Court slaps down ACLU

[CathrynRose]

For me personally - this is a "Thank goodness the ACLU didnt get their ridiculous way, again"

The ACLU has overstepped what their intention and commitment was/is a long time ago.

 

[Lord Fantasius]

Just expressing an opinion. I don't believe that the Constitution grants the federal government the right to overrule the states; the federal gov't. and especially the federal judiciary was founded to be severely restricted in its powers with most of the power to govern being reserved to individual states. The fact that this ideal was undermined by that so-called secular saint President Lincoln and subsequently relinquished by the states after the (un)Civil War doesn't erase what the founding fathers intended.

The federal constitution sepersedes all state constitutions; it's what every state had to accept and affirm to become a "state." Yes, at the time it was instituted, the federal charter was severely restricted but as you noted that's been chipped away at throughout the years. Setting aside for the time cases that directly involve the federal government (IRS cases and the like), the federal judiciary system acts as an appeal process to determine whether the merits of the case were judged appropriately under the federal constitution. Additionally, the federal judiciary becomes involved whenever an issue, or case, must be decided between states or involves interstate commerce. If you notice, when someone makes an "appeal" to the appelate court, they are appealing the ruling on the case, not rejudging the case itself (though many of the details of the case are presented again to bolster the argument that the initial ruling was incorrect). Appelate court, and ultimately Supreme Court decisions overtime or affirm lower court rulings, not decide the case itself. A technicality, yes, but a fundamental distinction.

 

[Tigger_Magic]

For me personally - this is a "Thank goodness the ACLU didnt get their ridiculous way, again"

The ACLU has overstepped what their intention and commitment was/is a long time ago.

It is only a temporary setback.

 

[Rock'n Robin]

I think the point of the OP was that the ACLU finally seems to have lost one--the 10 commandments was a part of the ruling, but to dwell on that is to hijack the post. I also am glad the ACLU lost one. They are way too extreme for my tastes.
Robin M.

 

[Beth76]

Does this mean it's illegal to not honor thy father or mother or to have an affair in Kentucky? What about swearing? What's the punishment for blasphemy in KY?

 

[Lord Fantasius]

I wonder what JER's reaction would be if a group of Mulah's decided to have a granite Koran set up next to the 10 Commandments?

Have you ever visited or lived in a country whose laws were "based" on the Koran? Even one of the more secular, liberal ones? Or any of the other belief systems you mentioned. I think if you did you wouldn't be so quick in your sarcasm.

And yes, I have, for six weeks...

For your homework assignment take out a map and highlight all those countries whose laws were/are based nominally on judea-christian principles. O.k., next highlight all those countries whose laws were/are based on the Koran. Next , you guessed it, Buddhism, etc. And finally, all those based on pure humanism.

Now, which coutries have the most freedoms, the most rights, the most stability, the least likelihood of being killed because you don't agree with the government in power.

Umm...

-R

 

[eclectics]

Just expressing an opinion. I don't believe that the Constitution grants the federal government the right to overrule the states; the federal gov't. and especially the federal judiciary was founded to be severely restricted in its powers with most of the power to govern being reserved to individual states. The fact that this ideal was undermined by that so-called secular saint President Lincoln and subsequently relinquished by the states after the (un)Civil War doesn't erase what the founding fathers intended.

But when President Bush wants to overule the states that passed a gay marriage law with a constitutional ammendment, for instance, that's ok, right? I love the people (not you personally) that tout states rights until it's something they oppose, then suddenly it's just fine for the feds to step in and overule.

 

[Tigger_Magic]

The federal constitution sepersedes all state constitutions; it's what every state had to accept and affirm to become a "state." Yes, at the time it was instituted, the federal charter was severely restricted but as you noted that's been chipped away at throughout the years. Setting aside for the time cases that directly involve the federal government (IRS cases and the like), the federal judiciary system acts as an appeal process to determine whether the merits of the case were judged appropriately under the federal constitution. Additionally, the federal judiciary becomes involved whenever an issue, or case, must be decided between states or involves interstate commerce. If you notice, when someone makes an "appeal" to the appelate court, they are appealing the ruling on the case, not rejudging the case itself (though many of the details of the case are presented again to bolster the argument that the initial ruling was incorrect). Appelate court, and ultimately Supreme Court decisions overtime or affirm lower court rulings, not decide the case itself. A technicality, yes, but a fundamental distinction.

I don't disagree that this is what we have, albeit very sadly, become. My point is that this is not what was originally intended by the framers of the Constitution. Most of those who worked on drafting the Constitution were well aware of the tendency for a centralized government to seek to concentrate and expand its power. The framers instituted a set of checks and balances between the branches of the federal government, but at the same time realized, that this offered precious little protection against said government expanding in both size and scope.

Jefferson wrote: "It is but too evident, that the three ruling branches of [the national government] are in combination to strip their colleagues, the State authorities, of all powers reserved by them, and to exercise themselves all functions foreign and domestic." His worst fears are our present reality. The states allowed the federal government to assume exclusive rights to interpret the Constitution and thus hand down rulings in favor of itself.

Even Alexander Hamilton, a proponent of a strong central/federal government, said that "the State governments will, in all possible contingencies, afford complete security against invasions of the public liberty by the national authority."

 

[Tigger_Magic]

But when President Bush wants to overule the states that passed a gay marriage law with a constitutional ammendment, for instance, that's ok, right? I love the people (not you personally) that tout states rights until it's something they oppose, then suddenly it's just fine for the feds to step in and overule.

I do not support President Bush's attempt to overrule the states on this or any issue. I don't believe that the framers of the Constitution went to the trouble of specifically listing the powers of Congress in Article I, Section 8 just to waste paper and ink. Not that this limitation means anything anymore as is evidenced not only by this example (the President's proposal of a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage) but also by countless other laws where Congress no longer bothers to even give lip service to justifying their actions on constitutional grounds.

 

[Lord Fantasius]

Does this mean it's illegal to not honor thy father or mother or to have an affair in Kentucky? What about swearing? What's the punishment for blasphemy in KY?

The Ten Commandments, or whatever you want to refer to them as, constitue a moral code, not a legal code. You cannot prosecute an immorality (unless it's also illegal). Morality is the basis for what is "Right" and yes, I believe there is a thing as absolute right, and should be higher than, but yet also the basis for, the legal code.

If you stripped away the first four "commandments" pretty much every civilized society would say their laws are encapsulated in the remaining six (even if they do not practice them). All the vices are warned against...pride, greed, lust, jealousy, etc. No government on earth has ever stood which was based on any, or all of the vices.

The Code of Hammurabi was a legal code, not a moral one, so if you want to make an equal comparison you would have to compare it against the ancient hebraic laws (i.e., Leviticus) not the Decalogue.

-R

 

[Mugg Mann]

The following is directly from the mission statement on the ACLU's website:


The American system of government is founded on two counterbalancing principles: that the majority of the people governs, through democratically elected representatives; and that the power even of a democratic majority must be limited, to ensure individual rights.

Majority power is limited by the Constitution's Bill of Rights, which consists of the original ten amendments ratified in 1791, plus the three post-Civil War amendments (the 13th, 14th and 15th) and the 19th Amendment (women's suffrage), adopted in 1920.

The mission of the ACLU is to preserve all of these protections and guarantees:

Your First Amendment rights-freedom of speech, association and assembly. Freedom of the press, and freedom of religion supported by the strict separation of church and state.

Your right to equal protection under the law - equal treatment regardless of race, sex, religion or national origin.

Your right to due process - fair treatment by the government whenever the loss of your liberty or property is at stake.

Your right to privacy - freedom from unwarranted government intrusion into your personal and private affairs.
We work also to extend rights to segments of our population that have traditionally been denied their rights, including Native Americans and other people of color; lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgendered people; women; mental-health patients; prisoners; people with disabilities; and the poor.

If the rights of society's most vulnerable members are denied, everybody's rights are imperiled.

The ACLU was founded by Roger Baldwin, Crystal Eastman, Albert DeSilver and others in 1920. We are nonprofit and nonpartisan and have grown from a roomful of civil liberties activists to an organization of more than 400,000 members and supporters. We handle nearly 6,000 court cases annually from our offices in almost every state.

The ACLU has maintained the position that civil liberties must be respected, even in times of national emergency. The ACLU is supported by annual dues and contributions from its members, plus grants from private foundations and individuals. We do not receive any government funding. Learn more about joining the ACLU.

I am curious to hear from people who obviously feel that this mission statement is invalid. In other words, why do people oppose an organization whose primary function is to uphold the Constitution of the United States without regard to politics?

 

[Tigger_Magic]

The Ten Commandments, or whatever you want to refer to them as, constitue a moral code, not a legal code. You cannot prosecute an immorality (unless it's also illegal). Morality is the basis for what is "Right" and yes, I believe there is a thing as absolute right, and should be higher than, but yet also the basis for, the legal code.

If you stripped away the first four "commandments" pretty much every civilized society would say their laws are encapsulated in the remaining six (even if they do not practice them). All the vices are warned against...pride, greed, lust, jealousy, etc. No government on earth has ever stood which was based on any, or all of the vices.

The Code of Hammurabi was a legal code, not a moral one, so if you want to make an equal comparison you would have to compare it against the ancient hebraic laws (i.e., Leviticus) not the Decalogue.

-R

Very good points. I was not trying to make a comparison, but to point out that modern law is derived from many sources, not just an obviously moral one. We don't post the "Code", the Magna Carta, etc. in courts and these are equally rich sources of our system of laws today.

 

[eclectics]

I do not support President Bush's attempt to overrule the states on this or any issue. I don't believe that the framers of the Constitution went to the trouble of specifically listing the powers of Congress in Article I, Section 8 just to waste paper and ink. Not that this limitation means anything anymore as is evidenced not only by this example (the President's proposal of a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage) but also by countless other laws where Congress no longer bothers to even give lip service to justifying their actions on constitutional grounds.

I agree with that. And while I don't support 50 separate "little countries", I do support the individual states right to have a reasonable say in the laws their residents vote to implement or not.

 

[KingsFanInRI]

the ACLU can kiss my Smurf. It's about time a judge in this country had the stones to tell them to go pound sand.

 

[Tigger_Magic]

I agree with that. And while I don't support 50 separate "little countries", I do support the individual states right to have a reasonable say in the laws their residents vote to implement or not.

ITA and I don't think this is what the founding fathers intended (each state acting as its own country). Thus they entered into a voluntary federation designating a federal gov't. to provide some very limited oversight with much of the right of governance reserved to the individual states. Thus, if MA chooses to legalize gay marriage, they are within their rights to do so and the federal government should have NO SAY about this, because this power is specifically reserved to the states. In the same way, should KY decide that within the boundaries of their state they will allow courts and/or public buildings to display the 10 Commandments in any way, shape or form, they are and should be free to decide that. This is not something that the federal gov't. can/should decide.

 

[Lord Fantasius]

Very good points. I was not trying to make a comparison, but to point out that modern law is derived from many sources, not just an obviously moral one. We don't post the "Code", the Magna Carta, etc. in courts and these are equally rich sources of our system of laws today.

Agreebly true, and yet I have seen a number of courts displaying the Magna Carta as well (though the details are indecipherable). But that might be recognizable more because the US population still has a greater percentage of British ancestry. The Code is harder since even though it's well known in the academic world, the average citizen would just look at it and say, "huh?" Plus, I've never heard a lawyer/attorney or judge quote from the Code of Hammurabi in the arguments or rulings but there are many opinions and references in US laws quoted from the MC.

 

[Judge Smails]

Have you ever visited or lived in a country whose laws were "based" on the Koran? Even one of the more secular, liberal ones? Or any of the other belief systems you mentioned. I think if you did you wouldn't be so quick in your sarcasm.

And yes, I have, for six weeks...

For your homework assignment take out a map and highlight all those countries whose laws were/are based nominally on judea-christian principles. O.k., next highlight all those countries whose laws were/are based on the Koran. Next , you guessed it, Buddhism, etc. And finally, all those based on pure humanism.

Now, which coutries have the most freedoms, the most rights, the most stability, the least likelihood of being killed because you don't agree with the government in power.

Umm...

-R

And guess what?.....It doesn't matter. Because the government can't recognize one religion over another...that's the point and thank you for emphasizing it.

By the way wasn't Tim McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber a Christian? Perhaps you'd do well to check your homework. To imply that all Muslim nations are dominated by murderers is close minded.

 

[Lord Fantasius]

And guess what?.....It doesn't matter. Because the government can't recognize one religion over another...that's the point and thank you for emphasizing it.

By the way wasn't Tim McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber a Christian? Perhaps you'd do well to check your homework. To imply that all Muslim nations are dominated by murderers is close minded.

Exactly, that is the point, only governments based on Judeo-Christianity have the freedom not to recognize one religion over another...you do get it, don't you?

Tim McVeigh, a Christian? Hardly, just because he was white, male, and of European heritage? Christian cult extremist possibly, but please...over 70% of the US population consider themselves "Christian" however, only about a quarter or less of the population can define what being a "Christian" means, and a good percentage of those, then, don't consider themselves Christian. (Barna research)

Made no implications whatsoever about "Muslim nations;" that's your doing. I just merely asked where you would prefer to live. Yes, we have corruption, scandals, political killings here in the US, but they so pale against practices condoned in the countries you don't want to compare to the US, it's not even a blib.

-R

 

[Judge Smails]

Exactly, that is the point, only governments based on Judeo-Christianity have the freedom not to recognize one religion over another...you do get it, don't you?

Tim McVeigh, a Christian? Hardly, just because he was white, male, and of European heritage? Christian cult extremist possibly, but please...over 70% of the US population consider themselves "Christian" however, only about a quarter or less of the population can define what being a "Christian" means, and a good percentage of those, then, don't consider themselves Christian. (Barna research)

Made no implications whatsoever about "Muslim nations;" that's your doing. I just merely asked where you would prefer to live. Yes, we have corruption, scandals, political killings here in the US, but they so pale against practices condoned in the countries you don't want to compare to the US, it's not even a blib.

-R

Why don't you tell us what being a good Christian means.

 

[Lord Fantasius]

Why don't you tell us what being a good Christian means.

That's not the thread for this...if you would like I'll PM you, but we're talking here about the ACLU and federal government intrusion into state laws (and a few asides about the Ten Commendments, Code of Hammurabi, and their place in society, etc.).

Sorry, your venom is your own...

-R