for or against ACLU

[stevepaa]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070113/ap_on_re_us/medieval_re_enactors


Seventeen-year-old Patrick Agin often spends a week whittling a single arrow, and he's learning to make chain mail armor by hand. So when it came time to submit a senior yearbook photo, he selected a snapshot of himself wearing chain mail and slinging a prop sword over his shoulder.

Portsmouth High School rejected the photo, citing a "zero tolerance policy" for weapons, and Agin and his family sued, claiming the school was violating his right to free speech.

The ACLU, which filed the suit in federal court in December, calls the zero tolerance policy inconsistent. It points out that the school's mascot, a patriot, is sometimes shown carrying a weapon

So some of you who dislike the ACLU, I expect you to support the school in this.

[Dan in Pasadena]

The organization exists to defend challenges to the Bill of Rights. I suppose my problem with them is that they try to defend against ANY and all challenges to the Bill of Rights....and in the process make people question if they understand that the the flip side of rights is responsibility. I've got zero problem with the concept of defending the Bill of Rights, I don't know why any American would have a problem with the concept.

I think many times they do not correctly choose their fights...and by doing that they make themselves a target for those that don't understand their basic intent. I feel the same can be said about the NRA for example.

As for this school?, it sounds like an over application of this mindless kneejerk zero tolerance policy. Its not like the kid took weapons to school (at least I didn't catch it if he did).

[stomachmonkey]

I wanna go back in time and take my kids with me.

[fastpat]

The protections government schools have granted themselves against individual liability need to be removed. For at least two reasons. First, a school principal makes an onerous, free speech hating decision; you have to sue him, not the school. That removes the deep pockets of government from the mix, and makes these idiots take full responsibility for their acts. As it is now, making a stupid decision carries little risk for the decisionmaker, and the taxpayers are on the hook.

[Dantilla]

I dislike the ACLU, but the law of averages says occasionally (not too often) they will take the right side of an issue.

[Seahawk]

I was not sure how the ACLU was created...

ACLU On Wikki

Edit: I do not have a stance on he ACLU...but this little nugget may sway my opinion:

Nadine Strossen (born August 18, 1950) is the current president of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Strossen is an active member of NORML, an organisation promoting the decriminalization of marijuana.

In October of 2001, Strossen made her theater debut as the guest star in Eve Ensler's award-winning play, The Vagina Monologues.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Seahawk
I was not sure how the ACLU was created...

ACLU On Wikki

I didn't know all the details, but did know about the lawsuits over the World War One draft resistors. The phrase "fire in a crowded theater" with regard to free speech comes from one of these cases. The federal government had arrested people for encouraging men to not register for the draft, the Supreme Court decided that First Amendment did not protect speech in that case, even though there are no exceptions listed in the Amendment. The ACLU did good work in this area.

It's unfortunate that the ACLU has continued to maintain its socialist leanings after all these years, that has enabled them to avoid any defense of the Second Amendment, in fact working against it in some areas (the Southern California Chapter used to be militantly anti-gun), and interpreting a lack of provision of certain government services as a rights violation.

As soon as it becomes a original intent Constitutionalist organization, I'll support it, but until that day comes, no money from fastpat.

[legion]

1) I think the school is doing the kid a favor. He will regret the picture in a few years.

2) I could care less about the outcome of this particular case. Both sides have pretty shaky arguments, IMO. My high school had guidelines for senior pictures. It was more about making sure the pictures followed a common design/theme. The school claiming this violates a weapons policy is pretty weak, as is the kid claiming his first amendment rights.

3) The ACLU only cares about the first amendment, and is presently very selective about which cases it tries. You wouldn't find the modern ACLU suing on behalf of the KKK, but they have sued the Boy Scouts dozens of times in the last decade.

[VINMAN]

Originally posted by Dan in Pasadena
The organization exists to defend challenges to the Bill of Rights. I suppose my problem with them is that they try to defend against ANY and all challenges to the Bill of Rights....and in the process make people question if they understand that the the flip side of rights is responsibility. I've got zero problem with the concept of defending the Bill of Rights, I don't know why any American would have a problem with the concept.

I think many times they do not correctly choose their fights...and by doing that they make themselves a target for those that don't understand their basic intent. I feel the same can be said about the NRA for example.

As for this school?, it sounds like an over application of this mindless kneejerk zero tolerance policy. Its not like the kid took weapons to school (at least I didn't catch it if he did).

+1

[sammyg2]

The ACLU takes bad to an extreme level. It represents everything that is wrong in this country to day and is the perfect example of the saying "anything carried to excess is evil".

I cannot recall EVER reading about a suit the ACLU had filed that I approved of. Ever. I can however recall reading about hundreds of suits filed by the ACLU that were IMO frivilous, wrong, destructive, or just plain maniplulative and exploitive.
They make Gloria Allred look like a moral, honest person.
If I were a lawyer (and thank God I'm not) I'd hate ther ACLU even more because they are partly responsible for the terrible reputation lawyers get.

[cool_chick]

Originally posted by fastpat
I didn't know all the details, but did know about the lawsuits over the World War One draft resistors. The phrase "fire in a crowded theater" with regard to free speech comes from one of these cases. The federal government had arrested people for encouraging men to not register for the draft, the Supreme Court decided that First Amendment did not protect speech in that case, even though there are no exceptions listed in the Amendment. The ACLU did good work in this area.

It's unfortunate that the ACLU has continued to maintain its socialist leanings after all these years, that has enabled them to avoid any defense of the Second Amendment, in fact working against it in some areas (the Southern California Chapter used to be militantly anti-gun), and interpreting a lack of provision of certain government services as a rights violation.

As soon as it becomes a original intent Constitutionalist organization, I'll support it, but until that day comes, no money from fastpat.

Actually, Pat, it has nothing to do with "socialist leanings." It has to do with the way the ACLU and many have interpreted the 2nd amendment. They and some interpret it to mean a "well regulated militia having the right to bear arms"........which we have, we have a well armed militia in this country.

So no, it has nothing to do with "socialism", it has to do with their interpretation of 2nd amendment.

[cool_chick]

Originally posted by sammyg2

I cannot recall EVER reading about a suit the ACLU had filed that I approved of. Ever. I can however recall reading about hundreds of suits filed by the ACLU that were IMO frivilous, wrong, destructive, or just plain maniplulative and exploitive.

That's because the talking head radical shows and "drudge" and all the other goofy venues don't discuss these lawsuits.

There are thousands you would agree with (agree with, in this context, means you agree with the issue itself, not agree with the constitutionality of the issue, I suspect this is why you don't "agree" with the few you heard of), if you heard of them.

[rcecale]

Originally posted by Dantilla
I dislike the ACLU, but the law of averages says occasionally (not too often) they will take the right side of an issue.

Yep! Even a blind squirrel will find an acorn every now and then...

Randy

[fastpat]

Originally posted by cool_chick
Actually, Pat, it has nothing to do with "socialist leanings." It has to do with the way the ACLU and many have interpreted the 2nd amendment. They and some interpret it to mean a "well regulated militia having the right to bear arms"........which we have, we have a well armed militia in this country.

So no, it has nothing to do with "socialism", it has to do with their interpretation of 2nd amendment.

I disagree. One merely need read the founders discussion of the right protected by the Second Amendment to have an understanding that there was no organized militia mentioned in the amendment. That's the difference in "a militia" and "the militia", one small word has huge meaning.

The Southern California Chapter used to have an anti-gun page on their website, eventually they took it down because it generated so much negative publicity.

ref: http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/2amteach/sources.htm

[cool_chick]

Originally posted by fastpat
I disagree. One merely need read the founders discussion of the right protected by the Second Amendment to have an understanding that there was no organized militia mentioned in the amendment. That's the difference in "a militia" and "the militia", one small word has huge meaning.

The Southern California Chapter used to have an anti-gun page on their website, eventually they took it down because it generated so much negative publicity.

ref: http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/2amteach/sources.htm

A militia is still not an individual. But why would they include "militia" if they meant individual?

Please note, this is not my position, but this is the ACLU's and many others' position. Me personally, I think the clause is too vague and I can see either interpretation.

Either way, the ACLU feels the constitutionality of this clause is intact, it's not because they're "socialists."

[fastpat]

Originally posted by cool_chick
A militia is still not an individual. But why would they include "militia" if they meant individual?

It was included to relate the individual right to armed self defense individually is understood, and again, it's "a militia" which indicates militia in the non-specific sense, not "the militia" mentioned in the main body of the Constitution with regard to state and federal military power.

Please note, this is not my position, but this is the ACLU's and many others' position. Me personally, I think the clause is too vague and I can see either interpretation.

Some consider it vague, but "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is pretty narrow and accurate in my opinion. Further, it's written to apply to the state governments as well as the federal government. No government was to be allowed to restrict arms owned and possessed by individuals.

Either way, the ACLU feels the constitutionality of this clause is intact, it's not because they're "socialists."

They've intentionally chosen the socialist "collective rights" interpretation, rather than the freedom enhancing "individual rights" fact. You may draw any implication from that you wish, or not.

Reference: The Second Amendment Law Library

[lendaddy]

I assure you that if there were a truly "well armed militia" today, the leftists heads would pop right the eff off with outrage. And no the terrible "Michigan Militia" is neither terrible nor well armed.

Suddenly the BS word splitting argument would be gone, like a fart in the wind.

[cool_chick]

The basis of your conclusion "intentionally chosen..." appears to be derived on the fact that you don't agree with the interpretation and nothing else to substantiate this "conclusion". Faulty reasoning, and as such, noncredible, Pat.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by lendaddy
I assure you that if there were a truly "well armed militia" today, the leftists heads would pop right the eff off with outrage. And no the terrible "Michigan Militia" is neither terrible nor well armed.

Suddenly the BS word splitting argument would be gone, like a fart in the wind.

There's a gun dealer in San Leandro, CA that I used to frequent. Prior to it being made unlawful to sell, they had a semi-auto version of the M60 machine gun they sold for about $2400.00 a copy. I asked them if very many people had bought a gun that cost that much whereupon I was informed that they'd sold over 200 of these belt-fed beauties.

I think you'll find that the unorganized militia is better armed than you can imagine.

And no, I don't own anything that takes belted ammo.

[cool_chick]

Originally posted by fastpat
It was included to relate the individual right to armed self defense individually is understood,

By whom?

and again, it's "a militia" which indicates militia in the non-specific sense, not "the militia" mentioned in the main body of the Constitution with regard to state and federal military power.

Per Fastpat's interpretation. That's the problem. The clause is too vague.

]Some consider it vague, but "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is pretty narrow and accurate in my opinion. Further, it's written to apply to the state governments as well as the federal government. No government was to be allowed to restrict arms owned and possessed by individuals.

Actually, being precluded by "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," makes it vague. It can be interpreted either way. If that preclusion wasn't there, it would've been clear, yes. That preclusion makes it vague. Militia (which we have) or "individual" (which isn't mentioned, and isn't implied via the clause.

If anything, it implies the people have the right to a well armed militia.