The American Civil Liberties Union has sued the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority and CEO Michael Ford over the agency’s refusal to accept an advertisement calling for a boycott of Israel from pro-Palestinian activist Blaine Coleman of Ann Arbor.
HERE THEY ARE PROMOTING THE RIGHTS OF PALISTINIANS TO USE HATE SPEACH ON THE SIDE OF A BUS IN MICHIGAN.
The right to be a complete asshole and sponge off the system while others use common sense and strong work ethics to allow them to be that way. But, I'm not sure which Amendment that falls under....Originally Posted by PROBASCO
ome » News
ACLU Sues ‘Family-Friendly’ Inn for Refusing to Host Lesbian Wedding Reception
HERE THEY SUE A PRIVATE BUSINESS BECAUSE THEY CHOOSE TO RESERVE THE RIGHT TO REFUSE SERVICE.
State & Local - POLITICS
ACLU Sues Missouri School System for Censoring Gay Advocacy Websites
HERE, THEYSUE THE SCHOOLS FOR NOT ALLOWING GAY PORN ON THE SCHOOL COMPUTORS.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...#ixzz1j7PpphML
The American Civil Liberties Union filed a federal lawsuit on Wednesday, charging that South Carolina's new immigration law is unconstitutional. The law requires law enforcement to check the immigration status of all people that they detain, including those that are stopped for traffic violations. The law is scheduled to go into effect on January 1, 2012. The ACLU and its allies are hoping to get a federal injunction to prevent it from taking effect.
WHAT WAS THAT ABOUT THE 10TH AMENDMENT AND THE STATES RIGHT TO MAKE ITS OWN LAWS?
THIS IS MY PERSONAL FAVORITE. FIRST THEY SUED TO ALLOW PRO POT LICENSE PLATES, THEN HERE THEY SUE TO DENY PRO-CHOICE LICENSE PLATES. YES,THEY SUPPORT FREEDOM OF SPEECH UNLESS ITS A TOPIC THEY DON'T AGREE WITH... YEP, REAL AMERICAN HERO'S FOR APPLYING THE LAW EQUALLY.....
Lawsuit questions fairness in NC license plates
ACLU license plate lawsuit
Full legislative coverage: @NCCapitol
Raleigh, N.C. — The American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina Legal Foundation filed suit Thursday to get the state to produce a specialty license plate that supports abortion rights.
State lawmakers in June passed a bill that authorized the issuance of a “Choose Life” license plate. Six amendments to the bill that would have allowed for another plate that stated “Trust Women. Respect Choice” or simply “Respect Choice” were defeated.
ACLU Sues to Stop Mandatory Drug Testing of Welfare Recipients
SPONGES TAKING FROM OTHERS SHOULD NOT BE USING THOSE RESOURCES TO GET HIGH,
HERE THEY SUE TO STOP FREEDOM OF SPEECH. AND THAT AMENDMENT IS?????
The American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California has filed suit against the Orange County Board of Supervisors for policies that the civil rights group says prevent the public from stating controversial opinions in public meetings.
HERE, THEY SUE TO DENY PEOPLE THEIR RIGHT TO BE MARRIED BY A CHURCH. FREEDOM OF RELIGION, NOT FREEDOM FROM RELIGION YOU AZZOLES. SO HERE THEY SUE PEOPLE FOR EXERCISING THEIR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS TO FREELY CHOOSE TO HAVE THEIR BELIEFS AND USE THOSE BELIEFS IN A MARRIAGE CEREMONY FOR THEMSELVES WITH NO IMPACT ON THE PUBLIC.
Nevada has long been known as the easiest place in America to get a divorce — and a quick marriage. After a couple has had a “quickie” marriage and the marriage license has been mailed to them, the union is still not technically valid until either a clergyman or a justice of the peace in the state has performed a marriage ceremony and the officiant and the couple have signed the marriage license and it has been mailed to the proper government agency for validation.
All that this law requires is that the clergyman performing the wedding provide proof that he is affiliated with a church or religious organization. The legal role allowed by Nevada law to a man of the cloth, however, is too much for the American Civil Liberties Union, which has filed suit in Clark County, contending that allowing priests, ministers, and rabbis to marry people in Nevada violates the so-called separation of church and state prohibitions in the Constitution.
O'REILLY: This ACLU has no strategy to fight the war on terror at all. Everything the United States government does -- everything -- they oppose. Everything! Nothing they like in defending ourselves against terrorists -- nothing. ...
No-fly list, remember that? National Transportation Safety Administration put a no-fly list of travelers who they considered a threat. ACLU sued, challenged it. Can't have a "no-fly" list. Okay? That's number one. Airline discrimination. So there were some people that were saying, "Well, look, if we have these guys and they just came in from Jordan or they came in from Oman, we're gonna watch 'em closely, pull 'em aside, detain 'em, talk to 'em." ACLU sued. "No, can't do that."
Patriot Act? Uh-uh. No Patriot Act. Can't be listening on floating wiretaps like you do on drug dealers -- uh-uh. Can't try to catch terrorists like that. Can't be lookin' at people checkin' out weird things in the library -- uh-uh. Okay? Nope, sued.
[...]
Immigration, all right? ACLU sued, filed a federal lawsuit challenging an initiative by [former Attorney Geneal John] Ashcroft to enlist state and local police in the routine enforcement of federal immigration laws. No, no, can't do that. Can't have the local police or the state police; help the feds enforce immigration laws -- no way! Can't do it!
Guantánamo Bay -- all of 'em have to have civilian lawyers. No enemy combatants -- no way, uh-uh. Come on. Come on. Every single thing the United States government tries to do to protect us against terrorism, these people oppose and they'll sue -- just like Christmas. Same thing. Same thing. "We'll sue you -- put the crèche in the main part of town, sing a Christmas carol -- we'll sue you." Sue, sue, sue, sue, sue.
So look, I'm declarin' war on the ACLU. I think they're a terrorist group. They're terrorizin' me and my family. They're terrorizing me. I think they're terrorists. Can I get some lawyers to help me out here? Can we sue 'em? They're puttin' us all in danger.
O'Reilly doesn’t need lawyers to help him sue the ACLU, he needs them to help him defend himself against charges of defamation. I'm not sure if earlier nonsense from O'Reilly were quite enough to say that he had lost all sense of sanity and reason, but the above comments surely do. It's one thing to disagree with the ACLU, but quite another to accuse them of terrorism, especially in today's political climate. http://atheism.about.com/b/2005/03/1...rist-group.htm
Hey, PROBASCO, thanks for reminding me all the good work they do.
O\'Reilly is an authoritarian douche-bag, he wouldn\'t care if the government put phone taps on everyone\'s homes if it stopped one criminal or terrorist act.
Sorry, but liberty trumps the so-called right to be \"safe.\" You have no right to be safe. If promoting liberty means the occasional terrorist attack or asshole abusing his gun rights and going on a spree-killing, that\'s just the price of freedom. Too bad, so sad. Better than an authoritarian nanny-state telling us what to do.
Who was it that said: \"Those who would sacrifice liberty for safety, deserve neither?\"
Your contempt for the principles our Founding Fathers fought for is duly noted.
Actually, they are just neutral on the matter. They don\'t support or promote gun control, they just don\'t involve themselves in Second Amendment issues. Considering there are so many single-issue groups like the NRA, GOA, etc. that fight for that part of the Bill of Rights, its not like the Second Amendment is being neglected. Of course, many of us remind the ACLU each time we donate that they should defend ALL the Bill of Rights, but considering how much good work they do in defending most of it, I still donate heavily to them each year.
I donated $100 as part of their year-end matching fund, think I\'ll chip in another $100 when I re-up my membership in a couple months. The Bill of Rights is about a lot more than just the Second Amendment. We need groups fighting for as much of it as we can, against government encroachment. In this respect, the ACLU plays a vital role in complimenting other groups fighting to protect our civil rights.
"That tyranny has all the vices both of democracy and oligarchy is evident. As of oligarchy so of tyranny, the end is wealth; (for by wealth only can the tyrant maintain either his guard or his luxury). Both mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of their arms." -- Aristotle, Book V, 350 B.C.E
THOSE WHO SACRIFICE A CHILD'S SAFETY TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF SOMEONE WHO WANTS TO RAPE THEM IS A PIECE OF SHIT.
"LAGC = He is pretty pro-gun, and even stood up to an ACLU speaker on this issue." IT IS TRUE? YOU FOUGHT THEM ON A GUN ISSUE, OR WAS THAT A LIE OR IS THE ABOVE? CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS
Last edited by PROBASCO; 01-11-2012 at 11:29 AM.
Well, what happened was the local ACLU hosted a series of "Know Your Rights" seminars last summer. There was one on Habeas Corpus (challenging your prison sentence), one on Nullification -- not jury nullification, but states nullifying Federal laws via the Tenth Amendment -- they specifically mentioned the Montana Firearms Freedom Act (ignore Federal gun laws if gun was manufactured and purchased in Montana) and all the states that sued the Feds to stop the ObamaCare individual mandate, both of which were pretty informative. Like I said, the ACLU finds itself more at odds with the Obama Administration than it does agree with it.
Anyway, then they had a seminar on the Second Amendment. The featured guest speaker was a hard-core anti-gunner law professor who said that he didn't like the term "gun control" -- he preferred "gun regulations."
Anyway, it was a pretty boring lecture, went on for about 40 minutes claiming the Second Amendment was a collective right, not an individual right, and that the history of Supreme Court jurisprudence including U.S. v Miller (1939) proves it, the recent Heller and McDonald decisions notwithstanding. Anyway, during the final 20-minute Q&A session, the audience (approx. 50 people in attendance) tore him a new one. A young woman in front of me brought up the right to self-defense, another guy mentioned that 'well-regulated Militia' meant every able bodied adult male between age 18 and 45 being required to have an long-arm in their possession, and I brought up the fact that the First, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Amendment all had to do with INDIVIDUAL rights, even though the Founding Fathers used the term "people", it was clear that "people" meant every individual citizen -- NOT the state.
I mean, why in the fuck would the Founding Fathers put something vague about collective/state rights in the middle of the beginning amendments delineating individual rights? The only part of the Bill of Rights that has to do with states rights is the Tenth Amendment, way at the end. It just didn't make sense.
So yeah, I guess you could say the local ACLU should have done a better job inviting a pro-gun speaker, not just an anti-gunner. But I think he made such a fool out of himself that it worked out just as well in the end anyway.
Really, I think even the national ACLU knows its being hypocritical not defending the entire Bill of Rights. It's just that some of their biggest donors, including the Joyce Foundation, would shit a brick if they endorsed the Second Amendment as an individual right and started defending it in court.
Really, we just need more pro-gun people to join at the local levels to off-set those big lobby's influence, and pressure the national organization to finally be consistent and change their official stance. I like to think it will happen in my life-time.
"That tyranny has all the vices both of democracy and oligarchy is evident. As of oligarchy so of tyranny, the end is wealth; (for by wealth only can the tyrant maintain either his guard or his luxury). Both mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of their arms." -- Aristotle, Book V, 350 B.C.E
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks