ACLU asks delay of recall vote

[Ramo]

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.

Every law and every repealing of a law takes away freedoms as well as adds freedoms, so that's pretty much irrelevent. What's at stake, and what the ACLU has been defending are the freedoms guaranteed by the gov't - the Bill of Rights. It's true that they aren't totally consistent (the 2nd Amendment is really their only real inconsistency, and that's not that important a freedom IMO), but they are in what you're referring to in particular - vouchers.

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".

Why does inconsistency prevent them from doing some action?

And we have the ACLU to thank for helping to create that judicial precedent nullifying a literal reading of the Constitution.

Umm... judicial precedent was more important than a literal reading for pretty much the entire history of the US. The ACLU has been in existence for less than a century. How could it possibly help create something already existing?

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.

The ACLU was created a decade or two after the FDA. And I don't think there's anything constitutionally wrong with the existence of the FDA (although I don't agree with some of the powers it has of course).

And as I told Dino, the US has laws, the ACLU doesn't. The ACLU can use one argument in one case, and a contradictory argument in another case if it wants to.

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

Doesn't mean I can't troll.

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.

Not sure what you're implying (that the ex-cons were accidentally enfranchised in these states?), but that isn't the case. Flordia, like a few other reactionary hell-holes, is actually one of the few states that doesn't automatically enfranchise ex-cons.

Why?

Because I think the right to vote is pretty damn important, and that only a despotic tyranny would disenfranchise society's least fortunate.

All the states will remove the privilege of voting for certain crimes

They do? News to me. In most states, ex-cons can vote.

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

Really? Thanks for the heads up, since I sure didn't know about that before. I certainly wasn't making a sarcastic comment or anything like that.

Anyways, a prison sentence is involuntary servitude (the 13th even makes an exception for punishment for a crime). So, a literal interpretation of the 15th would prevent the state from disenfranchising ex-convicts (people with a previous condition of servitude). Of course, that isn't a real argument because it ignores all the judicial precedent, etc. based on the 15th even if it's literally valid.

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...

I have no idea what you're getting at...?

[The Mad Monk]

Ramo, does it ever bother you that Democrats actively seek the ex-con vote?

[Berzerker]

Ramo -

Every law and every repealing of a law takes away freedoms as well as adds freedoms, so that's pretty much irrelevent.

A law against murder doesn't take away any freedom.

What's at stake, and what the ACLU has been defending are the freedoms guaranteed by the gov't - the Bill of Rights. It's true that they aren't totally consistent (the 2nd Amendment is really their only real inconsistency, and that's not that important a freedom IMO), but they are in what you're referring to in particular - vouchers.

The right to keep and bear arms may not be important to you, but it is to others. Now, abortion is not in the BOR but the ACLU defends that "right", so the ACLU does accept that the 9th Amendment (a veritable blank check wrt unenumerated rights) is within their perview. Furthermore, education is found nowhere in the Constitution, so how can the ACLU defend federal involvement with local schools while denying vouchers?

Why does inconsistency prevent them from doing some action?

We were debating whether or not the ACLU was consistent, not if it should be allowed to act inconsistently.

Umm... judicial precedent was more important than a literal reading for pretty much the entire history of the US. The ACLU has been in existence for less than a century. How could it possibly help create something already existing?

1) Not the history immediately following the ratification of the Constitution which matters most.

2) Judicial precedence is ongoing, so the ACLU has supported it when it suits them. They didn't have to be in existence when the first unconstitutional precedent was established.

The ACLU was created a decade or two after the FDA. And I don't think there's anything constitutionally wrong with the existence of the FDA (although I don't agree with some of the powers it has of course).

It doesn't matter when the FDA was created, only that the ACLU would support it which creates an inconsistency if the ACLU tries to argue that we have a freedom to decide what we consume based on a literal reading of the Constitution. And yes, the FDA is unconstitutional. There is no power for Congress to decide if you can eat ice cream, and those who claim the Interstate Commerce Clause gives Congress that power are subverting the meaning and intent of that power.

And as I told Dino, the US has laws, the ACLU doesn't. The ACLU can use one argument in one case, and a contradictory argument in another case if it wants to.

And the ACLU's opposition or support for those laws will determine if the ACLU protects are takes away freedom(s). Of course the ACLU can be inconsistent, that isn't the question. The question is whether or not the ACLU has supported taking away freedoms and Boris says we are wrong when we say it has.

Not sure what you're implying (that the ex-cons were accidentally enfranchised in these states?), but that isn't the case. Flordia, like a few other reactionary hell-holes, is actually one of the few states that doesn't automatically enfranchise ex-cons.

Again, depends on the crime and the state. I highly doubt all states automatically restore voting privileges to all ex-cons regardless of their crimes.

Because I think the right to vote is pretty damn important, and that only a despotic tyranny would disenfranchise society's least fortunate.

We're talking about convicts, not "society's least fortunate". So it depends on what they did to deserve conviction, true?

They do? News to me. In most states, ex-cons can vote.

Depends on what they did. Many states (probably all) will restore voting rights to most ex-cons and some require ex-cons to apply for the restoration of that right, but it usually depends on the crime.

Anyways, a prison sentence is involuntary servitude (the 13th even makes an exception for punishment for a crime). So, a literal interpretation of the 15th would prevent the state from disenfranchising ex-convicts (people with a previous condition of servitude). Of course, that isn't a real argument because it ignores all the judicial precedent, etc. based on the 15th even if it's literally valid.

The 13-15th amendments dealt with slavery, not criminal convictions. Involuntary servitude was not a reference to crimes that were committed voluntarily (not to get into a "free will vs determination" debate).

I have no idea what you're getting at...?

The ACLU interprets laws when deciding whether or not to file suits. The ACLU has interpreted away the only right found in the 2nd Amendment. Boris wanted proof the ACLU has worked to deny others a freedom and he supplied us with the proof when he quoted the ACLU's position on the 2nd Amendment.

[Ramo]

Ramo, does it ever bother you that Democrats actively seek the ex-con vote?

No. The fact that some Dems do puts them in higher esteem IMO.

A law against murder doesn't take away any freedom.

Sure it does. It takes away freedom from murderers.

The right to keep and bear arms may not be important to you, but it is to others.

Now, abortion is not in the BOR but the ACLU defends that "right", so the ACLU does accept that the 9th Amendment (a veritable blank check wrt unenumerated rights) is within their perview.

The courts' defense of the right to abortion is based more on the due process clause of the 14th than on the 9th. And the 14th and the other civil liberty-type amendments are typically considered along with the original BoR.

Furthermore, education is found nowhere in the Constitution, so how can the ACLU defend federal involvement with local schools while denying vouchers?

'Cuz their concentration is on civil liberties, not on just any law.

1) Not the history immediately following the ratification of the Constitution which matters most.

I'd beg to differ. After all the Alien and Sedition Acts, for instance, were passed based on English common law, in defiance of a literal reading of the 1st Amendment.

2) Judicial precedence is ongoing, so the ACLU has supported it when it suits them. They didn't have to be in existence when the first unconstitutional precedent was established.

Yeah, but it sure isn't easy to argue against centuries of precedent.

It doesn't matter when the FDA was created, only that the ACLU would support it which creates an inconsistency if the ACLU tries to argue that we have a freedom to decide what we consume based on a literal reading of the Constitution.

I'd be suprised if the ACLU said anything good or bad about the FDA for their first few decades. Since they were busy fighting for far more important things, like the right to free speech, the right to strike, the right to use contraception, etc., etc. Things like the FDA are pretty irrelevent issues compared to, say, freeing political prisoners.

And yes, the FDA is unconstitutional. There is no power for Congress to decide if you can eat ice cream, and those who claim the Interstate Commerce Clause gives Congress that power are subverting the meaning and intent of that power.

Not according to a whole lot of court prcedent. Which define constitutionality, regardless of what you or I think.

Again, depends on the crime and the state. I highly doubt all states automatically restore voting privileges to all ex-cons regardless of their crimes.

Regardless of the norm, Jeb Bush disobeyed Florida law and disenfranchised thousands of ex-cons who were enfranchised in other states.

We're talking about convicts, not "society's least fortunate".

They're one and the same.

So it depends on what they did to deserve conviction, true?

No. Every adult ought to have the right to vote.

Depends on what they did. Many states (probably all) will restore voting rights to most ex-cons and some require ex-cons to apply for the restoration of that right, but it usually depends on the crime.

Most states automatically restore voting rights within a couple years. A few states even allow voting in prison. Florida and a few other states demand ex-cons to be permanently disenfranchised unless the state grants them back their voting rights.

The 13-15th amendments dealt with slavery, not criminal convictions.

Of course they did. That was their intent and that was how the courts intepreted them as. The point is that if you take a literal reading of the Constitution, you can reach a completely different implication - namely the enfranchisement of ex-cons.

Involuntary servitude was not a reference to crimes that were committed voluntarily (not to get into a "free will vs determination" debate).

Their servitude (prison) was involuntary. They didn't consent to being locked up. That's why there are policemen and courts to bring them in.

If you read the 13th Amendment, it explicitly says that people who committ crimes can be subject to involuntary servitude (i.e. prison).

The ACLU interprets laws when deciding whether or not to file suits. The ACLU has interpreted away the only right found in the 2nd Amendment. Boris wanted proof the ACLU has worked to deny others a freedom and he supplied us with the proof when he quoted the ACLU's position on the 2nd Amendment.

Still don't see what that has to do with what you quoted.... I was telling Dino that the ACLU can argue however it wants, regardless of consistency with how it argued in previous cases.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ramo
I was telling Dino that the ACLU can argue however it wants, regardless of consistency with how it argued in previous cases.

And I was telling you that consistency is less annoying.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Berzerker
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.

This is ridiculous. If China were powerful enough to kick the US military's ass, the armed populace would be no more effective against them that the armed populace o Iraq was in standing up to either Saddam or the US. The days of civilian militias being a credible threat to state militaries is sadly over. No country with a modern military will ever be overthrown again.

Which isn't to say I don't support the 2nd Amendment. I do. I think people should have a right to have guns, though regulated like everything else to protect us from each other (in other words, not to protect me from myself, but to protect me from you).

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
(in other words, not to protect me from myself, but to protect me from you).

I wasn't aware that I scared you.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Which isn't to say I don't support the 2nd Amendment. I do. I think people should have a right to have guns, though regulated like everything else to protect us from each other (in other words, not to protect me from myself, but to protect me from you).

Get lots of range time in.

Actually, I don't have a problem with a "driver's license" type of proficieny/safety/knowledge about legal issues test and card, as a prerequisite for buying anything serious (we don't need to apply it to small rural varmint plinkers) and for concealed carry permits.

[Dom Pedro II]

I think you should be able to get Derringers from those 25 cent machines at the supermarket...

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I wasn't aware that I scared you.

You're a Republican, aren't you? You should be used to scaring people by now.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Get lots of range time in.

Gun control is just steady aim?

[The Mad Monk]

Ever hear Bubba Shot The Jukebox?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Gun control is just steady aim?

Yep.

Or one bumper sticker I always liked:

Gun control is using both hands.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


This is ridiculous. If China were powerful enough to kick the US military's ass, the armed populace would be no more effective against them that the armed populace o Iraq was in standing up to either Saddam or the US. The days of civilian militias being a credible threat to state militaries is sadly over. No country with a modern military will ever be overthrown again.

Eh? Sure military powers with nuclear weapons could all but wipe out the populace, but short of that they won't be able to impose their will on an unwilling population. Guns are merely a (fairly) low powered lever to people's ability to resist. There are only a few people in Iraq resisting right now, if it were even 10% of the population we would be fighting for our lives. Our troops could hold a small portion of the country in safety, but they would never be safe in populated areas.