Unlearned Hand and I have something in common. He's a card-carrying member of the ACLU and the National Rifle Association. I used to be a card-carrying member of both. He's a man of the Left, and I'm not really one anymore. But our hearts are obviously in the same place on a lot of issues.
I think his criticisms of deficiencies in the ACLU agenda are spot on, and are probably pointing him in similar directions that left me disenchanted with the ACLU. The problem I found was that, for all their high-minded rhetoric about civil rights and the Constitution, in truth they often failed to protect civil rights, and sometimes actively opposed parts of the Bill of Rights that they didn't like. I just don't respect them anymore, although I still support some of what they do.
I do, on the other hand, hugely respect The Institute for Justice. In terms of civil liberties, these guys are all over the issues where the ACLU is either falling flat or on the wrong side. They do good work. I'm a huge fan, and I think you all should be too.
Anyway, Unlearned Hand's discussion on 2nd amendment jurisprudence is really worth reading. They've got some good minds conversing over on that weblog. Makes me want to go to law school. If only I could afford it, ya know?
I've always said one of the biggest problems the ACLU has is that it can only count up to 9...
Unlearned Hand's position on the ACLU's picking and choosing sounds a lot like Nat Hentoff's reasons for leaving the organization's leadership. I'm not planning on joining the Institute for Justice in the immediate future, but I would like to see a civil liberties organization come to the fore that's not a wholly owned subsidiary of either political party.
I keep my ACLU membership card and my NRA membership card next to each other in my wallet. Occasionally, someone will notice and make some remark about the incongruity. They always look a little chagrined when I point out that I have the ACLU to defend the First, Third (at least I hope they would if it came to that), Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eight, and Fourteenth Amendments, and the NRA to defend the Second. Now, if I could just find a Ninth and Tenth Amendment defenders league, I'd be set for life...
Amy, the ACLU will only defend parts of the First Amendment: speech and their interpretation of the right not to be religious. Organized chruches are anathema to the ACLU.
The ACLU has amazed me for some time.
Among the reasons:
Pushing for one group to get special preference based in sex or race-a sexist and/or racist idea.
The reason I don't suppor them like I used to is there constant abuse of the race card. Racial profiling is wrong, but not everytime a "minority" comes in contact with the police is it profiling.
They say that the justice system is racist because a disproportionate number of black people are in prison. But, areas made up of heavily "minority" populations have crime rates, victimization rates and reported crime.
The higher rates are not because of the race of the person living there, it's the economic standing of that area.
Poorer areas have higher crime then richer areas, this applies across the racial spectrum. Poor white people have crime rates just like poor black people and rich white people have crime rates like rich black people. The biggest problem is that a lot more black people are poor compared to whites-this is what makes their crime and this incarceration rate higher.
Rather then discuss this, the real reason for disproportionate minority incarceration, the ACLU, like Jesse Jackson, get a pulpit to pound about racism while doing nothing really productive to help improve minority socioeconomic standing. Why would they do that? They'd eventually be out of a job if the crime rate among "minorities" dropped even more dramaically than it has in the past decade.
Their stance on the 2nd amendment shows their inconsistent nature. Somehow all the other amendments that say "the people" really mean "the people" like you, me, each individual. But when used in the 2nd amendment, it means "the states".
The States' National Guard didn't come into being until the early 1900's so the constitution can't be talking about that, unless another amendment has been made that no one said anything about.
I like their idea that because firearms have been regulated by law in the past, it's not possible to claim they're a right anymore. I guess this means that any law that comes into being regarding free speech renders the 1st amendment no longer a right, rather then the amendment rendering the law no longer one.
Suprisingly they quote the Miller case as evidence. Surely more then one case is needed for something as substantial as a debating a constitutional right. Also, shouldn't the ACLU be upset that Miller was tried in absentia (before the Supreme Court)? That his lawyer was alledgedly third rate at best?
Where are all the people pushing to have this ruling overturned due to poor defense and lack of due process rights??