?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

hey hey



I encourage everyone to stand up and say you're a constitutional voter too.

p.s.

Obama 08

Comments

( 12 comments — Leave a comment )
xjems
Sep. 19th, 2008 10:32 am (UTC)
Obama 08 FTW!
faerieburst
Sep. 19th, 2008 10:58 am (UTC)
You know, it's almost ironic at this point for the ACLU to be putting that out, given that they don't actually support the entire Constitution.

Why must people make me so sad?

~Aramada
cynickal
Sep. 19th, 2008 10:22 pm (UTC)
Can you site a case for this?
faerieburst
Sep. 19th, 2008 10:32 pm (UTC)
Are you seriously asking, or being tongue in cheek?

~Aramada
aquamarcia
Sep. 19th, 2008 01:06 pm (UTC)
Well, Constitution voter minus one thing, if you don't mind Obama's stance on firearms ownership rights. I'm probably going to vote for Obama too, and just hope he doesn't fuck up the 2nd Amendment too much.
cynickal
Sep. 19th, 2008 10:22 pm (UTC)
I believe the Supreme Court already took care of that in June.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/26/scotus.guns/

Unless you believe that Sen. Obama will be another Bush or Palin and flagrantly ignore US laws.
faerieburst
Sep. 19th, 2008 10:38 pm (UTC)
Except the ACLU is NOT changed their stance since Heller.

http://www.aclu.org/crimjustice/gen/35904res20020304.html

In fact, they say flat out that they STILL maintain that the 2nd Amendment is a "collective right" (Really, like all of the other "collective rights" in the Bill of Rights? Oh, wait, there aren't any. THAT WAS THE POINT.)

They believe that neither the possession, nor the regulation of guns is a "civil liberties issue." Which is a lot like saying they believe that neither searches, nor seizures, are a "civil liberties issue."

~Aramada
cynickal
Sep. 20th, 2008 01:14 am (UTC)
From a business stand point it makes more sense to allow the NRA with it's $150 million budget to focus on the single civil right issue and save its own $45 million dollar budget for the remaining 9 amendments (or 26 if you consider more than the Bill of Rights).

Of course I have the privilege of looking at the ACLU from a business and cost/benefit perspective rather than relying on precedence to shape all decisions.

That being said I've not read the Federalist Papers where the language of the amendments were debated and more of less finalized. As I presume the Constitutional Scholars at the ACLU have when they established their guides described on their web site.
"ACLU policy cites the Supreme Court's decision in U.S. v. Miller as support for our position on the Second Amendment, our policy was never dependent on Miller. Rather, like all ACLU policies, it reflects the ACLU's own understanding of the Constitution and civil liberties."
faerieburst
Sep. 20th, 2008 01:27 am (UTC)
Except the NRA has done more harm to the 2nd Amendment than good. They DID NOT support the Heller case, at all. In fact, they tried to get it quashed, repeatedly. They were quick to claim it as a victory, however, when the Court ruled in Heller's favour. The NRA has been a co-sponsor and author of more than one WEAPONS BAN. They are, at best, appeasers, who throw various sections of their group under the bus regularly.

"From a business stand point it makes more sense to allow the NRA with it's $150 million budget to focus on the single civil right issue and save its own $45 million dollar budget for the remaining 9 amendments (or 26 if you consider more than the Bill of Rights)."

Except they aren't doing it as a business decision. And they are quite clear on that fact.

"it reflects the ACLU's own understanding of the Constitution and civil liberties."

Which is great, except when the Supreme Court has flat out told them they are wrong. Not to mention that their stance on the 2nd COMPLETELY flies in the face of their stance regarding the other amendments and the very notion of "civil liberties." They want to pretend the 2nd doesn't exist? So be it. But they should stop being freakin' hypocrites and claiming they "support the Constitution" when, in fact, they support the parts they like. This wouldn't chafe so badly, except the ACLU is notorious for saying things like "We defend Klan members/Nazis/God Hates Faggots protesters/whatever because everyone gets the same protection. We don't defend only the people we like." They should try applying that philosophy to the actual document, and defend EACH amendment with the same vigor and NOT "just the ones they like."

~Aramada


aquamarcia
Sep. 20th, 2008 01:26 am (UTC)
Senator Obama has a track record of favoring draconian gun control, and the latest Supreme Court decision doesn't mean all threats to the 2nd Amendment are magically eradicated. I don't think Obama will flagrantly ignore US laws, but he will probably try within the law to make adjustments to gun ownership rights that will not favor gun owners.

Obama fans want change, McCain fans want more of the same. Me? I want massive gridlock. If I can't get that, I'll take enough gridlock to keep civil liberties from getting any more screwed over than they already have. Unlike Democrats and Republicans, I like all of the Bill of Rights.
cynickal
Sep. 19th, 2008 10:18 pm (UTC)
The Constitution is for pussy commies who are soft on TERROR!
gypsyscorned
Sep. 20th, 2008 12:24 am (UTC)
My favorite Bush quote?

"The constitution is nothing but a goddamn piece of paper".

Our government will always flagrantly ignore constitutional law because our constitution is against government.

Good fucking luck, America.
( 12 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

August 2011
S M T W T F S
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031   
Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Lilia Ahner