Federal funds and scouting

[Mr. Boyce 13]

Merlyn: you're right.

 

I think to put my point more simply: the ACLU board decides for itself what's right, then works the courts to get the courts to side with it.

 

It may do some things quite honorably: the Skokie march comes to mind. But it also can work against the public good. In my book, sometimes the social good trumps an individual's claim of a "right".

 

I'm not happy with the notion that a mere handful of individuals, no matter how political or esteemed they may be, deciding for the mass of the population what "rights" are.

 

In fact, I'm not at all comfortable with depicting public life as a framework of individual-oriented claims.

[Mr. Boyce 13]

. . . you know, it's interesting to compare the free speech concern motivating ACLU support for the neo-Nazi march in Skokie, with the current "hate crimes" approach that meticulously snuffs out free speech. "Rights" change apparently.

[Beavah 205]

Government money always comes with strings attached, for good or ill.

 

So true.

 

In da days of smaller government, it was easy to avoid such strings, eh?

 

When the government has grown to the point of bein' 40%+ of GDP (not countin' the additional slice they're takin' by way of the federal debt), it's much harder to avoid such strings. Only some businesses and organizations can afford to write off nearly half of their potential market, eh? The larger the government, the less the freedom.

 

I'd like to see da ACLU take on that problem, eh? But I'm not holdin' my breath.

 

And while da ACLU's mission statement is defendin' the Bill of Rights, we have to be honest, eh? They're an advocacy group like any other, and on the whole they're way out on da left edge in terms of their approach to Constitutional Law. Yeh didn't see 'em filing on behalf of Hiller in the D.C. v. Hiller case did yeh? Nor did they come rushin' in on the side of Kelo, eh? IMO they'd be more intellectually honest if they were staunch defenders of individual rights across the board.

 

But they aren't the devil, either. Some ACLU folks have done good work, hard work, necessary work to keep government in check. I reckon it's fine to disagree with a lot of their board's very liberal agenda (and some really silly case choices) and still acknowledge some of their positive contributions.

 

B

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Mr. Boyce writes:

the ACLU board decides for itself what's right, then works the courts to get the courts to side with it.

 

Which is true of every court fight in US history. That's how our adversarial legal model works.

 

I'm not happy with the notion that a mere handful of individuals, no matter how political or esteemed they may be, deciding for the mass of the population what "rights" are.

 

And, as made clear from what you wrote earlier, the ACLU doesn't do this; they argue their position in court, and judges and juries make decisions. You are free to bring your own lawsuits, argue your own view in court, and try to change laws you disagree with.

[Pack212Scouter 10]

"And, as made clear from what you wrote earlier, the ACLU doesn't do this; they argue their position in court, and judges and juries make decisions. You are free to bring your own lawsuits, argue your own view in court, and try to change laws you disagree with."

 

And there in is the error of so many. It is not the place of the judicial system to "change laws." The job of the judicial system is to decide if laws have been violated or if they conflict with laws that overrule them. Only the legislative branch of our government can "change laws."

 

In our nation the majority rules. The minorities have rights because the majority (judeo-christians) decided that it was right under God that they should! If 3/4 of the states decide that you should have to wear purple to vote on election day....then that is the way it would be.(This message has been edited by pack212scouter)

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

I didn't say the judicial branch changes laws; I was pointing out to Mr. Boyce that he can try to change the laws.

 

And no, in our nation the majority does not always rule; the courts strike down laws that have been approved by a majority rather often.

[GernBlansten 10]

"The minorities have rights because the majority (judeo-christians) decided that it was right under God that they should!"

 

And the minorites retain those rights because the ACLU fights to keep the majority (judeo-christians) within the laws of the US Constitution.

[Pack212Scouter 10]

Both you Merlyn, and you Gern are very mistaken. Read up on constitutional law. Our government serves at the pleasure of the people. And legal rights granted to anyone are via the government, ultimately through the majority. While it is true that a simple majority cannot always exhert their will on the minority, a supermajority can a does. EVERY ammendment to the constitution that gives rights to individuals (or in one ammendments case specifically leaves them to the people and the states if they are NOT enummerated) has been passed by a majority of 3/4 of the state legislatures. In that case, neither the courts nor the ACLU could do a thing about it, except try to get it repealed, as in the 18th ammendment. When reading "majority," you need to get the idea of 51/49 out of your head and realize that "majority" can mean anywhere from 50.00001% to 99.99999%, depending on where it is being used. A law can be passed by a simple majority. A constitutional amendment must be passed by a supermajority. Yet majority still rules. And majority (yes judeo-christian whether someone like it or not, it is a fact) is what passed the constitution and all of it's ammendments which convey and gurantee's rights to individuals.

[GernBlansten 10]

I don't think I'm mistaken. The ACLU engages in legal disputes to test the constitutionality of laws passed (by majority) and the way those laws are applied in real life. They do not challenge the constitution itself. If the super majority that you refer to is able to amend the constitution, it too would become a law the ACLU would protect. So be it. It is very difficult to amend the constitution as it should be.

 

The idea that a majority should be allowed to create laws without challenge, is just mob rule. I for one am very glad there is an organization like the ACLU. I don't like every case they take, but I understand why they do it.

 

Question for those ACLU bashers out there, can you name one case where the ACLU took a case that restricted or denied your civil rights?

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Pack212Scouter writes:

When reading "majority," you need to get the idea of 51/49 out of your head and realize that "majority" can mean anywhere from 50.00001% to 99.99999%, depending on where it is being used.

 

Majority means "greater than 50%". It can refer to percentages like 50.00001% and 99.99999%, but what it means is "greater than 50%", unless it's part of a phrase like "two-thirds majority."

[GernBlansten 10]

"If 3/4 of the states decide that you should have to wear purple to vote on election day....then that is the way it would be."

Good luck getting the constitution amended to allow that. The difficulty in amending our constitution was designed to stop such frivolous acts. Even worthwhile amendments have been stymied. Think ERA.

 

But what if it were a local jurisdiction that had a 99.9% majority that decided to deny blacks to marry whites. If the ACLU stepped in to stop that, would that be a travesty of justice?

[Pack212Scouter 10]

Hmmm...focusing like a laser beam here to keep it simple...concentrating on BSA...let's see....

 

How many lawsuits have there been against the BSA by the ACLU to for them to accept homosexuals?

 

How many lawsuits have there been against the BSA by the ACLU to remove various rights because they call BSA a "religious organization"?

 

How many lawsuits have there been against the BSA by the ACLU trying to make the BSA accept female youth memebers into Boy Scouts & Cub Scouts?

 

How many lawsuits have there been against the BSA by the ACLU to prevent them from using or leasing public land, even though leases and use are also being granted to religious organizations, and groups that restrict services or membership based on ethnic or sexual orientation?

 

And how many times has the ACLU defended any harrassment against the BSA...that one is really easy...not once.

[GernBlansten 10]

>>How many lawsuits have there been against the BSA by the ACLU to for them to accept homosexuals?>How many lawsuits have there been against the BSA by the ACLU to remove various rights because they call BSA a "religious organization"?>How many lawsuits have there been against the BSA by the ACLU trying to make the BSA accept female youth memebers into Boy Scouts & Cub Scouts?>How many lawsuits have there been against the BSA by the ACLU to prevent them from using or leasing public land, even though leases and use are also being granted to religious organizations, and groups that restrict services or membership based on ethnic or sexual orientation?>And how many times has the ACLU defended any harrassment against the BSA...that one is really easy...not once.

[Pack212Scouter 10]

""If 3/4 of the states decide that you should have to wear purple to vote on election day....then that is the way it would be."

Good luck getting the constitution amended to allow that. The difficulty in amending our constitution was designed to stop such frivolous acts. Even worthwhile amendments have been stymied. Think ERA."

 

Good grief...that was MEANT to be an absurd example. Stating the case that IF something that outlandish did happen, it would be the law.

 

"But what if it were a local jurisdiction that had a 99.9% majority that decided to deny blacks to marry whites. If the ACLU stepped in to stop that, would that be a travesty of justice?"

 

Interesting example. First of all, I would not personally approve of it. Secondly, it is established that until and unless there is an actual ammendment to the federal constitution, marriage laws reside withing state rights. Thirdly, there is not any part of the constitution guaranteeing anything be not based on race, other than voting. All other equal rights guarantees are laws, not constitutional gurantees. Fourthly, your question is like asking if Hitler supported equal marriage would that be a travisty of justice? No, I am NOT compairing the ACLU to Hitler (this is another outlandish example). What I AM saying is that because an organization does something good, that does not mean I have to be for it if much of what it does is not in line with my thinking.

 

Keep in mind, that even though I do not like the ACLU. And even though I do not like the majority of what the ACLU does. I believe in the right of the ACLU to exist and will defend the ACLU's "right" to be all the annoyance it can be.

[Pack212Scouter 10]

Ok....once again...instances where the ACLU brought or supported a case. I will avoid mentioning any cases which I have not seen evidence of ACLU participation, however I am not looking that hard. I was hoping to not have to spend the time on this, but knew better.....

 

">>How many lawsuits have there been against the BSA by the ACLU to for them to accept homosexuals?