TRAVEL WARNING ISSUED for Arizona (low income, construction, income)

[goodneighbor1234]

Originally Posted by Davachka

These people don't look up their cases....they just cry liberal without doing further research.

The ACLU defended Rush Limbaugh when the government wanted to look at his medical records.

The ACLU defends constitutional rights of all citizens.

We all believe in the Constitution? Right?

[goodneighbor1234]

Originally Posted by twiggy

Well, we do have the backing of others like these guys for instance, they are all for our new law. hahahahahaha No, really, the other side of this coin is a bit scary don't you think? We should err on the side of caution or this will be replacing our boycotted sports events. It could get really ugly

YouTube - Ku Klux Klan 2010 Rally in South Georgia

South Georgia is not unique. Russell Pearce is a supporter of the Neo Nazis.

[Dino1]

I live in NYC. When I enter the subway with a bag or backpack I am asked to have my bag searched by police to make sure there is no bomb. No problem. I understand the circumstances. I am white. What's the big deal about having to show proper ID? Same thing. Should I cry racial profiling?

[roundball]

Originally Posted by MotleyCrew

Read the law one more time...they have to be commiting some kind of offense to get pulled over.

True, I know everytime I I get on the offramp, me and almost everyone else crosses the white line. On left turns the outside lane driver drifts into the inside lane 7 out of 10 times. Both violations. I know it's nitpicky.

I support the ACLU. I'm sure I don't agree with 60% of their defendants. At the same time I agree with the idea of them and what they defend.

Originally Posted by Ritchie_az

P.S. I noticed and didn't want to let slip by your inclussion of the KKK in the "far right-wing" group. Historically, the KKK has had ties to the Democrat party. One example: the late Senator Robert Byrd, Democrat, West Vergina, and former KKK klan leader, holding titles of "Kleagle" and "Exalted Cyclops". Hmmmm....

Haha. Just like Lincoln freed the slaves and was an atheist Republican. Times and party ideals change.

I can't tell you if I believe the Constitution etc. is a living document or not. I think some things have and should change and some things shouldn't. I'm more in the middle/leaning living. I don't know to much about the ACLJ. From briefly looking at their site they seem right leaning and are not afraid to voice their political leanings, unlike the ACLU. Is there a difference in how we read the Constitution? Most likely.

[goodneighbor1234]

Originally Posted by Dino1

I live in NYC. When I enter the subway with a bag or backpack I am asked to have my bag searched by police to make sure there is no bomb. No problem. I understand the circumstances. I am white. What's the big deal about having to show proper ID? Same thing. Should I cry racial profiling?

Let us know when they start asking about your citizenship status.

[Ritchie_az]

"The ACLU defended Rush Limbaugh when the government wanted to look at his medical records."

Rush Limbaugh's attorneys defended him, not the ACLU. They may have made a "stance" on the subject, but they were not legally involved, I'm pretty sure.

"Haha. Just like Lincoln freed the slaves and was an atheist Republican. Times and party ideals change."

I said in a different thread: racism is found in both political parties, in every state and city, in all ethnic groups, etc. And there are lots of other things that people prejudge others with (not just race). It's wrong and I hope someday we move past it.
I simply disagree with your assertion that the KKK is a "far right-wing group". I'm sure there are "far right wing" members, just as there are "far left wing" members, but that does not make them a "far right wing group".

"I can't tell you if I believe the Constitution etc. is a living document or not. I think some things have and should change and some things shouldn't."

The Constitution was not intended to be a "living, breathing" document by those who wrote it. It was intended to be a strong foundation to build a nation based on liberty. Those who believe it is "living, breathing" document think that the authors wrote a flawed document that cannot possibly apply to today's America. If one goes down this line of thinking, the Constitution no longer is a "strong foundation" to build liberty on. And like a building who's foundation is weak or crumbling, the structure built on it will eventually fall down.
Take a look at what President Obama said:

"You know, if you look at the victories and failures of the civil-rights movement, and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples. So that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at a lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it, I’d be okay, but the Supreme Court never entered into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.
"And uh, to that extent, as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution — at least as it’s been interpreted, and Warren Court interpreted it in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties: [It] says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.
"And that hasn’t shifted, and one of the, I think, the tragedies of the civil-rights movement was because the civil-rights movement became so court-focused, uh, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change. And in some ways we still suffer from that.”

That's why the ACLU and others want a "second bill of rights"--so they can spell out "what the government must do on your behalf". Like universal healthcare, for example.

A "living, breathing" Constitution does not protect liberties, but establishes new "rights" to ensure that everyone is as equal as possible. Not equal opportunity, but equal outcome.

"From briefly looking at their site they seem right leaning and are not afraid to voice their political leanings, unlike the ACLU."

It's pretty obvious to me where the ACLU is coming from, politically. As far as the ACLJ, they are "originalists", which mean their views most closely align with that of the "founding fathers". Does this say more about the ACLJ or the "founding fathers"? Or, perhaps, the ACLU?

[goodneighbor1234]

Originally Posted by Ritchie_az

"The ACLU defended Rush Limbaugh when the government wanted to look at his medical records."

Rush Limbaugh's attorneys defended him, not the ACLU. They may have made a "stance" on the subject, but they were not legally involved, I'm pretty sure.

?

Wrong. Unless of course you believe that Fox News is a liberal news organization.

FOXNews.com - ACLU Comes to Rush Limbaugh's Defense - Celebrity Gossip | Entertainment News | Arts And Entertainment

But the privacy rights group was on his side Monday when its Florida branch filed a "friend-of-court" motion on behalf of Limbaugh arguing state officials were wrong in seizing his medical records for their drug probe. "For many people, it may seem odd that the ACLU has come to the defense of Rush Limbaugh," ACLU of Florida Executive Director Howard Simon said in a released statement.

[Gandalara]

Originally Posted by PittNewbie

ACLU has issued a travel warning for travelers to Arizona

My reaction to this is BFD.

[Ritchie_az]

Yeah, it doesn't happen often, but I was wrong, the ACLU did get involved legally. It wasn't at Rush Limbaugh's request... it was a friend-of-court motion....



But you've got to love this quote:
"For many people, it may seem odd that the ACLU has come to the defense of Rush Limbaugh," ACLU of Florida Executive Director Howard Simon said in a released statement.

Why, Mr. Simon, would that seem odd? Because Rush Limbaugh is a conservative, and it's not often that the ACLU is on the side of a conservative. And for those who don't think the ACLU is left-leaning, right here is your answer.

[Isitmeorarethingsnuts?]

I wonder what stance the ACLU takes on the Black Panthers blocking the polls?