ACLU: poll: what do you think of them?

[Lord Xar]

just curious.

[DeadheadForPaul]

I'm a member of the ACLU but I disagree with about 40% of the stuff that they do. I feel like if more conservatives/libertarians moved in that we could make sure that the ACLU focuses on free speech and privacy

Lately I've considered dropping out though

[Mesogen]

I don't know that much about the bad stuff they have done.

Could someone provide examples?

[Warhawk]

Good in principle, bad in practice.

[DeadheadForPaul]

I don't know that much about the bad stuff they have done.

Could someone provide examples?

Reasons I like them: Defending Free Speech even when it is VERY unpopular, pushing for sensible drug policy, pro-privacy

Reasons I and Most People Dislike them: They seem to attack Christianity more than other religions, they're pro-illegal immigration, affirmative action

I also feel weird about how they're "neutral" on gun rights. How can you just ignore the second amendment? I guess it's better than being anti-gun rights, which most of their members seem to be (probably 80% of members are liberals though there are conservatives like former Representative/current libertarian Bob Barr of Georgia)

[BillyBeer]

Good in principle, bad in practice.

Just like the NRA

[Warhawk]

Just like the NRA

At least they're good in target practice.

[Green Mountain Boy]

President: Nadine Strossen (Council On Foreign Relations)
Executive Director: Anthony Romero (Council On Foreign Relations, formally @ Ford Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation)

I don't trust people that are involved in these organizations to guard my freedoms.

[SWATH]

The ACLU was founded by a hardcore communist.

[DeadheadForPaul]

The ACLU was founded by a hardcore communist.

They also banned all communists from holding positions in the ACLU a long time ago because they believe that communism is the exact opposite of a free society

The ACLU has done a lot of good and a lot of bad. In 2004, they defended a libertarian who was fined for holding a "Badnarik for President" sign on a highway

[LibertyBelle]

The ACLU was founded by a hardcore communist.

After reading this and the CFR connections, understand why they are geared toward group rights and collectivism (ex: affirmative action). Things are more screwed up than I even imagined.

[Duckman]

Could someone provide examples?

Conservatives usually point to their support of atheist groups, their support of NAMBLA, and some cases involving affirmative action.

But I think it kind of goes with the territory... ordinary uncontroversial speech doesn't need to protected. I don't like NAMBLA but I think their free speech rights should be protected if the Bill of Rights is to be secure.

The ACLU did us a favor helping us out during a confrontation with the Orlando police July 4 when we tried to wave signs and hand out literature about Ron Paul down at Lake Eola Park. If an ACLU rep hadn't have been down there (he was helping the group Food Not Bombs which has been repeatedly harassed by the City of Orlando for distributing free food in a public park) we might have been ordered to dispurse or arrested.

[Devil_rules_in_extremes]

The ACLU is very, very selective on what Constitutional rights they choose to defend...

Personally, I think they are a bunch of commies that bring lawsuit after lawsuit so judges can legislate from the bench and totally bypass 'We The People'...

And I find that they are a bunch of collectivist with no sense of individual rights...

[Capitalism]

The ACLU is very, very selective on what Constitutional rights they choose to defend...

But isn't that their right? The Castle Coalition only cares about eminent domain. The NRA only cares about gun rights. You have to draw the line somewhere for what you're going to do.



Personally, I think they are a bunch of commies that bring lawsuit after lawsuit so judges can legislate from the bench and totally bypass 'We The People'...


Sometimes "We the people" overstep their bounds.


And I find that they are a bunch of collectivist with no sense of individual rights...

Sometimes, yes, but not always.

[Delaware]

ACLU is ok, but lately i dont know.... they are trying to defend illegal immigrants! since when does the constitution guarantee rights to illegal immigrants?

[BillyBeer]

ACLU is ok, but lately i dont know.... they are trying to defend illegal immigrants! since when does the constitution guarantee rights to illegal immigrants?

The ACLUs argument would be that even though these illegal aliens are violating the law by being here, they are still entitled to due process rights.

[hells_unicorn]

They do mostly good stuff, however the CFR membership stuff is very disturbing.

[Mort]

The ACLUs argument would be that even though these illegal aliens are violating the law by being here, they are still entitled to due process rights.

But don't they have to be citizens to have rights given to them by the constitution?

[Lord Xar]

But isn't that their right? The Castle Coalition only cares about eminent domain. The NRA only cares about gun rights. You have to draw the line somewhere for what you're going to do.



Sometimes "We the people" overstep their bounds.



Sometimes, yes, but not always.

Well, when you are a PUBLIC organziation and promote that you defend and support ALL -- you really shouldn't be picking and choosing because its dishonest it its implementation.

For instance... They are known to go after prayer in schools, trying to remove "in god we trust", trying to remove the pledge of allegiance... YET, there is a school that allows 'breaks' within the day for prayer for the muslim students - all 100 of them out of a school of thousands. So, this is a prime example of picking and choosing.... they allow this to happen, yet if catholics or christians tried this OR if you try to defend a law against illegal immigration they will file lawsuit and pretty much FORCE you to capitulate because you do do not have the monies for a protracted lawsuit.

To me this is dishonest. A mother who favors one child over the other can say "well, its might right...." true -- but it is still wrong.

Anyways, I just wanted to get peoples opinions. Personally, I think they do MUCH more HARM than good and I personally feel they have an agenda.


http://www.stoptheaclu.com/

[jorlowitz]

But don't they have to be citizens to have rights given to them by the constitution?

I think the idea is that anyone on our land will be subject to our laws, regardless of how they got here. This DOES NOT mean subject to our government welfare. However, I do like to think that it means subject to our courts (or at least some form of appropriate due process). I think Guantanamo Bay is a shining example of what happens when the Constitution is associated too narrowly with citizenship. The Constitution is a social contract, if you like, and illegal immigrants don't have consent to join it. BUT the rights that the Constitution protects were described as preceding ANY national union; the State's role as conceived was to protect those rights, not to ignore them when technically excusable or expedient. I think the purpose of the courts should be to attempt to extend our application of justice and not parse its reach. That doesn't have to mean mercy, and it certainly doesn't have to mean clemency or amnesty, but I don't see the great conflict in trying all people who break our laws in our courts with the same protections and punishments as everyone else. Social contracts may be necessarily local entities but I always thought that our ideals of jurisprudence transcended physical borders.

In short: ACLU's ok with me

[FluffyUnbound]

But don't they have to be citizens to have rights given to them by the constitution?

Come on, this is nonsensical.

Are you seriously asserting that you don't have, for example, the right to not be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment if you're not a citizen? Or a right to counsel?

So we can, say, grab some British tourist in NYC, charge him with a crime, deny him a lawyer, and then torture him to death using medieval techniques? After all, he doesn't have any Constitutional rights. Right?

[SWATH]

But don't they have to be citizens to have rights given to them by the constitution?

I'm no fan of the ACLU because they a very selective in which of your civil liberties they choose to defend. They are usually quick to jump to the defense of NAMBLA, that's fine everyone has free speech rights, but then they almost completely ignore violations of gun rights. Then they make public statements about national disarmament. They do some good because they are not ALL bad, but they mostly harm on the whole I think. They should at least change their name to something else like Progressive Civil liberties Union or something.

Now to your question: The constitution does not give rights to anyone, it merely recognizes that rights are granted by your creator to all men (and of course women), not just Americans, and being a US citizen is not an inherent right.

[BillyBeer]

I think the idea is that anyone on our land will be subject to our laws, regardless of how they got here. This DOES NOT mean subject to our government welfare. However, I do like to think that it means subject to our courts (or at least some form of appropriate due process). I think Guantanamo Bay is a shining example of what happens when the Constitution is associated too narrowly with citizenship. The Constitution is a social contract, if you like, and illegal immigrants don't have consent to join it. BUT the rights that the Constitution protects were described as preceding ANY national union; the State's role as conceived was to protect those rights, not to ignore them when technically excusable or expedient. I think the purpose of the courts should be to attempt to extend our application of justice and not parse its reach. That doesn't have to mean mercy, and it certainly doesn't have to mean clemency or amnesty, but I don't see the great conflict in trying all people who break our laws in our courts with the same protections and punishments as everyone else. Social contracts may be necessarily local entities but I always thought that our ideals of jurisprudence transcended physical borders.

In short: ACLU's ok with me

^^^^^^^Exactly

[DeadheadForPaul]

Rights are not GIVEN by the Constitution. The Constitution is just an official declaration of those rights. The Founders did not originally put in the Bill of Rights because they believed this. However, they then realized that people are idiots and would not respect inalienable rights unless they were stated, so they added amendments. Individual rights are not granted by governments. There is, however, a difference between rights and privileges. Illegal immigants have the right to be treated as human beings. Those rights do not include the right to citizenship though

[ThePieSwindler]

Rights are not GIVEN by the Constitution. The Constitution is just an official declaration of those rights. The Founders did not originally put in the Bill of Rights because they believed this. However, they then realized that people are idiots and would not respect inalienable rights unless they were stated, so they added amendments.

That was one of the arguements of Madison - that a bill of rights was not necessary because it would actually limit the rights of the people to what the constitution said, and that government might then try ot control other rights. Thats what the 9th amendment is for, to prevetn that.

[mdh]

I'm no fan of the ACLU because they a very selective in which of your civil liberties they choose to defend. They are usually quick to jump to the defense of NAMBLA, that's fine everyone has free speech rights, but then they almost completely ignore violations of gun rights. Then they make public statements about national disarmament. They do some good because they are not ALL bad, but they mostly harm on the whole I think. They should at least change their name to something else like Progressive Civil liberties Union or something.

I agree wholeheartedly with this.

[Roxi]

Conservatives usually point to their support of atheist groups, their support of NAMBLA, and some cases involving affirmative action.


they don't actually support NAMBLA they only defended them because they were under scrutinization because a guy that murdered and raped a boy went to the NAMBLA website...


that being said... i actually know very little about the bad stuff... i agree with almost all of their official positions, although i dont agree with some of their tactics

im not sure if they actually want to ban ALL forms of school prayer...ie someone praying in school because they want to but aren't led in a group prayer or moment of silence

ALL in all my thoughts are this....the ACLU probably started off 90% good but in recent years and in light of its CFR connections it has now probably swayed more in the 50/50 direction


so therefore i voted mostly good some bad

[DeadheadForPaul]

I think the diverse views on the ACLU are good because it shows that we are people with a wide range of political backgrounds