ACLU 2005 Civil Libertarian Award

Navigation

User login

Online users

The Original Yoda
Laurian
Rick
einmaleins
agathafrye
Judith

Support OlyBlog

OlyBlog is run by volunteers who care about Olympia. If you like what we're doing, make a donation:

OlyBlog is powered by:

Who's new

Roger and Launchpad
alwayssharethejoy
olympianwatch
mpeper
BalletArtsOlymp...

ACLU 2005 Civil Libertarian Award

Submitted by Sarah on Mon, 11/21/2005 - 6:37pm.

Our own City Councilman Jeff Kingsbury and his partner, Alan Fuller, were awarded the ACLU's 2005 Civil Libertarian Award. Congratulations!

18 other couples have also been given the award this year.

From Olympian:

"These couples have courageously stepped forward to represent all people in Washington in a matter of fundamental fairness and equality," said Suzanne Holland, an ACLU board member. "They have advanced the cause of equal marriage rights by speaking with the media and in public forums, opening themselves and their families to controversy and public scrutiny."

Sarah's blog
Login or register to post comments

"They have advanced the cause

Submitted by OlyCop on Tue, 11/22/2005 - 6:56pm.

"They have advanced the cause of equal marriage rights". Advanced is not the word I would use.

My uncle Roman refers to the

Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Tue, 11/22/2005 - 10:21pm.

My uncle Roman refers to the ACLU as the American Communist Union. I can't remember what he uses for the "L."

Sounds like Roman is a good m

Submitted by FPK1 on Tue, 11/22/2005 - 10:57pm.

Sounds like Roman is a good man.

Actually, I only respond to h

Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Wed, 11/23/2005 - 12:00am.

Actually, I only respond to his letters when he asks a specific question about my life. I don't dare discuss politics with him. He doesn't care for dialogue.

Kudos to Kingsbury and Fuller for achieving the Civil Libertarian Award!

I like Roman already!!!

Submitted by OlyCop on Wed, 11/23/2005 - 11:04am.

I like Roman already!!!

Since we are talking about th

Submitted by Rob Richards on Wed, 11/23/2005 - 2:41pm.

Since we are talking about the ACLU, I thought I'd throw in my two bits. I decided one day that I wanted to look into becoming a member, so I went online and gave them my info. Not too many days passed and I recieved an invitation to join, there was just the tiny little matter of $35 dollars that they wanted. I rarely have $35 I'm willing to part with for something like this, so I decided not to do it. I kept getting letters from them, sometimes phony surveys of an 'URGENT' nature. These surveys contained questions like: Do you believe every American should have the right to freedom of speech? There would be a number of questions like that, and then the final part was always: I am willing to give ___ dollars so that the ACLU can further defend my freedoms.(Or something like that)

This made me realize that, while they do some good work, and are pretty balanced in who they defend, they are kind of extortionists. You pay them and they'll make sure you stay free.

Maybe I'm wrong, just a thought.

I think the ACLU is pretty se

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Wed, 11/23/2005 - 3:45pm.

I think the ACLU is pretty selective on which portions of the Constitution they want to defend and which they choose to ignore.

Interesting idea... From wha

Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Wed, 11/23/2005 - 5:00pm.

Interesting idea... From what I hear, the ACLU defends all matters pertaining to civil liberties.

I am interested in specifically which aspects they ignore. Do you have any specifics?

The official ACLU policy on t

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Wed, 11/23/2005 - 6:15pm.

The official ACLU policy on the Second Amendment:

"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." --Policy #47

Their reason?

"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."

They don't want to address the issue of government regulation as it is related to the Second Amendment because, by doing so, they will have to begin to acknowledge that regulation for all other Amendments must be necessary, too.

The Supreme Court is tasked w

Submitted by Rob Richards on Thu, 11/24/2005 - 2:47pm.

The Supreme Court is tasked with interpreting the Constitution, so isn't it proper that the ACLU agree with them and defend their rulings?

Assuming the ACLU wanted to p

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Thu, 11/24/2005 - 4:24pm.

Assuming the ACLU wanted to protect the Constitution as it was written then no, they wouldn't nod their head in agreement with the Supreme Court.

The ACLU should be an organization packed with libertarians. After going through their website and viewing different positions the ACLU has adopted, they are definately far from defending the written Constitution.

The Constitution is, and was

Submitted by Rob Richards on Thu, 11/24/2005 - 6:57pm.

The Constitution is, and was intended to be, a living document, meaning that the founding fathers knew that it would need to be amended over time. In fact they amended it many times themselves before it was ratified. This is where the Bill of Rights comes from. The Supreme Court's job is to continue to vet the constitution and amend it if needed. A number of the freedoms we enjoy come from changes or additions made to the constitution, including the right to bear arms. Given this, don't you think the ACLU is justified in supporting Supreme Court decisions on Constitutional law?

The Constitution wasn't inten

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Thu, 11/24/2005 - 9:19pm.

The Constitution wasn't intended to be a living document. It was intended to last generation after generation.

I find this description to be the best:

"The Constitution is a written contract between We the People and government. To remain lawful a contract must maintain its original intent."

I'm going to borrow an example from "Capitalism Magazine." Let's suppose:

That government wanted to enact a piece of legislation which required all of us to ride our bike five times a week. "Would you deem it proper and acceptable if five out of nine U.S. Supreme Court justices, in the name of 'evolving standards' and promoting the general welfare, decreed that we all participate in some fitness exercise?"

Of course not. We would look to Thomas Jefferson who said:

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically numerated."

In short: If it ain't in the Constitution, Congress can't do it.

Now, let's say this legislation is challenged and makes its way to the Supreme Court. Would you prefer the Supreme Court rule and use reasoning NOT in the Constitution, as was the case in Roper v. Simmons (banning the government from executing those under 18) when Justice Kennedy cited "international opinion?" Or would you prefer the justices to say "We're guided by the U.S. Constitution, and we find no constitutional authority to rule that Americans must regularly bike?"

If adjustments to the Constitution are necessary there is a method provided in the Constitution to do so. This is the avenue which the authors intended, not the judicial system.

Rob Richards: The Supreme Court's job is to continue to vet the constitution and amend it if needed.

The Fire: Absolutely not. It is the job of the Supreme Court to take a case, hold it up against the Constitution and rule based on the written Constitution, not what they think the Constitution should be.

As I said before, if change is necessary there is a Constitutional way to do so.

I honestly don't want to seem

Submitted by Rob Richards on Thu, 11/24/2005 - 10:45pm.

I honestly don't want to seem trite here, but what about the right to vote for women and african americans? Or 18 year olds who are asked to serve our country getting to vote? These were amendments made to the constitution, do you think they should not have been made?

I think you misunderstood wha

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Fri, 11/25/2005 - 2:00am.

I think you misunderstood what I said.

I said that if changes are to be made to the Constitution they should be done so through the avenue provided by the Constitution.

So long as an Amendment is done through the means provided by the Constitution then no, I have no problem. I do have a problem, however, when justices attempt to write their own version of the Constitution simply because they are going with popular opinion.

OK, I understand. I agree wi

Submitted by Rob Richards on Fri, 11/25/2005 - 2:22am.

OK, I understand. I agree with your stance, I appreciate it when the system is working, even if it doesn't support all of my values. What do you think of Roe v Wade? Do you accept it because it is the law of the land?

I accept it because it's the

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Fri, 11/25/2005 - 2:55am.

I accept it because it's the law of the land but I don't think it's right by any stretch of the imagination.

I really do believe these are people who are being aborted, meaning the deprivation of life without due cause is going to trump a right to privacy.

Obviously the Supreme Court ruled in a different direction.

If you're asking whether or not I believe there is a right to privacy then yes, as far as I understand it there is. I've heard the point that there is no right to privacy and I would certainly be willing to even change my view if I saw a compelling enough argument made.

Did you guys read Dan Savage'

Submitted by Rick on Fri, 11/25/2005 - 9:23am.

Did you guys read Dan Savage's piece on making the right to privacy a constitutional amendment? I think it is a great idea.

The article is a good summary

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Fri, 11/25/2005 - 10:50am.

The article is a good summary of the dilemma, especially for those who believe in the written Constitution.

That's why I said I'm pretty split on whether we have a right to privacy. If it were to be pushed as an Amendment then yes, I would be in support.

hey, yeah - what's up with th

Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Wed, 11/23/2005 - 8:06pm.

hey, yeah - what's up with that! you mean to tell me that I can't carry a bazooka!!!

There are plenty of ways to get your hands on a bazooka, whether you belong to a regulated militia or not - even without the ACLU working on it.

You do have a point here The Fire Inside. Except, that bearing a weapon is not exactly a civil act. Hence, the ACLU has plenty of justification in taking an officially neutral stance on this issue. I'd say, legally speaking, they are pretty much bullet proof on this issue; maybe even RPG proof (something I can't say about myself.)

A year ago, I would have said that people, individuals, should be legally protected in their right to bear arms. But the recent war in Iraq and increasing violence in society has changed my mind.

Violence does not hold any promise to maintain lasting peace or stability in a society. Bearing a fire arm, whether rifle, pistol or bazooka is essentially a violent act.

Ultimately, and in the highest of spiritual ideals, I think I would be better off dead, rather than "protecting" what's me and mine. In practice, this is a difficult ideal to adhere to.

But, ultimately, - universally speaking - we are as irrelevant as the atoms which compose the microscopic dust granules between grains of sand on a huge, huge beach.

Making a quick response, I th

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Thu, 11/24/2005 - 2:35am.

Making a quick response, I think the right to bear arms is a civil matter.

I don't know whether the ACLU either (a) can't decide whether the Second Amendment is too or (b) they don't want to take a stance but, either way, I find their neutrality shocking.

They should at least come out one way or the other. This is why, however, I think they are selective in which portions of the Constitution they seek to uphold.

As I said in another thread, the same people who would oppose any government regulation on the First Amendment are the same who want MORE government for the Second. I think it's a disturbing trend and believe all portions of the Constitution should be defended equally, not on a selective basis.

Courtesy of my computer Dicti

Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Thu, 11/24/2005 - 11:06pm.

Courtesy of my computer Dictionary:

civil |ˈsivəl| adjective

1 [ attrib. ] of or relating to ordinary citizens and their concerns, as distinct from military or ecclesiastical matters: civil aviation.
• (of disorder or conflict) occurring between citizens of the same country.
• Law relating to private relations between members of a community; noncriminal: a civil action.
• Law of or relating to aspects the civil (or code) law derived from European systems.

2 courteous and polite: we tried to be civil to him.

3 (of time measurement or a point in time) fixed by custom or law rather than being natural or astronomical: civil twilight starts at sunset.

So, why do you think the right to bear arms is a civil matter? Certainly, shooting at someone isn't civil. Hunting could be considered a civil activity, when practiced deliberately, and conscientiously. But wielding a gun, for "protection" against other citizens? - not civil in my mind.

Do you care to explain?

I think you need to look at "

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Fri, 11/25/2005 - 2:16am.

I think you need to look at "civil liberties," not "civil."

A civil liberty is a right, guaranteed in the Constitution, which should be free from government interference and restriction.

Per The American Heritage Dictionary:

"Fundamental individual rights, such as freedom of speech and religion, protected by law against unwarranted governmental or other interference."

This is how the ACLU is able to justify, in their mind, the lack of action they have taken in defending the Second Amendment. The organization treats the Second Amendment as if it were a "collective" right rather than an "individual" one.

civil liberty noun the st

Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Sat, 11/26/2005 - 12:03am.

civil liberty
noun

the state of being subject only to laws established for the good of the community, esp. with regard to freedom of action and speech.
• ( civil liberties) individual rights protected by law from unjust governmental or other interference.

TFI - I can agree to disagree on this one. I think that conceal and carry laws make me less safe on a daily basis. If I ever need protection from my government, I think my words and ideas will prove more decisive weapons than a fire arm.

I think the greatest safety and protection from governmental tyrrany is a well informed (knowledgable and educated) citizenry - not necessarily a well armed one. I think we have a long way to go to make sure the people are well informed enough to insure against governmental tyrrany and corruption.

As I said before, it's not on

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Sat, 11/26/2005 - 4:52am.

As I said before, it's not only protection from government.

It's also to ensure you can be safe when there is no government (e.g. law enforcement unavailable to reach you in a short order of time).

Civilization began the first

Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Fri, 11/25/2005 - 11:58pm.

Civilization began the first time an angry person cast a word instead of a rock. – Sigmund Freud

OlyBlog.net

OlyBlog is devoted to citizen journalism, including hyperlocal news and discussion specifically about Olympia, Washington. If you care about this community and are tired of corporate media, then this is the place for you.

If you'd like to contribute, please register for an account. Here is a list of local news beats that need to be covered. You can post your news as a personal blog entry, and it will be reviewed (and possibly edited) for promotion to the front page. Once you've established a record of responsible blogging, you can become an autonomous user. You can also send news via email. All members of OlyBlog agree to abide by our comment and fair use policies. If you are frustrated about something said in a comment thread, go here.

Now playing at: