Comments on: The ACLU of Hawaii obviously doesn’t have much to do http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2007/02/02/the-aclu-of-hawaii-obviously-doesnt-have-much-to-do/ Beating Them With Their Own Sickle And Hammer Mon, 23 Nov 2009 01:59:35 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.2 hourly 1 By: Gman http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2007/02/02/the-aclu-of-hawaii-obviously-doesnt-have-much-to-do/comment-page-1/#comment-61482 Gman Sat, 03 Feb 2007 15:22:12 +0000 http://stoptheaclu.dreamhosters.com/archives/2007/02/02/the-aclu-of-hawaii-obviously-doesnt-have-much-to-do/#comment-61482 Wulf, why don't you read the link I posted. You are wrong. That's pretty much what the Hawaii court said a few months ago: http://www.aclu.org/images/asset_upload_file134_24061.pdf And Wulf, the right to travel is a fundamental right, Crandall v. Nevada, 73 U.S. (6 Wall.) 35 (1868), one that deserves protection. 139 years the right to travel has been protected and you don't think the ACLU should be involved when it's infringed upon? Wulf, why don’t you read the link I posted. You are wrong. That’s pretty much what the Hawaii court said a few months ago:

http://www.aclu.org/images/asset_upload_file134_24061.pdf

And Wulf, the right to travel is a fundamental right, Crandall v. Nevada, 73 U.S. (6 Wall.) 35 (1868), one that deserves protection. 139 years the right to travel has been protected and you don’t think the ACLU should be involved when it’s infringed upon?

]]> By: wulf http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2007/02/02/the-aclu-of-hawaii-obviously-doesnt-have-much-to-do/comment-page-1/#comment-61481 wulf Sat, 03 Feb 2007 06:11:33 +0000 http://stoptheaclu.dreamhosters.com/archives/2007/02/02/the-aclu-of-hawaii-obviously-doesnt-have-much-to-do/#comment-61481 I'm an ACLU supporter, but I agree with you on this one. There's no point in getting involved. If the city council (voted in by citizens) wants this as a requirement, there's no reason they shouldn't have it. For the guy above harping on the 14th amendment, non-residents is not a protected class under ther 14th amendment for government jobs. If he was excluded because he's black, or a woman, or a pagan, that would be a 14th amendment case. In all honesty, the big court hasn't even said if it's willing to protect homosexuals. We'll have to wait for that one to come up (and all its implications for homosexual marriages). If this policy is really excluding that many "qualified" canidates, and the chief they end up with is an idiot, then the city council will probably change it. What I don't like is the author of this blog equating this branch of ACLU HI with the ACLU in general. Where I live (phoenix) there are four separate branches <b>just in the county</b>: there's ACLU national, ACLU AZ, ACLU ASU, and ACLU ASU Law. Now obviously this branch has WAY too muh time on their hands. But the ones deserving of criticism are the judges who didn't set clear enough standards on when a residency requirement is constitutional and when it isn't. What's next, a US Senator from HI who lives in Bumsville, ID? I’m an ACLU supporter, but I agree with you on this one. There’s no point in getting involved. If the city council (voted in by citizens) wants this as a requirement, there’s no reason they shouldn’t have it. For the guy above harping on the 14th amendment, non-residents is not a protected class under ther 14th amendment for government jobs. If he was excluded because he’s black, or a woman, or a pagan, that would be a 14th amendment case. In all honesty, the big court hasn’t even said if it’s willing to protect homosexuals. We’ll have to wait for that one to come up (and all its implications for homosexual marriages). If this policy is really excluding that many “qualified” canidates, and the chief they end up with is an idiot, then the city council will probably change it.

What I don’t like is the author of this blog equating this branch of ACLU HI with the ACLU in general. Where I live (phoenix) there are four separate branches just in the county: there’s ACLU national, ACLU AZ, ACLU ASU, and ACLU ASU Law. Now obviously this branch has WAY too muh time on their hands. But the ones deserving of criticism are the judges who didn’t set clear enough standards on when a residency requirement is constitutional and when it isn’t. What’s next, a US Senator from HI who lives in Bumsville, ID?

]]> By: pitbull http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2007/02/02/the-aclu-of-hawaii-obviously-doesnt-have-much-to-do/comment-page-1/#comment-61480 pitbull Sat, 03 Feb 2007 04:02:59 +0000 http://stoptheaclu.dreamhosters.com/archives/2007/02/02/the-aclu-of-hawaii-obviously-doesnt-have-much-to-do/#comment-61480 The aclu should be brought up on charges under the rico statue The aclu should be brought up on charges under the rico statue

]]> By: Jeff Molby http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2007/02/02/the-aclu-of-hawaii-obviously-doesnt-have-much-to-do/comment-page-1/#comment-61479 Jeff Molby Fri, 02 Feb 2007 22:42:53 +0000 http://stoptheaclu.dreamhosters.com/archives/2007/02/02/the-aclu-of-hawaii-obviously-doesnt-have-much-to-do/#comment-61479 <blockquote>Why would the ACLU even get involved in this?</blockquote> Because they already won this argument once. The County Attorney's office may be correct that the June 22 ruling doesn't apply to department heads but that's far from a given. <blockquote>And what kind of idiot argument is it that a local police department is constitutionally prohibited from requiring its candidates for police chief to be local residents…for ONE STINKIN’ YEAR?!?!</blockquote> 1. Because it effectively prohibits outside candidates. There aren't many people that could/would move all the way out there and live underemployed for a year just to be <em>considered</em> <b>if</b> an opening comes up. 2. And because there's no compelling reason for it to be a <em>requirement</em>. I don't know if you've ever tried to hire someone, but employment law in most (all?) states is very complicated. The short form, though, is that you can't list something as a requirement unless it truly is a requirement. My guess is that most experienced police chiefs could step into that position and do a capable job. I'm sure prior residency has value, but so does attractiveness and you can't make that a requirement either. <blockquote>I guess in-state tuition is unconstitutional</blockquote> You could make a case for that, but you probably wouldn't win. In-state tuition is nothing more than a taxpayer subsidy. It's quite understandable why you'd want to limit that to families that have been paying into the system. <blockquote>Yet another example of the ACLU’s baseless meddling</blockquote> I would say the June 22 ruling provides a fair basis for this "meddling."

Why would the ACLU even get involved in this?

Because they already won this argument once. The County Attorney’s office may be correct that the June 22 ruling doesn’t apply to department heads but that’s far from a given.

And what kind of idiot argument is it that a local police department is constitutionally prohibited from requiring its candidates for police chief to be local residents…for ONE STINKIN’ YEAR?!?!

1. Because it effectively prohibits outside candidates. There aren’t many people that could/would move all the way out there and live underemployed for a year just to be considered if an opening comes up.
2. And because there’s no compelling reason for it to be a requirement.

I don’t know if you’ve ever tried to hire someone, but employment law in most (all?) states is very complicated. The short form, though, is that you can’t list something as a requirement unless it truly is a requirement. My guess is that most experienced police chiefs could step into that position and do a capable job. I’m sure prior residency has value, but so does attractiveness and you can’t make that a requirement either.

I guess in-state tuition is unconstitutional

You could make a case for that, but you probably wouldn’t win. In-state tuition is nothing more than a taxpayer subsidy. It’s quite understandable why you’d want to limit that to families that have been paying into the system.

Yet another example of the ACLU’s baseless meddling

I would say the June 22 ruling provides a fair basis for this “meddling.”

]]> By: Gman http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2007/02/02/the-aclu-of-hawaii-obviously-doesnt-have-much-to-do/comment-page-1/#comment-61478 Gman Fri, 02 Feb 2007 22:10:26 +0000 http://stoptheaclu.dreamhosters.com/archives/2007/02/02/the-aclu-of-hawaii-obviously-doesnt-have-much-to-do/#comment-61478 Darn that constitution, with its privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment which forbids residency requirements for employment in jobs like this. Darn that Fourteenth Amendment, and darn the liberal Supreme Court which has interpreted that amendment to give us the right to travel from state to state for OVER A CENTURY! Here's an idea. If you don't like it, Glib, amend the constitution. Don't you get all up in arms when the ACLU selectively defends amendments to the constitution? Here they're all over the 14th amendment and you want them to stop defending it? Why? Because they've given short shrift to the 2nd? Or is it because you don't understand what's going on in the 14th amendment? Here's more information on why (and when) residency requirements are unconstitutional: http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/constitution/amendment14/33.html#t10 Darn that constitution, with its privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment which forbids residency requirements for employment in jobs like this. Darn that Fourteenth Amendment, and darn the liberal Supreme Court which has interpreted that amendment to give us the right to travel from state to state for OVER A CENTURY!

Here’s an idea. If you don’t like it, Glib, amend the constitution.

Don’t you get all up in arms when the ACLU selectively defends amendments to the constitution? Here they’re all over the 14th amendment and you want them to stop defending it? Why? Because they’ve given short shrift to the 2nd? Or is it because you don’t understand what’s going on in the 14th amendment?

Here’s more information on why (and when) residency requirements are unconstitutional:

http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/constitution/amendment14/33.html#t10

]]>