Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
There's not much to refute here as your statement is complete nonsense. I'll try an analogy. If you violate a lease agreement, your lease is invalidated. In doing so, a new lease is not created.MachZer0 said:When existing laws are struck down, new laws are essentiallu created,
Baloney.When courts make decisions based on pemumbra...they are acting outside the Constitution in an activist mode
MachZer0 said:When existing laws are struck down, new laws are essentiallu created, based on the political ideology of the court making the ruling.
When courts make decisions based on pemumbra or on international laws, they are acting outside the Constitution in an activist mode
MachZer0 said:The ACLU defends the Constitution as they interpret it based on their political ideology.
As someone pointed out earlier, when has the ACLU defended someone's gun ownership rights?
ACLU.org said:The ACLU has often been criticized for "ignoring the Second Amendment" and refusing to fight for the individual's right to own a gun or other weapons. This issue, however, has not been ignored by the ACLU. The national board has in fact debated and discussed the civil liberties aspects of the Second Amendment many times.
We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government. In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles. The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration.
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]IN BRIEF [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]
The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Most opponents of gun control concede that the Second Amendment certainly does not guarantee an individual's right to own bazookas, missiles or nuclear warheads. Yet these, like rifles, pistols and even submachine guns, are arms. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]The question therefore is not whether to restrict arms ownership, but how much to restrict it. If that is a question left open by the Constitution, then it is a question for Congress to decide. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]ACLU POLICY
"The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms." [/FONT]
They are heavily into undermining the free exercise of religion in America as well.
They have done so countless times, they have defended the rights of Christians.MachZer0 said:The ACLU defends the Constitution as they interpret it based on their political ideology. As someone pointed out earlier, when has the ACLU defended someone's gun ownership rights? Yhey are heavily into undermining the free exercise of religion in America as well.
MezzaMorta said:They have done so countless times, they have defended the rights of Christians.
Nathan Poe said:Those cases don't count, since they can't be used to vilify the ACLU. They do not exist.
MezzaMorta said:Pretty much.
But if right wingers want to label defending the constitution and civil liberties of Americans as a trade mark of the Left. Im fine with that.
You mean civil liberties = free speech only? If that's so, why are they so involved in cases like the memorial cross on Mt Soledad in San Diego, CA. They aren't defending anybody's right to free speech there.tulc said:You mean that isn't what they do? Oh kind of like ACLU will defend your right to talk about gun? Guns, taxes, and a myriad of other things aren't what the ACLU is about, they are about your right of free speech. It's that simple.
tulc(drinking some more good coffee!)
Eactly my point. Would you want someone like me inferring what YOUR rights are based on the penumbra I see in the Constitution. That's why decisions should not be based on inferences.Nathan Poe said:So who decides which inferrences are correct and which are not? You?
They have a right to know what their rights are, but there is no mandate in the Constitution for law enforcement to enumerate those rights to suspects or arrestees. If you disagree, point that out to me from the Constitution itselfBecause nowhere in the Constitution is the right for people to know what their rights are -- therefore, it doesn't exist, right?
It's easy enough to findI think you forgot the link for this one?
tulc(how's your day so far?)
I don't think anyone has even attempted to refute it. The efforts here have been more along of justifying the ACLU's support for Phelpstulc said:I'm confused: have we refuted the idea about the ACLU "supporting Fred Phelps" yet?
Because I'm pretty sure that myth was laid to rest on the first page.
tulc(just trying to understand)
nvxplorer said:There's not much to refute here as your statement is complete nonsense. I'll try an analogy. If you violate a lease agreement, your lease is invalidated. In doing so, a new lease is not created.A lease is a contract not a law. When the Court struck down the Texas sodomy laws, in essence, a new law was created making sodomy legal
That has nothing to do with penumbra and inferences, so there isn't much to chew onBaloney.
Ninth Amendmemt: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Chew on that for awhile.
To repeat myself, would you want a judge with my political ideology striking down laws baswd on inference and penumbra?Nathan Poe said:And this is a bad thng because...
No, I was thinking more along the lines of the references to international law as regarding sodomy which were used to strike down the Texas lawsInternational laws such as the Geneva Convention?
That is a catcall phrase that justifies the judicial activism. Which part of the Constitution is not clear to you?And in the case of Penumbra, isn't it the Judiciary's job to interpret the Constitution, particularly in areas when it may not be explicity clear on a given topic?
It bothers me that the courts have been so duped by their agenda, yesNathan Poe said:Assume this is true. Does it bother you that they do it so well?
So why aren't they called the Amercian [Some] Civul Liberties Union, since they don't defend gun rights.Ask them:
It would be nice if that were true. As a matter of fact, the ACLU promotes its agenda at taxpayer expenseOnly if you choose to define "free" as "At taxpayer's expense."
[/left]
If they've done so countless times, could you point some out?MezzaMorta said:They have done so countless times, they have defended the rights of Christians.
Birds of a feather?Nathan Poe said:Actually, I owe Mach for inspiring me.
I agree with the ACLU most of the time, but I never actually joined them until about an hour ago. MachZero showed me how important they are.
If that's so, why are they so involved in cases like the memorial cross on Mt Soledad in San Diego, CA. They aren't defending anybody's right to free speech there.
ahhh eminent domain. Not as bad as activist Judges. But still, don't it make you crazy?On August 14, 2006, President George W. Bush signed into law Bill HR 5683 that would transfer City of San Diego property from Mt. Soledad Natural Park along with a Latin Cross to the federal government by applying the powers of eminent domain. In attendance during the Presidential signing ceremony were Senator Jeff Sessions (Rep.-Alabama), who authored the Senate legislation, and San Diego area Representatives Duncan Hunter, Brian Bilbray, and Darryl Issa, whom authored the House legislation and Jerry Sanders (Mayor of San Diego) who lobbied the Congressmen.
If they've done so countless times, could you point some out?
The question was, why doesn't the ACLU defend gun ownership rights. Did you miss that?tulc said:You could start here:
ACLU of Georgia and Baptist Church File Religious Discrimination Lawsuit
ACLU of Rhode Island Files Appeal on Behalf of Christian Prisoner Barred from Preaching at Religious Services
ACLU of Michigan Defends Catholic Man Coerced to Convert to Pentecostal Faith in Drug Rehab Program
ACLU of New Jersey Joins Lawsuit Supporting Second-Grader's Right to Sing "Awesome God" at Talent Show
After ACLU Intervention on Behalf of Christian Valedictorian, Michigan High School Agrees to Stop Censoring Religious Yearbook Entries
ACLU Helps Free New Mexico Street Preacher From Prison
ACLU of WA Wins Right of Christian Minister to Preach in Spokane Plaza
ACLU Fights for Baptist Preacher in Illinois
ACLU Backs Christian Abortion Protester in Ohio
ACLU of Oregon Defends Religious Liberty Of Adventist School Boys Basketball Players
ACLU Backs Missouri Nurse Penalized for Wearing Cross-Shaped Lapel Pin
ACLU Defends Christian Street Preacher in Las Vegas
ACLU Argues for Legal Recognition of Small Christian Church
ACLU of MA Defends Students Punished for Distributing Candy Canes with Religious Messages
ACLU of Nebraska Defends Church Facing Eviction by the City of Lincoln
ACLU Defends Church's Right to Run "Anti-Santa" Ads in Boston Subways
ACLU Defends Inmate's Access to Material from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
Following Threat of ACLU of Virginia Lawsuit, Officials to Agree Not to Ban Baptisms in Public Parks
ACLU Defends Families Fighting Removal Of Religious Symbols from Florida Cemetery
ACLU Supports Right of Iowa Students to Distribute Christian Literature at School
ACLU Argument In Support of the Display of a Christian Cross in a Public Forum
ACLU Defends Free Speech Rights of Christians And Others On Main Street Plaza
ACLU Defends Prisoner's Rosary Beads
ACLU Defends Christian Group's Anti-Abortion Ads On Phoenix Buses
ACLU Pledges to Back Church in a Zoning Battle
ACLU of PA Files Discrimination Lawsuit Over Denial of Zoning Permit for African American Baptist Church
ACLU Offers To Represent Private Prayer on Public Property and
ACLU Joins Falwell To Fight For Church Incorporation Rights
tulc(let me know if you need more?)
And what did all of that have to do with free speech?tulc said:This one?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Soledad
ahhh eminent domain. Not as bad as activist Judges. But still, don't it make you crazy?
tulc(hey! maybe they can use that as a mid-term slogan "Not as bad as activist Judges!")
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?