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.
We weigh liberty and speech differently. I do not trust the government when it takes rights away and tells me not to worry because Congress will grant me the rights I should have.
I think this is a frivolous reason to tamper with the most important document we got.
The ACLU (and NAACP) will not be able to sue the government unless Congress grants them that right. Well, I don't like the idea of getting rights through Congress. And you're basically waiting for Congress to restore rights they took away to allow you to sue Congress.
I don't trust that though I think this is likely a publicity ploy.
This is what the ACLU has to say:
We understand that the amount of money now being spent on political campaigns has created a growing skepticism in the integrity of our election system that raises serious concerns. We firmly believe, however, that the response to those concerns must be consistent with our constitutional commitment to freedom of speech and association. For that reason, the ACLU does not support campaign finance regulation premised on the notion that the answer to money in politics is to ban political speech.
I'm surprised so many people are pro Amendment and anti ACLU on this.
The Constitution is a living document and has always been changing since its creation. If we had never made any changes, blacks would still be slaves and women would have no rights at all.
The Constitution is a living document and has always been changing since its creation. If we had never made any changes, blacks would still be slaves and women would have no rights at all.
Did I argue otherwise? I'm asking if taking away rights mentioned in the OP is a good idea or not.
Did I argue otherwise? I'm asking if taking away rights mentioned in the OP is a good idea or not.
Getting rid of Citizens United is a good idea, limited the amount of money a corporation can infuse into politics is a good idea. Unless you are saying you would rather have politicians that have the best interests of their corporate donors in mind, first and foremost.
The ACLU consists of two separate non-profit organizations: the ACLU, and the ACLU Foundation. Both organizations engage in litigation, advocacy of civil rights, and education. The ACLU is a 501(c)(4) corporation which also engages in political lobbying, and donations to that component of the ACLU are not tax deductible. The ACLU Foundation is a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation, which does not engage in lobbying, and donations to it are tax deductible.[SIZE=2][14][/SIZE]
To remove corporate influence from politicians is a big priority, and a group like the ACLU would be able to find a way around the corporation issue to continue to sue the NSA.
Then clearly you'd agree that they shouldnt be liable to pay taxes, right?
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.
