The ACLU – And The Spoiled Children That They Are

Posted on September 20, 2005

This past weekend, we who watch news relentlessly were treated to the knowledge that the man who tried to extort money from Cameron Diaz over some topless photos that he had acquired of her was found guilty of forgery and extortion. This made national news while the MSM leaves out the daily attempts and more than often successes of the ACLU to do the same to local governments, school boards, state governments, and the federal government.

Case in point.

We have received word the ACLU is threatening more lawsuits against Seneca, Anderson and Oconee counties if they do no cease to mention a specific deity in their opening prayers.
The Honorable Henry McMaster
P.O. Box 11549
Columbia, S.C. 29211

Dear Mr. McMaster,

Last July, the American Civil Liberties Union of South Carolina asked for your help in ensuring that that municipalities throughout South Carolina comply with the recent United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruling in Darla Kaye Wynne vs. Great Falls, cert denied US Supreme Court.

We suggested guidelines issued by your office for the municipalities to follow. Unfortunately, you declined to do so.

We have now discovered that municipalities in Seneca, Anderson, and Oconee are not currently following the law in their invocations.

Attached are letters that we sent to these respective localities about their invocations.

We, once again, respectfully ask that your office help municipalities understand the recent court ruling so that there is no confusion about the law concerning invocations given at local council meetings.

Obviously, there is a problem that needs to be dealt with by your office. Please let us know your plans.

Sincerely,

Mike Cubelo

President

Piedmont Chapter of ACLU-SC

The ACLU reminds me of the child who doesn’t get what he wishes out of an older brother and screams, “I’m going to tell mom!” And that is exactly what they are. A bunch of immature children who never wish to grow up. When they don’t have things the way that they want them, they run to the federal court system crying foul.

But prior to doing this, they send nasty letters implying that they will cause their targets expensive legal proceedings. Proceedings that often lead to rulings in their favor. Why? Because they shop for their court of choice. They find the Court of Appeals with greater track records for ruling in favor of liberal causes.

Here’s the point, there is an effort in Congress as we speak, that will eliminate some of the ability of judges to award attorny’s fees reimbursements for prevailing parties in 1st Amendment Establishment Clause cases. By eliminating the awarding of attorney’s fees in what otherwise would be a pro bono (for the common good) cases, you eliminate the incentive for abuses in the system.

The ACLU and other liberal groups use the law as a stepping stone to additional funding. In the case of the ACLU, often times the threat of being faced with paying them these attorney’s fees is enough to get the defending party to submit to the will of the ACLU. So many lawsuits never even get filed. That is what the ACLU-SC is attempting.

First off, the rulings that they are warning against have no basis in law. The 1st Amendment says nothing about local and state governments exercising their rights to Establish a religion.

“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.” 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution

This doesn’t say, South Carolina shall make no law. Nor does it say Ohio, California, Texas or any other state or the states as a whole. It specifically mentions Congress. This being a fact the 10th Amendment further expands upon the issue.

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. ” 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution

Now, no where in the 7 Articles or in the other 26 Amendments (counting the repealed 18th) does it specifically mention religion being prohibited to the states to establish their own form. No where. It is to the states and their Constitutions to decide this matter.

If the City of Cleveland wants to open every City Counsel meeting, every Safety Department meeting, and every news conference with a prayer, that is Cleveland’s choice. Unless prohibited by the Ohio Constitution or the City Charter.

The Supreme Court of the United States has no authority to intervene in a state matter. And there in is the problem. As a nation we have become so used to the courts deciding our lives for us, that we just assume that it is within the authority of the Supreme Court of the United States to make decisions such as these for us. Well our founding fathers thought differently.

“The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;–to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;–to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;–to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;–to Controversies between two or more States;–between a State and Citizens of another State;–between Citizens of different States,–between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.” Article III Section 2 Clause 1 of the US Constitution

No where does it mention an North Carolina Atheist (a citizen) and the state of North Carolina. That is an internal state matter. And it is time for the federal court system to leave the states alone. Stop expanding your reach.

End of Rant

Blogger’s 1st Amendment Pledge

If the FEC makes rules that limit my First Amendment right to express my opinion on core political issues, I will not obey those rules.

Gribbit is a contributing writer at Stop The ACLU and the co-founder and administrator of Stop The ACLU BlogBurst.
Since I forgot to submit to the Carnival Of The Clueless. I’ll send you that way, and submit this one by trackback.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

» Filed Under ACLU

Trackback URL

Comments

17 Responses to “The ACLU – And The Spoiled Children That They Are”

gina on September 20th, 2005 7:21 am

I hate those folks more and more each day , and yeah I hate hating anyone , but these wolves earned it …
Jay on September 20th, 2005 7:42 am

I wouldn’t advocate a State religion unless it was voted on by an overwhelming majority of its residents. I’m not sure of origninal intent, but as far as establishing a relgion, I believe the Courts have deemed this does apply to States.

However, these cases are not cases in which a state has established a religion. These are cases in which State officials wish to express their religion, and are being supressed by bullies like the ACLU. It was all voluntary. Nothing was “established.”
Gribbit on September 20th, 2005 8:25 am

Actually, the reason why the states are not included in the language of the 1st Amendment is the fact that in a sense, the original states did have established colonial religions. Mass for example was heavily Puritain (Anglican Church or Church of England if you will). Rhode Island founded by outcasted Puritains who believed in and first coined the phrase Separation of Church and state needed to be respected also. So the founders addressed this by placing a restriction on the national government at the source of laws, Congress. And left the states to do the same should they so choose. But not required to.

The rulings that you have stated my very good friend, are court decisions. Judical activists views of the “intent” of the law. And a falsehood.

I too am not interested in a “state” religion. But the facts are that the federal court system has been involving themselves into state matters.
Jay on September 20th, 2005 9:15 am

With the fact it isn’t the Federal governments business I completely agree. The Federal Judiciary should stop writing laws for the States. The Constitutions of the States are written, and should be interpreted by the State Courts unless specifically against the Federal Constitution.
Jessica on September 20th, 2005 12:19 pm

It is overwhelming comfortable to know that as long as discrimination occurs at the state level and not the federal, citizens would not find fault in the system. I often wonder how many mainstream Middle Easterns tormented Jesus as he chose to reside among prostitures and thieves. Jesus worked to save the minority and to teace peace and patience to all. Unfortunately many Christian seem to forgot the ideological foundation of the religion. Many look back to a time when Christians lived peacefully with other religions, but this is a false notion. Are they referring to the time when Catholics were discriminated against because they were not Protestant or are they speaking about the time when people where lynched in the name of Christian values. Or better yet maybe what they are truly asking for a country where people can practice other religions in the basement of their home and have no impact or save in their community. I am not an ACLU member, but am sadden by the lack of compassion and understanding Christian everywhere are failing to show.
Gribbit on September 20th, 2005 12:30 pm

How did this conversation turn into an analytical look at Christianity and its practices. This is a legal discussion as it relates to the ACLU’s prostitution of the legal system. Your comment is not only inappropriate but I feel that it is an attempt to highjack the conversation.

Listen, unless you wish to take part in the actual subject of the conversation, I would appreciate it if you find a different soap box.

The point is this, The United States is a Representative Federal Republic. Look up the terms. Our Constitution as written addresses a smaller central government. The author of this thread (ME) is attempting to get the point across that under the encouragement of the ACLU, the federal court system has over stepped its bounds and is treading on the rights of the states.

Discrimination as you put it only exists if the people of the state wish it to exist. After all, who has the power in this country? It is supposed to be the people.
fark on September 20th, 2005 6:49 pm

“First off, the rulings that they are warning against have no basis in law. The 1st Amendment says nothing about local and state governments exercising their rights to Establish a religion.”

Yes but the 14th amendment is understood as having applied the bill of rights against the states. Its called incorporation. But a few radical extremists don’t like it. They thikn its perfectly ok for North Carolina or Massachussets to declare a theocracy.
Gribbit on September 20th, 2005 7:06 pm

The ACLU claims to be defenders of the Bill of Rights, I don’t know about you Fark the troll, but I was taught that the Bill of Rights were the first 10 Amendments. The 14th Amendment states:

Section 1.

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” No application

“Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,4 and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.” No application

“No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.” No application

“The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.” No application

So where is your argument. The fact is there is no argument. The courts have over stepped their bounds and liberals like you are unwilling to admit it. Because in doing so, you would be advocating the reversal of one of your pet cows. Try again.

Section 1 is the only thing that comes close, and it doesn’t pass the test. Agains broad interpretations are allowing you and your lefty buddies to read something that isn’t actually there.
fark on September 21st, 2005 3:45 pm

” but I was taught that the Bill of Rights were the first 10 Amendments. ”

Yup. still is.

” No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;”

That’s the textual support for incorporation.
joe on September 21st, 2005 6:03 pm

I can’t believe you presume to talk about legal issues here and you don’t even know one of the most basic things about the Constitution – something they taught us in law school on the FIRST DAY! The reason states have to obey the Bill of Rights is because of the 14th Amendment’s phrase “due process clause”, which the Supreme Court decided a hundred years ago meant that those amendments applied to states too (the privileges and immunities clause is unrelated).

The fact that you didn’t know that just shows how clueless you are. I’d love to see the judge snicker as you made that claim in court.
Gribbit on September 21st, 2005 6:27 pm

OOO a personal attack.

You Joe without a website are the moron. Your citing is in error. You must be a law student. Or an attorney with liberal leanings.

Reading implied meanings in text which do not exist. Because the Supremes ruled the way that they did does not make that correct. I am a Strict Constructionist (that’s someone who read what the Constitution says not what it supposedly implies).

Comment again in a personal attack mode with no website and I delete you.
Gribbit on September 21st, 2005 6:30 pm

Joe with a site under construction by GoDaddy.com. joeknows.org? Maybe that should be joedoesntknow.org
Gribbit on September 21st, 2005 6:43 pm

For the benefit of our troll and those like him, let us examine the Amendment in question:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” 14th Amendment Section 1 of the US Constitution

His reference to the “due process” clause is in error. Any application in this manner would be the phrase “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States”. Leaving decisions as the establishment of religion, or discussions of a religious nature within the state and in the state’s institutions is not infringing upon anyone’s rights. The SCOTUS applying the restriction of the 1st Amendment on the governments of the states does violate the state’s rights under the 10th Amendment.

The left likes to use the 14th as a way to trump the 10th. That is why the ACLU and morons like Joe don’t even acknowledge the 10th.

” The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

There Joe, don’t mess with me, I’ll win every time.
fark on September 21st, 2005 6:47 pm

“Reading implied meanings in text which do not exist.”

Says who it doesn’t exist? you? or any court in this country?

He’s right. I’m wrong. It wasn’t privileges and immunities that incorporated the Bill of Rights.
Gribbit on September 21st, 2005 7:08 pm

Ok if I’m right about the application of the law, then I am also right about the existance of implied application in the text. Because no where is ther an a direct application that would allow the restriction of the free exercise of religion. Because that in itself is a violation. City Counsel members are citizens. They have elected by a majority of their body to have a prayer to open their meetings. By forcing them to stop this practice, infringes with their free exercise of religion rights.

Learn to read. Your site sucks and you can’t read. What else can we establish about you Joe from Fark. A site which I received many personal attacks from by doing nothing.

You and your people jump into pools without knowing if there is any water in them. If it were totally up to me, I’d ban you.
fark on September 21st, 2005 7:50 pm

“By forcing them to stop this practice, infringes with their free exercise of religion rights.”

this isn’t very complicated. your free exercise can’t establish religion. go and freely exercise somewhere where you’re not creating an establishment.

And I see no support for why one being elected allows one to establish religion.
joe on September 21st, 2005 8:06 pm

“If it were totally up to me I’d ban you”? Spoken like a true Communist. Admit it: you used to work for Fidel castro, right?

And since you hurl insults left and right, you bring it on yourself. What’s the matter – afraid of someone who sticks up for themself? Maybe deep down you’re worried your arguments won’t hold up under scrutiny.