Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I tried to google your quote but it didn't come up. But thanks anyway maybe someday I'll stumble across your complaint.
If you wanted specific cases, then just ask.
Kachalsky v. Cacace. Government can, so long as they deem something a public safety issue without corroborating evidence and in contrary to national police agencies reports, deny a civil right via licensing process.
Since we have a bunch of wet noodles on the SCOTUS it stood, despite being contrary to previous court opinion.
Nambla marched with the gays and the gays welcomed them to march... the gays decided to part with Nambla because they felt it hurt them with their push for acceptance in mainstream society.
The ACLU has no moral compass to speak of.
On the contrary; it is the LGBT leadership that showed itself, in that instance, to be opportunistic and amoral. The ACLU remained true to the core principle that an affront to one person's rights is an affront to everyone's.
During the Cold War, never once did the ACLU protest egregious violations of human rights undertaken by fellow Communists.
Neither did the Sierra Club. Neither did AARP. Neither, to my knowledge, did the NRA. These are all American organizations and their missions did not include critiquing the internal policies of foreign governments.
You actually have to ask for examples? What planet are you living on? I'll give you one that should have been obvious: The reinterpretation of the so-called "establishment clause," which was specifically addressed to Congress (Congress shall make no law ... ). Are you telling me you are not aware of how that has been abused by the ACLU?
It was "abused" (apparently in your estimate) by the 14th Amendment long before the ACLU was chartered.
I also was a Democrat. But now I can not go back to that vomit. They will defend the most vile peoples rights while trampling on the masses. This is supposed to keep us all free?
Kachalsky v. Cacace. Government can, so long as they deem something a public safety issue without corroborating evidence and in contrary to national police agencies reports, deny a civil right via licensing process.
Since we have a bunch of wet noodles on the SCOTUS it stood, despite being contrary to previous court opinion.
And I do want to add one last thing, the 14th amendment really was not properly ratified. Anyone who isn't a complete moron and spends any time sifting through the facts would understand that to be the case. And the Supreme Court won't even rule on its constitutionality. For some reason the Supreme Court says they don't have the power to review the constitutionality of the ratification of an amendment. Which makes no sense to me.
In fact, the only document you actually need to read regarding the 14th amendment, is the 1868 New Jersey withdrawal of their ratification of the 14th amendment. It says everything.
The only reason anyone pretends the 14th amendment exists, is because it would be political suicide to even discuss repealing it.
While the debate about NJ, and whether they could rescind a ratification was still going on, more states were ratifying it, making it a moot argument. New Jersey itself re-ratified it in 2003.
While the debate about NJ, and whether they could rescind a ratification was still going on, more states were ratifying it, making it a moot argument. New Jersey itself re-ratified it in 2003.
No, the issue stems around article V of the US constitution. Which says this, and I'll bold the relevant part...
"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate."
Basically, you cannot even propose an amendment to the constitution if you illegally deprive any senator of his suffrage.
Now, lets look at the text of New Jersey's 1868 complaint...
"That it being necessary, by the constitution that every amendment to the same should be proposed by two-thirds of both houses of congress, the authors of said proposition, for the purpose of securing the assent of the requisite majority, determined to, and did, exclude from the said two houses eighty representatives from eleven states of the union, upon the pretense that there were no such states in the Union; but, finding that two-thirds of the remainder of the said houses could not be brought to assent to the said proposition, they deliberately formed and carried out the design of mutilating the integrity of the United States senate, and without any pretext or justification, other than the possession of the power, without the right, and in palpable violation of the constitution, ejected a member of their own body, representing this state, and thus practically denied to New Jersey its equal suffrage in the senate, and thereby nominally secured the vote of two-thirds of the said houses."
Basically, not only did the senate kick out all of the southern senators, even after they had been pardoned and their states were recognized as being again part of the union(IE their ratification of the 13th amendment). The senate still didn't have enough votes to pass the 14th amendment so they even kicked out one of the senators from the state of New Jersey to secure the vote.
Which can mean only one thing, the 14th amendment is not in accordance with Article V of the US constitution. Which means the 14th amendment is necessarily unconstitutional.
Moreover, it wasn't just New Jersey who rescinded their ratification of the 14th amendment. Three states, New Jersey, Ohio, and Oregon all rescinded their ratification of the 14th amendment once they realized the sheer illegality and despotism involved in its passage.
On this basis alone the 14th amendment cannot be constitutional. It is illogical to believe otherwise. But at least those are merely legal/political questions. That isn't even the worst part of the entire situation.
Not only was the 14th amendment illegally proposed. As soon as it passed Congress, it was immediately rejected by thirteen of the thirty-five states at that time. As a result, the northern Congress, two years after the end of the Civil War, decided to kick out of the union, and deny even a state government, to every southern state that rejected the 14th amendment. To place them in a state of military despotism, and strip away the voting rights of much of the southern white population. In which they would only be readmitted to the union on the condition of their ratification of the 14th amendment.
Which if you don't understand what that means. They declared the southern states to longer even be states. But somehow a non-state could become a state merely by agreeing to ratify an amendment which can only be ratified by states.
Which was necessary for the adoption of the 14th amendment. Without ratification from the southern states which had rejected the amendment, the 14th amendment could not pass, period. In fact, of those states counted as ratifying the 14th amendment on the date it was adopted, two of them had rescinded their ratification but the Congress declared that a state could not rescind their ratification. On what basis? Who knows.
One only has to read Andrew Johnson's veto of the Reconstruction acts to understand the utter tyranny of the time.
I do want to close with this. You may like the 14th amendment, and you could even argue that there is no political will to abolish it. But to argue that the 14th amendment is valid, is to live in a state of either ignorance, idiocy, or madness.
The 14th amendment is both the greatest accomplishment in American history, and the most embarrassing political act in American history. And really, the same can be said for Abraham Lincoln. He was both the savior of America, and the destroyer of America.
Anyone who knows history, realizes he was the most tyrannical president we have ever had, by a mile.
Considering the number of appalling right-wing neo-nazis (literally), fundamentalist Christians that the ACLU has defended over the year I would love to know where the animus towards the ACLU comes from.
And can we broaden this out beyond simply the 2nd Amendment because I have a pretty good grasp on that conflict.
The same can be said to radical Socialist Dems and the Environments Crazies. The point is those of us who basically normal middle of row views, vie those on the extremes as crazies.
These groups use the law to their benefit and or commit crimes to advance their idea of normal.
The ACLU is a good cause, but it depends on h lawyers agenda and "what is their interest?" to determining a merit of a case. Sometimes I think they do nor weigh any case of perceived "against your rights" case well in some cases.
When you do not manage your cases the ACL?U has left themselves for criticism.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Case Management
