I also agree that the ACLU will put principle ahead of personanlity in the issues that are within its strategic areas of concern. I appreciate its track record in this regard too.

My only grievance with the ACLU is that it picks and chooses only what its bias may allow it to defend. I tend to look at civil rights and liberties as a card house. If one right or liberty is degraded, the rest are weakened. By foresaking the defense of the entirety of civil rights and liberties, the ACLU weakens its own preferred issues as well.

For Stram’s comments that the ACLU can pick and choose what it wants to defend, that’s fair enough. But if the ACLU chooses to do this, then in the interest of candor and honesty it should refrain from calling itself an umbrella org for all civil liberties.

Again, the ACLU remains the vanguard for the defense of civil rights and liberties. I hope it changes its strategy in the future and begins to become more inclusive in its approach to the defense of civil rights and liberties. If it doesn’t, we’re screwed because we all rely upon its work, knowingly or not, liberals and conservatives alike.

Thanks for the thoughts and comments.

there is a widely held opinion among those on the right that the ACLU has not and will not protect the civil liberties which are important to those on the right. I share this opinion. Second amendment rights are one of these issues. I find it disingenuous that the ACLU claims to defend second amendment rights when in fact, most people that advocate for more liberal gun ownership laws would argue that the ACLU is wrong on this issue.

I, too, believe that gun ownership is a fundamental right of all American citizens, and I think the ACLU is wrong on that issue.

The point here, though, is that the ACLU is in the vanguard of protecting and championing the Bill of Rights. This is true whether or not you and I happen to disagree with their stance on the Second Amendment. This is of paramount importance in the face of the authoritarian strain that has become part of our lives since we embarked on the Global War on Terror, starting with the USA PATRIOT Act and continuing through the illegal warrant-free wiretaps and the suspension of habeas corpus. These issues affect all Americans.

The Craig brief, like the Limbaugh brief before it, is a good example of the ACLU putting “principles before personalities” and defending civil rights, even the civil rights of a legislator like Sen. Craig who actively sought to deny other Americans their own civil rights.

I don’t agree with everything they have defended. I think that’s the point of the post.

Free Speech Coalition
National Youth Rights Association
Freedom of Religion Foundation
Americans United for the Separation of Church and State

Additionally, shouldn’t the ACLU should change its name to “Some American Civil Liberties Union” to indicate there is an open acknowledgement that it only defends specific civil liberties? If the ACLU can’t take on the responsiblities & accountabilities of the mandate, its members should consider a more appropriate name.

Nothing outlined in response 11 above indicates that the ACLU is in place to safeguard the entire corpus of civil liberties to which all U.S. citizens are entitled. It is not an organization that serves the entire polis. In fact, it approaches civil rights from a clearly biased perspective. Its culture and ethic requires significant change if it hopes to remain a viable and trusted defender of civil liberties. I have lost considerable respect for the ACLU over the last 20 years.

I wish the ACLU was genuine in its approach to protecting civil liberties, but I find it is not the case. They need to hire or staff more people from the right to make this happen, but I doubt they will. It’s unfortunate, because the ACLU should protect all rights and all citizens, and I don’t think they do.

They’ve defended a boatload of right-wing religious nuts though. I think gun-specific groups such as the NRA are sufficient to that cause.

http://www.aclu.org/police/gen.....20304.html

“The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns.”

In my opinion, this argument is flawed in that there is no constitutional provision guaranteeing the right to keep and bear cars. There is an explicit provision to keep and bear arms though, so this analogy fails.

“The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court’s long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual’s right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms.”

The Supreme Court, of late frequently derided in its composition, has rendered this opinion. However, the opinion itself remains hotly debated by experts in second amendment rights. Membership to a militia has never been a litmus test for gun ownership. It wasn’t in the colonial era, and it isn’t now. There was no regulatory requirement for the keeping and bearing of arms in the colonial era. One kept arms as a means of self defense and survival. The revolutionary government relied upon the private ownership and maintenance of arms for the success of it’s movement. The RIGHT to keep arms was preserved after the revolution.

“If indeed the Second Amendment provides an absolute, constitutional protection for the right to bear arms in order to preserve the power of the people to resist government tyranny, then it must allow individuals to possess bazookas, torpedoes, SCUD missiles and even nuclear warheads, for they, like handguns, rifles and M-16s, are arms. Moreover, it is hard to imagine any serious resistance to the military without such arms.”

This argument is betrayed by over 200 years of history wherein a wide number of insurgent and revolutionary movements have successfully achieved their goals with less arms and lower powered arms. The current Iraqi insurgency is proof against this specious argument.

Here is a decent link that describes some of the Suprem Court’s opinions on second amendment rights: http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndsup.html

Anyway, there is a widely held opinion among those on the right that the ACLU has not and will not protect the civil liberties which are important to those on the right. I share this opinion. Second amendment rights are one of these issues. I find it disingenuous that the ACLU claims to defend second amendment rights when in fact, most people that advocate for more liberal gun ownership laws would argue that the ACLU is wrong on this issue.

I wish the ACLU was genuine in its approach to protecting civil liberties, but I find it is not the case. They need to hire or staff more people from the right to make this happen, but I doubt they will. It’s unfortunate, because the ACLU should protect all rights and all citizens, and I don’t think they do.

You didn’t really think there was any factual basis behind that nonsensical rhetoric, did you?

Provide one specific example if you can.

If you can’t, then shut the fuck up.