The American Hypocrisy Union

[funnybone]

The American Hypocrisy Union

Ready Line contributor Ellen Wickham was delighted, as were most Americans, with the outcome of the recent District of Columbia v. Heller decision laid down by the U.S. Supreme Court. But then she read a link I posted to the American Civil Liberties Union, and its statement regarding the majority opinion handed down by the High Court

And she keeps wondering . . . what would ACLU founder Robert Baldwin think?

The American Hypocrisy Union
By Ellen Wickham

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) considers itself to be “our nation’s guardian of liberty.” In order to ensure that every citizen of this nation enjoys the freedom the Constitution sets forth, the ACLU works tirelessly in the “courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties that the Constitution and laws of the United States guarantee.”

Unless of course they disagree. Then you are **** out of luck!

These are quotes taken from the ACLU’s “Guardians of Freedom” pamphlet. So I find myself a little confused when I read on the ACLU’s Blog of Rights website that they have chosen not to support the Supreme Court’s recent affirmation of the 2nd Amendment (D.C vs. Heller). You know, the one that says the citizens of the United States have an individual right to keep and bear arms.

It seems the ACLU disagrees with this decision. The organization thinks the Supreme Court got it wrong. I didn’t know it was the place of the ACLU to determine which amendments were right or wrong. I thought it was the organization’s place to defend the amendments regardless of the political popularity of the amendment and who it affects. In fact, I think they say just that in this paragraph taken from their own literature:

“Historically, the people whose opinions are the most controversial or extreme are the people whose rights are most often threatened. Once the government has the power to violate one person’s rights, it can use that power against everyone. We work to stop the erosion of civil liberties before its’ too late.”


So does this mean the ACLU will not be taking on any cases involving 2nd Amendment issues? They haven’t prior to the Heller decision, which may be understandable considering the ambiguity surrounding the collective versus individual right argument. But now that that has been decided by the highest court in our country, what is stopping them?

Oh yeah . . . their own biases, prejudices and ignorance.

According ACLU founder Roger Baldwin, “So long as we have enough people in this country willing to fight for their rights, we’lll be called a democracy.” Mr. Baldwin if you really believed this, then you must be rolling over in your grave. Because the very ideal you founded your organization upon is being ignored today, the document you held so dear is being discarded and the preservation of the rights of the individual is being tossed out the window by the very organization you founded to protect those rights.

What happened to the democracy you believed in?

Ellen Wickham is a Central Ohio educator.

Posted by Brent Greer at 5:17 PM

http://thereadyline.blogspot.com/2008/07/what-would-baldwin-think.html

 

[Standing Wolf]

So long as we have enough people in this country willing to fight for their rights, we’lll be called a democracy.

The United States is a republic.

 

[makarovnik]

Amen!

 

[Shung]

are ?

 

[Redtail]

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for launch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.

Could you find democracy in the constitution? Try republic...

 

[CSG]

The ACLU has been a joke for decades. Just like the Southern Poverty Law Center and other left-wing organizations hypocritically claiming to be for our rights while doing everything in their power to restrict them or selectively defend them.

 

[Leif Runenritzer]

are ?

+1

 

[robert garner]

Shung, Well said.
robert

 

[bensdad]

Shung,
The sad thing is, most Americans would read your post and wonder what the heck you mean. I'll bet many HERE will wonder what you mean.

 

[Microlon]

Shung,

Before the American Civil War, people did indeed say "The United States ARE...", but afterward it became "United States IS..."

The war hammered home the idea that we are one nation, not a collection or federation of states. For good or ill, we say "IS" now, though it may be grammatically off-center.

 

[230RN]

Collected plurals is funny.

 

[Hk91-762mm]

The Right To Bear Arms

The Second Amendment has not been the subject of much Supreme Court discussion through the years. To the extent it has been discussed, the Court has described the Second Amendment as designed to protect the ability of the states to preserve their own sovereignty against a new and potentially overreaching national government. Based on that understanding, the Court has historically construed the Second Amendment as a collective right connected to the concept of a "well-regulated militia" rather than an individual right to possess guns for private purposes.

In Heller, the Court reinterpreted the Second Amendment as a source of individual rights. Washington D.C.'s gun control law, which bans the private possession of handguns and was widely considered the most restrictive such law in the country, became a victim of that reinterpretation.

The Court was careful to note that the right to bear arms is not absolute and can be subject to reasonable regulation.

====>>>>>>>>>Yet, by concluding that D.C.'s gun control law was unreasonable and thus invalid, the Court placed a constitutional limit on gun control legislation that had not existed prior to its decision in Heller. It is too early to know how much of a constitutional straitjacket the new rule will create.

I HAD TO LOOK HARD AND FAR ON THE aclu WEBSITE JUST TO FIND THIS LITTLE PARAGRAPH Ops caps ,
I was supprised That the aclu almost ignored the SCOTUS rueling.....

 

[Shung]

thx for puting the gramatically correct explanation Microlon, I myself found that explanation some years ago, and was surprised by it.

my "are" was simply to remind what was the 1st and the correct (in my mind), name and meaning of your magnificent country.

United, of course (Switzerland is also a federal country) but this doesn't mean you have to forget about each and everyone specificities.

Centering the powers, always scared me.

ps: Beside english I speak 3 languages. French, Italian and German... and all of the keep using "USA are.." as they do for other, like the UAE for example.

 

[siglite]

Pfft...

Read here for hilarity.

 

[RPCVYemen]

The American Hypocrisy Union

Why is it hypocritical to disagree with a Supreme Court decision?

The ACLU agrees with some Supreme Court decisions, and disagrees with others.

I agree with some Supreme Court decisions, and disagree with others. Am I a hypocrite?

Do you agree with some Supreme Court decisions, and disagree with others. Are you a hypocrite?

The ACLU has a stated position that the 2nd Amendment guaranteed a collective right to protect the ability of the states to preserve their own sovereignty against a new and potentially overreaching national government.

Can anyone demonstrate even the slightest bit of hypocrisy in that belief?

hypocrisy: The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.

The only way for the ACLU's stated to be hypocritical is if they believed all those years that it was an individual right - while they were professing that it was a collective right. But they didn't do that. They believed that it was a collective right, and they professed that it was a collective right. How could that possibly be hypocritical?

If you profess what you believe, then you are not a hypocrite. You may simply be wrong in your beliefs.

Sit down, get yourself a glass of water, breath in and out slowly. The ACLU was wrong about the 2nd Amendment. Do I need to dial 911, or will you be OK?

It's scary to me that a "Central Ohio educator" doesn't know the definition of hypocrisy.

Mike

 

[Happiness Is A Warm Gun]

First post but this finally got me riled up enough to stop lurking (last couple months) and register.

Why is it hypocritical to disagree with a Supreme Court decision?
I agree with some Supreme Court decisions, and disagree with others. Am I a hypocrite?
Do you agree with some Supreme Court decisions, and disagree with others. Are you a hypocrite?

The point is that the ACLU doesn't claim to just defend ACLU rights they defend all AMERICAN rights. Their mission statement is that they will defend rights even among groups that they personally dislike or do not agree with (KKK/pedphiles/etc) because they defend the RIGHT not the group or person.

The ACLU claim is that they don't decide what is a right. The constitution gives the Supreme Court the role as the final arbiter of the laws and bill of rights in our country.

Personally I never liked the ACLU. I thought they went too far using an ivory tower thinking where world is completely black and white. I however could respect them (even when I disagreed with them) because I believed (as many others did) that they defended AMERICAN RIGHTS.

The only way for the ACLU's stated to be hypocritical is if they believed all those years that it was an individual right - while they were professing that it was a collective right. But they didn't do that. They believed that it was a collective right, and they professed that it was a collective right. How could that possibly be hypocritical?

That is a very narrow view, try looking at the bigger picture. Their role, based on their own literature is that they defend American rights. In this instance they are not defending an American right. They are deciding what is or is not an acceptable right based on their own personal values, the very thing they claims others are doing and they need to defend against. By saying the Supreme Court is wrong they have taken it upon themselves to decide (not defend) what is a right and what is not; contrary to Constitution (which entrusts that to the Supreme Court).

The hypocrisy is that they CLAIM to defend American rights when the truth is the ONLY defend rights they agree with (ACLU rights).

Now the belief in a collective right isn't hypocritical in itself. There was no clear precedent and while I personally have always believed in an individual right it is certainly understandable that others would not especially in the absence of clear authority.

After the ruling they should have updated their position. They claim to DEFEND not DECIDE rights. The Supreme Court (who is given the role of final arbiter by the American Constitution) has clearly defined the 2nd ammendment of the Bill of Rights as a Right. Since the ACLU defends all rights they should defend it. Since they didn't that indicates they DON'T defend rights, they only defend rights they agree with which is hypocritical.

The ACLU should simply clarify their statement from "defends American rights" to "The ACLU determines what is a right and what should be denied as a right. We know what is best for you and even when the highest court in the land rules that an American right exists, it doesn't matter because we don't accept any right as defined by anyone else (or the Constitution) which runs contrary to our personal views. While many will find this confusing because we have defended rights which ran contrary to other peoples views the difference is that we know better than you, the founders, the Supreme Court or any other political organization. To make it simple we will both define what a right is and then defend it.
If they did that they would be kooks but at least they wouldn't be hypocritical.

 

[H088]

The ACLU fights for the individuals right on all issues except for the 2nd amendment. They like ignoring any issue that doesn't fit into their social viewpoint of what America should be.

Their real name is American Civil Liberties we support Union.

 

[siglite]

Wow mike, you really missed the boat on this one. The hypocrisy is not in their consistently wrong interpretation of the second amendment. The hypocrisy is in the claim that they support civil liberty, yet disavow the 2nd.

They wouldn't know liberty if Sam Adams smacked 'em in the nose with a rolled up copy of the Declaration of Independence.

 

[Psywarrior13]

Must be hard for the ACLU to eat that much humble pie and admit that they were wrong.

 

[Big45]

Pfft...

Read here for hilarity.

Wow. Almost 1000 comments and they are getting absolutely pummeled. I love it!

 

[SCKimberFan]

And most all of them from other liberals and members of the organization...

 

[RPCVYemen]

The constitution gives the Supreme Court the role as the final arbiter of the laws and bill of rights in our country.

OK, that's fine.

After the ruling they should have either remained quiet and simply released a statement.

What? Is anyone obligated to silently accept a Supreme Court ruling? Is dissent prohibited?

By saying the Supreme Court is wrong they have taken it upon themselves to decide (not defend) what is a right and what is not which is contrary to Constitution (which entrusts that to the Supreme Court).

That doesn't follow. By disagreeing with the Supreme Court, they have doen no more or less than disagree with the Supreme Court. Are we all obligated to agree with every ruling?

You keep saying that the ACLU decides what is and is not a right. Sorry, that's not possible. The ACLU has no Constitutional power that I know of - certainly not to decide what it and is not a right. Where are you claiming they get that power?

You or I or the ALCU can decide what is or is not a right, but the final arbiter in a (US) court of law is the Supreme Court. That's what's in the Constitution.

Wow mike, you really missed the boat on this one. The hypocrisy is not in their consistently wrong interpretation of the second amendment. The hypocrisy is in the claim that they support civil liberty, yet disavow the 2nd.

The interpreted the 2nd differently than I do, and differently than the Supreme Court now does.

But I challenge you seriously to show where disavowed the 2nd - as opposed to interpreting it differently. Please give me a citation.

Mike

 

[Psywarrior13]

Ok, from their own website..

The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court's conclusion about the nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment. We do not, however, take a position on gun control itself. In our view, neither the possession of guns nor the regulation of guns raises a civil liberties issue.

REALLY? Are you kidding me?

 

[siglite]

But I challenge you seriously to show where disavowed the 2nd - as opposed to interpreting it differently. Please give me a citation.

Claiming it as a collective right is effectively disavowing it. The "collective" interpretation places the right in the hands of government controlled militia. This places arms as a sole authority of the government, not a liberty of the people. I'm sure you're familiar with this trainwreck of logic. As such, I'll leave it as that.

So, should I have said "disavow it as an individual liberty?" Would it be unfair to say that they disavow the first if they advocated restricting speech to government press offices? I think not.

They disavow the second as it is written, and as it is interpreted by the Supreme Court.

From the American Heritage Dictionary:

To disclaim knowledge of, responsibility for, or association with.

The ACLU is not the government, who would presumably control the militia. Therefore, they disavow it. It is not to be associated with them. Or us, under their interpretation. They would grant government a monopoly on force.

 

[RPCVYemen]

REALLY? Are you kidding me?

Read Heller. Aren't they agreeing almost word for word with Heller? Heller rejected an outright ban, but left open unspecified regulations. What are regulations? Gun control.

According to the SCOTUS, an outright ban (like DC's) is unconstitutional, but some level of regulation is not. It looks like Heller permits banning of certain weapons. Here's volokh on those regulations (he's a right wing Constitutional law scholar):

3. Limitations that are presumptively constitutional. As I read the decision, and especially the parts of the decision Orin has noted, several kinds of firearms regulations appear to be constitutional, at least as a general matter, whatever the level of scrutiny the courts settle on: (1) prohibitions on gun ownership by felons and the mentally ill; (2) prohibitions on gun possession in “sensitive places” like schools and government buildings, presumably including courthouses; (3) laws regulating the commercial sale of guns; (4) laws prohibiting the possession of unusually dangerous weapons, like sawed-off shotguns and machine guns; (5) prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons, which the Court describes as having been common and constitutional under Nineteenth Century case law; and (6) laws providing for the safe storage of weapons to prevent accidents (Op. at 60). The Court does not, of course, decide whether these restrictions are constitutional, and certainly doesn’t give a green light to unnecessarily onerous forms of these restrictions, but broadly speaking they’re probably acceptable. Note also that the Court’s list of presumptively acceptable limitations is not exhaustive.

http://volokh.com/posts/1214514180.shtml

Mike