One of the guiding principles of the tea-party movement is based on a myth

[RandomGuy]

The perils of constitution-worship

WOULDN’T it be splendid if the solutions to America’s problems could be written down in a slim book no bigger than a passport that you could slip into your breast pocket? That, more or less, is the big idea of the tea-party movement, the grassroots mutiny against big government that has mounted an internal takeover of the Republican Party and changed the face of American politics. Listen to Michele Bachmann, a congresswoman from Minnesota and tea-party heroine, as she addressed the conservative Value Voters’ Summit in Washington, DC, last week:


To those who would spread lies, and to those who would spread falsehoods and rumours about the tea-party movement, let me be very clear to them. If you are scared of the tea-party movement, you are afraid of Thomas Jefferson who penned our mission statement, and, by the way, you may have heard of it, it’s called the Declaration of Independence. [Cheers, applause.] So what are these revolutionary ideas that make up and undergird the tea-party movement? Well, it’s this: All men and all women are created equal. We are endowed by our creator—that’s God, not government [applause]—with certain inalienable rights…

The Declaration of Independence and the constitution have been venerated for two centuries. But thanks to the tea-party movement they are enjoying a dramatic revival. The day after this September’s constitution-day anniversary, people all over the country congregated to read every word together aloud, a “profoundly moving exercise that will take less than one hour”, according to the gatherings’ organisers. At almost any tea-party meeting you can expect to see some patriot brandishing a copy of the hallowed texts and calling, with trembling voice, for a prodigal America to redeem itself by returning to its “founding principles”. The Washington Post reports that Colonial Williamsburg has been crowded with tea-partiers, asking the actors who play George Washington and his fellow founders for advice on how to cast off a tyrannical government.

Conservative think-tanks have the same dream of return to a prelapsarian innocence. The Heritage Foundation is running a “first principles” project “to save America by reclaiming its truths and its promises and conserving its liberating principles for ourselves and our posterity”. A Heritage book and video (“We Still Hold These Truths”) promotes the old verities as a panacea for present ills. America, such conservatives say, took a wrong turn when Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt fell under the spell of progressive ideas and expanded the scope of government beyond both the founders’ imaginings and the competence of any state. Under the cover of war and recession (never let a crisis go to waste, said Barack Obama’s chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel), Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson and now Mr Obama continued the bad work. Thus has mankind’s greatest experiment in self-government been crushed by a monstrous Leviathan.

Accept for argument’s sake that those who argue this way have identified the right problem. The constitution, on its own, does not provide the solution. Indeed, there is something infantile in the belief of the constitution-worshippers that the complex political arguments of today can be settled by simple fidelity to a document written in the 18th century. Michael Klarman of the Harvard Law School has a label for this urge to seek revealed truth in the sacred texts. He calls it “constitutional idolatry”.

The constitution is a thing of wonder, all the more miraculous for having been written when the rest of the world’s peoples were still under the boot of kings and emperors (with the magnificent exception of Britain’s constitutional monarchy, of course). But many of the tea-partiers have invented a strangely ahistorical version of it. For example, they say that the framers’ aim was to check the central government and protect the rights of the states. In fact the constitution of 1787 set out to do the opposite: to bolster the centre and weaken the power the states had briefly enjoyed under the new republic’s Articles of Confederation of 1777.

The words of men, not of gods

When history is turned into scripture and men into deities, truth is the victim. The framers were giants, visionaries and polymaths. But they were also aristocrats, creatures of their time fearful of what they considered the excessive democracy taking hold in the states in the 1780s. They did not believe that poor men, or any women, let alone slaves, should have the vote. Many of their decisions, such as giving every state two senators regardless of population, were the product not of Olympian sagacity but of grubby power-struggles and compromises—exactly the sort of backroom dealmaking, in fact, in which today’s Congress excels and which is now so much out of favour with the tea-partiers.

More to the point is that the constitution provides few answers to the hard questions thrown up by modern politics. Should gays marry? No answer there. Mr Klarman argues that the framers would not even recognise America’s modern government, with its mighty administrative branch and imperial executive. As to what they would have made of the modern welfare state, who can tell? To ask that question after the passage of two centuries, says Pietro Nivola of the Brookings Institution, is to pose an impossible thought experiment.

None of this is to say that the modern state is not bloated or over-mighty. There is assuredly a case to be made for reducing its size and ambitions and giving greater responsibilities to individuals. But this is a case that needs to be made and remade from first principles in every political generation, not just by consulting a text put on paper in a bygone age. Pace Ms Bachmann, the constitution is for all Americans and does not belong to her party alone. Nor did Jefferson write a mission statement for the tea- partiers. They are going to have to write one for themselves.


http://www.economist.com/node/17103701

[TeyshaBlue]

The perils of constitution-worship

WOULDN’T it be splendid if the solutions to America’s problems could be written down in a slim book no bigger than a passport that you could slip into your breast pocket? That, more or less, is the big idea of the tea-party movement, the grassroots mutiny against big government that has mounted an internal takeover of the Republican Party and changed the face of American politics. Listen to Michele Bachmann, a congresswoman from Minnesota and tea-party heroine, as she addressed the conservative Value Voters’ Summit in Washington, DC, last week:


To those who would spread lies, and to those who would spread falsehoods and rumours about the tea-party movement, let me be very clear to them. If you are scared of the tea-party movement, you are afraid of Thomas Jefferson who penned our mission statement, and, by the way, you may have heard of it, it’s called the Declaration of Independence. [Cheers, applause.] So what are these revolutionary ideas that make up and undergird the tea-party movement? Well, it’s this: All men and all women are created equal. We are endowed by our creator—that’s God, not government [applause]—with certain inalienable rights…

The Declaration of Independence and the constitution have been venerated for two centuries. But thanks to the tea-party movement they are enjoying a dramatic revival. The day after this September’s constitution-day anniversary, people all over the country congregated to read every word together aloud, a “profoundly moving exercise that will take less than one hour”, according to the gatherings’ organisers. At almost any tea-party meeting you can expect to see some patriot brandishing a copy of the hallowed texts and calling, with trembling voice, for a prodigal America to redeem itself by returning to its “founding principles”. The Washington Post reports that Colonial Williamsburg has been crowded with tea-partiers, asking the actors who play George Washington and his fellow founders for advice on how to cast off a tyrannical government.

Conservative think-tanks have the same dream of return to a prelapsarian innocence. The Heritage Foundation is running a “first principles” project “to save America by reclaiming its truths and its promises and conserving its liberating principles for ourselves and our posterity”. A Heritage book and video (“We Still Hold These Truths”) promotes the old verities as a panacea for present ills. America, such conservatives say, took a wrong turn when Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt fell under the spell of progressive ideas and expanded the scope of government beyond both the founders’ imaginings and the competence of any state. Under the cover of war and recession (never let a crisis go to waste, said Barack Obama’s chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel), Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson and now Mr Obama continued the bad work. Thus has mankind’s greatest experiment in self-government been crushed by a monstrous Leviathan.

Accept for argument’s sake that those who argue this way have identified the right problem. The constitution, on its own, does not provide the solution. Indeed, there is something infantile in the belief of the constitution-worshippers that the complex political arguments of today can be settled by simple fidelity to a document written in the 18th century. Michael Klarman of the Harvard Law School has a label for this urge to seek revealed truth in the sacred texts. He calls it “constitutional idolatry”.

The constitution is a thing of wonder, all the more miraculous for having been written when the rest of the world’s peoples were still under the boot of kings and emperors (with the magnificent exception of Britain’s constitutional monarchy, of course). But many of the tea-partiers have invented a strangely ahistorical version of it. For example, they say that the framers’ aim was to check the central government and protect the rights of the states. In fact the constitution of 1787 set out to do the opposite: to bolster the centre and weaken the power the states had briefly enjoyed under the new republic’s Articles of Confederation of 1777.

The words of men, not of gods

When history is turned into scripture and men into deities, truth is the victim. The framers were giants, visionaries and polymaths. But they were also aristocrats, creatures of their time fearful of what they considered the excessive democracy taking hold in the states in the 1780s. They did not believe that poor men, or any women, let alone slaves, should have the vote. Many of their decisions, such as giving every state two senators regardless of population, were the product not of Olympian sagacity but of grubby power-struggles and compromises—exactly the sort of backroom dealmaking, in fact, in which today’s Congress excels and which is now so much out of favour with the tea-partiers.

More to the point is that the constitution provides few answers to the hard questions thrown up by modern politics. Should gays marry? No answer there. Mr Klarman argues that the framers would not even recognise America’s modern government, with its mighty administrative branch and imperial executive. As to what they would have made of the modern welfare state, who can tell? To ask that question after the passage of two centuries, says Pietro Nivola of the Brookings Institution, is to pose an impossible thought experiment.

None of this is to say that the modern state is not bloated or over-mighty. There is assuredly a case to be made for reducing its size and ambitions and giving greater responsibilities to individuals. But this is a case that needs to be made and remade from first principles in every political generation, not just by consulting a text put on paper in a bygone age. Pace Ms Bachmann, the constitution is for all Americans and does not belong to her party alone. Nor did Jefferson write a mission statement for the tea- partiers. They are going to have to write one for themselves.


http://www.economist.com/node/17103701

Seems to be a worst-case-scenario view of what he believes are the motives of the Tea Party. Interesting read, sorta, but the meh factor is a little high.
Kinda 9 parts interpretation, 1 part observation. But it is an OpEd.

[boutons_deux]

These tea party assholes wrap themselves in the flag and Constitution, as supreme interpreters for us normal people, in the same way "Christian" preachers say they have the divine right to interpret the Bible as they see fit, aka the scam of "continuous revelation" and "God speaks to me".

The amusing History channel show on Hillbillies had a big section on "snake handlers". Americans go fuckin nuts when they make up their own religions.

oh yeah, and keep those tithes coming.

God is Almighty, He just can't handle money -- George Carlin

[DarrinS]

Damn. I thought I was going to be reading some dirt on some tea-party organizers, but instead, I get an article bashing the Constitution.

Nice. This will surely win people over.

[LnGrrrR]

Damn. I thought I was going to be reading some dirt on some tea-party organizers, but instead, I get an article bashing the Constitution.

Nice. This will surely win people over.

Care to point out where it bashes the Constitution? It actually describes how and why certain parts of the Constitution were created, and why the Tea Partiers are yearning for an unrealistic ideal. But I didn't expect you to understand that NUANCE.

[DarrinS]

Care to point out where it bashes the Constitution? It actually describes how and why certain parts of the Constitution were created, and why the Tea Partiers are yearning for an unrealistic ideal. But I didn't expect you to understand that NUANCE.





Accept for argument’s sake that those who argue this way have identified the right problem. The constitution, on its own, does not provide the solution. Indeed, there is something infantile in the belief of the constitution-worshippers that the complex political arguments of today can be settled by simple fidelity to a document written in the 18th century. Michael Klarman of the Harvard Law School has a label for this urge to seek revealed truth in the sacred texts. He calls it “constitutional idolatry”.

[ChumpDumper]

That wasn't bashing the Constitution.

[TeyshaBlue]

That's not bashing the constitution, Darrin. It's bashing blind idolitry of the constitution.

Again...nuance.

[DarrinS]

That's not bashing the constitution, Darrin. It's bashing blind idolitry of the constitution.

Again...nuance.

It's just a piece of paper.

[LnGrrrR]

It's just a piece of paper.

We'll spell it out easy for you.

Bashing the belief that the Constitution is the sole document necessary to determine the legal ramifications of current events =/= bashing the Constitution

NUANCE.

[TeyshaBlue]

It's just a piece of paper.


The constitution is a thing of wonder, all the more miraculous for having been written when the rest of the world’s peoples were still under the boot of kings and emperors (with the magnificent exception of Britain’s constitutional monarchy, of course).


Yeah, that's exactly what it said.:rolleyes

[balli]

God he's such a fucking idiot. Almost my only contribution to this board these days is to say as such. I'd prefer not to post at all in here, but goddamn... he's such a fucking idiot.

[TeyshaBlue]

God he's such a fucking idiot. Almost my only contribution to this board these days is to say as such. I'd prefer not to post at all, but goddamn... he's such a fucking idiot.

Once you give in to the dark side, forever will it dominate your destiny.
*Obi Wan Emoticon*

[DarrinS]

God he's such a fucking idiot. Almost my only contribution to this board these days is to say as such. I'd prefer not to post at all in here, but goddamn... he's such a fucking idiot.

http://mynie.com/HeadExplode.gif

[balli]

http://mynie.com/HeadExplode.gif

Not really, I just like to be able to read a thread that you haven't vomited idiocy all over. It's bad enough that you start a bunch of crying, worthless threads based on ridiculous youtube videos, cartoons and blog posts. But to constantly ruin every other thread that doesn't stoop to such lowly levels??? It doesn't make my head explode, it makes me think you're the dumbest piece of shit on these boards. And makes me wish you would stop posting here.

[MannyIsGod]

You are an idiot, Darrin. You prove as much on a daily basis. No one is losing their heads over that, but its the truth.

[BlairForceDejuan]

The perils of constitution-worship

WOULDN’T it be splendid if the solutions to America’s problems could be written down in a slim book no bigger than a passport that you could slip into your breast pocket? That, more or less, is the big idea of the tea-party movement, the grassroots mutiny against big government that has mounted an internal takeover of the Republican Party and changed the face of American politics. Listen to Michele Bachmann, a congresswoman from Minnesota and tea-party heroine, as she addressed the conservative Value Voters’ Summit in Washington, DC, last week:
To those who would spread lies, and to those who would spread falsehoods and rumours about the tea-party movement, let me be very clear to them. If you are scared of the tea-party movement, you are afraid of Thomas Jefferson who penned our mission statement, and, by the way, you may have heard of it, it’s called the Declaration of Independence. [Cheers, applause.] So what are these revolutionary ideas that make up and undergird the tea-party movement? Well, it’s this: All men and all women are created equal. We are endowed by our creator—that’s God, not government [applause]—with certain inalienable rights…The Declaration of Independence and the constitution have been venerated for two centuries. But thanks to the tea-party movement they are enjoying a dramatic revival. The day after this September’s constitution-day anniversary, people all over the country congregated to read every word together aloud, a “profoundly moving exercise that will take less than one hour”, according to the gatherings’ organisers. At almost any tea-party meeting you can expect to see some patriot brandishing a copy of the hallowed texts and calling, with trembling voice, for a prodigal America to redeem itself by returning to its “founding principles”. The Washington Post reports that Colonial Williamsburg has been crowded with tea-partiers, asking the actors who play George Washington and his fellow founders for advice on how to cast off a tyrannical government.

Conservative think-tanks have the same dream of return to a prelapsarian innocence. The Heritage Foundation is running a “first principles” project “to save America by reclaiming its truths and its promises and conserving its liberating principles for ourselves and our posterity”. A Heritage book and video (“We Still Hold These Truths”) promotes the old verities as a panacea for present ills. America, such conservatives say, took a wrong turn when Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt fell under the spell of progressive ideas and expanded the scope of government beyond both the founders’ imaginings and the competence of any state. Under the cover of war and recession (never let a crisis go to waste, said Barack Obama’s chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel), Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson and now Mr Obama continued the bad work. Thus has mankind’s greatest experiment in self-government been crushed by a monstrous Leviathan.

Accept for argument’s sake that those who argue this way have identified the right problem. The constitution, on its own, does not provide the solution. Indeed, there is something infantile in the belief of the constitution-worshippers that the complex political arguments of today can be settled by simple fidelity to a document written in the 18th century. Michael Klarman of the Harvard Law School has a label for this urge to seek revealed truth in the sacred texts. He calls it “constitutional idolatry”.

The constitution is a thing of wonder, all the more miraculous for having been written when the rest of the world’s peoples were still under the boot of kings and emperors (with the magnificent exception of Britain’s constitutional monarchy, of course). But many of the tea-partiers have invented a strangely ahistorical version of it. For example, they say that the framers’ aim was to check the central government and protect the rights of the states. In fact the constitution of 1787 set out to do the opposite: to bolster the centre and weaken the power the states had briefly enjoyed under the new republic’s Articles of Confederation of 1777.

The words of men, not of gods

When history is turned into scripture and men into deities, truth is the victim. The framers were giants, visionaries and polymaths. But they were also aristocrats, creatures of their time fearful of what they considered the excessive democracy taking hold in the states in the 1780s. They did not believe that poor men, or any women, let alone slaves, should have the vote. Many of their decisions, such as giving every state two senators regardless of population, were the product not of Olympian sagacity but of grubby power-struggles and compromises—exactly the sort of backroom dealmaking, in fact, in which today’s Congress excels and which is now so much out of favour with the tea-partiers.

More to the point is that the constitution provides few answers to the hard questions thrown up by modern politics. Should gays marry? No answer there. Mr Klarman argues that the framers would not even recognise America’s modern government, with its mighty administrative branch and imperial executive. As to what they would have made of the modern welfare state, who can tell? To ask that question after the passage of two centuries, says Pietro Nivola of the Brookings Institution, is to pose an impossible thought experiment.

None of this is to say that the modern state is not bloated or over-mighty. There is assuredly a case to be made for reducing its size and ambitions and giving greater responsibilities to individuals. But this is a case that needs to be made and remade from first principles in every political generation, not just by consulting a text put on paper in a bygone age. Pace Ms Bachmann, the constitution is for all Americans and does not belong to her party alone. Nor did Jefferson write a mission statement for the tea- partiers. They are going to have to write one for themselves.


http://www.economist.com/node/17103701

As bad as the founding fathers were, they still set up the very framework that has allowed their creature to evolve into what it is. How horrible.

The truth is the masses are still a ways away from accepting lame progressive policy. If people want to slap tea bags on themselves to protest it, good for them. There are plenty of people cool with the idea of the tea baggers standing for nothing other than shutting government down. And by "shutting down", realistically that means nothing other than slowing down the slide into the inevitable.

[RandomGuy]

Well Darrin, let me ask you this:

What would the founding fathers have thought of the modern FAA?

So much has taken place in the world since 1781, is it really reasonable to believe that a form of government in place in 1790 would be appropriate for a nuclear-armed, space-faring, post-industrial, continent spanning knowledge economy?

What do you think would happen, if we were to scrap the entire modern federal government, transport from 1790, the entire federal government, its technology, and its people to 2010 and say "You guys had it right, go ahead and do what you were doing for us"?

That is, in essence, what libertarians are asking for.

[Drachen]

Christianity?



Ba-dum bum

[George Gervin's Afro]

Well Darrin, let me ask you this:

What would the founding fathers have thought of the modern FAA?

So much has taken place in the world since 1781, is it really reasonable to believe that a form of government in place in 1790 would be appropriate for a nuclear-armed, space-faring, post-industrial, continent spanning knowledge economy?

What do you think would happen, if we were to scrap the entire modern federal government, transport from 1790, the entire federal government, its technology, and its people to 2010 and say "You guys had it right, go ahead and do what you were doing for us"?

That is, in essence, what libertarians are asking for.


Since the faa isn't mentioned in constitution,wouldn't we'd have to abolish the agency?

[CavsSuperFan]

If I was for more taxes, more government, more PETA, more ACLU, more socialism, well I would be afraid of the Tea party movement as well…

[ChumpDumper]

What is it about civil liberties that you hate?

[boutons_deux]

Any tea party candidates that get into Congress will do nothing but vote straight Repug, nothing will change.

[101A]

God he's such a fucking idiot. Almost my only contribution to this board these days is to say as such. I'd prefer not to post at all in here, but goddamn... he's such a fucking idiot.


I laughed.

Seriously.

[George Gervin's Afro]

If I was for more taxes, more government, more PETA, more ACLU, more socialism, well I would be afraid of the Tea party movement as well…

what are you talking about?

[LnGrrrR]

If I was for more taxes, more government, more PETA, more ACLU, more socialism, well I would be afraid of the Tea party movement as well…

Why do conservatives hate the ACLU? I don't get it. If ANY group is defending constitutional liberties, it's the ACLU.

[Galileo]

Tell me which Founding Father thought the federal war on drugs was constitutional? This article is total bullshit. None fot eh Founding Fathers supported the war on terror either, or foreign wars of aggression without a declaration of war, or the war on terror. None supported a Fed with the vast powers of today's Fed, including the electronic creation of fiat currency.

[Wild Cobra]

Any tea party candidates that get into Congress will do nothing but vote straight Repug, nothing will change.
I will bet you are wrong. I think they will keep the republicans from passing RINO policies. If enough get elected, the RINO's will not be a majority, and likely not be able to get enough liberal votes to pass legislation without going even farther to the left.

[Wild Cobra]

what are you talking about?
You didn't get it?

Those who like radical leftist policies are afraid of the Tea Party politicians.

[Wild Cobra]

Why do conservatives hate the ACLU? I don't get it. If ANY group is defending constitutional liberties, it's the ACLU.
The ACLU goes beyond the constitution and twists it. Uses our own highest law to push agendas.

[ChumpDumper]

The ACLU goes beyond the constitution and twists it.Please give an example of how it "goes beyond" the Constitution.

[George Gervin's Afro]

The ACLU goes beyond the constitution and twists it. Uses our own highest law to push agendas.



Please give an example of how it "goes beyond" the Constitution.

[LnGrrrR]

The ACLU goes beyond the constitution and twists it. Uses our own highest law to push agendas.

Care to give an example?

[Wild Cobra]

Care to give an example?
I can find examples, but I don't have the time. How about a few comedy skits from the "1/2 hr news hr," based on facts.

Cv-HNakadIw

ZeX48vwvKw0

6kcnK9VvRq0

RHjxeiD35Bg

Y9z3f4ZPHGY

9ntwjKRLcJU

VIM7xMItc1E

8SLF_4R0dYA

BtHXN45ujtI

Non related, but I love this one:

bGqiULYbt5Y

You have to remember that this is a comedy show. You liberals will like the end of this one:

RRxFjf40xbI

Anyone who hasn't watched this comedy show, here's a bunch of small snippets, almost 7 minutes worth:

qXTwYBWUuZk

[MannyIsGod]

He has time to link more youtubes than Darrin on a good day but not time to provide actual proof.

Typical.

[Wild Cobra]

He has time to link more youtubes than Darrin on a good day but not time to provide actual proof.

Typical.
I have time to look at things I like to spend my time on. I'm not going to spend much time and get nothing out of it.

This is not my job. Don't expect me to do things like that when I have better things to do. I already spend more time here than I should. At some point, I might. But if you missed the related news items that those skits were taken from, then it's not my fault. Facts behind those cases prove my point, and the skits are comical reminders of the facts.

[MannyIsGod]

Lack of desire does not equal lack of time. There's a reason words have definitions.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Why do conservatives hate the ACLU? I don't get it. If ANY group is defending constitutional liberties, it's the ACLU.

Because they are told to think that. Same reason why christians think women can get pregnant without fucking.

[Wild Cobra]

Lack of desire does not equal lack of time. There's a reason words have definitions.
I don't have the time that I am willing to allocate to such a task. Stop splitting hairs Dog.

[Wild Cobra]

Because they are told to think that. Same reason why christians think women can get pregnant without fucking.

Why do you always make things up on topics you fail to understand?

[MannyIsGod]

I don't have the time that I am willing to allocate to such a task. Stop splitting hairs Dog.


Like I said, lack of desire does not equal lack of time. Words have definitions for a reason.

[Wild Cobra]

Like I said, lack of desire does not equal lack of time. Words have definitions for a reason.
And I explained my usage of time yet you are too stupid to acknowledge it.

Keep you the useless posts. Prove yourself the fool to everyone.

[LnGrrrR]

I have time to look at things I like to spend my time on. I'm not going to spend much time and get nothing out of it.

This is not my job. Don't expect me to do things like that when I have better things to do. I already spend more time here than I should. At some point, I might. But if you missed the related news items that those skits were taken from, then it's not my fault. Facts behind those cases prove my point, and the skits are comical reminders of the facts.

I'm relatively sure that, since they were (allegedly) a comedy show, that the facts were skewed and/or misrepresented.

Please feel free to show me any case where, for instance, the ACLU has advocated outlawing guns.

I think you're not quite sure why you dislike the ACLU, except that you know you're "supposed to".

[LnGrrrR]

WC, we're not asking for much. You said that they go "beyond the Constitution" but don't want to back it up. What else can we think, except that your beliefs are based on not fact but fiction?

And if you're so willing to not be critical about your beliefs in this area, what does that say of other areas?

[ChumpDumper]

Why do you always make things up on topics you fail to understand?Why did you make up things about the ACLU, which you fail to understand?

[Wild Cobra]

I'm relatively sure that, since they were (allegedly) a comedy show, that the facts were skewed and/or misrepresented.

Please feel free to show me any case where, for instance, the ACLU has advocated outlawing guns.

I think you're not quite sure why you dislike the ACLU, except that you know you're "supposed to".
I have heard comprehensive stories of all those incidents in real life before the airing of any of those skits. The skits were not far from the truth.

[Parker2112]

Two things to keep in mind about the ACLU:

1. The only way to effectively defend constitutional rights is at the outer-most fringes.
The Constitutional Drafters never cared about preserving the popular opinion, because they knew that these views would inevitably find their outlet. The Constitution was meant to preserve the right of the unpopular and the dissenter to keep his voice in the face of the oppressive majority. This is what PRESERVES DEMOCRACY. Think about that, because its a huge piece of what they do.

Fox news wants those protections reigned in to benefit only the majority that looks/walks/talks/acts/thinks/and speaks like they do. That is exactly what the Drafters understood would happen, and has always happened. And that is exactly why ACLU fights on the fringes, to ensure that the scope of those rights doesn't collapse under the weight of the majority.

This is why the right doesnt like the ACLU...because it keeps their oppression at bay. And they despise outsiders/immagrants/weak/impoverished/muslim etc.

2. For some of these cases,the Plaintitff sounds completely detestable (NAMBLA, Sex Offenders, Pedophiles), however keep in mind that a.) Fox didnt tell you the facts of each case, and b.) the Plaintiffs won in those cases. Very likely there is something that these comedy skits is leaving out. It could have been a minor technicality at issue that was in fact unconstitutional that got dropped from public policy, leaving in place the larger scheme that most would concede is sufficient to do the job (eg. forcing sex offender to subject himself to DNA testing, instead of simply registering with local authorities). I'm guessing here.

But that would be exactly the type of case the ACLU would take, and should take. Because the claimant is so unpopular, no one else will. And if the ACLU steps in and helps defend the rights of the most unpopular clients, you can be sure that those rights will survive for you and I.

[Parker2112]

BTW, I'm pretty sure all these happened. If I had to guess, I would say these are simply half-truths which dont tell the whole story.

[Parker2112]

One last point:
While I appreciate Christian symbolism wherever I find it, I dont need the confirmation of my faith in public places.

And I am willing to concede religious imagery being barred on public property if it means that far-right/bigoted/evangelical/bible-thumping dickheads can't co-opt our country and impose a national religion to opress everyone else.

Though I am Christian, there are tons of Christians who I dont think get the point of the faith beyond a means to form their own elitist movement, and don't appreciate the tenets of the faith beyond using them to bash "outsiders" over the head with them. More oppression. Not the Christian philosophy.

[Winehole23]

Very few christians ever existed after the time of JC.

[RandomGuy]

Tell me which Founding Father thought the federal war on drugs was constitutional? This article is total bullshit. None fot eh Founding Fathers supported the war on terror either, or foreign wars of aggression without a declaration of war, or the war on terror. None supported a Fed with the vast powers of today's Fed, including the electronic creation of fiat currency.

So?

Why should we care what the Founding Fathers really would think about the FAA?

[RandomGuy]

I can find examples, but I don't have the time. How about a few comedy skits from the "1/2 hr news hr," based on facts.


If I had a dime for every movie about Bigfoot or pink unicorns "based on facts".

Not that skits can't be good satire, but I would not expect satire to really give me the whole view.

Unless it was Jon Stewart, of course. HA.

[Marcus Bryant]

Essentially the amendment process was taken over by the SC, roughly in the 30s. The ultimate arbiter is the people and thusfar they'd rather watch football, drink shitty beer, and abdicate their role to someone else.

Further, I'm not sure what is that problematic about holding the original text in high regard. It's an American pastime across the ideological spectrum to do that for certain parts of the document when it is comfortable and to dismiss or downplay it when it is not. The "Tea Party" adherents are not doing anything new in this regard. If the issues of the day were not budgetary and regulatory but rather involved freedom of conscience and freedom of expression I'm sure we'd be regaled with quotes from various esteemed bullshitters about the timeless truths enshrined in the Constitution and the threat to civilization posed by the Congress.

[Galileo]

The perils of constitution-worship

WOULDN’T it be splendid if the solutions to America’s problems could be written down in a slim book no bigger than a passport that you could slip into your breast pocket? That, more or less, is the big idea of the tea-party movement, the grassroots mutiny against big government that has mounted an internal takeover of the Republican Party and changed the face of American politics. Listen to Michele Bachmann, a congresswoman from Minnesota and tea-party heroine, as she addressed the conservative Value Voters’ Summit in Washington, DC, last week:


To those who would spread lies, and to those who would spread falsehoods and rumours about the tea-party movement, let me be very clear to them. If you are scared of the tea-party movement, you are afraid of Thomas Jefferson who penned our mission statement, and, by the way, you may have heard of it, it’s called the Declaration of Independence. [Cheers, applause.] So what are these revolutionary ideas that make up and undergird the tea-party movement? Well, it’s this: All men and all women are created equal. We are endowed by our creator—that’s God, not government [applause]—with certain inalienable rights…

The Declaration of Independence and the constitution have been venerated for two centuries. But thanks to the tea-party movement they are enjoying a dramatic revival. The day after this September’s constitution-day anniversary, people all over the country congregated to read every word together aloud, a “profoundly moving exercise that will take less than one hour”, according to the gatherings’ organisers. At almost any tea-party meeting you can expect to see some patriot brandishing a copy of the hallowed texts and calling, with trembling voice, for a prodigal America to redeem itself by returning to its “founding principles”. The Washington Post reports that Colonial Williamsburg has been crowded with tea-partiers, asking the actors who play George Washington and his fellow founders for advice on how to cast off a tyrannical government.

Conservative think-tanks have the same dream of return to a prelapsarian innocence. The Heritage Foundation is running a “first principles” project “to save America by reclaiming its truths and its promises and conserving its liberating principles for ourselves and our posterity”. A Heritage book and video (“We Still Hold These Truths”) promotes the old verities as a panacea for present ills. America, such conservatives say, took a wrong turn when Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt fell under the spell of progressive ideas and expanded the scope of government beyond both the founders’ imaginings and the competence of any state. Under the cover of war and recession (never let a crisis go to waste, said Barack Obama’s chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel), Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson and now Mr Obama continued the bad work. Thus has mankind’s greatest experiment in self-government been crushed by a monstrous Leviathan.

Accept for argument’s sake that those who argue this way have identified the right problem. The constitution, on its own, does not provide the solution. Indeed, there is something infantile in the belief of the constitution-worshippers that the complex political arguments of today can be settled by simple fidelity to a document written in the 18th century. Michael Klarman of the Harvard Law School has a label for this urge to seek revealed truth in the sacred texts. He calls it “constitutional idolatry”.

The constitution is a thing of wonder, all the more miraculous for having been written when the rest of the world’s peoples were still under the boot of kings and emperors (with the magnificent exception of Britain’s constitutional monarchy, of course). But many of the tea-partiers have invented a strangely ahistorical version of it. For example, they say that the framers’ aim was to check the central government and protect the rights of the states. In fact the constitution of 1787 set out to do the opposite: to bolster the centre and weaken the power the states had briefly enjoyed under the new republic’s Articles of Confederation of 1777.

The words of men, not of gods

When history is turned into scripture and men into deities, truth is the victim. The framers were giants, visionaries and polymaths. But they were also aristocrats, creatures of their time fearful of what they considered the excessive democracy taking hold in the states in the 1780s. They did not believe that poor men, or any women, let alone slaves, should have the vote. Many of their decisions, such as giving every state two senators regardless of population, were the product not of Olympian sagacity but of grubby power-struggles and compromises—exactly the sort of backroom dealmaking, in fact, in which today’s Congress excels and which is now so much out of favour with the tea-partiers.

More to the point is that the constitution provides few answers to the hard questions thrown up by modern politics. Should gays marry? No answer there. Mr Klarman argues that the framers would not even recognise America’s modern government, with its mighty administrative branch and imperial executive. As to what they would have made of the modern welfare state, who can tell? To ask that question after the passage of two centuries, says Pietro Nivola of the Brookings Institution, is to pose an impossible thought experiment.

None of this is to say that the modern state is not bloated or over-mighty. There is assuredly a case to be made for reducing its size and ambitions and giving greater responsibilities to individuals. But this is a case that needs to be made and remade from first principles in every political generation, not just by consulting a text put on paper in a bygone age. Pace Ms Bachmann, the constitution is for all Americans and does not belong to her party alone. Nor did Jefferson write a mission statement for the tea- partiers. They are going to have to write one for themselves.


http://www.economist.com/node/17103701

You don't need to worship the Constitution, you merely adhere to the plain language of the text, and consult the Founders like James Madison for gray areas.

[Winehole23]

At a very basic level, if you're not gonna stick to it why even have a written constitution?

[Winehole23]

Essentially the amendment process was taken over by the SC, roughly in the 30s. Howzat? Cypher to me.


The ultimate arbiter is the people and thus far they'd rather watch football, drink shitty beer, and abdicate their role to someone else. Further, I'm not sure what is that problematic about holding the original text in high regard. A lot of people who watch football, drink shitty beer and abdicate their role to someone else...

... were recently reminded that they hold the constitution in high regard.




(Noise to signal ratio, no bueno.)

[boutons_deux]

"you merely adhere to the plain language of the text,"

which is simple but vague and open to interpretation,like the Bible.

"meaning and intent of the Founders" was extremely varied and controversial, and written for a very different world.

"merely"? GMAFB

Even that 2nd Amendment comma is open to interpretation.

[RandomGuy]

At a very basic level, if you're not gonna stick to it why even have a written constitution?

I think there is a difference between adhering to the rule of law and the constiution, and outright worship of the framers, who were quite fallible.

One must also account for the vast gulf of time and development of the country in the interim.

Our constitution is a wonderful document and embodies some very noble and worthwhile ideas and ideals.

That said, I worry about the excessive hand-wringing over strict, overly literal interpretation of it.

[boutons_deux]

Trashing ignorant, duped tea baggers is like shooting pit bull bitches in a barrel. :)


11 Patriotic Lessons from the Tea Party Guide to American History


By Phil N. Molé, AlterNet
Posted on October 3, 2010, Printed on October 4, 2010
http://www.alternet.org/story/148386/

Hi Patriots:

Tired of textbooks written by liberals who wipe their muddy feet on the American flag and won't be happy until all of our children are vegetarian, atheist, and gay? Then order the new 'Tea Party Guide to American History," and save your child from the siren call of socialist homosexuality.

This book will teach your children no more or less than what they need to know to be able to have a defiant, admirably unreflective perspective on their country's history. Things like this:

1. American Prehistory:

In 6,000 BC, the land containing the present-day United States was created, by God. Large masses of land surrounding the current Unites States were also created, for purposes known only in heaven.

The land containing the United States was designated for a special purpose by God – a future safe haven for the teachings of Jesus, and a place where women shouldn’t be able to get abortions and men should never use condoms. However, God’s plan is marred when pockets of original sin develop in parts of the northeastern and Midwestern states and in present-day California – these will later become “blue” states.

2. Colonial Days and Witch Trials

Everyone prayed to God at this time and everything was peaceful. There were those witch trials in 1692, but liberals have made too much of that. No one has told the story about how the witches persecuted the other colonists, so that’s obvious liberal bias right there. And many more people were killed in Europe in witchcraft persecutions, so really, the fact that we only killed 20 makes us look pretty good. Honestly, nothing to worry about here.

3. Indians, aka “Native Americans”

This is as good of a time as any to address the fact that there were people here before the European settlers arrived, namely, Indians. Some people call them “Native Americans,” but that’s a contradiction in terms, because America is a land of immigrants – you selfish, unpatriotic asshole Indians.

Revisionist, America-hating liberals try to make it look like there were lots of Indians here who had a complex, vibrant culture, so we’d feel ashamed of ourselves for taking their land and eliminating them. But there totally weren’t that many. And according to the earliest documented evidence we’ve seen of their culture (a John Ford film made in Hollywood in the 1930s), these Indians really don’t come off well at all.

Plus, haven’t we already paid enough homage to Indian culture? We’ve named subdivisions of retirement communities after them, and little league and professional sports teams, and we like drinking beer when a sports mascot in an Indian costume dances during halftime. What more do these ungrateful people want?

(Insert advertisement for Fly Rite American Flag Detergent, for getting the tough blood and spleen stains out of your American flag. Our motto: “Our colors don’t run!”)

4. The Revolutionary War and Early Days of the Republic

Series of illustrations: George Washington and the cherry tree, George Washington in battle, and the American flag, flying high against a blue sky background. Take a moment to reflect on these images, and feel warm and good inside. This concludes the lesson on the Revolutionary Era.

The Constitution originally included references to the Virgin Mary and Jesus, but those have been taken out by liberals trying to prove the country is not founded on Christianity. Here’s proof: Go right up to the next liberal you see and ask him what he did with the Virgin Mary, and watch his response. That flustered look says it all, doesn’t it?

5. Civil War

The War of Yankee Aggression, waged against helpless Southern states who only wanted limited government, states rights, and a nice sip of sweet tea. It wasn’t about slavery, and in fact, so-called slaves were better treated than most white males are – a trend that continues today. Slavery was possibly a little racist, in retrospect. But slavery ended with the Civil War, and so did racism.

6. World War II

There was a World War before this, and America won it.

We won this one, too, but liberals keep whining about the fact that so many Japanese Americans were interned in camps. But eye witnesses at the time swear that all of the Japanese who were relocated looked A LOT like the perpetrators of the Pearl Harbor attacks. More disturbingly, they were sometimes overheard speaking a language that did not appear to be English. There were no more Pearl Harbor attacks after the internment – think about that. But don’t think about it too long and don’t ask any follow-up questions.

7. Civil Rights Movement

OK, so there was a little racism that hung around after slavery ended. But this Martin Luther King guy came along and totally ended it for good. It wasn’t through attempts to end legalized discrimination against people of color, like housing discrimination and school segregation, because that was just big government in action, and it was all done wrong. It should’ve all just been done with speeches, like the kind King gave in “I Have a Dream,” which is significant because it influenced Glenn Beck. Also, after white people listened to that speech, they never again gave black people a hard time about anything.

Well, there was the assassination of MLK soon afterward, of course. But since racism ended thanks to MLK, assassin James Earl Ray by definition could NOT have been motivated by racism when he shot MLK. He was just a crazy guy with a gun, and no one else thought remotely like him, anywhere.

And of course, his assassination of King also does NOT show that we need tougher gun control laws in our country. Guns save lives. If King himself had been armed with an AK-47, he’d still be alive today.

8. Feminism and Women’s Liberation

Paved the way for Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin, but otherwise an unmitigated disaster. Across the country, dinners languish uncooked, and undersexed men were forced to cheat or to visit prostitutes, which they never would have done otherwise, because men are awesome. And lots of women begin talking about how they want men to show their “feelings.” We’d been TRYING to show you how we felt, but then you passed sexual harassment laws.

A growing number of men find themselves in need of both food and of safe places to objectify women. To satisfy these needs, the restaurant chain Hooters would eventually be established.

9. The Reagan Years

For 8 years, all poverty and violence in the United States end. And Reagan says ‘tear down this wall” and the Berlin wall comes down. Millions of sick children are also healed by touching the hem of Reagan’s slacks, and the crumbs from Reagan’s table miraculously feed millions more. And there was this time that a little boy was cornered by a bear, and the bear was really big and mean and was totally going to eat the boy, but then Reagan swooped down out of nowhere and simply smiled, and the bear stopped being mean and licked the little boy and gave him honey instead.

10. The Clinton Years

George H.W. Bush was president before this, but nothing really happened. Clinton gets a blow job, and this shows the public that this is what is wrong with liberalism. It always, inherently, leads to extra-marital, taxpayer subsidized blow jobs.

11. Obama’s Presidency

Barack Hussein Obama is elected president, showing yet again that racism in America has ended.

He proceeds to destroy America with his Kenyan anti-imperialist, Islamophilic socialist agenda. The Constitution is ground into a fine powder and snorted up Obama’s nose, and Christ and all of the apostles are punched in the face. In response, the Tea Party movement is born to restore America’s purity. This chapter comprises 80% of the total book.

As a companion to the book, we also offer an “I Want My Country Back!” protest kit that includes a stylish slave costume, a DVD of Obama’s greatest bloopers, and a pitchfork and torch.

As a tie-in with your students science classes, we also offer a book burning experiment kit. Students can mass books such as “Fahrenheit 451,” “Their Eyes Were Watching God,” “Brave New World,” and “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn” on the enclosed scale, and then burn the books in the included oven. Then, they mass the ashes. The difference in mass before and after the burning is the amount of evil the book contained.

History is too important to be left to people who’ve read history books to teach. Take our history back, and our country back, by ordering now!!

Phil Mole' lives in Chicago, and sometimes contributes to Skeptic and Skeptical Inquirer magazines.
© 2010 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/148386/

[Wild Cobra]

BTW, I'm pretty sure all these happened. If I had to guess, I would say these are simply half-truths which dont tell the whole story.
The problem I have with the ACLU is they will stomp on other people's rights just to push what they want.

[Winehole23]

WHose rights got stomped on? Please be specific.

[FromWayDowntown]

The problem I have with the ACLU is they will stomp on other people's rights just to push what they want.

To push the insistence that the civil liberties protected by the Bill of Rights be upheld by ensuring that the majority cannot stomp on the rights of the minority?

[Spurminator]

The problem I have with the ACLU is they will stomp on other people's rights just to push what they want.

Yes, I eagerly await specific examples of this.

[ChumpDumper]

I predict WC won't have the time to "do you work for you."

[MannyIsGod]

Every fucking day this guy.

[Wild Cobra]

Yes, I eagerly await specific examples of this.
Just Google any of the situations on the YouTubes I posted.

[Spurminator]

Okay I just Googled all of them and could find no examples of anyone's Constitutional rights being stomped on by the ACLU in any of the situations lampooned by those YouTube skits.

[FromWayDowntown]

Okay I just Googled all of them and could find no examples of anyone's Constitutional rights being stomped on by the ACLU in any of the situations lampooned by those YouTube skits.

Curiously, it seems the ACLU mostly argues for the constitutional rights of those who are having their rights "stomped on" by the government.

Really, it should be clear by now that getting in the way of the majoritarian effort to eliminate minority voices and viewpoints is nothing other than an effort to stomp on the rights of that majority. Truly, if the political, social, or economic minority wants its voice, it should have to wait until it gains enough popular or political support; until then, screw off -- we don't want any of your unorthodox crap around here.

[Wild Cobra]

Okay I just Googled all of them and could find no examples of anyone's Constitutional rights being stomped on by the ACLU in any of the situations lampooned by those YouTube skits.
There are too many hits out there, aren't there.

I did a quick search, and that's one problem with the internet. TMI.

It's there, and maybe some day I will take the time required to find some good examples.

[Winehole23]

I did a quick search, and that's one problem with the internet. TMI.

It's there, and maybe some day I will take the time required to find some good examples.You post in here all day long, but lack the time to back up your own bs. Ok.

[Wild Cobra]

You post in here all day long, but lack the time to back up your own bs. Ok.
If we all backed up 100% of the things we said, we wouldn't have any time to say anything now, would we?

Seriously. Such stories are pounded by one side, and relevant information is hard to find.

Not quite what i was looking for, but consider these:

ACLU Sues to Stop Boy Scout Meetings (http://articles.latimes.com/1999/apr/15/news/mn-27587)

ACLU Files Federal Lawsuit to End Preferential Treatment for Boy Scouts in San Diego (http://www.aclu.org/lgbt-rights_hiv-aids/aclu-files-federal-lawsuit-end-preferential-treatment-boy-scouts-san-diego)

ACLU Sues to Remove War Memorial Cross (http://www.opposingviews.com/i/aclu-sues-to-remove-war-memorial-cross)

The ACLU Attacks the Boy Scouts, Defends NAMBLA (http://the-big-pic.org/aclu-bsa-nambla.htm)

ACLU defends child-molester group (http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=4648*-)

ACLU protects NAMBLA's Right to Rape Little Boys (http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/aclu-protects-namblas-right-to-rape-little-boys/blog-169113/)

[Winehole23]

Using the court system=trampling the rights of others, something like that?

[RandomGuy]

If we all backed up 100% of the things we said, we wouldn't have any time to say anything now, would we?

Seriously. Such stories are pounded by one side, and relevant information is hard to find.

Not quite what i was looking for, but consider these:

ACLU Sues to Stop Boy Scout Meetings (http://articles.latimes.com/1999/apr/15/news/mn-27587)

ACLU Files Federal Lawsuit to End Preferential Treatment for Boy Scouts in San Diego (http://www.aclu.org/lgbt-rights_hiv-aids/aclu-files-federal-lawsuit-end-preferential-treatment-boy-scouts-san-diego)

ACLU Sues to Remove War Memorial Cross (http://www.opposingviews.com/i/aclu-sues-to-remove-war-memorial-cross)

The ACLU Attacks the Boy Scouts, Defends NAMBLA (http://the-big-pic.org/aclu-bsa-nambla.htm)

ACLU defends child-molester group (http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=4648*-)

ACLU protects NAMBLA's Right to Rape Little Boys (http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/aclu-protects-namblas-right-to-rape-little-boys/blog-169113/)

Do you really think that anybody at the ACLU supports child rape of any sort?

Or is that simply another in a long line of strawman attacks that pass for logic in conservative world?

[Wild Cobra]

Using the court system=trampling the rights of others, something like that?
What about the Veterans cross that was a symbol for years?

[Winehole23]

What about it?

[Oh, Gee!!]

the skits are comical reminders of the facts.

but an Attorney General's findings are not.

[Wild Cobra]

What about it?
This actually happened:

ZeX48vwvKw0

Fuck the ACLU, they are just slimballs.

[Galileo]

"you merely adhere to the plain language of the text,"

which is simple but vague and open to interpretation,like the Bible.



Baloney. Most bills are clear one way or the other. Give me an example.

[FromWayDowntown]

Fuck the ACLU, they are just slimballs.

Because they demand that the Establishment Clause and the legal authority construing it should be consistently applied?

[Winehole23]

@WC:

A lot of people feel that way. The ACLU has an ingrained habit of sticking up for unpopular folks.

[LnGrrrR]

I have heard comprehensive stories of all those incidents in real life before the airing of any of those skits. The skits were not far from the truth.

Surely then, you could provide some form of proof. Please forgive me for not taking you on face value, but that's a pretty outlandish claim.

[Winehole23]

When googling failed, WC fell back on the skit as fully sufficient documentation.

[Wild Cobra]

Because they demand that the Establishment Clause and the legal authority construing it should be consistently applied?
Do you understand the establishment Clause?

[Wild Cobra]

When googling failed, WC fell back on the skit as fully sufficient documentation.
Didn't your liberal media tell you about that when it happened years ago?

[Wild Cobra]

ACLU Sues Federal Government Over Desert Cross (http://www.aclu-sc.org/releases/view/100354)

[Winehole23]

Didn't your liberal media tell you about that when it happened years ago?Tell us about what? :lol

[LnGrrrR]

If we all backed up 100% of the things we said, we wouldn't have any time to say anything now, would we?

Seriously. Such stories are pounded by one side, and relevant information is hard to find.

Not quite what i was looking for, but consider these:

This should be fun.



ACLU Sues to Stop Boy Scout Meetings (http://articles.latimes.com/1999/apr/15/news/mn-27587)

If you read the article, it actually says:

The American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit to stop public schools, military bases and other publicly funded organizations from allowing Boy Scout meetings as long as the scouts insist on a religious oath.

Now, why would they do that? Perhaps because the Boy Scouts discriminate against atheists (and homosexuals, IIRC). So, I think it's understandable that they would not want a group that excludes some groups from holding meetings at publicly funded organizations. They are free to do so in private areas.


ACLU Files Federal Lawsuit to End Preferential Treatment for Boy Scouts in San Diego (http://www.aclu.org/lgbt-rights_hiv-aids/aclu-files-federal-lawsuit-end-preferential-treatment-boy-scouts-san-diego)

Why are you for preferential treatment for a group that discriminates against atheists and homosexuals? Because you personally don't like that group?

They can be discrimating towards those groups all they want; but then they shouldn't get extra perks that other discriminatory groups don't have.

As far as the NAMBLA links, they're obviously one-sided. Show me a case where ACLU defended actual physical and/or verbal rape. ADVOCATING allowing a man and child to have sex is different, obviously, from actually doing it (while still reprehensible, in my eyes.)

[FromWayDowntown]

Do you understand the establishment Clause?

Of course I do. Do you?

[Winehole23]

Courts make the adjustment between competing interests. It's sort of in the nature of the dispute. There is adversity for the losers.

Are you just whining about the adversity, or do you think the courts are wrong?

And btw, we're all still waiting for your reply to FWD.






(To wit, the constitutional harangue you recently threatened us with...)

[Spurminator]

I don't necessarily agree with everything the ACLU has chosen to fight in courts but they have been remarkably consistent. None of the examples you provided amount to stomping on anyone's rights.

I wonder if there were any clever Fox skits on the ACLU's many cases protecting gun ownership rights?

[LnGrrrR]

ACLU Sues Federal Government Over Desert Cross (http://www.aclu-sc.org/releases/view/100354)

Perhaps you missed this part?


"If anyone was allowed to place a permanent, free-standing expression of his or her religious or political viewpoint at this site," said Eliasberg, "we would have no objection, but that is not the case. No other group is allowed to do that. This creates a situation in which the federal government favors Christian expression over any other."

Kinda changes the flavor of it, doesn't it?

[FromWayDowntown]

I don't necessarily agree with everything the ACLU has chosen to fight in courts but they have been remarkably consistent. None of the examples you provided amount to stomping on anyone's rights.

I wonder if there were any clever Fox skits on the ACLU's many cases protecting gun ownership rights?

or its famous defense of Rush Limbaugh?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,108140,00.html

[LnGrrrR]

Or hey, there's this precedent:



"The courts have consistently held," said Eliasberg, "that a permanent religious fixture on federal land is a violation of the U.S. Constitution. An Act of Congress doesn't change that. This cross must come down, and no amount of political maneuvering or grandstanding will prevent that."


But hey, I guess we can throw out precedent because it's a cross! If it were, say, a Jewish star up there for fallen soldiers, well who gives a fig. :lol

[Spurminator]

If there was a giant publicly funded NAMBLA monument on federal land, the ACLU would sue to have it taken down too.

If the Young Muslims or the Little Appendages Camp of Flying Spaghetti Monster Kids were meeting in public parks for a discount, the ACLU would sue as well.

[FromWayDowntown]

Perhaps you missed this part?



Kinda changes the flavor of it, doesn't it?

Curiously, any Establishment Clause issues in that case have been largely obviated by litigation concerning the permissibility of a federal law purporting to transfer the land on which the cross sits into private hands.

[Winehole23]

On December 12, 2005, Judge David F. Crow delivered a ruling prohibiting the State of Florida from questioning Limbaugh's physicians about "the medical condition of the patient and any information disclosed to the health care practitioner by the patient in the course of the care and treatment of the patient."[128] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush_Limbaugh#cite_note-127)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush_Limbaugh

[FromWayDowntown]

Or hey, there's this precedent


But hey, I guess we can throw out precedent because it's a cross! If it were, say, a Jewish star up there for fallen soldiers, well who gives a fig. :lol

I'm sure that the defenders of the Establishment Clause as protector of public displays of religious iconography would wholeheartedly support, say, the erection of a large inverted pentagram.

[FromWayDowntown]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush_Limbaugh

Obviously another example of the ACLU stomping on the constitutional rights of others to push an agenda.

[LnGrrrR]

Curiously, any Establishment Clause issues in that case have been largely obviated by litigation concerning the permissibility of a federal law purporting to transfer the land on which the cross sits into private hands.

Which, really, was a giant Fuck You to the First Amendment. Congress played some funny games with the land that memorial is on, to be sure. As if we can just hand over a tiny area of land to a private cause, in the middle of a large amount of federal land. :lol

[Wild Cobra]

Now, why would they do that? Perhaps because the Boy Scouts discriminate against atheists (and homosexuals, IIRC). So, I think it's understandable that they would not want a group that excludes some groups from holding meetings at publicly funded organizations. They are free to do so in private areas.

Don't they have that first amendment right in public? Are you saying that our first amendment rights stop on public land? Think about the line you are drawing.


Why are you for preferential treatment for a group that discriminates against atheists and homosexuals? Because you personally don't like that group?

It's not that at all. I am for the rights of freedom of association without being pressured to accept people they don't want, and hunted down and persecuted if they don't bend to other people's desires.


They can be discrimating towards those groups all they want; but then they shouldn't get extra perks that other discriminatory groups don't have.

Watch where you place that line at. It could then be argued that any group who is not 100% homogenized can be barred from public land. Nearly all parks are public land. Where else would you have Boy Scouts have their massive Jamborees?

Consider this; wiki: Freedom of Association (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_association#United_States_Constitution)


United States Constitution
Main article: United States Constitution

While the United States Constitution's First Amendment identifies the rights to assemble and to petition the government, the text of the First Amendment does not make specific mention of a right to association. Nevertheless, the United States Supreme Court held in NAACP v. Alabama that the freedom of association is an essential part of the Freedom of Speech because, in many cases, people can engage in effective speech only when they join with others.

Intimate Association

A fundamental element of personal liberty is the right to choose to enter into and maintain certain intimate human relationships. These intimate human relationships are considered forms of "intimate association." The paradigmatic example of "intimate association" is the family.

Expressive Association

Expressive associations are groups that engage in activities protected by the First Amendment—speech, assembly, press, petitioning government for a redress of grievances, and the free exercise of religion. In Roberts v. United States Jaycees, the Supreme Court held that associations may not exclude people for reasons unrelated to the group's expression. However, in the subsequent decisions of Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Group of Boston and Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, the Court ruled that a group may exclude people from membership if their presence would affect the group's ability to advocate a particular point of view. The government cannot, through the use of anti-discrimination laws, force groups to include a message that they do not wish to convey.

Limitation

However, the implicit First Amendment right of association in the U.S. Constitution has been limited by court rulings. For example, it is illegal in the United States to consider race in the making and enforcement of private contracts other than marriage or taking affirmative action. This limit on freedom of association results from Section 1981 of Title 42 of the United States Code, as balanced against the First Amendment in the 1976 decision of Runyon v. McCrary.[3]

The holding of Runyon is that the defendant private schools were free to express and teach their views, such as white separatism, but could not discriminate on the basis of race in the provision of services to the general public. So, if the plaintiff African-American children wished to attend such private schools, and were clearly qualified in all respects (but race) and were able to pay the fees, and were willing to attend despite the fact that the school's professed principles were inconsistent with admitting them, then the schools were required by Section 1981 to admit them. This doctrine rests on the interpretation of a private contract as a "badge" of slavery when either party considers race in choosing the other.

Governments often require contracts of adhesion with private entities for licensing purposes, such as with Financial Industry Regulatory Authority for stock market trading in the 1938 Maloney Act amendments to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. These contracts often bar association with banned members, as can be seen in United States v. Merriam, 108 F.3d 1162.

[Winehole23]

(burp)

[LnGrrrR]

Don't they have that first amendment right in public? Are you saying that our first amendment rights stop on public land? Think about the line you are drawing.

Personally, I'm ok with the Boy Scouts meeting up on base, or public lands, etc etc.

But that would also means it's perfectly fine for the KKK or other discriminatory groups to meet up on base, as well, which currently isn't the case. The Boy Scouts are an exception to the rule.


It's not that at all. I am for the rights of freedom of association without being pressured to accept people they don't want, and hunted down and persecuted if they don't bend to other people's desires.

And they have that right. However, they do not have the right to be given exclusive access to certain areas while they discriminate, for obvious reasons.


Watch where you place that line at. It could then be argued that any group who is not 100% homogenized can be barred from public land. Nearly all parks are public land. Where else would you have Boy Scouts have their massive Jamborees?

I am fine with Boy Scouts using public lands, as long as they use them in the same way that other discriminatory groups do so. However, in some of the cases you listed, the Boy Scouts had exclusive access to these areas (ie. preferential treatment).

Again, the Boy Scouts have the right to be dumbasses all they want. But they do not have the right to certain areas that other discriminatory organizations do not have access to.

[ChumpDumper]

Boy Scouts need to quit having a free ride on public lands regardless of their politics.

[Nbadan]

An argument could be made that ALL of the Tea party's 'guiding principles' are based on myth...

[DarrinS]

An argument could be made that the 9/11 TWOOF movement is based entirely on myths...


fify

[boutons_deux]

Big Myth about Tea Baggers who dress up in colonial costumes.

US tea smugglers, who were going to lose their smuggling business to the King's new tea monopolist and LOWER tea taxes, paid colonialists to DRESS UP AS INDIANS. :lol

Fucking ignorant bubbas. :lol

[LnGrrrR]

Come to think of it, I don't even understand why ACLU would get vilified for pushing some "agenda"... don't thousands of groups push their agendas all day long? I'm pretty sure that conservative think tanks push conservative agendas... do you vilify them WC? :lol