ACLU asks delay of recall vote

[Ramo]

The ACLU has been, and still is, one of the most important organizations in our country (me proud member of the ACLU ). I don't agree with everything they do of course, but for the most part they act responsibly. Of course, this is one instance where they seem to act a little silly.

For instance the ACLU calls to terminate all voucher programs and tuition tax credits on the grounds that it is not fair unless poor people get a larger voucher then middle and upper income people ( ),

Sure sounds like a good idea to me , but as far as I know, the ACLU argues against the constitutional merits of vouchers based on the establishment clause of the First Amendment.

they've claimed that students don't even have the right to bring a bible to school to read on their own time yet perversely sued to allow a muslim organization the right to use a school after hours on the grounds there wasn't a community center availible for the muslims to use (either don't allow any religions to use public property or allow them all but playing favorities just smacks of liberal bias),

I'd have to call bull**** on that. Would you mind providing a source that the ACLU defended the right of a school (presumably a public school, otherwise your point is moot) to prohibit kids from bringing Bibles to school and reading them during their free time?

Besides, that doesn't even make any sense. Why the hell would a state (i.e. the folks who run the public school) decide to pick the ACLU to handle their case? I can't remember the last time the ACLU defended a state. Hell, I'd be suprised if a state ever chose the ACLU as their defense.

Deny the tax-exempt status of all churches on the grounds they dabble in politics--yet maintaining it for themselves as well as for various no christian groups who do the exact same thing,

I have no idea where you get that idea. They did oppose a law, the Houses of Worship Political Speech Protection Act, because it allowed religious non-profits that dabbled in politics to be tax exempt, but didn't confer the same priviledge to secular organizations.

they argue that quotes forcing companies to hire black people just because of their race is equal protection, I can go on and on...

Source please. And keep in mind that affirmative action is by no means a quota system.

[Berzerker]

Boris -

The current ruling aside, the State of California settled with the ACLU in 2001 over the issue and promised to address the situation, so obviously there were problems.

And the court just ruled there was insufficient evidence that voters in 6 counties would be "dis-enfranchised".

That the ACLU is suing over the recall now and trying to have it delayes isn't comparable to the 2002 election, since one is a constitutionally-mandated election whose date is set, and the other is an extraordinary election where the date is flexible.

Where in the law regarding the recall does it say the recall election is so "flexible" to allow for a 5-6 month delay? It would seem to me that a recall election has an even more urgent mandate since the voters signing the petition have deemed the current incumbant unfit to hold office, a voter's impeachment.

The ACLU's primary concern is that EVERY voter, whether they support the recall or not, has a fair and equal opportunity to vote. I don't see anything inconsistent between their position then and now.

The ACLU agreed to "dis-enfranchise" all those voters the last time, but now the election must be delayed.

No, Oerdin listed cases without any supporting information.

Does he really need to track down the specific cases for your satisfaction - let's just use what you've said below about gun rights and AA.

Affirmative Action taking away freedoms? Ludicrous. Whose freedom does it take away?

The freedom of employers to decide which people to hire and the freedom of people to contract with employers for employment. AA coerces an employer to hire one person because of their skin color instead of the person they want to hire, the freedom of the employer and the freedom of the rejected applicant have been taken away.

The same is true for vouchers--what freedom is guaranteed that allows someone to use public tax dollars to fund private schools?

Those "tax" dollars were the property of the parents. If you "tax" me to pay for a public school, then my freedom to seek a private education for my child has been violated. It's no different than a law requiring you to buy a Ford before the car of your choice. Would you call that law an infringement of your freedom?

http://archive.aclu.org/library/aaguns.html

"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.

And there you have your proof. A "collective right" that can be ignored because collective rights really don't exist and "the right of the people" to keep and bear arms has been "interpreted" by the ACLU to be a "state right" to maintain militias. So the only right mentioned in the 2nd Amendment was not a right of the people, but a state's "right" to ignore the people's right to own guns. Is the right of the people to be free from unreasonable searches, etc., a "collective right" that the states can ignore? The only right mentioned in the 2nd Amendment is the right of the people to keep and bear arms and the writings of the Founders repeatedly affirm this is an individual right just as all the other rights in the BOR, but feel free to show us what other rights are "collective rights" the states can ignore. The very notion of a "collective right" is illogical because rights belong to individuals - that's why the Framers make a distinction between the rights of people and the powers of the state which are effectively "collective" as expressed thru elections. Is the right to religious freedom a "collective right"? How can that be? Does that mean the majority gets to decide which religion everyone else must follow?

In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles.

No, we the people of the states were meant to be the army and it is we who will have to defend ourselves if the standing army fails. The Founders didn't even want a permanent standing army and sought to prevent it by restricting appropriations to 2 years. You may consider that anachronistic, but if we had to go up against a country like China and our military was defeated badly enough to allow a Chinese invasion of the country, you'd see that an armed populace is, nor ever will be an anachronism. It's no coincidence brutal dictators try to disarm people before the mass murder comes, and the Founders weren't oblivious to this fact.

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."

So what other rights in the BOR does the ACLU consider "collective" and subject to dis-solving? Why do they find only this right to be "collective" and therefore subject to dismissal?

You may not agree with it, but I think it's consistent with standard Constitutional interpretation.

It wasn't the "interpretation" of the people who wrote the Constitution.

The drug war?

"The ACLU has opposed the outright criminalization of drugs since 1968, believing that the best way to deal with drugs is regulation, not incarceration."

Where were they before 1968? And how have they "opposed" the criminalisation of drugs since 1968?

The ACLU has been consistent in opposing unfair drug searches and other enforcement practices.

Irrelevant.

Citing cases where the ACLU was "standing by" is meaningless, since they can't be everywhere at all times.

Yeah, while the drug war has taken away our freedoms on a massive scale, the ACLU couldn't do anything because they were off defending neo-Nazis marching in Skokie or trying to prevent football players praying before games.

[Ramo]

What fraud? I thought the big problem in Florida was voter confusion with ballots.

Nah, the big problem in Florida was Jeb Bush deciding to, several weeks before the lection, disenfranchising thousands of ex-cons who had the right to vote under Florida law and people he falsely accused to be ex-cons.

[Ramo]

Those "tax" dollars were the property of the parents. If you "tax" me to pay for a public school, then my freedom to seek a private education for my child has been violated. It's no different than a law requiring you to buy a Ford before the car of your choice. Would you call that law an infringement of your freedom?

Deosn't fly Constitutionally, regardless of your opinion on property taxes. I don't think the founders decided that the feds should subsidize Joe 18th-Century's farm equipment because protective tariffs infringed on his freedom to buy such products.

Yeah, while the drug war has taken away our freedoms on a massive scale, the ACLU couldn't do anything because they were off defending neo-Nazis marching in Skokie or trying to prevent football players praying before games.

As far as I know, the ACLU has pretty consistently opposed the War on Drugs. The problem is, there hasn't been much of a constitutional basis for such opposition unless you radically re-interpret the Constitution from the status quo, so they can't effectively oppose the WoD itself in the courts. However, they do bring to court cases regarding better established civil liberties arising from the war on drugs (illegal searches, property seizures, etc.). Which is pretty damn admirable IMO.

[Ramo]

I.e. prayer in school. if some group of kids want to get together before class and pray together so that they might pass the test, the ACLU rises from the mirk and starts bashing these kids and the school... The kids shouldn't be allowed to pray in school! they hollar... what about those kids personal freedoms?

Another bald assertion. When has the ACLU opposed students' rights to voluntary prayers not during class time/school events?

[Berzerker]

Ramo -

Deosn't fly Constitutionally, regardless of your opinion on property taxes. I don't think the founders decided that the feds should subsidize Joe 18th-Century's farm equipment because protective tariffs infringed on his freedom to buy such products.

First, the question was how the ACLU has helped take our freedom and I've explained how. Second, there is a difference between tariffs and protective tariffs, but both are infringements on freedom...and freedom was the issue.

As far as I know, the ACLU has pretty consistently opposed the War on Drugs. The problem is, there hasn't been much of a constitutional basis for such opposition unless you radically re-interpret the Constitution from the status quo, so they can't effectively oppose the WoD itself in the courts.

That's because the ACLU is not an organisation that ascribes to a literal reading of the Constitution, so they can't play both sides of the coin by reading it literally one time only to "interpret" it the next. Has the ACLU ever challenged drug laws based on a literal reading of the Constitution?

However, they do bring to court cases regarding better established civil liberties arising from the war on drugs (illegal searches, property seizures, etc.). Which is pretty damn admirable IMO.

Yes, but no one here says the ACLU always tries to take our freedom so pointing out times they try to defend freedoms isn't relevant.

Nah, the big problem in Florida was Jeb Bush deciding to, several weeks before the lection, disenfranchising thousands of ex-cons who had the right to vote under Florida law and people he falsely accused to be ex-cons.

That wasn't ballot fraud which is what this debate is about. And I wouldn't call it fraud to clean voter lists of ex-cons who lost the privilege to vote so I'd need actual proof these mistakes were intentional. Gore's attempt to have recounts only in his strongest bases of support was intentional and dis-ingenuous and not condemned by those who complained about "dis-enfranchising" voters.

[Berzerker]

Having said that, congrats to Chegitz, I didn't know the ACLU sued before the 2002 election so that certainly diminishes my feeling they are being inconsistent now.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
The current ruling aside, the State of California settled with the ACLU in 2001 over the issue and promised to address the situation, so obviously there were problems.

Settling is also a way to simply avoid cost of litigation and PR / political heat. So it's far from "obvious" that there were any problems at all. San Diego County is one of the six counties that were the claimed object of the current ACLU suit. Prior to moving south of the border, I did volunteer duty with the registrar of voters for three election cycles in the 90's, both primary and general elections, from polling place peasant to polling place supervisor, volunteer coordinator and trainer, and count observer.

The reasons for the 2001 suit were simple business. The ACLU is a membership and PR driven organization, with a primarily liberal and democrat support base. The ACLU is dependent on "issues" for it's support, and after the 2000 election, voting machines were the hot issue of the moment for the left. California got sued because the state (and the counties that have to do the legwork and foot much of the bill) didn't feel that it's election system (which worked great for Democrats ) was broken to anything near the point where it was urgent to mandate an expensive and rapid transition to a new voting machine system, especially in lieu of other administrative priorities. The ACLU sues, the state doesn't care since they were gonna do it eventually anyway, and they work out a deal that doesn't put too much pressure on most counties. ACLU gets big publicity boost, and nobody politically takes any heat. Problem? Nope, just California political PR.

That the ACLU is suing over the recall now and trying to have it delayes isn't comparable to the 2002 election, since one is a constitutionally-mandated election whose date is set, and the other is an extraordinary election where the date is flexible.

Well, you get points for creativity, at least. The Federal Constution merely defines terms of office and qualification for elected Federal officeholders, and that elections shall be held for those offices. The time, place and manner of choosing is left to the states, and is accomplished by the states by their constitutions and statutes. The recall is governed by the same body of law, the California constitution and the California Elections Code, as any other election within the state.

The ACLU's primary concern is that EVERY voter, whether they support the recall or not, has a fair and equal opportunity to vote. I don't see anything inconsistent between their position then and now.

The whole purpose of an election is popular expression and selection with regard to political officeholders. We have confirmation elections for judges, so when Rose Bird and the Supremes alienated too much of the electorate, the electorate threw several of their asses out. The point of an election is to vote, not to advance or delay "election" a la some third world countries, for the incumbents to gain advantage. The timing for a recall election is set for a reason - in the event that the electorate is so opposed to an officeholder's continued presence that they're willing to take the extraordinary step of petitioning in adequate numbers for recall, that the matter be resolved quickly. A delay in a recall election for five months, solely on the basis of an unsupported assumption about what might happen in the election, is not "giving equal opportunity." It is playing in favor of the incumbent, when the electorate has reached the point where a sizeable number of them believe he should be replaced, and that the popular will exists to replace him.

If there's an issue with the outcome of the election, or it's conduct, let the ACLU raise it then, on the basis of alleged facts, not unsupported assumptions about future events.

http://archive.aclu.org/library/aaguns.html

"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."

You may not agree with it, but I think it's consistent with standard Constitutional interpretation.

The most current interpretation, and certainly the most thorough, is United States v. Emerson, a Fifth Circuit case. SCOTUS hasn't addressed Emerson, or any recent Second Amendment cases, because there haven't been any where the issue of Second Amendment rights was the sole basis for legal action.

BTW, I used to believe the collective rights line, but the judicial research contained in the Emerson opionion by the Fifth Circuit clearly shows that the intent was based on an individual right. The ACLU is merely sticking with the interpretation it likes.

[Ramo]

First, the question was how the ACLU has helped take our freedom and I've explained how. Second, there is a difference between tariffs and protective tariffs, but both are infringements on freedom...and freedom was the issue.

I believe that the argument was over the freedoms that are guaranteed, i.e. the Bill of Rights. And the ACLU position is certainly consistent with the Bill of Rights.

That's because the ACLU is not an organisation that ascribes to a literal reading of the Constitution, so they can't play both sides of the coin by reading it literally one time only to "interpret" it the next.

Sure they can. Why can't they?

Has the ACLU ever challenged drug laws based on a literal reading of the Constitution?

Probably not, but that's simply because arguing a case based on a literal reading of the Constitution instead of a thorough reading of the extensive judicial precedent relating to prohibition would mean a lost case.

That wasn't ballot fraud which is what this debate is about.

I thought the discussion was on any voter fraud in Florida. Couldn't find any qualifiers in what you wrote.

And I wouldn't call it fraud to clean voter lists of ex-cons who lost the privilege to vote

1. Jeb's actions were illegal (even wrt to the real ex-cons). Despite regaining the right to vote in other states, they were disenfranchised just prior to the election in Florida.
2. Even if it were not illegal, it's totally immoral (as is the case with the other ex-cons).

And from a literal reading of the 15th Amendment, it's unconstitutional (to paraphrase, the vote shall not be denied on account of previous condition of servitude).

so I'd need actual proof these mistakes were intentional.

Why? So if some crazy computer error declared half of the voters in an election ex-cons, that's just fine?

Gore's attempt to have recounts only in his strongest bases of support was intentional and dis-ingenuous and not condemned by those who complained about "dis-enfranchising" voters.

Never supported the re-counts since that didn't address the real problem.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ramo
Sure they can. Why can't they?

Consistency in approach is less annoying when it comes to legal interpretation.

[Berzerker]

Well sh!t, now MtG has restored my skepticism.

[Ramo]

Consistency in approach is less annoying when it comes to legal interpretation.

The ACLU has no law to interpret, the US does.

[Berzerker]

Ramo -

I believe that the argument was over the freedoms that are guaranteed, i.e. the Bill of Rights. And the ACLU position is certainly consistent with the Bill of Rights.

Boris asked us for proof the ACLU had worked to take away freedom(s). There are only a handful of freedoms mentioned in the BOR and the ACLU has not been consistent even with those few rights.

Sure they can. Why can't they?

Because they are not being consistent when they protect a freedom based on a literal reading of the Constitution while taking away a freedom based on an "interpretation".

Probably not, but that's simply because arguing a case based on a literal reading of the Constitution instead of a thorough reading of the extensive judicial precedent relating to prohibition would mean a lost case.

And we have the ACLU to thank for helping to create that judicial precedent nullifying a literal reading of the Constitution. It is inconsistent, e.g., for the ACLU to support a federal power to create the FDA only to turn around and tell us a literal reading of the Constitution doesn't authorise Congress to decide what we can or cannot consume.

I thought the discussion was on any voter fraud in Florida. Couldn't find any qualifiers in what you wrote.

Cuz I was responding to others who established the context of the discussion.

1. Jeb's actions were illegal (even wrt to the real ex-cons). Despite regaining the right to vote in other states, they were disenfranchised just prior to the election in Florida.

I believe all states clean voter roles of those who are no longer allowed to vote, dead, or moved away. Some, like Illinois, may take a bit longer.

2. Even if it were not illegal, it's totally immoral (as is the case with the other ex-cons).

Why? All the states will remove the privilege of voting for certain crimes.

And from a literal reading of the 15th Amendment, it's unconstitutional (to paraphrase, the vote shall not be denied on account of previous condition of servitude).

That was for ex-slaves (servitude), not felons.

[Berzerker]

The ACLU has no law to interpret, the US does.

Umm...Boris quoted the ACLU's "interpretation" of the 2nd Amendment calling the right to keep and bear arms a "collective" right that can be ignored by the states because, according to the ACLU, the 2nd Amendment was created to empower the states to have militias. So the only right in the 2nd Amendment doesn't even exist...

[Jon Miller]

the aclu has done a lot of good things

theyu have also often been bat**** crazy

Jon Miller