held at the British Library while the others can be seen in the cathedral archives at Lincoln and Salisbury.
The magna carta is not an act of parliament, nor can it be repealed by parliament (because is pre-dates parliament). It is a contract between the monarch and their subjects.

Here are the key points that come out of it:

*Common law is the will and custom of the people.

*Statute law is the will of parliament. Statute can and does give expression to common law, but that common law cannot be disregarded by parliament, nor can it be repealed. It can only be extended - "improved" is the word used, but it is open to misuse.

*Parliament is made by the law, and is not above it.

*No Parliament can bind its successors.

*Parliament is answerable to the people, is elected by the people to protect their interests for a maximum of five years, after which time power is returned to the people who may grant it to another parliament for a further five years - and so on ad infinitum.

(Thus is the sovereignty of the people established over parliament.)

*No Briton, including members of the police and armed forces, is above the law. We are all subjects of the crown first.
In effect the magna carta hasn't got the power now that was supposed in would have in a pre-parliamentarian society. In fact, if the monarchy were ever lost and replaced by an elected HOS the magna carta would become meaningless.

Cheers,

Andy
 

Hecubus2000

Senior member
Dec 1, 2000
674
0
0
Thats funny. Where was the ACLU when the Clinton Admin. was doing this on a daily basis. I'm not a huge fan of Bush, but I'm starting to get over all these trendy anti Bush people blowing every little thing out of proportion. If he is such a bad Pres. then quit whining like a bunch of little babies and vote him out in 2004.
 

dpm

Golden Member
Apr 24, 2002
1,513
0
0
Originally posted by: Fencer128
A new raft of measures is on the way - though I shudder for civil liberties with David Blunkett (bit of a power crazed home secretary) in charge of it. For example, his view on publicly electing police chiefs is to not want such a change. He thinks "the electorate might vote in a racist". Well, it a good job the government knows not to trust us to make key descisions. EU constitution referendum anyone? Didn't think so. Cheers ;) Andy
sorry for the OT, but Blunket and his damn ID cards rile me up. Seriously, the idea of us all carrying biometric ID cards constantly to 'help fight terrorism'!
 

Fencer128

Platinum Member
Jun 18, 2001
2,700
1
91
Originally posted by: dpm
Originally posted by: Fencer128
A new raft of measures is on the way - though I shudder for civil liberties with David Blunkett (bit of a power crazed home secretary) in charge of it. For example, his view on publicly electing police chiefs is to not want such a change. He thinks "the electorate might vote in a racist". Well, it a good job the government knows not to trust us to make key descisions. EU constitution referendum anyone? Didn't think so. Cheers ;) Andy
sorry for the OT, but Blunket and his damn ID cards rile me up. Seriously, the idea of us all carrying biometric ID cards constantly to 'help fight terrorism'!
Yes. Not too explicit on what their logic is as to how this will help. It will help with illegal immigrants. Hmmm, last time I checked the illegal immigrants weren't offering to have their photos taken by the government ;)

With Blunkett it is always about control.

Cheers,

Andy
 

Genesys

Golden Member
Nov 10, 2003
1,536
0
0
Originally posted by: Ldir
Originally posted by: Genesys
i hate the aclu and want them to "dissappear"
Every American should join the ACLU. It guards the Constitution from totalitarianism.
oh yes, by making wild statements and filing bogus law suits to strip people from practising their religion freely as it says in the constitution. the ACLU also perpetuates racism [from everything ive seen anyway], the support NAMBLA [or at least defend them!] and im sure theres more BAD the ACLU has done and more bad the ACLU stands for, but im just to tired to go and look it up right now, ill do that later tonite.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,894
46
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Genesys
Originally posted by: Ldir
Originally posted by: Genesys
i hate the aclu and want them to "dissappear"
Every American should join the ACLU. It guards the Constitution from totalitarianism.
oh yes, by making wild statements and filing bogus law suits to strip people from practising their religion freely as it says in the constitution. the ACLU also perpetuates racism [from everything ive seen anyway], the support NAMBLA [or at least defend them!] and im sure theres more BAD the ACLU has done and more bad the ACLU stands for, but im just to tired to go and look it up right now, ill do that later tonite.
Oh just let them win. The Country declared Godless, close down all Churches so the Govt can get all that untaxed prime Real Estate for things they can Tax.

 

busmaster11

Platinum Member
Mar 4, 2000
2,875
0
0
Originally posted by: Genesys
oh yes, by making wild statements and filing bogus law suits to strip people from practising their religion freely as it says in the constitution. the ACLU also perpetuates racism [from everything ive seen anyway], the support NAMBLA [or at least defend them!] and im sure theres more BAD the ACLU has done and more bad the ACLU stands for, but im just to tired to go and look it up right now, ill do that later tonite.
Agreed. We are about as far from totalitarianism as can be. Those paranoid libertarians really need to open their eyes and see that we've got bigger problems on our hands.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY