Comments on: URI GOP Group Booted Off Campus: Where’s The ACLU?

By: darthcrUSAderworldtour2007

darthcrUSAderworldtour2007 — Mon, 23 Apr 2007 16:15:16 +0000

Admiral Perry… thank-you and when a fellow patriot recites how our glorious forefathers dealt with oppression and tyranny over 230-years ago, it’s enlightening! I read the ‘Mayflower Compact’ and ‘Magna Carter’ and ‘Thanksgiving Proclamation’ at work last night, along with the April 26, 1607 Susan Constance James River landing and prayer service by Chaplain Hunt…
What a blest nation that God has bestowed on us sir and thank-you Lord! HAPPY ST. GEORGE’S DAY to you and the Queen as well! – Templar Knights of the Righteous Table 2007

By: Perri Nelson

Perri Nelson — Mon, 23 Apr 2007 15:52:23 +0000

The Articles of Confederation favored the Anti-Federalists. The Federal Government had no real power to unify the States. While Congress was able to manage foreign relations, it could not do so without the consent of 9 out of 13 states, could raise no taxes to support its actions and had severely curtailed power. The Articles of Confederation were also almost impossible to amend. This made them essentially all talk and no action. That was one of the main reasons the Articles of Confederation needed to be replaced, because the unity of the nation was at stake.

The Anti-Federalists did indeed raise the old argument that republican government could not rule such a large country. The Constitution as it was originally written, together with the Bill of Rights balanced the desires of the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists by establishing a hierarchy of government with a stronger, but still limited Federal Republic to rule the States rather than the people, and the States to rule the people. The States were required to cede their sovereignty to the federal government, but had direct representation in that government through the Senate.

The Federal Government was quite limited in power, but not so much as under the Articles of Confederation, pretty much until the states began ceding their own representation to the people, first with portions of the 14th amendment and then with the 17th amendment which changed the nature of the Senate from a body representing the States to a body representing the People. Those shifts resulted in a transfer of power away from the states to the federal government, and enabled it to grow far beyond what it rightly should have done.

By: darthcrUSAderworldtour2007

darthcrUSAderworldtour2007 — Mon, 23 Apr 2007 05:31:16 +0000

The Anti-Federalists raised the old argument that republican government could not rule a country as large as the U.S., so God gave the Federalists the wisdom to answer this by stressing the Constitution was based on a key principle that emerged from the Revolution – the SOVERIGNTY of the PEOPLE! So the power of the NEW national government would not be derived from the states as it had been under the Articles of Confederation!

By: Perri Nelson

Perri Nelson — Sun, 22 Apr 2007 17:18:07 +0000

By encroaching upon the Constitution itself? I think not. No amendment so far alters the limited power of the courts.
The courts took that power unto themselves by themselves.

By: John Ryan

John Ryan — Sun, 22 Apr 2007 17:08:17 +0000

I look at the Federalist papers as being written and published in the newspaper as trying to convince the people that they did not need any amendments to the Constitution as written. However the PEOPLE were not convinced of the arguments put forth in the “Federalist” papers and dedmanded and received amendments to the Constitution which guaranteed them rights. These amendments of course became the Bill Of Rights. Without these amendments the Constitution would never have been approved by the states. Both the Executive and Legislative branches have vested interests in Federalism. The Court system should try to limit the powers of the other branches to encroach upon the Constitution.

By: Perri Nelson

Perri Nelson — Sun, 22 Apr 2007 03:24:34 +0000

Perhaps you should read it a bit more carefully then. We do not have 3 equal co-branches. That is not the format that the founders intended, and Congress has the explicit power to restrict the jurisdiction of the courts.

I discuss this in some detail in this post. Perhaps you’d care to read it and debate with me? Who knows maybe you can convince me I’m wrong…

http://perrinelson.com/2007/4/11/603.aspx

By: John Ryan

John Ryan — Sat, 21 Apr 2007 17:37:23 +0000

The US Constitution trumps bad law. In our system of checks and balances with 3 equal co- branches, the court system can invalidate ANY law that conflicts with the US Constitution.

By: Perri Nelson

Perri Nelson — Sat, 21 Apr 2007 16:56:35 +0000

I’m afraid we’re going to have to agree to disagree. My problem with them is not that they win the overwhelming majority of the cases. My problem with them is in fact that the battles they choose do not enhance our liberties, they erode them.
I actually love our Constitution. I don’t particularly care for our courts. The Constitution doesn’t in any way grant them the power to interpret law as being unconstitutional. For that matter, the framers of the Constitution wanted the courts NOT to have that power because it results in a judicial oligarchy.
Alexander Hamilton specifically sad in Federalist 81 “There is not a syllable in the plan under consideration which directly empowers the national courts to construe the laws according to the spirit of the Constitution.”
Our courts have taken upon themselves the legislative power and reduced our liberties instead of enhanced them. The ACLU is responsible for a large part of that reduction in our liberties.

By: John Ryan

John Ryan — Sat, 21 Apr 2007 16:44:46 +0000

Your problem isn’t that they fight for unpopular causes, your problem is that they win the overwhelming majority of the cases because courts side with their view of the Constitution of the United States. If they fought cases and LOST no one would care. Your problem is with our Constitution. As far as degrading our society, I believe that over the course of my lifetime (1947) our society has improved. Social conservatives do not want change.

By: Perri Nelson

Perri Nelson — Sat, 21 Apr 2007 16:31:26 +0000

It’s not my post, so I can’t say what you’ll be seeing here.

Let’s see shall we? How many examples do you want of things the ACLU does that show it’s nature isn’t to protect our rights?

Shall we begin with it’s founders? With the fact that one of the primary founders had it as his goal to undermine American values and the American government? That he was a socialist?

How about the ACLU’s actions in the case of the Mount Soledad Cross? They’ve been fighting that one since 1989?

How about the ACLU’s recent criticism of the Supreme Court decision on partial birth abortion? Instead of recognizing that the Constitution provides no actual basis for the federal government to recognize a “right to an abortion” (which Rhode Island’s constitition explicitly does not recognize, but that’s beside the point), they criticize the courts stepping back into their proper role as Judges rather than legislators.

How about the many, many cases where they support the rights of non-Christians to offend Christians, and deny the rights of Christians to speak their views. For example, Christian bible study clubs are attacked by the ACLU so that they cannot use facilities in public schools while the ACLU defends the rights of schools to indoctrinate students in Islam in California.

The ACLU picks and chooses its battles. In the majority of cases they choose battles that degrade the fabric of our society or that illustrate their hypocrisy. Only occasionally do some of the more rational ACLU groups defend the rights of the so-called “right wing”.