Odd signature line

[TimboKhan]

Frankly, I can't think of a single iinstance where the ACLU has actually opposed the gun lobby

I don't know if I would call it the "gun lobby", but a couple years back the ACLU successfully defended a kid who was expelled from his high school for wearing his NRA summer camp shirt.

This has been an interesting thread, because I feel like I have gotten some new perspectives on the ACLU that I might not have gotten otherwise.

 

[JShirley]

I am a conservative because I support ALL the rights

Really? The way the term "conservative" is used these days, I highly doubt it. Let's see: you support the right of every American to ingest whatever substances they choose for their own purposes, as long as they inflict harm on no-one else?
You support equal rights for same-sex partners as so-called "traditional" married couples?
You support the right of children in schools to NOT be subjected to religious explanations of origin?
Or prayer?
You support the right of women to abortions?

I doubt you. I think you're going to try to weasel out of this one by some disingenous explanation of what a "right" is.

Unlike some, I don't try to just protect the rights I like. I personally have no ambition to smoke crack, for instance, but I see no legal justification in the Constitution to ban it. As far as religion goes, I would not want my philosophical views pushed on children, anymore than I want Christianity forced upon them.

John

 

[BigG]

Those are not rights. The rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, i.e., property rights. When you show me where there are rights (for example) to same sex partners in the Constitution as amended I'll agree with you that it is a right.

I think some may be confusing a right with an entitlement - really the thing they want when they bleat about rights. They want to be able to inherit under law, etc. without a legitimate family relationship. have social security benefits from a partner's work history, and so on. Abortion "rights" mean mostly that the poor woman is entitled to recieve for free via public means what her more well to do sister can obtain through private means.

Drugs are fine with me. Take all you want. If you harm somebody under the influence, you should receive just punishment.

That's what a conservative believes. The same ones of you that protest that "Liberal" means what it did in the eighteenth century are construing conservative to mean some of these radical chic neo con idjits. You can't have it both ways. And you talk about disingenuous. :banghead:

 

[JShirley]

On the contrary...everything not a state or Federal right is an individual right.

Let me help your memory, Mr. Conservative: Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to
the people.


(But I told you so...)

 

[Helmetcase]

BigG,
We're about to open a big can of worms, but the problem is you appear to be one of those conservatives who wants the govt out of our lives and protecting HIS rights...but not everyone's rights. You're sorely mistaken, and your attitude isn't helping protect the RKBA.

The problem with you line of thinking is I don't see where the COTUS gives the govt the right to tell me I can't smoke a joint, sleep with who I want to sleep with, or drink what I want to drink. Your limited view of "pursuit of happiness" is shallow--pretty clearly that's not what it means.

If you want others to respect our gun rights, we gunnies need to as a community start respecting the rights of others as well.

Most liberals have a problem with remembering the 2A. Most conservatives like you seem to want to ignore the 9A.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

 

[BigG]

Hey, none of us is perfect, maybe we all need to rethink our positions.

 

[JShirley]

And that's the bottom line, folks.

We can stand for all civil liberties, or we can continue the petty, foolish squabbling that has lost us so many of our RIGHTS already.

BigG, I don't want to TAKE anything away from you- why, please god, why would you want me to rethink my position? Just because you don't think two women that live together should have the same rights as a hetero couple? Because you think it's a RIGHT to force religion on kids in public schools? What? Help me out, here.

I believe in individual freedom, and individual responsibility. HOW can you have a problem with that, if you're pro-freedom?

J

 

[Art Eatman]

Where folks might do some rethinking is in the difference between the sloppy use of words, and the dictionary. Just look, for instance, at the comment above about "...conservative, as used today..." as an example. Or how the word "liberal" is used and how it has changed from the days of Classic Liberalism as a political philosophy.

Some effort made to review a post before hitting the Submit button would be a highly desireable thing. It's not often, but I've seen flame wars between guys who were in fundamental agreement--but the sloppy use of words precluded understanding.

So either expound a bit on what you mean in your political labels, or work at being precise. Puhleeze!

Don't get your tongue wrapped around your eyetooth so you can't see what you're saying.

, Art

 

[tcgeol]

Let's see: you support the right of every American to ingest whatever substances they choose for their own purposes, as long as they inflict harm on no-one else?
You support equal rights for same-sex partners as so-called "traditional" married couples?
You support the right of children in schools to NOT be subjected to religious explanations of origin?
Or prayer?
You support the right of women to abortions?

I have to agree with BigG on this. I support the legalization of drugs, much as I think you have to be an idiot to use them. The rest of what is mentioned are talking about aren't the same thing. They are problems, but of a different sort and are not rights like are being discussed.
I don't want to start an abortion discussion, but since JShirley brought it up first, what of the right of a baby to live? Whether or not you personally support abortion, if you think that Roe vs. Wade was correctly decided, you have a very weird view of Consitutional originalism.
Two women that live together have the same rights as anyone else. Getting a lawyer is helpful. That is all I have to say about that.
As for the questions of religious influence in school, public education shouldn't exist as it does anyway, so if a person really values freedom, your main concern should be to get the government out of the educational business, instead of forcing a secular view into it.

 

[Helmetcase]

How are they different?

They're all examples of things the govt shouldn't be dictating to us. Who you sleep with, what you drink, what you smoke...it should be up to YOU.

What part of the 9th Amendment is hard to understand?

 

[tcgeol]

Helmetcase, I am not sure if you were replying to me or not, but if you are, nothing in my post was for more government interference. Everything was in favor of less.

 

[Helmetcase]

Sometimes keeping the govt out of our lives necessarily means using it as a necessary evil to prevent on group or another from being denied rights. I don't see how you can pick and choose when it comes to civil liberties...

I don't see that you can say "well I support the right of self defense and the right to an abortion....but I don't support equal benefits for same sex couples or the right to carry a gun."

People on all sides of these issues, liberal and conservative, often want to pick and choose which civil rights they wanna protect, like it was some sort of a la carte menu. IMHO, it's not.

 

[BigG]

...why would you want me to rethink my position? Just because you don't think two women that live together should have the same rights as a hetero couple? Because you think it's a RIGHT to force religion on kids in public schools? What? Help me out, here.

Not at all. I don't have any strong feelings about any of those things in and of themselves. I do have strong feelings when somebody construes these to trigger an entitlement that the taxpayer will be paying for. That is the underlying issue for most of these "rights" -- they want to be paid, somehow. I don't know about the religious one you cited, but the same sex marriage and abortion items are about MONEY, plain and simple.

Why you should rethink your position? Because you aren't perfect. Neither am I . I change my mind when I get new data. I hope you are that flexible, too.

 

[tyme]

How often do they file amicus briefs or support Christians whose free exercise of religion is being infringed upon?

Oh, please.

Christians in the U.S. are just about as free to exercise their religion as any religious person anywhere on Earth. What Christians are not free from is protest. That's part of what freedom of religion means; Christians here are not free from others who oppose Christianity.

What "Christians whose free exercise of religion is being infringed upon" really want is to silence those who oppose Christianity. They don't want more freedom. They want isolation but they are unwilling to isolate themselves. They want the advantage of large communities without the disadvantage of the requirement for tolerance.

 

[carlrodd]

i know this is wildly off-topic, but i am VERY much convinced that some on this site, many in the ACLU, and everyone associated with NAMBLA have an incredibly distorted view of what free speech is intended to mean.

i am quite certain that the largely honorable men that brought this country into being would not have defined talk of child molestation as free speech. often times, merely speaking of something clearly defines intent. it is unlawful to use threatening language when referring to public officials...the president for instance. it should be just as unlawful to use threatening language against children. men don't talk about having sex with boys in a hypothetical way. if they talk about it, it's because they do it.

the idea that EVERY sort of speech qualifies as FREE speech is twisted and dangerous. it's ashame our government seems to have a hard time finding middle ground with this, but that fact does not negate the idea that certain speech denotes intent, and should be addressed accordingly.

like it or not, we, as does every other society, have a largely agreed upon set of collective morals. child molestation is reprehensible; we have agreed upon that....a group of men being able to speak freely about doing it validates the behaviour, and is wrong.

 

[Cromlech]

i am quite certain that the largely honorable men that brought this country into being would not have defined talk of child molestation as free speech.

I hate to be the one that pees on your birthday cake, but I don't believe it is/was their place to define what free speech was, just to protect it.

You can not/should decide what is, and what is not free speech. Free speech is any all speech, by definition.

I could say the most grotesquely offensive things I could think of, and if someone were to make doing so illegal, they are not defending free speech. If they claim they are for free Speech, they are either lying, or stupid, in that they obviously can not understand the concept of free speech.

We don't define what is 'acceptable free speech', as that is a contradiction in terms.

 

[carlrodd]

cromlech, i don't see your response as b-day cake peeing, because you have completely disregarded the crux of my post. certain speech undeniably denotes intent of action. again, this is why threatening to kill someone, for instance, is not considered free speech. it is assumed that you intend to do this thing. talking about molesting children denotes the intent to do so. again, we have collectively determined that certain things are simply wrong. if you speak of these things in such a way that denotes intent of action, it is not free speech. "protecting" such speech lends validity to behaviour we have already decided is unnacceptable.

 

[Cromlech]

certain speech undeniably denotes intent of action. again, this is why threatening to kill someone, for instance, is not considered free speech. it is assumed that you intend to do this thing. talking about molesting children denotes the intent to do so. again, we have collectively determined that certain things are simply wrong. if you speak of these things in such a way that denotes intent of action, it is not free speech. "protecting" such speech lends validity to behaviour we have already decided is unnacceptable.

Talking about molesting children does not denote the intent to do so, in the same way that talking about chopping off your head with a furry toy jabberwocky and throwing it to the end of the universe does not denote the intent to do so. Some people talk absolute rubbish, for whatever reason.

I have known people to talk and joke about child molestation because they think it is funny (which is definitely sick), but it would be moronic to imply that they all intend to do so.

 

[Gordon Fink]

men don’t talk about having sex with boys in a hypothetical way. if they talk about it, it’s because they do it.

Aren’t you talking about it right now?

~G. Fink

 

[carlrodd]

Aren’t you talking about it right now?

~G. Fink


no, actually. i'm talking about the men who do.

 

[noops]

As to constitutional originalism, I'm guessing you're referring to the legal theory of Original Intent as opposed to Original Meaning. I would like to see some documentation of the founders' leanings one way or the other on the subject of abortion if we're talking Original Intent. Even if there are a few (couldn't find much a'tall), that doesn't prove dispositive as to the intent of the other framers, and quite likely wouldn't as there were a number of different views about all sorts of things among the fremers (hence the goals of at least Amendments 1, 9, 10).

So I guess I'm asking, what is your view of Originalism as it applies here?

EDITED:so as not to cause a lock up. apologies.

 

[Cromlech]

By the way, carlrodd, I do feel that I need to apologise for the babbling (jabberwocky ), and for being extremely pedantic.

I just feel that free speech can not be limited and remain free speech, by definiton.

By all means, make paedophilic-natured speech illegal.

Just don't claim that you suppport free speech, after doing so.

I really am incredibly, and annoyingly pedantic.

 

[SuperNaut]

I have both cards in my wallet. I believe in the entirety of the DoI, Constitution, BoR, and subsequent amendments. Frankly, it takes my breath away to read that there are Americans who believe in selectively applying freedom.

Either you're free or you ain't.

 

[tcgeol]

Noops, talking about abortion here is a sure way to get the thread closed. That is why I didn't want to start it and only mentioned it above. PM me if you want to discuss it.

As for originalism, I am not referring to the Founder's views on the procedure itself, but on the reasoning used in that case. Only a belief in a living Constitution could justify the ruling, as well as a complete disregard for federalism.

 

[Gordon Fink]

no, actually. i’m talking about the men who do.

We’ll let a jury determine that.

~G. Fink