What do you think? The American Civil Liberties Union intends to file suit against the city's housing authority because of its ban on certain individuals from visiting some HACA residents.
The Capital is upset that the ACLU is "absolutist" and is not employing "common sense." Hartley asks whose rights are more important. Hmmm...I dunno' 'bout you, but something in this makes me think about Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo--not in an "absolutist" sense of course, but in the sense of whose rights are more important, and in what does our law allow? Can we violate some individual rights in some cases in order to protect the rights of the greater society? Of course we can take action but we can't violate their rights if they are guaranteed by law--just because we think they might be "bad guys" Even if they are "bad guys" they still have rights. If you want to take away their rights--just do it within the bounds of the law..unless you believe we should not be a society of laws.
If the law forbids HACA from banning anyone, then so be it. In such a case, the ACLU would be right in being absolutist in defending the absolute constitutional rights of individuals to have whoever they want visit them at a HACA property. If the law says yes you can ban, then do it legally. If the law is unclear or subject to interpretation or if what HACA does might or might not be illegal, then let's work it out, maybe even change the law--but a lawsuit? Is that the only way?
I think the banning in many respects is probably a good thing for everyone--except the bad guys we are trying to keep out. Sure--let's keep them out. But how is HACA deciding who is or is not banned? Are people's rights being violated? HACA residents may be tenants and they may be on the public dole, but they have absolute rights as citizens as well--rights to be secure in their homes AND rights to have people visit them--unless of course they truly are banned for a real and a legally supported reason. Which one is it? Perhaps HACA needs to be absolutist in who can and who cannot be banned. If that's not going to work, then it is the law that must be changed, and it is the law that does not employ common sense--and not the ACLU as The Capital opines. I'm not a constitutional lawyer. I don't even play one on t.v. Regardless of what one thinks of the ACLU, it is not a huge or hugely powerful organization. I like what they do and what they stand for, but not in an absolutist sense. But I do believe in the Constitution--absolutely. And so does the ACLU. In fact, what other organization does?
Read the piece by the editors and by Eric Hartley:
ACLU 1
ACLU 2
Please send comments, subscribe, share with your friends, and support our sponsors. Join us at Ahh Coffee! in Eastport almost every Thursday from 8-9 am.
Bay Daily on Hiatus
-
Congratulations to Bay Daily creator, Tom Pelton, who has accepted a
position with another organization working to make the world a better
place. In his ab...
10 years ago
8 Comments:
The ACLU, it is not a huge or hugely powerful organization.
What are you smoking? Did you steal some African Ganja from the waterfront home?
This is what their website says:
"# The ACLU's work is sustained by over 500,000 members and supporters who plan an active role in defending freedom.
# Nearly 200 ACLU staff attorneys and thousands of volunteer attorneys handle countless civil liberties cases every year.
# Our legislative advocates are a constant presence on Capitol Hill and in state legislatures working on civil liberties issue.
# The ACLU has staffed offices in all 50 states, Puerto Rico and Washington, D.C. "
500,000 members is not huge. It puts them way behind the National Wildlife Federation, most church denominations, the AARP, AAA, AMA, ABA, NRA etc., etc. On the other hand, if you think they are huge and powerful, I guess that means they reflect a wide swath of the American public. For the record, I don't steal or buy Ganja or any other illicit drugs. Personally, I prefer beer.
If it's not powerful, then why is the ACLU reported by the major media as the "defacto" arbitrator of what's to be considered right or wrong in our Country.
I think Paul points out that they do not represent the majority of the people.
Nevertheless, the ACLU is given an artifically large role in defining the issues, all granted by a media that isn't concerned with objectivity, but more occupied by a similarly disproportionate idea of where we stand as a Nation.
Bob McWilliams
Oh good grief Bob...really. Get a grip. Where has it been reported "by the major media as the 'defacto' [sic] arbitrator [sic again...should be arbiter]of what's to be considered right or wrong in our Country [sic yet again, should be country].
That still does not negate the fact that it is merely one of the players in the constant struggle for our hearts and minds. What about The Heritage Foundation, American Enterprise Institute, etc., etc.? And it's not a matter of whether the ACLU represents a majority or not--that's not the issue.
You wrote that they have an "artifically [sic] large role in defining the issues, all granted by a media [it's plural, as in media that are not....] that isn't concerned with objectivity, but more occupied by a similarly disproportionate idea of where we stand as a Nation [sic again, as in nation]."
The point is they are an organization with a strong presence, but in the grand scheme, they are just another gear in the machine--or perhaps, grease in the wheels. But they'll go to the mat to defend your right and my right to free speech, {as they did for neo Nazis in Skokie in the late 70's}, whether they like us or not. That's my bottom line. They defend the Constitution and there are plenty of other powerful voices out there opposed to them. Now, I got other work to do today, and you're a Realtor--so go sell a house...hopefully to a card-carrying liberal.
I guess the squeaky wheel gets the grease, even if it's a minor gear in the machine.
In the running of America, maybe the the major media, Washington, or even big corporations should recognize that it's small businesses which are the major employer. They drive the enginuity, growth and creativity that makes this Country the envy of the world. And, freedom is the fuel that powers it all.
Too bad that this spark of creation is constantly ignored or frequently doused by those who think they are smarter than the free marketplace of ideas.
Bob McWilliams
Bob
I have no idea what you are talking about. Do you? Do my readers understand these comments? Besides that, the word is ingenuity, not "enginuity." (That is a cute neologism--could it mean a motor that pays out with a positive cash flow??? A motor that never stops?)
As to your snide statement about "those who think they are smarter than the free marketplace of ideas", to whom might you be referring? CP is a free marketplace of ideas--yes? Oooh, pardon me, but you weren't referring to me when you wrote of those who think they are smarter---were you? Nahhh...that would require too much "enginuity" on my part
Well, I am of the opinion that the ACLU is powerful in that it is powered by the Constitution and in this case driven by a very well educated and experienced lawyer --D. Jeon, J.D ( Cornell law) .
The ACLU has little time or money to waste . The case they will bring against HACA is not one without merit and the ACLU will ultimately prevail yet again.
Trust me.
http://www.aclu.org/racialjustice/racialprofiling/16016prs20010426.html
I agree with your first statement that their power derives from the Constitution, but it is ultimately a piece of paper unless it is defended--and Bob McWilliam's notwithstanding, I am glad its 500,000 members defend it. Speaking of which, you know that Old First Amendment thing that provides your guarantee of free speech and all that? That means you can identify yourself, which if you truly want me or my readers to trust you, as you say, we will need to know who you are.
Post a Comment