Author Topic: WTG to the ACLU (Read 3584 times)

lukster · « **Reply #120 on:** July 27, 2006, 10:27:37 AM »

I agree that the constitution does not grant a right to privacy explicitly but it does make clear that it's own provisions are not all inclusive, that people are to have all freedoms and rights not otherwise specified and not just those that are.

I've read and heard a lot about violation of privacy from Bush critics lately. I'd like to hear from them on this issue. Is the ACLU fighting against grieving families right to privacy?

Sandman · « **Reply #121 on:** July 27, 2006, 11:30:16 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lukster
I'd like to hear from them on this issue. Is the ACLU fighting against grieving families right to privacy?

Please point to the part in the Constitution that covers this.

lazs2 · « **Reply #122 on:** July 27, 2006, 11:36:58 AM »

The aclu has seen fit to ignore human rights violations that are huge compared to this... as I have pointed out in other threads.

If nothing else... they could have simply ignored this one too. But they didn't. They felt that an attack on the military was too valuable to pass up... that the individuals and the grieving families right to some decent and deserved privacy was trivial. If they did not have an agenda they would have went after much more clear cut and high profile (meaning affecting more people) abuses.

Don't you feel good tho to know that the aclu has defended your right to crash a funeral and be abusive to the grieving family?

Certainly that is more important than your right to keep and bear arms or have your property siezed to build a strip mall for the city.

lazs

Sandman · « **Reply #123 on:** July 27, 2006, 11:43:51 AM »

Does the NRA need help?

As for eminent domain, you're right. The ACLU should do more.

lukster · « **Reply #124 on:** July 27, 2006, 11:50:21 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman
Please point to the part in the Constitution that covers this.

Covers what? Please be specific.

lazs2 · « **Reply #125 on:** July 27, 2006, 11:58:36 AM »

sandie... Of course the NRA needs help.. 20 million members would have a much greater affect than 4 million and half the people in the country trusting them.

As for the aclu... It is difficult for me to like em... no matter what they support it seems that there is a fly in the ointment. It is fine to say that the unpopular need to be defended but... why allways the agenda? the choices of what to defend and what not to speak volumes to me.

But... I am pragmatic.. I will gladly accept the victories that I feel benifiet me that as an individualist and try to ignore their socialist (there is that word again) agenda while accepting the victory.

I wish that they could be steered to a more centrous individualist agenda but....

lazs

Sandman · « **Reply #126 on:** July 27, 2006, 12:01:22 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lukster
Covers what? Please be specific.

The right to privacy as you've described it.

lukster · « **Reply #127 on:** July 27, 2006, 12:06:18 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman
The right to privacy as you've described it.

I could cite the reference to which I alluded about the constitution guaranteeing freedoms not covered by it but google is your friend.

Are you saying there is no right to privacy? Are you one of those complaining about Bush trampling this "imaginary" right by examining phone records?

BGBMAW · « **Reply #128 on:** July 27, 2006, 12:29:11 PM »

Sandman..when your family gets raped and murdered...And the ACLU has gotten rights for the murderer and molester to 1) get off with "probation 2) gets to recreate the attacks with ..umm"cartoons"

You will say...GOOD FOR THEM!!! thats there right!

It is really disgusting to see people support this

I understand..they do fight for some good ideas on the "whole"..but jesus christ....Fighting for NAMBLA?...or people crashing funerals...Thats disgusting

The people who run NRA are a bunch of old men who shoot trap with $4,000 shotguns ...We the folks who love our "evil black rifles" have to continually fight to keep "semi -auto..mean looking rifles"

So..the ACLU..fights for" our freedom to speak...but then also fights for Moletsers to make "animated" molesting of your 6 year old daughter...

Now i am a NRA memeber for life...they dont always fight hard for the specific guns i enjoy.....BUT..atleast they arent fighting for "virtual pedaphiles rights"

Its very hard to find organizations that do everything you want...but crap ..IF NRA was also fighting to keep murders armed..because its there 2nd Amend right..I would not be a member

But..I can see you back the ACLU with the virtual child molesting....great character

Sandman · « **Reply #129 on:** July 27, 2006, 12:42:58 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lukster
Are you saying there is no right to privacy? Are you one of those complaining about Bush trampling this "imaginary" right by examining phone records?

Clearly, the 4th Amendment prohibits unreasonable search and seizure and establishes the right to privacy from government intrusion or invasion. Many would argue that phone records would seem to fall under this category.

This is not the same thing as "a grieving families right to privacy" as you have stated. I would like to know where within the Constitution that this identified.

lukster · « **Reply #130 on:** July 27, 2006, 04:56:21 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman
Clearly, the 4th Amendment prohibits unreasonable search and seizure and establishes the right to privacy from government intrusion or invasion. Many would argue that phone records would seem to fall under this category.

This is not the same thing as "a grieving families right to privacy" as you have stated. I would like to know where within the Constitution that this identified.

If you will tell me how phone records stored away from your home are protected by the 4th amendment I'll tell you how inviduals have a right to privacy even when they are in public.

Maverick · « **Reply #131 on:** July 27, 2006, 05:03:58 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman
Clearly, the 4th Amendment prohibits unreasonable search and seizure and establishes the right to privacy from government intrusion or invasion. Many would argue that phone records would seem to fall under this category.

This is not the same thing as "a grieving families right to privacy" as you have stated. I would like to know where within the Constitution that this identified.

Sandie,

Straw man there and you know it. The constitution does not limit the citizenry. The constitution provides limits on GOVERNMENT dealings with it's citizens not the other way around.

Sandman · « **Reply #132 on:** July 27, 2006, 05:35:25 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Maverick
Sandie,

Straw man there and you know it. The constitution does not limit the citizenry. The constitution provides limits on GOVERNMENT dealings with it's citizens not the other way around.

You're not getting it either. Lukster asks, "Is the ACLU fighting against grieving families right to privacy?"

Which I have tried to ask repeatedly, where is the Constitutional ground for such a fight?

Sandman: Please point to the part in the Constitution that covers this.

Lukster: Covers what? Please be specific.

Sandman: The right to privacy as you've described it.

Lukster: Are you saying there is no right to privacy?

Sandman: Clearly, the 4th Amendment prohibits unreasonable search and seizure and establishes the right to privacy from government intrusion or invasion.

Lukster: If you will tell me how phone records stored away from your home are protected by the 4th amendment I'll tell you how inviduals have a right to privacy even when they are in public.

I asked a very specific question. It has yet to be answered. This leads into the next obvious question. Under what Constitutional grounds would the ACLU be involved with the grieving families and their right to privacy?

lukster · « **Reply #133 on:** July 27, 2006, 07:15:15 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman
You're not getting it either. Lukster asks, "Is the ACLU fighting against grieving families right to privacy?"

Which I have tried to ask repeatedly, where is the Constitutional ground for such a fight?

Sandman: Please point to the part in the Constitution that covers this.

Lukster: Covers what? Please be specific.

Sandman: The right to privacy as you've described it.

Lukster: Are you saying there is no right to privacy?

Sandman: Clearly, the 4th Amendment prohibits unreasonable search and seizure and establishes the right to privacy from government intrusion or invasion.

Lukster: If you will tell me how phone records stored away from your home are protected by the 4th amendment I'll tell you how inviduals have a right to privacy even when they are in public.

I asked a very specific question. It has yet to be answered. This leads into the next obvious question. Under what Constitutional grounds would the ACLU be involved with the grieving families and their right to privacy?

I've asked you several specific questions which you have yet to answer. Just playing your game.

Sandman · « **Reply #134 on:** July 27, 2006, 07:28:43 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lukster
Well, what do you think? Do people have a right to privacy? By that I mean do people have the right to conduct a funeral, even on public lands, without someone getting in their face and yelling they are glad their loved one is dead?

No, I don't believe they have that legal right.

Now, it's your turn to answer the question.