Individual rights and freedoms and the ACLU

[ViolaLee]

We've touched on this subject in several threads, off topic and I can't remember where, to see the replies. So let's discuss it here.

Preserva and Clay have mentioned the love of individual freedoms. I asked if they loved the ACLU due to their defending of individual freedoms.

The ACLU fights to defend the constitutional civil liberties and individual freedoms and rights of people. I've thought a little bit about this and I think maybe the right thinks that the ACLU is a leftist organization because they fight for ALL individual's rights and freedoms. I think the right, or to put it more succinctly, the WHITE CHRISTIAN MALE, doesn't really care about other race or gender or religion's individual civil liberties but their own.

Since I never really got an answer so far, I've come to this conclusion. The right (white Christian male) is only interested in their own civil liberties and not interested in the rest of us and our rights and freedoms and since the ACLU defends EVERYONE's individual freedoms, it must be a leftist organization.

Am I correct?

http://www.aclu.org/

[Kamehameha34]

I think what you've established is that the ACLU is not a neoconservative organization.

[ViolaLee]

I agree.

I was wondering if Preserva or Clay or other right wing fellas would come and explain to me how they can, at the same time love individual freedoms and hate the ACLU.

I really don't understand it.

[preservanation]

BOSTON – Today, the U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals heard an appeal from the U.S.
District Court's February ruling in Parker v. Hurley, which held that individual parents in
Lexington could not sue schools for introducing their children to ideas the parents do not
approve of. The ACLU of Massachusetts is hopeful that the Circuit Court will affirm this ruling,
for the sake of all students, parents, and teachers, and the very concept of public education. http://www.aclu-mass.org/news/ACLUM_12_05_07_Lexington.pdf

Taking parental rights away and giving them to the gov is not a con value, it is the lib agenda in a nut-shell.

The concept that the ACLU is not liberal or that there is not even a culture war being waged are things that confound and frustrate Conservatives

[ViolaLee]

I noticed you didn't post the complete press release. The first paragraph does not fully explain the case. Here's the rest.

The ACLU filed a friend of the court brief supporting the Lexington public schools on behalf of a Lexington parents’ group, Lexington CARES, a coalition of religious groups, Respecting Differences, as well as the Lexington Education Association, the Massachusetts Teachers Association, and the ACLU itself.

The plaintiffs in this case, and their backers, have made the argument that their rights to religious freedom and to control the upbringing of their children are being violated because they cannot prohibit the public schools from exposing their children to parts of the curriculum which they do not like -- in this case, materials which include lesbian and gay people as part of a larger discussion about families.

Yet by seeking to restrict this information or demanding prior notification, it is they who seek to restrict the rights of others, by either eliminating material from classroom discussion or by imposing burdensome notification requirements which would discourage material from being introduced in the first place if it might be considered controversial by even one parent.

Courts have uniformly said that parental rights are not violated by merely introducing school students to ideas that certain parents find offensive or objectionable. Courts have also recognized that the public schools could not function if they had to create a curriculum for each individual child whose parents had some objection to ideas that were being discussed.

The ACLU supports the right of parents to religious freedom, which includes the right to talk to their children about what they are learning in school, giving them alternative materials, and
conveying their values and beliefs. Ultimately, however, if parents object to public education, they have a constitutional right to send their children to private schools or to home-school them.

So, this supports my stance that the Right Wing White Christian Male, does not support the rights of others, only of his own kind.

So individual rights are only for some people, not all.

Is that why the ACLU, who defends ALL individual's rights is distasteful to you?

[K-D-K-D-K]

I agree.

I was wondering if Preserva or Clay or other right wing fellas would come and explain to me how they can, at the same time love individual freedoms and hate the ACLU.

I really don't understand it.

The ACLU is bias and it is backed by Jews. They are the main money donors who want a secular America and they want to destroy American values, ethics and traditions like encouraging interracial marriages between blacks and whites which is vile and promoting homosexuality. The European American Whites are slowly being bred out and we need to turn this America around by disbanding the ACLU and encouraging marriage between whites to preserve the gene pool. Its the only way to preserve the heritage and christian values that our White European forefathers envisioned for America. The Jews want to destroy those traditions and christian values by funding the ACLU and the anti defamation league. Stop The Jewish backed ACLU and you stop secularism.Charlton Heston made a wonderful speech how the Culture in America is being destroyed and I encourage everyone to read it in my other thread on Fighting the Culture War

[preservanation]

1% of the ACLU's positions are headscratchers...but to claim that they are not considered a lib group is nuts.

[ViolaLee]

What is lib then Preserva?

The ideology of individual rights, freedoms and civil liberties?

:D[hr]
The ACLU is bias and it is backed by Jews. They are the main money donors who want a secular America and they want to destroy American values, ethics and traditions like encouraging interracial marriages between blacks and whites which is vile and promoting homosexuality. The European American Whites are slowly being bred out and we need to turn this America around by disbanding the ACLU and encouraging marriage between whites to preserve the gene pool. Its the only way to preserve the heritage and christian values that our White European forefathers envisioned for America. The Jews want to destroy those traditions and christian values by funding the ACLU and the anti defamation league. Stop The Jewish backed ACLU and you stop secularism.
No offense, but I don't really care what racists and white supremicists and nazis think about the ACLU and individual rights.

I was hoping to hear from Republicans and conservatives.

So scram back to stormfront.

[preservanation]

You make good points and raise good questions, as usual, VL, but I'm tired and have to dry my pants.
I hope to see you later.
G'nite and sweet dreams....

You crazy lib, you.

[K-D-K-D-K]

What is lib then Preserva?

The ideology of individual rights, freedoms and civil liberties?

:D[hr]
The ACLU is bias and it is backed by Jews. They are the main money donors who want a secular America and they want to destroy American values, ethics and traditions like encouraging interracial marriages between blacks and whites which is vile and promoting homosexuality. The European American Whites are slowly being bred out and we need to turn this America around by disbanding the ACLU and encouraging marriage between whites to preserve the gene pool. Its the only way to preserve the heritage and christian values that our White European forefathers envisioned for America. The Jews want to destroy those traditions and christian values by funding the ACLU and the anti defamation league. Stop The Jewish backed ACLU and you stop secularism.
No offense, but I don't really care what racists and white supremicists and nazis think about the ACLU and individual rights.

I was hoping to hear from Republicans and conservatives.

So scram back to stormfront.
I am no Nazi and I dont go to Stormfront. Individual rights is not in the interest of the ACLU. Secularism is though.

[NortheastCynic]

I'm not a huge ACLU fan, but keep in mind that we are supposed to have secular government...

-NC

[micfranklin]

IMO the ACLU is somewhat two-faced when it comes to individual rights and freedoms, granted that they're supposed to protect them. But at the same time they are a necessity for our society.

[NortheastCynic]

That is exactly how I feel about them, Mic.

-NC

[I Like Beer]

The ACLU fights to defend the constitutional civil liberties and individual freedoms and rights of people. I've thought a little bit about this and I think maybe the right thinks that the ACLU is a leftist organization because they fight for ALL individual's rights and freedoms. I think the right, or to put it more succinctly, the WHITE CHRISTIAN MALE, doesn't really care about other race or gender or religion's individual civil liberties but their own.

Since I never really got an answer so far, I've come to this conclusion. The right (white Christian male) is only interested in their own civil liberties and not interested in the rest of us and our rights and freedoms and since the ACLU defends EVERYONE's individual freedoms, it must be a leftist organization.

Am I correct?

http://www.aclu.org/


Yes, you are correct. But, I think you can go further. The right (white Christian male) also isn't interested in the individual rights that they, as a collective, don't like.

Examples - the right to control your own life (right to die)
http://www.aclu.org/scotus/1996/23013prs19970626.html

to marry whom you want, the right to put things in your own body (marijuana, for example),
http://www.aclu.org/drugpolicy/medicalmarijuanafeature/index.html

the right to decide for yourself what to watch/read etc.
http://aclupa.blogspot.com/2006/10/aclu-fights-internet-censorship-law.html

No one has even attempted to answer (from what I've seen) how, if conservatives are the supposed champions of individual rights they justify 'collective' controls over these areas/issues?

[micfranklin]

It's kind of a shame that the ACLU doesn't have as much as influence on the presidency as Cheney or Congress. They might've gotten something right.

[ViolaLee]

Good points I Like Beer. :clapper:
You make good points and raise good questions, as usual, VL, but I'm tired and have to dry my pants.
I hope to see you later.
G'nite and sweet dreams....

You crazy lib, you.
Cool Preserva, let's talk about it some more after you've dried your pants and had a good night's sleep. :thumbsup:


IMO the ACLU is somewhat two-faced when it comes to individual rights and freedoms, granted that they're supposed to protect them. But at the same time they are a necessity for our society.



That is exactly how I feel about them, Mic.

-NC
Can you two men please show some examples of the two-faced-ness?

[Pookie]

What is lib then Preserva?

The ideology of individual rights, freedoms and civil liberties?

:D[hr]
The ACLU is bias and it is backed by Jews. They are the main money donors who want a secular America and they want to destroy American values, ethics and traditions like encouraging interracial marriages between blacks and whites which is vile and promoting homosexuality. The European American Whites are slowly being bred out and we need to turn this America around by disbanding the ACLU and encouraging marriage between whites to preserve the gene pool. Its the only way to preserve the heritage and christian values that our White European forefathers envisioned for America. The Jews want to destroy those traditions and christian values by funding the ACLU and the anti defamation league. Stop The Jewish backed ACLU and you stop secularism.
No offense, but I don't really care what racists and white supremicists and nazis think about the ACLU and individual rights.

I was hoping to hear from Republicans and conservatives.

So scram back to stormfront.


My, my. Perfect argument why the ACLU is needed, or we'd all be forced into thinking like KDKDK.
I do consider the ACLU rather left-wing. But then again, that doesn't mean that at times, yes, the ACLU is needed.
But like anything else, it can be overused and it can go overboard over issues -- just like politicians do. I think the ACLU means well and though I don't always agree with their actions or statements all the time, I think they are quite useful, even if they are considered left-wing.
Just my opinion, is all.
Purrs,
Pookie

[NortheastCynic]

The fact that they ignore the Second Amendment is the most obvious. The fact that they occasionally infringe on the rights of private entities is another. I could find some examples of the latter, but I think I'll leave that till tommorow.

-NC

[micfranklin]

I agree.

I was wondering if Preserva or Clay or other right wing fellas would come and explain to me how they can, at the same time love individual freedoms and hate the ACLU.

I really don't understand it.

The ACLU is bias and it is backed by Jews. They are the main money donors who want a secular America and they want to destroy American values, ethics and traditions like encouraging interracial marriages between blacks and whites which is vile and promoting homosexuality.


You got a link or any proof for this or are you just talking out your ass as usual?

[firefox]

What do you all think about the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)? I've been a member for two years now, and find 90% of their cases to be very good ones.

[K-D-K-D-K]

I agree.

I was wondering if Preserva or Clay or other right wing fellas would come and explain to me how they can, at the same time love individual freedoms and hate the ACLU.

I really don't understand it.

The ACLU is bias and it is backed by Jews. They are the main money donors who want a secular America and they want to destroy American values, ethics and traditions like encouraging interracial marriages between blacks and whites which is vile and promoting homosexuality.


You got a link or any proof for this or are you just talking out your ass as usual?
Her is some proof.

The Jewish WAR ON CHRISTMAS is raging once again. The Jews who run the
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) are leading the charge. Here's the
latest:

* December 1 2007, SPOKANE Wash:*


Under pressure from the Jews of the ACLU, Spokane Public Schools' list of
"important dates" in their December Newsletter to the families of elementary
school students, didn't include Christmas. But Hanukkah, the Islamic holy
day Eid al-Adha, "winter break," (not "Christmas break"), and the Pan
African holy day Kwanzaa all made the list. But not Christmas.


* November 27 07, Fort Collins CO:*


Under pressure from the Jews of the ACLU the City Council of Fort Collins CO
recommended for their upcoming public holiday displays, no Christmas lights,
no recognition of Christmas, no use of the colors red and green, no
Christmas trees, and decorations to be limited to icicles only along with
prominent use of the color brown.


* November 20 07, Chicago:*


Under pressure from the Jews of the ACLU, the Christian group,
"Christkindlmarket," was forbidden by the City Council to use a film
depicting the Nativity Story of the birth of Jesus Christ in their
multi-media Christmas presentation in Daley Plaza. But the Hanukah Menorah
will continue to be displayed.


ANTI-CHRIST JEWS RUN THE ACLU
JEWS RUN & FUND the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). One thing is
certain, these ACLU Jews hate Christmas and use the full force of the
Jewish-controlled legal apparatus to wage war on America's favorite holiday,
"Christmas." Why do these ACLU Jews hate Christmas? I grew up in Judaism and
I, Brother Nathanael Kapner, will tell you why:


- The ACLU Jews hate Christmas because they simply cannot bear to see or
hear the name "Christ." That is why the ACLU Jews worked through the courts
to stop all government agencies from using the wonderful expression "Merry
CHRISTmas" to one another and in their displays during the Christmas season.


The historical record of the Gospels states that the Jews were responsible
for the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ. Jews will do all in their power (now
monolithic) to censure historical facts that are not according to the Jewish
Approved Version. -


A LIST OF THE ACLU JEWS WHO WAGE WAR ON CHRISTMAS
1) Nadine Strossen, President
2) Steven Shapiro, Chief Counsel
3) Dorothy M. Ehrlich, Deputy Executive Director
4) Geri E. Rozanski, Director of Support
5) Donna Lieberman, Assistant Executive Director
6) Arthur Eisenberg, Deputy Legal Director
7) Michael German - Former FBI Agent, Policy Director.
SEE: Backlash Against ACLU Jews


WHAT THE JEWS HAVE DONE TO ERADICATE CHRISTMAS
IT ALL BEGAN as soon as the Russian & Eastern European Jews got off the boat
in Stanton Island in the early 1990's. The whole record of the Jewish
opposition to Christmas has been documented:


1909: Council of Jewish Women of Baltimore petitions School Board to
prohibit Christmas celebrations.


1912: Jews in Passaic, New Jersey petition School Board to eliminate singing
of Christmas Carols.


1913: Chicago Board of Education approves recommendation of Sub-Committee
made up of mostly Jews to remove Christmas from the list of official public
holidays in schools.


1917: B'nai B'rith of Nashville, Tennessee adopts resolution against singing
Christmas Carols in public schools.


1921: The Council of the University Settlement of New York at the demand of
the American Jewish Committee adopted this resolution: "That in the holiday
celebrations held annually by the Kindergarten Association at the University
Settlement every feature of any sectarian character, including Christmas
trees, Christmas programs and Christmas songs, shall be eliminated." (What
other "sectarian" group existed besides the Jewish-hated religion of
Christianity?)


WHAT CAN AMERICANS DO ABOUT THESE CHRISTMAS-HATING JEWS?
AMERICANS MUST TELL THE JEWS that they will no longer tolerate their hatred
of Christmas. We must be very forceful with the Jews for the only language
the Jews understand is the language of force.


The Jews love to blaze abroad their accusation of "Anti-Semitism" to all
those who criticize their conduct. But the true haters of mankind are the
Jews with their "Anti-Christian" War On Christmas. If the Jews are not
stopped now we will soon find ourselves in an atheistic state reminiscent of
the Soviet Union.


Brother Nathanael.Street Evangelist!

[ViolaLee]

OMG

Where did you get that cut and paste from?

Anti-semite.com?

Jew-hater.com?

I don't like to see this thread turned into yet another Jew bash. Please go to one of Lasher's or December's or your own jew hating threads to do this.

At least KDKDK considers himself a Republican.

One point for Democrats, I guess.

Now back to the topic....please?

[micfranklin]

As Viola said back on topic. Overall ACLU = Shady but important.

Just like financial aid staff at college:thumbsup:

[Deadshot]

As Viola said back on topic. Overall ACLU = Shady but important.

Just like financial aid staff at college:thumbsup:


:clapper::clapper:VERY good analogy!:thumbsup::thumbsup:

[ViolaLee]

Financial aid staff at college = shady for sure.

One of them hired me to babysit and paid me with financial aid checks!!!!! Of course I turned her in, my boyfriend's sister was assistant registrar! She knew that too. What an idiot.

But I don't see the ACLU in the same light. I think they do a good job protecting the constitution. And boy does the constitution need protecting these days.

[davo]

The ACLU's ideology seems to be social democracy. IIRC they are also funded in large part by George Soros. This explains the organization's love for socialism and a hatred of the second amendment and able-bodied white heterosexual Christian males. However, as it's erroneously named a 'civil liberties' organization, its members actually think they're doing the right thing and have actually defended real civil liberties on the odd occasion, such as supporting the 1st amendment for everyone, and opposition to domestic surveillance.

[Trish]

I have had personal experience dealing with the ACLU on two separate occasions. Neither occasion was satisfactory. Much is made about the ACLU standing up for individual rights and personal freedoms. Based upon my personal experiences, that is a vast oversimplificaton and not quite accurate. The ACLU undertakes cases and causes regarding individual rights and personal freedoms that are high-profile and gets the ACLU name in the press, and not much else.

I applied to the ACLU for help in an instance where my oldest son was attacked by a junior high administrator and was harassed and terrorized because of a disability (severe ADHD). The ACLU declined to help and suggested I seek help from a private attorney. They acknowledged I had a case, however, according to their response, their resources were restricted. My translation of that little tidbit was that their resources were to be reserved for the cases that generated them more money in the form of free press and therefore donations. In other words their high moral ground is for sale - just like every other political critter.

I had my civil rights violated by police officers. Two county deputies arrived at my home one morning searching for a runaway who was a friend of my younger son. The boy had been at my home a few days earlier and the deputies came here searching for him because his mother said he was likely here (the woman is a drug addict and abusive mother - not an opinion - a fact supported by the fact that CPS subsequently removed all her children from her home). The boy wasn't here and I told the officers so. They asked to search my home and I asked for a warrant. They didn't have one, told me they didn't need a warrant and threatened me with arrest if I didn't allow them to search. I protested, they handcuffed me, put me in the back of their car and proceeded to search my home anyway. Of course, they found nothing since there was nothing here to find. I again approached the ACLU requesting help in prosecuting a civil rights violation case against the county sheriff's office. I received no reply to my inquiry despite several letters and a phone call.

Based on my own experiences, I would say the ACLU stands up for the rights of of only those individuals in whose interest the ACLU has a standing - in which the organization can garner the most publicity and the most money. Otherwise, they can't be bothered. They get a lot of publicity from fighting "Christmas" in schools and other such matters guaranteed to elicit controversy, but have no interest whatsoever in actually preserving the rights of "ALL" Americans.

My opinion is based on personal experience and not because I'm conservative on some issues or liberal on others. The ACLU may indeed handle some rights cases because they are defending The Constitution, and certainly the organization purports that is its purpose; however, the truth of the matter is that they have detoured from that lofty purpose and are now no better than most other political organizations - money and power rule - period.

[ViolaLee]

So you don't like them because they didn't help you personally.

[Trish]

So you don't like them because they didn't help you personally.


"Much is made about the ACLU standing up for individual rights and personal freedoms. Based upon my personal experiences, that is a vast oversimplificaton and not quite accurate. The ACLU undertakes cases and causes regarding individual rights and personal freedoms that are high-profile and gets the ACLU name in the press, and not much else."

They do not stand up for the individual rights and freedoms of ALL Americans.

[Shintao]

I think what you've established is that the ACLU is not a neoconservative organization.


But that is not so, only if the consevaties you refer to are unAmerican and wish to work outside the bounds of the US Constitution. There has been ACLU backing of several conservative issues in the past. I can't think of one to IE you with, but I believe they have an archive for your research.[hr]
The fact that they ignore the Second Amendment is the most obvious. The fact that they occasionally infringe on the rights of private entities is another. I could find some examples of the latter, but I think I'll leave that till tommorow.

-NC


They are lackys on the 2nd Amendment. This article addresses that.

The ACLU is well known for its court, political, and media battles in support of 1st, 4th, 5th, 10th, etc. amendment rights. I am drawn to these organizations, due to my beliefs, and I generally support their positions in defending and preserving our rights from those that would limit or remove them.. However, I have become concerned about the ACLU, which has decided that the 2nd Amendment is not worthy of their support as are the other individual rights specifically listed in the Bill of Rights.
http://tinyurl.com/2h3lgz

That's the jingle bell rock.....................:peace

http://tinyurl.com/23ue5n

[ViolaLee]

Perhaps they feel the NRA has the 2nd amendment covered and they need to spend time on all the rest of the bill of rights, which no one else is protecting. Except Christopher Dodd of course.



So you don't like them because they didn't help you personally.


"Much is made about the ACLU standing up for individual rights and personal freedoms. Based upon my personal experiences, that is a vast oversimplificaton and not quite accurate. The ACLU undertakes cases and causes regarding individual rights and personal freedoms that are high-profile and gets the ACLU name in the press, and not much else."

They do not stand up for the individual rights and freedoms of ALL Americans.


Perhaps they would need 300 million lawyers to do that, one for each of us. Perhaps they need your donation so they can do more.

[ECW]

Stop The Jewish backed ACLU and you stop secularism.Charlton Heston made a wonderful speech how the Culture in America is being destroyed and I encourage everyone to read it in my other thread on Fighting the Culture War


I deleted the rest of your rant because your obvious prejudices do not need to be repeated in order to find them distasteful. And idiotic. But these two points are very cogent. If you stop secularism, you plan to replace it with... what? A theocracy? And who decides what religion we get to follow? You? Bullshit. If your assertion that culture in America is being destroyed then that would logically lead one to believe that not enough people believe in that particular culture to make it worth retaining. Or it would lead one to believe that the dominant culture which has been imposed upon the rest of us is not being accepted by the next generation of Americans.

In case you hadn't noticed, the constitution gives us the right to determine what that is for ourselves. You don't have the right to impose your culture on anyone else and that is the essense of what the ACLU fights for.


IMO the ACLU is somewhat two-faced when it comes to individual rights and freedoms, granted that they're supposed to protect them. But at the same time they are a necessity for our society.


Got proof?

I applied to the ACLU for help in an instance where my oldest son was attacked by a junior high administrator and was harassed and terrorized because of a disability (severe ADHD). The ACLU declined to help and suggested I seek help from a private attorney. They acknowledged I had a case, however, according to their response, their resources were restricted. My translation of that little tidbit was that their resources were to be reserved for the cases that generated them more money in the form of free press and therefore donations. In other words their high moral ground is for sale - just like every other political critter.

The ACLU is not a governmental organization and does not have a bottomless pit of money to draw from. Justice costs money in America. That's a sad fact but a fact nevertheless. Hire a private attorney for the redress of your grievances or learn how to pursue a case pro se. The mistake you made was assuming that the ACLU would come to your rescue when (1) you were not a member and (2) you had not exhausted your available options with private legal help. A well-placed lawsuit with a little press coverage would have done more to help your situation than anything the ACLU would have done.

The majority of cases that the ACLU deals with are meant to apply to a wider audience and redress a grievance that restricts one's constitutional rights. Your case, however worthy it may have been, applied to you and your family. Had the abuse been widespread and had numerous children been abused by not only the administrator but the system itself, you would have had more of a case to be worthy of adjudication. That was not the case.

In the second case, since YOU were not the object of the search, you had nothing to hide and, therefore, no grounds to object. The 4th Amendment has been been narrowed in it's scope by case after case to mean only you personally. Since they were searching for an unrelated child, you had no bearing and no standing to object. Again, hiring a private attorney is going to be a better bet than expecting a private organization like the ACLU to protect your rights against an intrusive government or police force.

Still waiting for any of the board's conservatives to show how the ACLU fails to defend the individual freedoms that they claim to love so much. (That accusation about the WHITE CHRISTIAN MALES is a real stinger.)

[ViolaLee]

I may have stumbled upon something eh ECW? I've been thinking a lot about it. There have been a lot of conservatives touting individual freedom on this board lately. I just don't see them supporting actual individual freedom if they are pro-Bush admin constitutional violations in the name of COMMUNITY safety.

[ECW]

It's a bitch to get one's tit in the wringer between supporting their republican boy George and upholding the standards they claim to love that their own boy is stomping the crap out of. The Terry Schaivo case showed us all about how conservatives love that states rights talk but can't walk the walk when the state actually does something they do not like. The same applies here: the ACLU stands front and center in protecting the rights of Americans and the conservatives can't stand them. Living the hypocrite life HAS to be a motherf***er, don'cha think?

[Trish]

The ACLU is not a governmental organization and does not have a bottomless pit of money to draw from. Justice costs money in America. That's a sad fact but a fact nevertheless. Hire a private attorney for the redress of your grievances or learn how to pursue a case pro se. The mistake you made was assuming that the ACLU would come to your rescue when (1) you were not a member and (2) you had not exhausted your available options with private legal help. A well-placed lawsuit with a little press coverage would have done more to help your situation than anything the ACLU would have done.

The majority of cases that the ACLU deals with are meant to apply to a wider audience and redress a grievance that restricts one's constitutional rights. Your case, however worthy it may have been, applied to you and your family. Had the abuse been widespread and had numerous children been abused by not only the administrator but the system itself, you would have had more of a case to be worthy of adjudication. That was not the case.

In the second case, since YOU were not the object of the search, you had nothing to hide and, therefore, no grounds to object. The 4th Amendment has been been narrowed in it's scope by case after case to mean only you personally. Since they were searching for an unrelated child, you had no bearing and no standing to object. Again, hiring a private attorney is going to be a better bet than expecting a private organization like the ACLU to protect your rights against an intrusive government or police force.




You are making quite a few unfounded assumptions based on very brief information. I'm well aware of the price of "justice." Had I been in a financial position to hire a private attorney, I would have done so from the beginning. Such was not the case which is "one" of the reasons I turned to the ACLU for help in the first place. As for handling the case pro se - ever heard of the saying about the man representing himself having a fool for a client? Some things are just not a good idea most of the time!

As for the issue being restricted to my family alone - how do you know that? You know none of the pertinent facts except those few I shared which were the bare bones of the matter given solely as edification for my personal opinion of the ACLU. And even if your comment was a factual statement, are the constitutional rights of my family less important than those of any other American? The abuse of my handicapped son is not worth the ACLU's time if he is the "only" American child being so abused because it's not of "national" importance? Who gets to determine just which child is worthy of constitutional protection and which are not? The ACLU would have been more inclined to undertake the legal case if I were member? Well then - both of those further illustrate my original point don't they? The ACLU does NOT stand up for the rights and freedoms of ALL Americans - but by your own assertions only those rights and freedoms of certain Americans, and only those deemed worthy of "national" attention. As I said originally - only those issues which will get the ACLU national publicity and money.

As for your second contention - my HOME was searched without a warrant and I was threatened with arrest. I was handcuffed and placed in a deputy sheriff's car which in and of itself is a violation of my rights. There were no assertions that the runaway boy was being held against his will at my house, was in any danger, or any other assertion that would have given the officers the legal right to search my home without a warrant or my permission. The only thing asserted was that he had been at my house a few days earlier and "might" be there again. Searching my home without a warrant, handcuffing me and placing me in their car when I objected were violations of my 4th Amendment rights to wit:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

I'm one of "the people." My son is one of "the people." Our rights are every bit as "nationally" important as your rights or the rights of any other American. When our rights were violated by those in official capacities of authority - the school administrator and the county sheriff department - those violations were certainly as worthy of being undertaken as filing suit against a school district or municipality because of "Christmas" decorations.

Perhaps if the ACLU were more interested in actually standing up for the rights and freedoms of ALL Americans, rather than those relatively "few" deemed "worthy" of national attention, there would be more money in those limited coffers of which you speak. The ACLU may not be a political organization - but it is hardly apolitical.

They ACLU stands front and center for the standards of only those Americans it deems "worthy." How elitist and how so totally UNliberal.

[ViolaLee]

Like I said Trish, if the ACLU could send a lawyer for every American, they'd need 300 million lawyers. Perhaps you should send them a donation, it's what they run on, donations.

[Trish]

Like I said Trish, if the ACLU could send a lawyer for every American, they'd need 300 million lawyers. Perhaps you should send them a donation, it's what they run on, donations.


I think not, Viola Lee. I think I'll stick with volunteering for local legal aid centers, at least until I am an attorney myself. At least with legal aid I know, also from personal experience, that the only criteria for receiving help there is one's financial status - no elitist pretensions of worth or overstatement of purpose are involved.

[ECW]

You are making quite a few unfounded assumptions based on very brief information.

I made statements based on the information provided. If you provided inadequate information, you will get inadequate advice and responses. It's not that I care that much about solving your problems or misconceptions about the ACLU, but I was just offering what I supposed was decent advice.

As for handling the case pro se - ever heard of the saying about the man representing himself having a fool for a client? Some things are just not a good idea most of the time!

I've heard that when it comes to criminal cases but civil matters are a whole 'nother ballgame. Sometimes it's the only thing that gets a lawyer interested: doing all the legwork up front. But then, that's your choice.

... are the constitutional rights of my family less important than those of any other American?

No. If they mean anything to you, you will do something about it.

The abuse of my handicapped son is not worth the ACLU's time if he is the "only" American child being so abused because it's not of "national" importance?

No. It's not worth the ACLU's time because you haven't exhausted all your legal options yet. It's rare that the ACLU jumps into a case at the outset. Only when justice has been denied repeatedly do they get involved and then only if they have the resources. The abuses that people in power perpetrate are so widespread that there is no way that the ACLU can deal with all of them even if they wanted to.

Who gets to determine just which child is worthy of constitutional protection and which are not?

The courts.

The ACLU would have been more inclined to undertake the legal case if I were member? Well then - both of those further illustrate my original point don't they?

No. It would have shown that you had a concern about your rights before you lost them and, thus, more likely to find able legal representation to help you with your case before turning to the ACLU for help.

As for your second contention - my HOME was searched without a warrant and I was threatened with arrest. I was handcuffed and placed in a deputy sheriff's car which in and of itself is a violation of my rights. There were no assertions that the runaway boy was being held against his will at my house, was in any danger, or any other assertion that would have given the officers the legal right to search my home without a warrant or my permission. The only thing asserted was that he had been at my house a few days earlier and "might" be there again. Searching my home without a warrant, handcuffing me and placing me in their car when I objected were violations of my 4th Amendment rights...

Did you file a police complaint?

Did you go to the local DA to complain?

Did you try to get the media's attention about it?

Did you consult an attorney to even see if the cops were within their rights to do what they did? Most attorneys have an initial consult fee that is quite reasonable and you could have found out what your options were.

Running to the ACLU as a first option is rarely a good idea. Once you make enough of a stink (which you probably did not do) if your case is worthwhile, the ACLU usually comes to you.

They ACLU stands front and center for the standards of only those Americans it deems "worthy." How elitist and how so totally UNliberal.


They stand front and center for the Constitution. The courts decide whether something is worthy or not.

[ViolaLee]

Well said ECW.

I am still waiting for the conservatives and republicans to tell me why they despise the ACLU while at the same time claiming to love individual rights.

Does Clay ever post in any other threads than his own? Are there any other republicans here who want to explain this disconnect?

[ECW]

Well said ECW.

Thanks.

I am still waiting for the conservatives and republicans to tell me why they despise the ACLU while at the same time claiming to love individual rights.

We may be here a while.

Does Clay ever post in any other threads than his own?

The Petulant Pontificator keeps to his own.

Are there any other republicans here who want to explain this disconnect?


Unlikely. It's too painful.

[ViolaLee]

Let's try again. Republicans and Conservatives, please tell me how you can love individual rights and freedoms but hate the organization that fights for them?

[preservanation]

Socialism is not the key to what the left wants...it is capitalism.
They just don't know it..or more importantly, wont admit to it.

[ViolaLee]

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Please excuse this interuption, and now, back to our regularly scheduled program...

[preservanation]

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Please excuse this interuption, and now, back to our regularly scheduled program...
Capitalism and Conservatism are the path toward individual rights and freedoms, not socialism and liberalism.

If libs really want what they incessantly clamor for..."Come to the Dark Side, Luke."

[Matt W]

Capitalism and Conservatism are the path toward individual rights and freedoms, not socialism and liberalism.

If libs really want what they incessantly clamor for..."Come to the Dark Side, Luke."


Not necessarily. I would heartily agree that capitalism and conservatism can encourage and, indeed, protect the rights of the individual - unfortunately, it is under those systems that history has seen some of the nastier abuses of individual & human rights.

Socialism & liberalism seek to enshrine rights and freedoms within a social 'constitution', if you like - making it a governmental responsibility to protect those rights, rather than be governed by the whims of the Free Market and economic factors. This does lead to 'big government' and accusations of 'nanny statism' - but such stereotyping does not get away from the fact that, ultimately, these things usually work.

Sooo...I wouldn't say that human/individual rights can only be reached through any one path - it's just that liberals/socialists tend to be a lot more vocal about ensuring said rights are protected and indeed enforced by governmental agencies.

[Keith Hamburger]

Let's try again. Republicans and Conservatives, please tell me how you can love individual rights and freedoms but hate the organization that fights for them?


Well, I'm neither Republican nor Conservative, and I don't hate the ACLU. There are a lot of good things done by the ACLU. But, I do have some beefs with what they work on.

They seem to think there are only some seven amendments in the Bill of Rights. They stand up solidly for those seven but completely ignore, or even fight, numbers 2, 9 and 10.

They often fight for group rights over individual rights. Groups don't have rights, only people do. Because someone belongs to a collective doesn't give them any more or different rights than any individual within that collective, or outside of that collective.

Those are my two big complaints. Mostly the ACLU does some good work, but they are nowhere near perfect.

Keith

[Trish]

You are making quite a few unfounded assumptions based on very brief information.

I made statements based on the information provided. If you provided inadequate information, you will get inadequate advice and responses. It's not that I care that much about solving your problems or misconceptions about the ACLU, but I was just offering what I supposed was decent advice.

The information provided was sufficient as a basis for my contention that the ACLU is not the bastion of constitutional protection for all Americans as Viola Lee asserted. My post did not solicit advice from you or anyone else. When I want legal advice I, as you so helpfully suggested, consult an attorney, not members of an opinion forum. Had I been seeking advice then it would have been necessary to provide more details. However, simply providing a basis for my opinion only necessitated the bare bones I originally posted. I was not asking you or anyone else to solve my problems and I need no help in formulating my opinion about the ACLU. My opinion about that organization is based upon personal experience and not some pie-in-the-sky, esoteric theory of its purpose.

As for handling the case pro se - ever heard of the saying about the man representing himself having a fool for a client? Some things are just not a good idea most of the time!

I've heard that when it comes to criminal cases but civil matters are a whole 'nother ballgame. Sometimes it's the only thing that gets a lawyer interested: doing all the legwork up front. But then, that's your choice.[/quote]

When was the last time you were in court on a civil matter? I can assure you, the costs involved in civil proceedings are not inconsequential. The legal prep can be every bit as extensive and damn near as complicated as that for a criminal proceeding. Legal errors can cost one the case just as in a criminal matter. As for doing the legwork, again, you’re making a lot of assumptions that are not supported by the information given, but that seems to be a habit of yours and is one of the reasons why I give so little credence to your opinions. Based upon your posts in this forum I have formed the opinion that you jump much too quickly into a position before having all the facts in place to support that position. You assume facts not in evidence – and that tendency does not lend itself to confidence in your positions.

... are the constitutional rights of my family less important than those of any other American?

No. If they mean anything to you, you will do something about it.

The abuse of my handicapped son is not worth the ACLU's time if he is the "only" American child being so abused because it's not of "national" importance?

No. It's not worth the ACLU's time because you haven't exhausted all your legal options yet. It's rare that the ACLU jumps into a case at the outset. Only when justice has been denied repeatedly do they get involved and then only if they have the resources. The abuses that people in power perpetrate are so widespread that there is no way that the ACLU can deal with all of them even if they wanted to.[/quote]

Merciful heavens. There it is again – your predilection for unfounded assumptions. That is then followed by inaccurate information which is then followed by a statement which supports the position I was making in my original post. So let’s address this mish-mash of a post point by point: 1) You have no idea what my legal options were based on the information I provided much less whether or not I had exhausted those options. You assume much too much; 2) The ACLU not only jumps into a case at the outset on a regular basis, it initiates most legal proceedings it becomes involved in (see the list below); and 3) the ACLU’s choice of cases proves my point that the ACLU does NOT take on constitutional rights cases for ALL Americans, but limits its actions only to those most likely to garner national attention for itself. Exhausting all other legal avenues does not seem to be on the ACLU’s list of determining factors. The relative worth of some of the cases the ACLU undertakes certainly calls into question, at least in my mind, that they use their limited resources wisely, but hey…if it gets your name into the news, it’s worth it.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/07/30/patriot.act/index.html
http://www.aclupa.org/pressroom/aclufilessuitovercityofpit.htm
http://www.aclunc.org/news/press_releases/aclu_files_suit_in_state_court_
demanding_end_to_privacy_violations_by_att_and_ver izon.shtml
http://chronicle.com/subscribe/login?url=http%3A%2F%2Fchronicle.com%2Fweekly%
2Fv52%2Fi14%2F14a04801.htm
http://www.aclu-wa.org/detail.cfm?id=434
http://www.aclu-nj.org/news/aclufileslawsuitchallengin.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/26/national/26suit.html
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20070426/ai_n19035723
http://www.aclufl.org/news_events/archive/2003/rajcoomarsuit041403.cfm
http://www.riaclu.org/20070503.html
http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle-old/439/alaskasuit.shtml
http://www.inrich.com/cva/ric/news.apx.-content-articles-RTD-2007-10-04-0217.html
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20060824-1854-bn24cross.html

Who gets to determine just which child is worthy of constitutional protection and which are not?

The courts.[/quote]

Wrong. The Constitution of the United States of America determines not only what is constitutionally protected but to whom those protections are extended. The courts makes evidentiary decisions based upon the legal merits of a case as presented by the parties involved.

The ACLU would have been more inclined to undertake the legal case if I were member? Well then - both of those further illustrate my original point don't they?

No. It would have shown that you had a concern about your rights before you lost them and, thus, more likely to find able legal representation to help you with your case before turning to the ACLU for help.[/quote]

So – only those individuals who donate money to the ACLU demonstrate a concern for their civil rights? Interesting take on the situation. BTW – I didn’t “lose” my civil rights. Were they violated? Yes. Have I lost them? No.

As for your second contention - my HOME was searched without a warrant and I was threatened with arrest. I was handcuffed and placed in a deputy sheriff's car which in and of itself is a violation of my rights. There were no assertions that the runaway boy was being held against his will at my house, was in any danger, or any other assertion that would have given the officers the legal right to search my home without a warrant or my permission. The only thing asserted was that he had been at my house a few days earlier and "might" be there again. Searching my home without a warrant, handcuffing me and placing me in their car when I objected were violations of my 4th Amendment rights...

Did you file a police complaint?

Did you go to the local DA to complain?

Did you try to get the media's attention about it?

Did you consult an attorney to even see if the cops were within their rights to do what they did? Most attorneys have an initial consult fee that is quite reasonable and you could have found out what your options were.

Running to the ACLU as a first option is rarely a good idea. Once you make enough of a stink (which you probably did not do) if your case is worthwhile, the ACLU usually comes to you.[/quote]

Did you file a police complaint?
No. The police were not involved, why would I file a police complaint? I filed a complaint with the County Sheriff’s Department, because deputy sheriffs were involved. Police department jurisdiction is limited in most cases to the municipality in which they serve. A county sheriff’s department’s jurisdiction is county-wide.

Did you go to the local DA to complain?
Yes.

Did you try to get the media's attention about it?
Yes.

Did you consult an attorney to even see if the cops were within their rights to do what they did? Most attorneys have an initial consult fee that is quite reasonable and you could have found out what your options were.

I am well acquainted with the legal process and the concept of attorney fees. I spoke with more than one attorney. The consensus was that this was a matter right down the ACLU’s alley.

Running to the ACLU as a first option is rarely a good idea. Once you make enough of a stink (which you probably did not do) if your case is worthwhile, the ACLU usually comes to you.

And this again serves to prove my original point – the ACLU picks and chooses the cases it undertakes not based on merit, not based on fighting for the constitutional rights of ALL Americans, but based upon just how much limelight the case will bring to --- the ACLU.


They ACLU stands front and center for the standards of only those Americans it deems "worthy." How elitist and how so totally UNliberal.


They stand front and center for the Constitution. The courts decide whether something is worthy or not.
[/quote]

Once again, you’re incorrect. I’ll repeat….. The Constitution of the United States of America determines not only what is constitutionally protected but to whom those protections are extended. The courts makes evidentiary decisions based upon the legal merits of a case as presented by the parties involved. Hopefully, this means that justice is served and what is “right” prevails. This is not always the case as anyone who has ever given even a cursory glance at the legal system understands. Sometimes no matter how “right” you are, the other side’s lawyer is just better than yours….and you lose. The courts rule on evidence presented…they do not determine “worth.”

[ViolaLee]

Trish are you talking to yourself or did you just fuck up all ECW's quotes?[hr]

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Please excuse this interuption, and now, back to our regularly scheduled program...
Capitalism and Conservatism are the path toward individual rights and freedoms, not socialism and liberalism.

If libs really want what they incessantly clamor for..."Come to the Dark Side, Luke."
Matt W made a very good post in response to this, but I have one more question for you preserva:

Do you think the ACLU is a conservative, capitalist organization?

And if so, why do conservatives hate them?

And if conservatives hate them, why? Since they fight for our constitutional rights, why?

I still don't get it.

Am I dense or have the Republicans and ACLU bashers just refused to come in here and answer this?

[ECW]

You are making quite a few unfounded assumptions based on very brief information.

I made statements based on the information provided. If you provided inadequate information, you will get inadequate advice and responses. It's not that I care that much about solving your problems or misconceptions about the ACLU, but I was just offering what I supposed was decent advice.

The information provided was sufficient as a basis for my contention that the ACLU is not the bastion of constitutional protection for all Americans as Viola Lee asserted. My post did not solicit advice from you or anyone else. When I want legal advice I, as you so helpfully suggested, consult an attorney, not members of an opinion forum. Had I been seeking advice then it would have been necessary to provide more details. However, simply providing a basis for my opinion only necessitated the bare bones I originally posted. I was not asking you or anyone else to solve my problems and I need no help in formulating my opinion about the ACLU. My opinion about that organization is based upon personal experience and not some pie-in-the-sky, esoteric theory of its purpose.

My opinion of the ACLU is based on 20 years of card-carrying membership and up close observation of some of their cases. Sorry they don't meet up to your lofty expectations.



As for handling the case pro se - ever heard of the saying about the man representing himself having a fool for a client? Some things are just not a good idea most of the time!

I've heard that when it comes to criminal cases but civil matters are a whole 'nother ballgame. Sometimes it's the only thing that gets a lawyer interested: doing all the legwork up front. But then, that's your choice.

When was the last time you were in court on a civil matter? I can assure you, the costs involved in civil proceedings are not inconsequential. The legal prep can be every bit as extensive and damn near as complicated as that for a criminal proceeding. Legal errors can cost one the case just as in a criminal matter. As for doing the legwork, again, you’re making a lot of assumptions that are not supported by the information given, but that seems to be a habit of yours and is one of the reasons why I give so little credence to your opinions. Based upon your posts in this forum I have formed the opinion that you jump much too quickly into a position before having all the facts in place to support that position. You assume facts not in evidence – and that tendency does not lend itself to confidence in your positions.

Actually, I've been in court for both civil and criminal matters, if you really must know. Having done the leg work for attorneys in the past, if there are errors that were made, I wasn't the one making them. Sorry you haven't had better experiences than I've had. Based on your posts here at DF, I have come to the conclusion that you have no idea about me and, therefore, could not possibly offer up a cogent opinion that would be worth discussing. You have made a number of personal attacks on me and more than a couple of smears right out of the neocon playbook. You may give little credence to my opinions. I give none to yours.



The abuse of my handicapped son is not worth the ACLU's time if he is the "only" American child being so abused because it's not of "national" importance?

No. It's not worth the ACLU's time because you haven't exhausted all your legal options yet. It's rare that the ACLU jumps into a case at the outset. Only when justice has been denied repeatedly do they get involved and then only if they have the resources. The abuses that people in power perpetrate are so widespread that there is no way that the ACLU can deal with all of them even if they wanted to.

Merciful heavens. There it is again – your predilection for unfounded assumptions. That is then followed by inaccurate information which is then followed by a statement which supports the position I was making in my original post. So let’s address this mish-mash of a post point by point: 1) You have no idea what my legal options were based on the information I provided much less whether or not I had exhausted those options. You assume much too much; 2) The ACLU not only jumps into a case at the outset on a regular basis, it initiates most legal proceedings it becomes involved in (see the list below); and 3) the ACLU’s choice of cases proves my point that the ACLU does NOT take on constitutional rights cases for ALL Americans, but limits its actions only to those most likely to garner national attention for itself. Exhausting all other legal avenues does not seem to be on the ACLU’s list of determining factors. The relative worth of some of the cases the ACLU undertakes certainly calls into question, at least in my mind, that they use their limited resources wisely, but hey…if it gets your name into the news, it’s worth it.

When you provide a half-assed outline of your problems, don't expect that anyone could possibly offer up a reasonable analysis. You damn me for just that when it was you that failed to be precise to begin with.

The ACLU takes cases that will help establish viable precedents for the most people. They have never been a "one size fits all" organization, your expectations to the contrary. If you need personal help, a personal lawyer is the best route, not the ACLU.




Who gets to determine just which child is worthy of constitutional protection and which are not?

The courts.

Wrong. The Constitution of the United States of America determines not only what is constitutionally protected but to whom those protections are extended. The courts makes evidentiary decisions based upon the legal merits of a case as presented by the parties involved.

The courts decide to whom those protections are extended. The Constitution is merely the framework they work from. Every court interprets the Constitution a bit differently even though the document itself has not substantially changed since it was written.



The ACLU would have been more inclined to undertake the legal case if I were member? Well then - both of those further illustrate my original point don't they?

No. It would have shown that you had a concern about your rights before you lost them and, thus, more likely to find able legal representation to help you with your case before turning to the ACLU for help.

So – only those individuals who donate money to the ACLU demonstrate a concern for their civil rights? Interesting take on the situation. BTW – I didn’t “lose” my civil rights. Were they violated? Yes. Have I lost them? No.

If you were not able to get a judge to enforce the rights you say were violated then you have lost them.



]As for your second contention - my HOME was searched without a warrant and I was threatened with arrest. I was handcuffed and placed in a deputy sheriff's car which in and of itself is a violation of my rights. There were no assertions that the runaway boy was being held against his will at my house, was in any danger, or any other assertion that would have given the officers the legal right to search my home without a warrant or my permission. The only thing asserted was that he had been at my house a few days earlier and "might" be there again. Searching my home without a warrant, handcuffing me and placing me in their car when I objected were violations of my 4th Amendment rights...

Did you file a police complaint?

Did you go to the local DA to complain?

Did you try to get the media's attention about it?

Did you consult an attorney to even see if the cops were within their rights to do what they did? Most attorneys have an initial consult fee that is quite reasonable and you could have found out what your options were.

Running to the ACLU as a first option is rarely a good idea. Once you make enough of a stink (which you probably did not do) if your case is worthwhile, the ACLU usually comes to you.

Did you file a police complaint?
No. The police were not involved, why would I file a police complaint? I filed a complaint with the County Sheriff’s Department, because deputy sheriffs were involved. Police department jurisdiction is limited in most cases to the municipality in which they serve. A county sheriff’s department’s jurisdiction is county-wide.

Did you go to the local DA to complain?
Yes.

Did you try to get the media's attention about it?
Yes.

Did you consult an attorney to even see if the cops were within their rights to do what they did? Most attorneys have an initial consult fee that is quite reasonable and you could have found out what your options were.

I am well acquainted with the legal process and the concept of attorney fees. I spoke with more than one attorney. The consensus was that this was a matter right down the ACLU’s alley.

Running to the ACLU as a first option is rarely a good idea. Once you make enough of a stink (which you probably did not do) if your case is worthwhile, the ACLU usually comes to you.

And this again serves to prove my original point – the ACLU picks and chooses the cases it undertakes not based on merit, not based on fighting for the constitutional rights of ALL Americans, but based upon just how much limelight the case will bring to --- the ACLU.

Like I stated previously, the ACLU is not at your personal beck and call. They serve the most people they can in the cases they take on and if you want personal justice, you need to hire an attorney for yourself. If your case can serve as a precedent for more than just YOU, they might get involved. That does not appear to be the case here at least given the fragments and tidbits of information you have sparsely doled out here in this thread.




They ACLU stands front and center for the standards of only those Americans it deems "worthy." How elitist and how so totally UNliberal.


They stand front and center for the Constitution. The courts decide whether something is worthy or not.


Once again, you’re incorrect. I’ll repeat….. The Constitution of the United States of America determines not only what is constitutionally protected but to whom those protections are extended. The courts makes evidentiary decisions based upon the legal merits of a case as presented by the parties involved. Hopefully, this means that justice is served and what is “right” prevails. This is not always the case as anyone who has ever given even a cursory glance at the legal system understands. Sometimes no matter how “right” you are, the other side’s lawyer is just better than yours….and you lose. The courts rule on evidence presented…they do not determine “worth.”


The legal system rarely deals with what is right. It deals with what is legal and constitutional. The document known as the Constitution does not by itself determine who or what gets protected. It is the interpretation given to those words by courts and court cases that determine what is and what is not constitutional. Contrary to popular belief, it changes all the time. The Constitution is not a static document. It never has been. How it is seen changes from generation to generation. As for being worthy, what I said was in direct reference to the constitution, as in, whether the courts deciding whether something was worthy of being constitutional or not. Why am I not surprised that you tried to take that out of context?

And you can repeat something all you want but if you are incorrect the first time, chances are you will be incorrect every other time as well. It is you who is incorrect here. I'll only say that once because that's enough.

Trish are you talking to yourself or did you just f_ck up all ECW's quotes?

She did. I fixed the quotes and the concepts she erroneously stated.

[preservanation]

Do you think the ACLU is a conservative, capitalist organization?
No, not at all I consider it left leaning.
They fight for the rights of some at the expense of others.

I contend that the ACLU is actually trying to harm this nation by using our constitution and freedoms against us in order to bring America down.
They act like a communist group in the vein of Saul Alinsky where he advocated bringing our system down from the inside.
The leftist-partisan and patently anti-American ACLU appears to be gaining more clout each day. The ACLU's pockets are so deep with monetary funding from leftist groups and individuals who support their "undermine-the-US" agenda that cities, counties and states are cowed by it. Thus far, all the ACLU has needed to do is threaten to sue over Christian symbols being displayed on public property and these municipalities immediately (if not sooner) comply. Do you wonder how long it will be until some atheist decides that he or she is offended by Christian symbols on private property? All we have to do is wait. It's coming. And now the ACLU is placing every block it knows how to place, to ensure that police departments bow to their will. They had better not be fighting crime! The ACLU, activist leftist judiciary and their supporters are bound and determined to take over the country and create their own version of a totalitarian state. And, to top it off, the ACLU is still partnering with CAIR--the group that was formerly known as the "Islamic Association of Palestine", which was created by senior Hamas terrorist figure Mousa Mohammed Abu Marzook.

With a few notable exceptions, the Left cannot seem to convince American voters to elect it to office. So, its members partner with any group that will assist them in pushing their radical anti-democratic agenda. This is precisely what the ACLU is doing. However, what it fails to see--due to its obsessive hatred of the president, Christianity and all other traditional American values--is that as soon as it has helped the Islamo-fascists contingents reach their goals, there will be no further need for the ACLU. Hatred completely blinds people to reality.

If the ACLU can destroy Christianity (when have you heard of it complaining about Islam?) and force our police departments to bend to its will, its members believe they will have created the state they want--one devoid of God and run by their police. What they fail to see is that their Islamic partner--much like the old tale of the frog riding the crocodile to the other side of the lake--will eat them before they can ever totally achieve their objectives. The problem is that, the rest of us may be eaten too.

When Orwell wrote 1984, he was right. He just got the year wrong. And, my leftist friends, this attempted societal takeover toward destruction is not coming from the Right. It's coming from you and your ACLU. http://www.postchronicle.com/commentary/article_2122797.shtml

[Trish]

Trish are you talking to yourself or did you just fuck up all ECW's quotes?




I screwed up the quotes.

[moses2792796]

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Please excuse this interuption, and now, back to our regularly scheduled program...
Capitalism and Conservatism are the path toward individual rights and freedoms, not socialism and liberalism.

If libs really want what they incessantly clamor for..."Come to the Dark Side, Luke."


Where does this obsession with freedom as the highest moral value come from. The individual is not the centre of the universe no matter how much Americans would like him to be.

[Trish]

You are making quite a few unfounded assumptions based on very brief information.

I made statements based on the information provided. If you provided inadequate information, you will get inadequate advice and responses. It's not that I care that much about solving your problems or misconceptions about the ACLU, but I was just offering what I supposed was decent advice.

The information provided was sufficient as a basis for my contention that the ACLU is not the bastion of constitutional protection for all Americans as Viola Lee asserted. My post did not solicit advice from you or anyone else. When I want legal advice I, as you so helpfully suggested, consult an attorney, not members of an opinion forum. Had I been seeking advice then it would have been necessary to provide more details. However, simply providing a basis for my opinion only necessitated the bare bones I originally posted. I was not asking you or anyone else to solve my problems and I need no help in formulating my opinion about the ACLU. My opinion about that organization is based upon personal experience and not some pie-in-the-sky, esoteric theory of its purpose.

My opinion of the ACLU is based on 20 years of card-carrying membership and up close observation of some of their cases. Sorry they don't meet up to your lofty expectations.

Don't be. I have no expectations for them to live up to. They do what they do and sometimes it's a good thing, sometimes it's not such a good thing, and sometimes they are way off in left-field somewhere.



As for handling the case pro se - ever heard of the saying about the man representing himself having a fool for a client? Some things are just not a good idea most of the time!

I've heard that when it comes to criminal cases but civil matters are a whole 'nother ballgame. Sometimes it's the only thing that gets a lawyer interested: doing all the legwork up front. But then, that's your choice.

When was the last time you were in court on a civil matter? I can assure you, the costs involved in civil proceedings are not inconsequential. The legal prep can be every bit as extensive and damn near as complicated as that for a criminal proceeding. Legal errors can cost one the case just as in a criminal matter. As for doing the legwork, again, you’re making a lot of assumptions that are not supported by the information given, but that seems to be a habit of yours and is one of the reasons why I give so little credence to your opinions. Based upon your posts in this forum I have formed the opinion that you jump much too quickly into a position before having all the facts in place to support that position. You assume facts not in evidence – and that tendency does not lend itself to confidence in your positions.

Actually, I've been in court for both civil and criminal matters, if you really must know. Having done the leg work for attorneys in the past, if there are errors that were made, I wasn't the one making them. Sorry you haven't had better experiences than I've had. Based on your posts here at DF, I have come to the conclusion that you have no idea about me and, therefore, could not possibly offer up a cogent opinion that would be worth discussing. You have made a number of personal attacks on me and more than a couple of smears right out of the neocon playbook. You may give little credence to my opinions. I give none to yours.

I don't know you. I only know how you post and certain tendencies you exhibit in your posts. If my opinions expressed here were about you then you would be absolutely correct. I have nothing upon which to base an opinion, pro or con. I do have a basis for forming an opinion as to how you address matters presented on this forum. In that respect my observation is that you jump too quickly to form a position, assuming facts not actually present, and then move off onto a tangent of your own. That is not a personal attack or a smear - it's an opinion I've formed based on reading your posts. Whether that opinion is accurate beyond these forums, I have no idea and can not know without benefit of having actually met you. I daresay that in person, that opinion would likely change when more than the written word is involved. It does for most people. All any of us have here are our written words.



The abuse of my handicapped son is not worth the ACLU's time if he is the "only" American child being so abused because it's not of "national" importance?

No. It's not worth the ACLU's time because you haven't exhausted all your legal options yet. It's rare that the ACLU jumps into a case at the outset. Only when justice has been denied repeatedly do they get involved and then only if they have the resources. The abuses that people in power perpetrate are so widespread that there is no way that the ACLU can deal with all of them even if they wanted to.

Merciful heavens. There it is again – your predilection for unfounded assumptions. That is then followed by inaccurate information which is then followed by a statement which supports the position I was making in my original post. So let’s address this mish-mash of a post point by point: 1) You have no idea what my legal options were based on the information I provided much less whether or not I had exhausted those options. You assume much too much; 2) The ACLU not only jumps into a case at the outset on a regular basis, it initiates most legal proceedings it becomes involved in (see the list below); and 3) the ACLU’s choice of cases proves my point that the ACLU does NOT take on constitutional rights cases for ALL Americans, but limits its actions only to those most likely to garner national attention for itself. Exhausting all other legal avenues does not seem to be on the ACLU’s list of determining factors. The relative worth of some of the cases the ACLU undertakes certainly calls into question, at least in my mind, that they use their limited resources wisely, but hey…if it gets your name into the news, it’s worth it.

When you provide a half-assed outline of your problems, don't expect that anyone could possibly offer up a reasonable analysis. You damn me for just that when it was you that failed to be precise to begin with.

The ACLU takes cases that will help establish viable precedents for the most people. They have never been a "one size fits all" organization, your expectations to the contrary. If you need personal help, a personal lawyer is the best route, not the ACLU.

Thank you! You just summed up my original position nicely. The ACLU does not represent the interests of ALL Americans. I could argue your "most people" assessment, but since most and all are not synonymous, I can live with that distinction.




Who gets to determine just which child is worthy of constitutional protection and which are not?

The courts.

Wrong. The Constitution of the United States of America determines not only what is constitutionally protected but to whom those protections are extended. The courts makes evidentiary decisions based upon the legal merits of a case as presented by the parties involved.

The courts decide to whom those protections are extended. The Constitution is merely the framework they work from. Every court interprets the Constitution a bit differently even though the document itself has not substantially changed since it was written.



The ACLU would have been more inclined to undertake the legal case if I were member? Well then - both of those further illustrate my original point don't they?

No. It would have shown that you had a concern about your rights before you lost them and, thus, more likely to find able legal representation to help you with your case before turning to the ACLU for help.

So – only those individuals who donate money to the ACLU demonstrate a concern for their civil rights? Interesting take on the situation. BTW – I didn’t “lose” my civil rights. Were they violated? Yes. Have I lost them? No.

If you were not able to get a judge to enforce the rights you say were violated then you have lost them.

The violations committed against me did not end my life, or substantially alter the way in which I live. I lost nothing. Saying they were lost implies that I no longer have access or benefit of those rights. That's not accurate.



]As for your second contention - my HOME was searched without a warrant and I was threatened with arrest. I was handcuffed and placed in a deputy sheriff's car which in and of itself is a violation of my rights. There were no assertions that the runaway boy was being held against his will at my house, was in any danger, or any other assertion that would have given the officers the legal right to search my home without a warrant or my permission. The only thing asserted was that he had been at my house a few days earlier and "might" be there again. Searching my home without a warrant, handcuffing me and placing me in their car when I objected were violations of my 4th Amendment rights...

Did you file a police complaint?

Did you go to the local DA to complain?

Did you try to get the media's attention about it?

Did you consult an attorney to even see if the cops were within their rights to do what they did? Most attorneys have an initial consult fee that is quite reasonable and you could have found out what your options were.

Running to the ACLU as a first option is rarely a good idea. Once you make enough of a stink (which you probably did not do) if your case is worthwhile, the ACLU usually comes to you.

Did you file a police complaint?
No. The police were not involved, why would I file a police complaint? I filed a complaint with the County Sheriff’s Department, because deputy sheriffs were involved. Police department jurisdiction is limited in most cases to the municipality in which they serve. A county sheriff’s department’s jurisdiction is county-wide.

Did you go to the local DA to complain?
Yes.

Did you try to get the media's attention about it?
Yes.

Did you consult an attorney to even see if the cops were within their rights to do what they did? Most attorneys have an initial consult fee that is quite reasonable and you could have found out what your options were.

I am well acquainted with the legal process and the concept of attorney fees. I spoke with more than one attorney. The consensus was that this was a matter right down the ACLU’s alley.

Running to the ACLU as a first option is rarely a good idea. Once you make enough of a stink (which you probably did not do) if your case is worthwhile, the ACLU usually comes to you.

And this again serves to prove my original point – the ACLU picks and chooses the cases it undertakes not based on merit, not based on fighting for the constitutional rights of ALL Americans, but based upon just how much limelight the case will bring to --- the ACLU.

Like I stated previously, the ACLU is not at your personal beck and call. They serve the most people they can in the cases they take on and if you want personal justice, you need to hire an attorney for yourself. If your case can serve as a precedent for more than just YOU, they might get involved. That does not appear to be the case here at least given the fragments and tidbits of information you have sparsely doled out here in this thread.

Again, a very accurate summation of my original position. We appear to agree on this point after all.




They ACLU stands front and center for the standards of only those Americans it deems "worthy." How elitist and how so totally UNliberal.


They stand front and center for the Constitution. The courts decide whether something is worthy or not.


Once again, you’re incorrect. I’ll repeat….. The Constitution of the United States of America determines not only what is constitutionally protected but to whom those protections are extended. The courts makes evidentiary decisions based upon the legal merits of a case as presented by the parties involved. Hopefully, this means that justice is served and what is “right” prevails. This is not always the case as anyone who has ever given even a cursory glance at the legal system understands. Sometimes no matter how “right” you are, the other side’s lawyer is just better than yours….and you lose. The courts rule on evidence presented…they do not determine “worth.”


The legal system rarely deals with what is right. It deals with what is legal and constitutional. The document known as the Constitution does not by itself determine who or what gets protected. It is the interpretation given to those words by courts and court cases that determine what is and what is not constitutional. Contrary to popular belief, it changes all the time. The Constitution is not a static document. It never has been. How it is seen changes from generation to generation. As for being worthy, what I said was in direct reference to the constitution, as in, whether the courts deciding whether something was worthy of being constitutional or not. Why am I not surprised that you tried to take that out of context?

And you can repeat something all you want but if you are incorrect the first time, chances are you will be incorrect every other time as well. It is you who is incorrect here. I'll only say that once because that's enough.

The only court that determines constitutionality of a law is the Supreme Court. The remaining courts render decisions based upon those rulings as determined by the evidence presented by the litigators. Baring any constitutional challenge (and most laws are not reviewed by the Supreme Court) lower courts have no option but to "interpret" the laws under which they operate. The courts do not operate on the basis of the Constitution as in interpreting the Constitution itself, but on the laws that are enacted as they relate to the cases before them. That is an important distinction. I know what you said, and I also know what you meant by the "worth" statement. However, as stated, it was not accurate.

Trish are you talking to yourself or did you just f_ck up all ECW's quotes?

She did. I fixed the quotes and the concepts she erroneously stated.


My apologies for screwing up your quotes and thank you for fixing them. [/i]

[ECW]

A communist group that believes in protecting the constitution? That's a new one on me.

The ACLU, activist leftist judiciary and their supporters are bound and determined to take over the country and create their own version of a totalitarian state.

So, a group that believes in the sanctity of the constitution and the freedom that it promotes is attempting to create a totalitarian state and take over the country? What a total misrepresentation and exaggeration of the ACLU's goals. This isn't even a viable complaint given that all the ACLU does is go to court on behalf of people and organizations that have been given the short shrift by some governmental body or some other large institution. Taking over the government is a charge that isn't even credible.

I do have a basis for forming an opinion as to how you address matters presented on this forum. In that respect my observation is that you jump too quickly to form a position, assuming facts not actually present, and then move off onto a tangent of your own. That is not a personal attack or a smear - it's an opinion I've formed based on reading your posts.

If you knew me, you would know that I already have opinions about most of the things that I post on. I never jump too quickly to form anything because, unlike some folks here, if I don't have a real clear cut opinion about something, I rarely "think out loud" and reveal a half-formed opinion, one open to criticism. I always have facts to back up any assertions, as you may remember from my previous posts, where you alleged the contrary.

[ViolaLee]

Do you think the ACLU is a conservative, capitalist organization?
No, not at all I consider it left leaning.
They fight for the rights of some at the expense of others.

I contend that the ACLU is actually trying to harm this nation by using our constitution and freedoms against us in order to bring America down.
They act like a communist group in the vein of Saul Alinsky where he advocated bringing our system down from the inside.
The leftist-partisan and patently anti-American ACLU appears to be gaining more clout each day. The ACLU's pockets are so deep with monetary funding from leftist groups and individuals who support their "undermine-the-US" agenda that cities, counties and states are cowed by it. Thus far, all the ACLU has needed to do is threaten to sue over Christian symbols being displayed on public property and these municipalities immediately (if not sooner) comply. Do you wonder how long it will be until some atheist decides that he or she is offended by Christian symbols on private property? All we have to do is wait. It's coming. And now the ACLU is placing every block it knows how to place, to ensure that police departments bow to their will. They had better not be fighting crime! The ACLU, activist leftist judiciary and their supporters are bound and determined to take over the country and create their own version of a totalitarian state. And, to top it off, the ACLU is still partnering with CAIR--the group that was formerly known as the "Islamic Association of Palestine", which was created by senior Hamas terrorist figure Mousa Mohammed Abu Marzook.

With a few notable exceptions, the Left cannot seem to convince American voters to elect it to office. So, its members partner with any group that will assist them in pushing their radical anti-democratic agenda. This is precisely what the ACLU is doing. However, what it fails to see--due to its obsessive hatred of the president, Christianity and all other traditional American values--is that as soon as it has helped the Islamo-fascists contingents reach their goals, there will be no further need for the ACLU. Hatred completely blinds people to reality.

If the ACLU can destroy Christianity (when have you heard of it complaining about Islam?) and force our police departments to bend to its will, its members believe they will have created the state they want--one devoid of God and run by their police. What they fail to see is that their Islamic partner--much like the old tale of the frog riding the crocodile to the other side of the lake--will eat them before they can ever totally achieve their objectives. The problem is that, the rest of us may be eaten too.

When Orwell wrote 1984, he was right. He just got the year wrong. And, my leftist friends, this attempted societal takeover toward destruction is not coming from the Right. It's coming from you and your ACLU. http://www.postchronicle.com/commentary/article_2122797.shtml
Ah...so here we have it. It's all about Christianity. So it's one religion that the right wants to have rule over all of us that makes them hate the ACLU. While the ACLU fights for all of us to have the same rights and freedoms, the Christian right only wants the Christian right to have rights and freedoms.

Just what I thought from my opening post. It's the white Christian male rights and freedoms that are only important to you, not all of our rights and freedoms.

So I was right all along then.

Thanks for confirming, although I was hoping it was something else, some logical and fair reason....but what was I thinking? LOL! Fairness from the white Christian male? Too much to ask for.