Is the ACLU good for America?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Berzerker
why is it anti-American to try and stop religious folk from legislating your existence based on their religion? Many of the first peoples came here for that very reason - to get away from religious zealots. And why does my being American compel me to support the political whackos in Washington who think we can push people around and not pay a price? And privacy sure played an important role in writing the 4th Amendment, were the Framers anti-American too?

I'm sorry, Berz. But the structure of our government was intended that the legislatures legislate and the courts interpret the law when a case is before them. What the ACLU is doing is trying to change the fundamentals of our legal system by legislating using the judiciary under the long ago discredited doctrine of substantive due process employing the so-called "right of privacy." The Supremes themselves recognized the fundamental problem with substantive due process when they "officially" buried the constitutional principle only two years before Griswold. They said that when a legislature decides, that that is substantive due process per se. The only question then is whether the legislation is constitutional under other provisions or whether there has been a denial of "procedural" due process in a particular case.

[Ned]

As to the ACLU conducting fishing expeditions into the DOD to "detect" instances of abuse of al Qa'ida prisons held abroad, tell me, please, what "civil right" of any American is helped by the ACLU's undermining of US security and protecting the so-called rights of enemy prisoners.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
So were the Minutemen.

The border patrol says otherwise. So do the organizers of the MMP.

[KrazyHorse]

Funny, because literally two weeks ago there was a story on CNN quoting a border patrol spokesman as saying otherwise.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Ned
As to the ACLU conducting fishing expeditions into the DOD to "detect" instances of abuse of al Qa'ida prisons held abroad, tell me, please, what "civil right" of any American is helped by the ACLU's undermining of US security and protecting the so-called rights of enemy prisoners.

How about the constitutionally assured right of everyone to a trial by his peers and the right to due process? The constitution doesn't say only citizens have these rights it says everyone has these rights even foreigners who are in US controlled territories.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Funny, because literally two weeks ago there was a story on CNN quoting a border patrol spokesman as saying otherwise.

Then you should be able to cite it. This is my third time asking for the cite and it still hasn't happened.

[KrazyHorse]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/04/05/border.volunteers.ap/index.html

next time do it yourself.

[KrazyHorse]

if you're really lazy, then here:

Border patrol officials said the volunteers have been peaceful but have still been disrupting U.S. Border Patrol operations by unwittingly tripping sensors that alert agents to possible intruders. Agents have to respond to the false alarms, which pulls them off their normal patrols, said Andy Adame, a patrol spokesman.

[KrazyHorse]

BTW, this was already quoted in another thread on the Minutemen, IIRC...

[Ned]

Originally posted by Oerdin


How about the constitutionally assured right of everyone to a trial by his peers and the right to due process? The constitution doesn't say only citizens have these rights it says everyone has these rights even foreigners who are in US controlled territories.

Oerdin, again, tell me how a fishing expedition for abuses of enemy POWs held outside the United States that would reveal TOP SECRETS to out enemy helps America in any way!!!!!!!!!!

[Whoha]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
if you're really lazy, then here:

Border patrol officials said the volunteers have been peaceful but have still been disrupting U.S. Border Patrol operations by unwittingly tripping sensors that alert agents to possible intruders. Agents have to respond to the false alarms, which pulls them off their normal patrols, said Andy Adame, a patrol spokesman.

"The Minutemen have not caused any problems for the agents in the field," Albon states. "We have not received any complaints [about] any of their activities being out of line. They have been real supportive of the [Border Patrol] agents in the field."

You are right, it was posted in another thread, but the MMP people are making the claim, which this quote seems to back up, that they worked with the Border Patrol to insure that they weren't tripping the sensors.

[Berzerker]

I'm sorry, Berz. But the structure of our government was intended that the legislatures legislate and the courts interpret the law when a case is before them. What the ACLU is doing is trying to change the fundamentals of our legal system by legislating using the judiciary under the long ago discredited doctrine of substantive due process employing the so-called "right of privacy." The Supremes themselves recognized the fundamental problem with substantive due process when they "officially" buried the constitutional principle only two years before Griswold. They said that when a legislature decides, that that is substantive due process per se. The only question then is whether the legislation is constitutional under other provisions or whether there has been a denial of "procedural" due process in a particular case.

The right of privacy comes from the 4th Amendment, it was a given for the Framers that we had a right to privacy, the 4th Amendment merely allows government to infringe upon this right in certain cases and the procedure to be followed. Y'all need to read the 9th Amendment and you will see the Bill of Rights was not meant to be an encyclopedic listing of our rights.

Privacy is among the most basic of rights, you'll notice we have no right to life in the Bill of Rights, its a given just like privacy and freedom. And in the 5th Amendment we see our lives can be taken by the state under certain circumstances after following procedure. Both rights are assumed to exist and the BOR affirms they exist by detailing how these rights may be restricted under the right conditions.

Alexander Hamilton argued against a Bill of Rights, he said the Constitution limits what the government can do so why fall into the trap of enumerating certain rights thereby lowering the value of all the other rights we have. He was right, by listing certain rights alot of people in this country behave like the rest of our rights are state-created.

[Ned]

I am not going to debate here whether "the right to privacy," first recognized as a right in Brandeis' law review article written in 1890, IIRC, is a fundamental right that is recognized by the constiution. It may be an aspect of liberty. But it was not recognized at all at the time of the founding of our country. Liberty was, though.

But the problem his not whether this right exists or not. The problem is substantive due process where the Supremes make policy judgements about whether this or that law infringes on their own notions of privacy, and then declares the law unconstitutional if they don't like it -- or come up with dramatic court orders, as we found in Roe v. Wade, to lay out elaborate new law in the place of the laws it just vacated.

For generations, the Supremes did just this to economic social legislation under the freedom to contract aspect of Liberty, until FDR threatened to pack the court. That era fell into heavy constitutional criticism. Finally the Supremes flatly said that the whole concept of substantive due process was constitutionally flawed as it amounted to substituting their judgements about law and policy for that of Congress or the State legislatures.

So they junked it.

Then, two years later, it was back in Griswold, but this time it was the right of privacy (aspect of liberty) that was the basic right infringed according to their notions. That ruling has launched the court in to being the superlegislature, and subject to just as much hostility and criticism as before.

[Dinner]

One side is intentionally triggering sensors in order to disrupt law enforcement officials while the other one had a few accidental triggering which they have been working with the Border Patrol to minimize. One is intentional and malicious while the other is accidentally done by people trying to avoid it. The Border Patrol's own press releases say this.

BTW KH if you make a claim its up to you to back it up. It isn't other people's responsibility to go hunting for the proof.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Oerdin
One side is intentionally triggering sensors

If you believe the union, which I don't.