The ACLU v. National Security
Posted on September 4, 2006
David Yerushalmi has an excellent post about the ACLU vs. NSA lawsuit up at the Intellectual Conservative.
The fundamental defect of the case of ACLU v. NSA is that it is wholly contrived. Faked from beginning to end. The claim of standing is for conduct that simply does not exist.
Many Americans are clear-headed enough to understand that while we are under assault by Muslims around the world, all of whom are fighting in the name of an Islamic world state, we are no less under assault by the liberal Elite who seek to undermine national existence as they agitate for a world state no less “universal.” This convergence of world state ideologies, however, presents America and the West with a two-front war not yet fully acknowledged. Even the conservative pundits who recognize the liberal “assault on our values” don’t seem to grasp that what is at risk is our national existence. This is brought home when these same conservatives embrace “human rights” and “democracy” as a kind of universal natural right that is said to trigger a law of nature that should mystically defang and even pacify war-mongering Muslims and other tyrannical ideologues the world over. Failure to understand that the attempt to universalize the American experience or to transform the U.S. constitution into a humanist document which recognizes no national interest because its only purpose is to continue to expand “civil” or “human” rights will result in a nation incapable of defending itself. In this battle over our constitution and homeland, there is no greater foe than the American Civil Liberties Union.A concrete example of this convergence and, specifically, the assault by the Elites is the manufactured case of The ACLU et al. v. The National Security Agency et al., filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division. This case has gained immediate notoriety because the court rushed to judgment eleven days ago and gave the ACLU everything it wanted on a silver platter (save for one hors d’oeuvre). At present, there is no better case exemplifying the Elite’s war on our nation, our national security and the U.S. Constitution.
Much ink has already been spilt over the court’s opinion, a legal abomination, in the context of the substantive issues raised and disposed of, so we will not belabor the points already well covered by the print media and even better covered by the web logs manned by high-brow law professors and lawyers typically claiming some fame by listing a government-related employment in their resumes. What we will do is focus on one issue, judicial standing, and its relation to the assault on national existence. We will try to avoid a legalistic discussion because our intent here is to place this case in the context of the modus operandi used by the ACLU to re-write constitutional law without recourse to the difficult political process of drafting and ratifying a constitutional amendment. This political amendment process, difficult and cumbersome as it may be, is of course what the Founding Fathers had in mind for innovators and their innovations to the constitutional fabric woven so intricately in the original document we hold to be, almost sacredly, the Law of the Land.
For those of you who may not know, the ACLU has a long and successful history of setting up artificial if not wholly contrived “cases and controversies” to make destructive federal case law. Indeed, their specialty is to effect constitutional amendments through the fiat of federal appellate case law, thereby avoiding the difficult amendment process where you need the country’s overwhelming approval and not just a handful of appointed lawyers who sit in judgment without any checks or balances.
As everyone should know, one of the most important checks on the abuse of judicial power is the restriction of a court’s jurisdiction to actual “cases and controversies.” At the federal level this is enshrined in Article III of the Constitution. This very important constitutional limitation is an effective brake on the reach of the courts’ power because it turns courts into passive actors, not active participants, in setting government policy and law. When, however, the courts engage in a charade with the participants — usually plaintiffs like the ACLU — the brake is released and the steamrolling begins.
Make sure to read the entire thing. It is a bit long, but well worth the read.
What the article concludes to is how ridiculous the reasoning is that this case even exist. All of the accusations are based in the hypothetical. There is no evidence that anyone’s rights have been violated by the NSA, only that they hypothetically could be.
One more sample jewel from the piece.
There is no actual conduct alleged, rather its possibility because of the existence of a program that might conduct surveillance of people linked to terrorism. This hypothetical conduct then leads people to curtail their communications due to the “chilling effect” – an effect for which the ACLU can thank the New York Times….
» Filed Under ACLU, News, War On Terror
Trackback URL
Comments
9 Responses to “The ACLU v. National Security”
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Advertise
Donate
Steal Me
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
More blogs about the ACLU
While I agree with David Yerushalmi that the NSA program is a constitutional conflict between the President’s authority as Commander and Chief and the Legislature’s authority as expressed in the FISA law, I disagree that this does not belong in the courts. As stated in Federalist #51, “the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others.” If it is not for the courts to decide, then how do you propose resolving such a constitutional dispute?
Grand Alliance of Jews, Christians, Hindus and Sikhs
It is time to form a Grand Alliance of Jews, Christians, Hindus and Sikhs to fight and resist the clear and unacceptable Islamic threat to our cultures and our democratic ways. If our governments and leaders won’t properly recognize the threat and defend us, then we owe it to our families to rise to our own defense. Spread the word throughout the internet, and let this idea take root and grow.
Let us ally ourselves, and give those who threaten our safety the jihad they so desire - culturally, politically, and physically - before it is too late.
“Lead, don’t appease.” Please stop the West from committing suicide.
- Rosemont
It is only an issue because groups like the ACLU and NYT making it into one and using it as a political divider. The reality is that no one can show that any of their rights have personally been violated, so therefore it does not belong in the Courts. If an individual were able to prove that their privacy had been violated without reasonable cause (like talking to a suspected terrorist overseas) then it would belong in the Courts.
Jay, this is the same catch-22 that David admitted to in his post. If the government is secretly breaking the law, and claims executive privilege when taken to court, then how do you expect to curb such behavior?
camanintx,
Congress holds the purse strings and can deprive the executive branch of money. They can also censor or impeach the President. He is immune to being voted out as he has served the maximum number of terms, but that is another way to control elected officials.
Jay,
Once again you see the same liberal gadflies do an about face on the whole “how are you personally affected” tactic, and try to defend their view point from a different angle.
One word comes to mind: hypocrite.
They demand proof as to how you are personally affected by ACLU attacks on the public expression of religion, yet expect us to pass on the obligation to show personal oppression with respect with NSA’s wiretapping of communiques between al Quaeda terrorists and persons within the U.S.
Commenters like Camanintx were all about demanding specifics when it came to the ACLU and liberal attempts to squelch 1st Amendment protected religious expression, yet now don’t want to reciprocate in their outrage at the Patriot Act.
The ever twisting spinning from the left is proof that they don’t really have a case that they can make, just a desired direction for the country.
Keep on posting. You are doing an excellent job of exposing the weakness of the left’s arguments.
While it doesn’t look too good right now for the Republican Party (which it deserves), I shudder at the thought of life under a Democratic congress, with it’s “cut and run” appeasment policies.
The left’s love affair with the Euro-left’s appeasment policy just might very well be the undoing of the U.S.
“They demand proof as to how you are personally effected by ACLU attacks on the public expression of religion, yet expect us to pass on the obligation to show personal oppression with respect with NSA’s wiretapping of communiques between al Quaeda terrorists and persons within the U.S.”
What are you yammering about now, Clay?
No one has challenged anyone in this thread to “show personal oppresion with respect with NSA’s wiretapping”. Maybe that’s because no one commenting in this thread is a plaintiff in the case. You’re whining that no one has answered a challenge that hasn’t been made.
“The left’s love affair with the Euro-left’s appeasment policy just might very well be the undoing of the U.S.”
Specifics, please. Who specifically and by name are you accusing of wanting to adopt “the Euro-left’s appeasment policy”?
This is in response to an earlier post by “meatbrain.” First, the fact that the program in question would not have been discussed by President Bush or anyone else in the government but for the leaks to the media and then the subsequent publication of those leaks is fact and conceded by all. The discussion of the program by the administration was a direct result of the fact that the Times told them they would run the story and then in fact ran the story.
Second, the earlier discussion of surveillance was a general discussion. This “meatbrain” does not seem to read with any care. The “chilling effect” of this case was the claim by the ACLU that it was the public disclosure of this PARTICULAR surveillance program that chilled communications between the plaintiffs and suspected terrorists. You might benefit by reading my essay again and then reading the judge’s decision.
Finally, the term “whisked” does not relate to the number of pages but the superficiality of the analysis. I might suspect a youngster who would have read that word in context might have taken it literally in its simplest meaning but most adult readers will have understood the connotation here. Had you studied and analyzed the 9 pages you refer to you would see how poor the analysis was assuming you have spent some time studying legal opinions.
That the judge cites pages of case law because she must distinguish this case from others that would have required a different result and in doing so her analysis is just plain thin or poor amounts to “whisking.”
The proof of course will be in the pudding. We will see what happens on appeal when the case is briefed far more extensively and the courts are more inclined to look at the law as opposed to what they want the law to be. That of course is not a given but the odds are at least better.
Meatbrain,
I’m not yamering, nor am I whining about anything. And I am certainly not about whining because no one answered a challenge that has never been made in this thread. I don’t recall issuing a challenge to anyone in this thread. This mysterious challenge is your misguided fantasy.
I merely pointed out the hypocrisy of those making the ridiculous argument of “prove to me how you are personally effected by ACLU attacks on public religious displays” or else be quiet, and yet they themselves all of sudden don’t think you need to be personally effected by NSA wiretaps of phone conversations between alQaeda terrorist both here and abroad in order to argue against the wiretaps.
In the case of the NSA wiretaps, the only ones being personally effected are those who are collaborating with terrorists, no one in this thread, would be my safe bet. Arguing against the wiretaps is to ensure that the enemy can continue in covert ways to plan for our destruction.
In the case of liberal attacks against public religious expression, it is in no way necessary for some one to have to show personal damage in order to be against those attacks. I can be against slavery without having been a slave myself.
As for your “specifcs and names please” claptrap, I have better things to do with my time than research every single liberal by name who has been fighting against our country’s attempts to wage war and defeat the Islamo-Facist terrorists whose main mission is to either kill us or convert us into submission. Your a big boy. Leftist peace nics and anti-war protestors and pundits have had plenty of media exposure.
If you want to know who, it would be; anyone for cutting and running in Iraq, anyone for not allowing us to monitor terrorist communications into and out of our country (If we had been doing that earlier, 9/11 could have been prevented), anyone who thinks this can all be solved if we just abandon the Middle East and ignore Israel then the terrorists will leave us alone, anyone who thinks we can reason and negotiate with our enemy and they will back down.
That’s who is another threat to the U.S. An inside threat.
Make no mistake, the terrorists aren’t just after Israel. They have their eyes on conquering Europe. They also have their hate aimed at Westen Civilization’s biggest nation, the U.S.
Anyone who heard their message to us a couple of days ago to “convert or else” should have been paying attention.