Those documents grant us nothing of the sort.
Those documents outline our Natural Rights and are restrictive to the governments, both State and Federal.

You’re completely correct, Lobo. You also clarified what I was trying to say.

Yes, the constitution and the bill of rights are laws, so we are all officially bound by them. However, they don’t place any restrictions on private individuals and organizations. That’s all I was trying to say.

If one were to do an exhaustive search, I imagine they could find examples of the ACLU’s involvement with ALL the amendments, at one time or another.

Sure, but it’s not like they’re obligated to rotate through them or anything. They can take as many or as few cases as they want. The executive branch, on the other hand, must obey every single letter of the consitution.

The problem arises when the ACLU uses the Judicial Branch to effect law by judicial fiat rather than using the Legislative Branch. That’s not representative government.

The Judicial Branch can only effect the law when there is a question over whether the law has been correctly interpreted. If the people disagree with how the judiciary interpreted the original law(s), all they have to do is amend them to be more clear. The ability of the judiciary to “legislate” is vastly overstated on this site.

And that differs from our courts, how?

That’s a good question and I’m not qualified to answer it precisely. I’ll take my best stab at it though.

I think the primary difference is that the judiciary is interpreting the laws to settle a matter between two or more other parties. The executive branch is frequently interpreting on its own behalf. Obviously there’s a conflict of interest there, so the executive branch should be limited to well-established interpretations. If no such interpretation exists on a given matter, they should seek clarification before proceeding based on the questionable interpretation.

Those documents grant us nothing of the sort.
Those documents outline our Natural Rights and are restrictive to the governments, both State and Federal.

Also, the ACLU is not a legal organization of lawyers. I think you will find that
very few of it’s members are lawyers. And in fact, many of the lawyers used by
the ACLU are volunteers and are not employeed by the ACLU.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is a major American non-profit organization with headquarters in New York City, whose stated mission is “to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States”. It works through litigation, legislation, and community education.[1] The ACLU reported over 500,000 members at the end of 2005.

Lawsuits brought by the ACLU have been influential in the evolution of U.S. constitutional law. The ACLU provides legal assistance in cases in which it considers civil liberties to be at risk.

The ACLU periodically receives court awarded legal fees.

Due to the nature of its legal work, the ACLU is often involved in litigation against governmental bodies,

The ACLU has its national headquarters located in New York City. The organization does most of its work through locally based affiliates, organized into fifty chapters. The chapters generally correspond to state lines, but California has three affiliates, Pennsylvania has two, and The Dakotas share one. These affiliates maintain a certain amount of autonomy from the national organization, and are able to work independently from each other. Many of the ACLU’s cases originate from the local level and are handled by lawyers from the local affiliates.

Affiliates (the state organizations) are the basic unit of the ACLU’s organization. In a twenty-month period beginning January 2004, the ACLU’s New Jersey chapter, to take one example, was involved in fifty-one cases according to their annual report — thirty-five cases in state courts, and sixteen in federal court. They provided legal representation in thirty-three of those cases, and served as amicus in the remaining eighteen. They listed forty-four volunteer attorneys who assisted them in those cases.

I think it is clear that the ACLU is a “legal organization”.

You as a “member”, may not be a lawyer, but it is made up of lawyers, none the less.

Also, the ACLU is not a legal organization of lawyers. I think you will find that
very few of it’s members are lawyers. And in fact, many of the lawyers used by
the ACLU are volunteers and are not employeed by the ACLU.

The ACLU is a legal organization of lawyers that are bound by the Bill of Rights, the Constitution as well as State and Federal laws.

Majority power is limited by the Constitution’s Bill of Rights, which consists of the original ten amendments ratified in 1791, plus the three post-Civil War amendments (the 13th, 14th and 15th) and the 19th Amendment (women’s suffrage), adopted in 1920.

The mission of the ACLU is to preserve all of these protections and guarantees:

If one were to do an exhaustive search, I imagine they could find examples of the ACLU’s involvement with ALL the amendments, at one time or another.

2. It is well understood that both the judicial and legislative branches affect the law in this country, so there’s nothing wrong with the ACLU using either or both.

The problem with that thinking is that the Legislative Branch write the laws and the Judicial branch adjudicates the law.

The problem arises when the ACLU uses the Judicial Branch to effect law by judicial fiat rather than using the Legislative Branch. That’s not representative government.

The executive branch has some leeway to interpret questionable matters of law and the clear, undisputed right to reject bad laws.

And that differs from our courts, how?

The ACLU, an organization that claims to support the “Bill of Rights”, an organization that “cherry picks” which Amendments it will champion and which it will ignore, hypocritically condemns the Bush Administration for allegedly doing the same thing.

The ACLU would never think of using the Judicial Branch, rather than the Legislative Branch, to effect changes in the Constitution and various States Laws. Sheesh!

Your claim of hypocrisy is wrong for two reasons.
1. The ACLU is not bound by the bill of rights, but the government is. The government must obey bill of rights, but the ACLU is under no obligation to undertake the defense of all of them. There are plenty of organizations amongst whom they can be divvied up.
2. It is well understood that both the judicial and legislative branches affect the law in this country, so there’s nothing wrong with the ACLU using either or both. The job of the executive branch is simply to execute the law to the best of its ability.

President Bush is not the first President to use “signing statements”. Indeed, Presidents Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton all used them.

I haven’t found anything indicating the ACLU opposed the use of signing statements by those Presidents.

Signing statements are a good thing. There are so many laws in this country that it’s not unusual for a legal matter to be murky, so it’s good to know how the President interprets the laws. Those interpretations give you a good indication of how he will execute those laws.

President Bush has definitely increased the use of these statements but in light of the fact that he hasn’t vetoed any of the Bills he is attaching the statements to, he apparently agrees with the Bills but will not allow them to interfere with the GWOT.

That’s exactly the problem. Some of his interpretations contradict legislation so directly that it’s hard to see them as anything other than defiance.

Most of the disputed statements involve legislation that he believes limits his constitutional war powers. If he believes that so strongly, he should veto the legislation. The executive branch has some leeway to interpret questionable matters of law and the clear, undisputed right to reject bad laws.

No matter how low his ratings might get, congress is bitterly divided. His vetoes would stand, yet this president has consistently chosen the questionable route. It’s really hard to imagine a virtuous reason for doing so.