I posed the original question after listening to an interview on the radio. The gentleman from the local chapter of the ACLU said that while they are labeled as "liberal" they are , in fact, "conservative" because they have a strict interpretation of the Constitution.

I posed the original question after listening to an interview on the radio. The gentleman from the local chapter of the ACLU said that while they are labeled as "liberal" they are , in fact, "conservative" because they have a strict interpretation of the Constitution.

I wonder what the constitutional basis was for the ACLU's harrassment of the Minutemen on the Mexican border, who were doing jobs that the American government refuses to do.

Why? What if there is not a law that addresses an issue that comes before the Court?

 

The problem with the "don't make new law" approach is that issues get to the courts a lot faster than they are addressed by the legislature.

 

Sometimes the Court has to set precedent, but I do not view this as the problem. The making of law comes from when legislatures pass laws or referendums are passed by voters and then overturned by the courts. An example would be the recent ruling in California on marriage being between only a man and a woman being overturned. The people had every right to pass this referendum and since the precedent of our history and laws have been that marriage is between a man and a woman the courts "made law " on this one. If there was to be a change the state legislature could have passed a law to change the situation or a constitutional amendment could have been passed.

Courts also "made law" on ending school segregation. Precedent said that separate but equal was an acceptable doctrine, and the legislature could have passed a law or a constitutional amendment could have been passed, but neither had.

 

I know I'll get a bunch of 'it's not the same' responses, but I would like to point out two things. One, I think it is the same. Two, fifty years from now, the history books are likely to agree with me-- because every poll on the subject shows a huge generational gap on this issue.

Courts also "made law" on ending school segregation. Precedent said that separate but equal was an acceptable doctrine, and the legislature could have passed a law or a constitutional amendment could have been passed, but neither had.

 

I know I'll get a bunch of 'it's not the same' responses, but I would like to point out two things. One, I think it is the same. Two, fifty years from now, the history books are likely to agree with me-- because every poll on the subject shows a huge generational gap on this issue.

 

What's you point on segregation? Do you mean that since they got that decision "right" you're OK with 9 unelected judges deciding what's best for the country?

 

P.S. Count me in as one of those who believes it is not the same. Both Brown v Board of Education and Plessy v. Furgeson were about interpreting the 14th ammendment.

I wonder what the constitutional basis was for the ACLU's harrassment of the Minutemen on the Mexican border, who were doing jobs that the American government refuses to do.

 

I'm hazy. Were the Minuteman hired by the US Govt to patrol?

 

My guess is they would use items such as the right to burn the US flag, school prayer prevention in public schools, etc as examples of strict interpretation , thus, being "conservative."