  Davelsi Member Username: Davelsi Post Number: 2 Registered: 09-2007 |
Metro Detroit's ACLU will hold a conference and mobilization to protect the Bill of Rights and strengthen civil liberties Saturday, Jan. 26, at 12 noon at the Arab American National Museum, 13624 Michigan Ave., Dearborn (near Schaefer). Your $15 ticket gets you lunch, the complete program and workshops, and a reception with food, drinks, and music by the hip hop group The Dubphonics. You can register at www.aclumich.org. Student scholarships available. Speakers will include Rep. John Conyers, State Senator Gilda Jacobs, and civil liberties lawyer Bill Goodman. | ||
Lefty2 Member Username: Lefty2 Post Number: 967 Registered: 07-2007 |
What part of the Bill of Rights is in question here? | ||
Oldredfordette Member Username: Oldredfordette Post Number: 3708 Registered: 02-2004 |
Sounds like a great day. | ||
Ferntruth Member Username: Ferntruth Post Number: 304 Registered: 11-2006 |
"What part of the Bill of Rights is in question here?" Should it matter? Are certain parts of the Bill of Rights more worth protecting than others? | ||
Diehard Member Username: Diehard Post Number: 246 Registered: 03-2005 |
Heard about this on WDET, sounds interesting. I've been considering joining the ACLU since they became the favorite whipping-boy of the loony religious right anyway. | ||
Lefty2 Member Username: Lefty2 Post Number: 980 Registered: 07-2007 |
Should it matter? Yes it should. I think the 7th is far more important than the third for example, you may think differently. Why would I want to spend $15 and half a day to go protest something I have no idea what they are protesting about. Here is a list of the first ten amendment to the Constitution, BoR, you can decide for yourself. 1st - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." 2nd - “ A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. ” 3rd “ No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. ” 4th - “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable (searches and seizures), shall not be violated,.... 5th - “ No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury,.... "self incrimination" 6th - “ In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, "due process" 7th - “ In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of ("trial by jury") shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, ... 8th - “ Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. ” 9th - “ The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. ” (Rights of the people that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. ) 10th - “ The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people. ” | ||
Oldredfordette Member Username: Oldredfordette Post Number: 3711 Registered: 02-2004 |
Who said anything about protesting? It's an educational day. It's to PROTECT your civil liberties. | ||
Lefty2 Member Username: Lefty2 Post Number: 989 Registered: 07-2007 |
"hold a conference and mobilization to protect the Bill of Rights." I stand corrected. Because they are having a conference in essence they are protesting the US stance against, I assume, mistreatment of arab americans during the 911 war, correct? I am just curious as to what exactly they are trying to protect. Is it some BIG secret. | ||
Irish_mafia Member Username: Irish_mafia Post Number: 1192 Registered: 10-2003 |
They aren't trying to do anything but bring in a few of the wack jobs that support Conyers or the remaining shambles of a once proud organization called the ACLU. I still recall my Democrat, left leaning father watching as the ACLU shifted from its original mission to focus on pet projects like shutting down manger scenes at Christmas that had always been around in the public domain. He wrote a a letter to the head of the national ACLU along the lines of: "Your local representative has lost his mind. Instead of focusing on the protection of liberties for the underserved, he has rallied his efforts against mangers in the public domain and metal detectors in the Detroit Public Schools. End Result: Two dead kids and no check from me!" That was his last year as a card carrrying ACLU member. I believe it was in the early 80's. I think it was after that, that George HW Bush gave his up. One might find more insight on the Bill of Rights from Lefty;'s brief input. Let's all send him $15 so he can have a Coney Dog at Mack and Moross! | ||
Oldredfordette Member Username: Oldredfordette Post Number: 3714 Registered: 02-2004 |
from a libertarian website: http://www.lewrockwell.com/gre gory/gregory10.html | ||
Lefty2 Member Username: Lefty2 Post Number: 1001 Registered: 07-2007 |
From another website: http://www.jacksonprogressive. com/issues/civilliberties/bush didntstartwar122105.html | ||
Ferntruth Member Username: Ferntruth Post Number: 310 Registered: 11-2006 |
"I think the 7th is far more important than the third for example, you may think differently" Yes, I do think they are ALL important. I don't want the government anywhere near ANY of my rights. | ||
Sstashmoo Member Username: Sstashmoo Post Number: 979 Registered: 02-2007 |
Arguing about rights? Should be outraged about the suspension of habeus corpus. Without that, we really have no rights. | ||
Mcp001 Member Username: Mcp001 Post Number: 3216 Registered: 11-2003 |
You ought to be more concerned about the Second Amendment. The ACLU has never taken a favorable stand in support of it. | ||
Alan55 Member Username: Alan55 Post Number: 1162 Registered: 09-2005 |
Actually, MCP, no we shouldn't since the NRA and their minions have dumped uncounted hundreds of millions on the 2nd amendment issue in the last 40 years. I would suspect that the NRA and their surrogates have spent more in three years on it than the whole budget for ACLU the past 40 years. That issue is sealed, uh, lock, stock, and barrel. | ||
Lefty2 Member Username: Lefty2 Post Number: 1003 Registered: 07-2007 |
In times of war habeas corpus can get suspended. As Lincoln did during the civil war. Without Gun rights, civilians are subject to anything imaginable. it is the glue that holds this country together. That is why left wing extremists want to get (rid) of it. Like Hitler did (and confiscated guns before he rounded people up) during his reign. (Message edited by lefty2 on January 27, 2008) | ||
East_detroit Member Username: East_detroit Post Number: 1433 Registered: 11-2003 |
The 1st is the most important. Without that, you could kiss this forum goodbye and all the rest of your rights, because we wouldn't even be able to discuss them (or the infringements thereof). | ||
Alan55 Member Username: Alan55 Post Number: 1163 Registered: 09-2005 |
Guns are "the glue that holds this country together"? Is this a quote from "Mein Kampf"? "Without Gun rights, civilians are subject to anything imaginable." - Like getting shot in drive-by shootings, or having your neighbor shoot his wife when she really, really pisses him off? Or having a troubled teenager take his father's (legal) guns and shoot up his high school? Or perhaps having a wacko (who got his guns legally) shoot up a whole campus full of people? Or having some poor $8.50 an hour clerk get shot in a party store hold up? Or having a Downriver waitress have her pissed-off ex-boyfriend come to her restaurant and gun her down, along with her co-worker? Sadly, with the current "Guns for Everybody and Anybody" policy in place, these things are vividly imaginable in the U.S. today. | ||
Mcp001 Member Username: Mcp001 Post Number: 3217 Registered: 11-2003 |
Look at the individual and not the instrument. Substitute: "knives", "bombs", "molotov cocktails" for "gun", and the outcome would still be no different. At least a firearm can put a quick end to those who want to cause harm (somewhere around 1,000,000/year). | ||
Omaha Member Username: Omaha Post Number: 82 Registered: 12-2007 |
The Bill of Rights was passed to appease those, who without it, may not have voted to ratify the Constitution. This is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. But the people who counted back then were primarily white, property-owning males. Women, Native Americans, and the many without property or without enough property couldn’t vote. Their interests were clearly not incorporated into our founding documents. But not all of those who could vote were of a like mind. Some worried about the abuse of power that may be associated with a powerful central government. This was, after all, a large change from the Articles of Confederation adopted by the Second Continental Congress. The Congress was by the way composed of unelected folks who just happened to be white, male, property-owners. The Bill of Rights insured that "Big Brother" wasn’t going to visit the kinds of injustices upon the populace that England had visited on the Colonies. It protected people’s civil liberties. That being said, our federal government under different circumstances had played fast and loose with some of these amendments. Some more than others. The First Amendment was first seriously screwed around with when seven years after the Bill of Rights was properly added to our Constitution, the Sedition Act was passed making it illegal to write anything “false, scandalous, and malicious” about the government in Washington. The definition of the words, false, scandalous, and malicious are as loose or tight as the government wants to make them Another example was the Espionage Act passed shortly after the U.S. entry into WWI. Part of it had to do with spying. Another part seriously impinged, in my opinion, on the First Amendment. Seems that citizens weren't voluntarily enlisting, and a draft was needed. Speaking out against the U.S. entry into the war was deemed to hurt enlistment and was punishable by imprisonment. Under both circumstances, folks went to prison for doing what happens all the time today. Not only would liberals be in prison today, but so would much of AM talk radio. Under both laws, we’d have both Republican and Democratic candidates for President in prison. So let’s not fight over who is the greater threat to our Civil Liberties. Let’s learn more about them so that we can protect them. | ||
Mcp001 Member Username: Mcp001 Post Number: 3218 Registered: 11-2003 |
Well said. | ||
Sstashmoo Member Username: Sstashmoo Post Number: 980 Registered: 02-2007 |
A stick with a sharp point can be used as a weapon, going to outlaw anything with a sharp point? Some people are too immature and irresponsible to own a firearm, thankfully most of them know who they are. And the few that don't wind up in jail, and they'd be there gun or no gun. There was a retired army officer a few years back that set up an unofficial ROTC camp for young kids, part of the training was firearm usage etc. He was being interviewed on the radio by some young female bleeding heart liberal who asked: "Do you really think it's wise to equip these kids as killers?" He replied "Are you a prostitute?" She exclaimed "No!" He said "Well you do have the equipment for it" | ||
Lefty2 Member Username: Lefty2 Post Number: 1005 Registered: 07-2007 |
Omaha, so did you learn anything new or enlightening at the conference you care to share here with us? The whole process of creating this country's government was a matter of compromise, debate, change and rewrites. That's why there are provisions to change it when times call for it. I do agree that States are financially blackmailed into giving up states rights to the Feds. Most people don't realize that times were different then. At least we don't have a government who forces women to wear Burka's and or religious leaders who have mothers or kids strap bombs on themselves to blow innocent people up in public. ..If there weren't guns, criminals would still use some weapon to commit their crimes. I can kill someone with a pencil, should we outlaw them? | ||
Dsmith Member Username: Dsmith Post Number: 158 Registered: 07-2005 |
Well, after the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which basically eliminated habeas corpus, all we're really left with is the 3rd. So sad. | ||
Omaha Member Username: Omaha Post Number: 83 Registered: 12-2007 |
Lefty2, thanks for sharing your insights. But, why the anger? Calm down, no need to attack. I am about to agree with you. I hope that my comments about the First Amendment and free speech didn't run counter to your reading of history. And I don't remember even mentioning the Second Amendment in my post. But you're right (in more ways than one) there were no burkas here. Ours however wasn't a nation with full rights for women. When in the early years of this country, the greatest nation on God’s green earth, women got married they too had no rights. Their husbands were, by law, their masters. A man could legally control his wife with physical punishment, short of killing her or giving her permanent injury. Her property and possessions became his. Any money she earned likewise became his. And all this was consistent with the, then current, interpretations of the Bible. When, in 1840, women delegates from the U.S. joined women delegates from England in attending an anti-slavery conference in England, they were at first refused entrance because it wasn’t proper for women to attend such gatherings. They were eventually seated but only if they SAT BEHIND A CURTAIN THAT SEPARATED THEM FROM THE MEN IN ATTENDANCE. The insult led to the creation of a women’s rights movement in the U.S. In 1848 the Women’s Rights Convention in Seneca Falls, N.Y. put out a ill-received document claiming that all men and women were created equal! The nerve of those uppity women, don’t they know their place? But that was, as you will no doubt point out, another time. And one, that I hope you’re not nostalgic for! What you won’t point out is that every advance that was made in women’s rights was made in response to protests of liberal women and their liberal male allies. Every advance was made against the wishes of the conservative men in power at the time. Thank goodness we only had to wait 72 years after that Women’s Rights Convention for women to get the right to vote in federal elections! Isn’t it amazing the things you can learn at conferences?. But you’re right (I’ll bet you never get tired of hearing that) there were no burkas. | ||
Lefty2 Member Username: Lefty2 Post Number: 1008 Registered: 07-2007 |
Believe me, I'm not angry at all. My original question what was to be discussed. Seems others are angry at me for asking it. When I see the ACLU leading a conference you can believe that there is an agenda they have and they want to put forth ideas to further that agenda. | ||
Omaha Member Username: Omaha Post Number: 86 Registered: 12-2007 |
Everybody wants to have their personal worldview be the one that we all use. It won't happen for any particular group. Let's get involved and let the dialog begin! | ||
Oldredfordette Member Username: Oldredfordette Post Number: 3721 Registered: 02-2004 |
It seems to me the agenda of the ACLU is protecting the constitution. Why is that disturbing to the right? I really want to know the answer to that. I attended the memorial service of Milo Radulovich today. Milo was the Air Force serviceman kicked out of the service in 1953, as memorialized in the movie "Good Night and Good Luck". Briefly, he was "fired" because his sister and his father were branded as Communists by the McCarthy criminals. He fought back and eventually won, because even in the 1950's, you shouldn't be branded by the political affiliations of your family, your friends and neighbors or yourself. The event and the funeral today was an object lesson in the Constitution, Milo was rightly hailed as an American hero for his brave stand and is something everybody that reads this should remember. If we are not vigilant about our rights - all of our rights, not just our pet ones - we don't deserve to have them. Bless the ACLU, who are standing for Lefty and me. | ||
Eastsiderules Member Username: Eastsiderules Post Number: 2 Registered: 01-2008 |
Irish_Mafia, Great post! Conyers is a bonehead! | ||
Sstashmoo Member Username: Sstashmoo Post Number: 983 Registered: 02-2007 |
ORF, the trouble with the ACLU is, they are only concerned about some rights and spend way too much time on BS that doesn't amount to anything. I sometimes wonder who they are really working for. |
