ACLU Defends Rent Control and Property Seizures, Defining Them as Civil Liberties
Posted on June 4, 2008
The ACLU claims to exist to protect the civil liberties and constitutional rights of all Americans, but it’s really just an unprincipled left-wing lobbying group. Recently, the ACLU of Southern California opposed Proposition 98, a California initiative that would have reinforced state constitutional protections against seizures of private property, by preventing private property from being taken for commercial development, and ending rent control. The ACLU attacked Prop. 98 for seeking to ”eliminate rent control,” and ”restricting the government’s power.” Imagine that! Restricting the government’s power! That’s what most civil liberties guarantees do, after all: restrict government power. But the American Civil Liberties Union doesn’t have much to do with civil liberties, anymore, unless the beneficiaries are left-wing constituencies, like alleged terrorists.
While the ACLU was busy claiming that banning rent control is somehow a threat to civil liberties, it was also fabricating many new rights out of thin air: an alleged ”right” to make sexual advances in public restrooms; an alleged ”right” for swastika-wearing neo-Nazis to force restaurants like the Alpine Village Inn to serve them; an alleged ”right” for illegal alien employees to demand that their citizen co-workers not say derogatory things about them, even outside their presence; and an alleged ”right” for one Massachusetts man to perform oral sex on another man while on a public stage.
» Filed Under 1st Amendment, ACLU, News, Stupidity
Trackback URL
Comments
One Response to “ACLU Defends Rent Control and Property Seizures, Defining Them as Civil Liberties”
Leave a Reply
The ACLU has also argued against civil liberties that ARE expressly mentioned in the Constitution, like free speech and religious freedom.
In Rosenberger v. Rector of University of Virginia (1995), the Supreme Court rejected the ACLU’s argument in its amicus brief that a university could and should discriminate against a Christian-oriented student magazine because of its religious viewpoint.
In Meltebeke v. Bureau of Labor and Industries (1995), the Oregon Supreme Court rejected the ACLU’s argument in its amicus brief that a state rule that restricted religious expression in the workplace was properly applied to fine an Evangelical Christian employer.
Moreover, as law professor David Bernstein notes, the ACLU in California is a “vigorous proponent of hate speech regulations.” And the ACLU’s Massachusetts chapter has supported campus speech codes, ignoring that pesky First Amendment.
The ACLU is a big supporter of racial quotas, which typically violate the Constitution, unsuccessfully arguing in Coalition for Economic Equity v. Wilson (1997), that minorities have a federal constitutional right to racial preferences that overrides state constitutional equal-protection provisions banning all racial discrimination.
Nancy Gertner, a prominent ACLU lawyer in Massachusetts, argued that rape law should be redefined so that mere consent to sex is not enough, claiming that people should only be allowed to have sex after express, explicit permission of the sort that precedes a medical operation.