The American Hypocrisy Union

[siglite]

Read Heller. Aren't they agreeing almost word for word with Heller? Heller rejected an outright ban, but left open unspecified regulations. What are regulations? Gun control.

Am I reading out of context, or are we still talking about the ACLU? The ACLU is fundamentally at odds with Heller, and with the 2nd amendment.

From the ACLU site I linked earlier:

The ACLU interprets the Second Amendment as a collective right. Therefore, we disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision in D.C. v. Heller.

No, it sure doesn't look like they're agreeing word-for-word with Heller.

 

[jaholder1971]

Take a look at who founded the ACLU and it says it all about this organization.

It was founded by Communists in an effort to use our own Constitution to destroy this nation. So far they're doing a pretty good job.

 

[1911Tuner]

Before the American Civil War, people did indeed say "The United States ARE...", but afterward it became "United States IS..."

The war hammered home the idea that we are one nation, not a collection or federation of states. For good or ill, we say "IS" now, though it may be grammatically off-center.

Bingo, and thanks for bringing that up. I was about to.

As for being gramatically incorrect...it becomes correct when you add "Of America" to "The United States."

Say it...

"The United States of America...IS...a republic.

Sounds about right...don't it?

 

[cambeul41]

Is or are?

Does anyone here vote for "A million dollars are a lot of money"?

 

[mnrivrat]

Now the belief in a collective right isn't hypocritical in itself. There was no clear precedent and while I personally have always believed in an individual right it is certainly understandable that others would not especially in the absence of clear authority.

Once again I urge some of you to read the findings of the senate juditiary committee study of the second amendment done in 1982 (97th congress as I recall)

This study was very clear regarding the 2nd being an "individual" right . The ACLU as well as the 4 supreme court judges in Heller chose to ignore this study by what should have been a clear authority on the matter. Even the likes of Ted Kennedy and Joe Biden who sat on this committee have chosen to ignore its findings which were derived from an exausting study by experts in the field.

 

[230RN]

You're right, Siglite, that ACLU Blog is hilarious:

http://blog.aclu.org/2008/07/01/heller-decision-and-the-second-amendment/

 

[Tom Servo]

what would ACLU founder Robert Baldwin think?

You mean THIS Roger Baldwin?

I am for Socialism, disarmament and ultimately, for the abolishing of the State itself … I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal.

Roger Baldwin loved Communism, and he had no problem with the disarmed being abused towards that end. In 1934, he had his face rubbed in the abuses of the Soviet regime, and still, he supported the system:

I saw in the Soviet Union many opponents of the regime. I visited a dozen prisons — the political sections among them. I saw considerable of the work of the OGPU. I heard a good many stories of severity, even of brutality, and many of them from the victims. While I sympathized with personal distress I just could not bring myself to get excited over the suppression of opposition when I stacked it up against what I saw of fresh, vigorous expressions of free living by workers and peasants all over the land. And further, no champion of a socialist society could fail to see that some suppression was necessary to achieve it.

–Soviet Russia Today, original copy researched by Eugene Volokh (pdf)

The ACLU's two biggest supporters are George Soros' Open Society Institute ($4,949,080 since 1998) and the Tides Foundation ($1,213,477 since 2004).

They're not a civil-rights organization; they're a political lobbying machine.

I think Baldwin would be quite happy with his organization

 

[thebaldguy]

The NRA has shown to be a powerful lobby in the USA; I can't help but think that if they changed their tone on the 2nd Amendment, they might have a few NRA members donate to the ACLU.

 

[RPCVYemen]

Roger Baldwin loved Communism,...

Do you have the intellectual honesty and personal integrity to tell the whole story?

Mike

 

[Tom Servo]

Do you have the intellectual honesty and personal integrity to tell the whole story?

Not sure what you mean. I know he recanted a bit in the post-war years, when such associations were political suicide.

I haven't researched it as closely as I'd like, so if I'm missing something, I'm all ears.

 

[Thin Black Line]

The war hammered home the idea that we are one nation, not a collection or federation of states. For good or ill, we say "IS" now...

However, if we were a "collection" of states we'd have more votes in various
NWO orgs just like the FRY, FSU, FBE, etc now do. Right now we have just
one vote. Imagine what 52 would do for the cause of global freedom?

 

[junyo]

Do you have the intellectual honesty and personal integrity to tell the whole story?

I'm assuming you mean:

...Baldwin's ideological stance underwent an alteration starting in the mid-thirties, the byproduct of personal and political developments... This was the same period when Baldwin became increasingly disturbed by events in the Soviet Union, where purge trials were being undertaken, and by politically troublesome accusations leveled at the ACLU by the House Committee on un-American Activities.

Roger in his beloved canoe (Courtesy of Peggy Lamson)

Baldwin became less happy with the Popular Front approach and concerned about the very existence of the ACLU after the announcement of the Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact in August 1939. The following spring, in an effort to stave off criticisms of the organization and the cause he had devoted much of his adulthood to, Baldwin orchestrated a campaign to revise the ACLU charter. Henceforth, those affiliated with totalitarian organizations would not be allowed to serve on the ACLU board. The immediate target was the former-Wobbly and present Communist Party member, Elizabeth Gurley Flynn. An organizational "trial" of Flynn ensued, resulting in her ouster and establishing a pattern for anti-communist policies and programs that flourished during the Cold War. In the meantime, Baldwin and the ACLU wrestled with the issue of internment of Japanese-Americans and Japanese aliens, which had been demanded by the U.S. military. In contrast to many of his longtime colleagues at the ACLU, Baldwin continued to challenge such violations of civil liberties, but he also sought to maintain good relations with the federal government. He opposed the prosecution of native fascists and Trotskyists alike, just as he later challenged the moves by government officials to abridge the rights of communists.

http://www.harvardsquarelibrary.org/unitarians/baldwin.html

He later denounced communism in his book, A New Slavery, which condemned "the inhuman communist police state tyranny"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Nash_Baldwin

In 1940, the ACLU formally barred communists from leadership or staff positions, and would take the position that it did not want communists as members either. The board declared that it was "inappropriate for any person to serve on the governing committees of the Union or its staff, who is a member of any political organization which supports totalitarianism in any country, or who by his public declarations indicates his support of such a principle." The purge, which was led by Baldwin, himself a former supporter of Communism, began with the ouster of Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, a member of both the Communist Party USA and the IWW.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Liberties_Union#History

However, in light of the fact that the ACLU was constantly under fire from the government due to the number of communist and socialist in it's early leadership, it could be argued that such a "change of heart" by the man/organization was pragmatic and cosmetic. Baldwin, et al., certainly didn't do much to help fight communism.

 

[RPCVYemen]

Not sure what you mean. I know he recanted a bit in the post-war years, when such associations were political suicide.

Try again. Baldwin turned virulently anti-communist and purged the ACLU of Communist Party members in 1940 - clearly not "post-war" years. Baldwin purged the ACLU of communists at a time when the Soviet Union was about to become an ally of the US. He did not "recant a bit" - he forced all communists out of the ACLU:

In 1940, the ACLU formally barred communists from leadership or staff positions, and would take the position that it did not want communists as members either. The board declared that it was "inappropriate for any person to serve on the governing committees of the Union or its staff, who is a member of any political organization which supports totalitarianism in any country, or who by his public declarations indicates his support of such a principle." The purge, which was led by Baldwin, himself a former supporter of Communism, began with the ouster of Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, a member of both the Communist Party USA and the IWW.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACLU

I may have rushed to judgment, but since the exact same page you quoted from - Eugene Volokh's article on Roger Baldwin - had the story of Baldwin's recantation exactly one paragraph away from the paragraph you quote:

Did you not see the following paragraph?

To his credit, Baldwin apparently recanted in 1939 (though, as I said, that was mighty late), and turned into a severe critic of the Soviet regime. And of course even in the 1930s, many in the ACLU were anti-Communist, and today's ACLU ought not be judged because of the failings of an ACLU leader in the 1930s.

http://www.volokh.com/posts/1126138099.shtml

Note that Eugene Volokh is no fan of the ALCU - he accuses Baldwin of being an "FDR socialist" (i.e., a supported of the New Deal). Even though Volokh has no love for the ACLU, he is honest enough to tell the whole truth.

If you did not know that Baldwin rejected his support for communism before WWII, then I withdraw my comments.

I am however puzzled, because the Volokh article from a debate between Eugene Volokh and Geof Stone over whether the ACLU's refusal to permit communists to be members is Constituitional. So the exclusion of communists from the ACLU was not a minor detail of the article you cite - it was the main topic of debate.

Here is Eugene Volokh's defense of the exclusion of communists:

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2005_09_04-2005_09_10.shtml#1126047007

Here is Geof Stone's defense of that exclusion:

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2005_09_11-2005_09_17.shtml#1126718016

Here is Eugene Volokh's discussion of Baldwin's 1934 statements about communism - including the PDF that you quoted:

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2005_09_11-2005_09_17.shtml#1126718016

The very same web page also includes a notice of Baldwin's anti-communist book, "A New Slavery", which details his rejection of communism. Though - to be fair - the discussion of that book is pretty far into the web page.

I am also glad to see Prof. Volokh reiterate his point that Baldwin "recanted in 1939 (though, as I said, that was mighty late), and turned into a severe critic of the Soviet regime." Anyone who questions Baldwin's "recantation" and criticism of the Soviet regime should read his book: A New Slavery: The Communist Betrayal of Human rights.

So if you missed all that, I apologize and withdraw my comments about intellectual honesty and personal integrity.

If you did in fact know that Baldwin completely rejected communism by 1940 - even a staunch conservative like Volokh accepted that the recantation was real - and decided to tell only a partial truth in an attempt to smear the ACLU, then shame on you. Half-truths are a low road tactic - whether told by the anti's, or by us.

By the way, for those who care, here's Volokh's reasoning for defending the ACLU against false accusations - even though he disagrees with them about nearly everything:

Why Do I Keep Blogging About Unsound Criticisms of the ACLU? Two reasons. First, people and organizations that are wrongly criticized deserve to be defended, even if on balance these are people and organizations with whom one disagrees on many matters. That's especially so if the wrongful criticisms come from people who are at some broad level of generality in one's own political camp. If liberals are wrongly faulted by conservatives, we conservatives should correct those errors. (Don't argue please that liberals don't do the same when the shoe is on the other foot; some do and some don't, and in any case their failings wouldn't excuse our failings.)

Second, as I've said before, I often disagree with the ACLU, and I sometimes even condemn it with some force for its actions. I want to have company in such expression, and many readers of this blog are natural sources of well-founded condemnation of the ACLU.

But we'd both open ourselves up to making false allegations (which is bad itself) and look foolish (which is bad instrumentally) if we fall into a visceral hostility to the ACLU that clouds our judgment, and leads us both to ignore the correct positions that the ACLU takes and to misstate the ACLU's supposed errors.

I wish that THR posters had the gumption to say "If liberals are wrongly faulted by conservatives, we conservatives should correct those errors."

Mike

Mike

 

[one-shot-one]

????

i thought ACLU
was the American Comunist Liberals Union.

 

[torpid]

If liberals are wrongly faulted by conservatives, we conservatives should correct those errors.

That was easy!

The [ACLU] interpreted the 2nd differently than I do, and differently than the Supreme Court now does.

They are blatantly wrong in their refusal to acknowledge the fact that it is indeed an individual right, and it it stands out like a sore thumb compared to their unswerving dedication to other civil liberties.

And this ridiculous posturing has a substantial portion of the ACLU's member base (the ones who care about all our rights and civil liberties) re-evaluating the moral honesty of the organization.

 

[RPCVYemen]

Volokh is a good read. He's a conservative/libertarian legal theorist who's a very good friend of 2nd Amendment. He is a stickler for the truth - even when that leads him to defending the ACLU against the standard Rush/O'Reilly lies. Volokh actually thinks lying is wrong, and makes you look foolish.

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2006_01_08-2006_01_14.shtml#1137223560

Here's what he said about the ACLU and gun rights in 2006 - he captured my sentiments exactly:

ACLU of Texas and Gun Rights: I think it's too bad that the ACLU takes a collective rights view of the Second Amendment, and generally doesn't do much to defend state constitutional rights to bear arms. (As readers of this blog might realize, I don't think they're evil or even hypocritical for disagreeing with my interpretation of the Second Amendment, or even for declining to defend the clearly individual state constitutional rights. They're entitled to pick and choose what rights they think are most important to defend, just as the NRA and my two favorite conservative/libertarian public interest law firms, the Institute for Justice and the Center for Individual Rights, are entitled to do the same. I just think the ACLU is mistaken in its views.)

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2006_01_15-2006_01_21.shtml#1137534663

He writes well, and helps me understand how legal scholars think. Here's his web page. Lot's of Heller posts:

http://volokh.com

Mike

 

[phydaux]

The ACLU's founder, Roger Baldwin, stated: "We are for SOCIALISM, disarmament, and ultimately for abolishing the state itself... We seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the SOLE CONTROL of those who produce wealth. COMMUNISM is the goal." (Source: Trial and Error, by Geo. Grant)



Following are some of the stated goals of the ACLU, from its own published Policy Issues:

*

the legalization of prostitution (Policy 211);
*

the defense of all pornography, including CHILD PORN, as "free speech" (Policy 4);
*

the decriminalization and legalization of all drugs (Policy 210);
*

the promotion of homosexuality (Policy 264);
*

the opposition of rating of music and movies (Policy 18);
*

opposition against parental consent of minors seeking abortion (Policy 262);
*

opposition of informed consent preceding abortion procedures (Policy 263);
*

opposition of spousal consent preceding abortion (Policy 262);
*

opposition of parental choice in children's education (Policy 80)

-- not to mention the defense and promotion of euthanasia, polygamy, government control of church institutions, gun control, tax-funded abortion, birth limitation, etc. (Policies 263, 133, 402, 47, 261, 323, 271, 91, 85).



Ruth Ginsburg was General Counsel, (1980–1993) American Civil Liberties Union
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCOTUS


The ACLU is not my friend!

phydaux

 

[torpid]

I'm sorry, but if those speaking for the ALCU go to such tortured lengths to knowingly misinterpret the Amendment which acknowledges the means to the most basic human right of self defense, and a check against a tyrranical govenment, there's something fundamentally wrong with the leadership of the organization. An organization that actively encourages the public perception of their being the "champion and watchdog" of the people's* civil rights, needs to embrace all of our rights, not attempt to rationalize away support for rights that may interfere with their ideology or sources of funding.

This disingenuous "oh, it's so nebulous, we can't see it as an individual right" position is laughable considering the context of "the People" mentioned in the Second Amendment among the others in the Constitution, and the not very subtle attitudes seen in the personal writings of the creators of the document itself. Add to that 9 Supreme Court judges (including dissenters of the Heller ruling itself) reinforcing that individual right, and we have a most unseemly farce.

I have to agree with the observation made by a commenter on the ACLU blog noting that our civil rights seem to be interfering with the ACLU's agenda.


*and no, I do not mean collectively

 

[Tom Servo]

So if you missed all that, I apologize and withdraw my comments about intellectual honesty and personal integrity.

If you did in fact know that Baldwin completely rejected communism by 1940 - even a staunch conservative like Volokh accepted that the recantation was real - and decided to tell only a partial truth in an attempt to smear the ACLU, then shame on you. Half-truths are a low road tactic - whether told by the anti's, or by us.

So are ad hominem attacks.

Those aren't half-truths. Yes, Baldwin did reject communism, but statements supporting suppression and human suffering to support dictatorship aren't the rash, impulsive utterances of a headstrong young man. Nor are they easily ignored.

If a political candidate had made those statements at any point in his past, do you think he'd have any chance of getting elected?

Feel free to check out the foundations from whom the ACLU gets large portions of their funding. They may have toned down the rhetoric, and it may seem friendlier, but the agenda they're pushing is very similar to that of Northern European nanny states.

There is no such thing in our Constitution as a "collective right," and an organization of civil-rights lawyers should know that better than anyone.

 

[RPCVYemen]

Yes, Baldwin did reject communism, ...

If you had noted in your post that Baldwin in fact recanted his infatuation with communism - even if you thought that it was insincere - then I would not have objected.

Reporting his infatuation while skipping his recantation reported on the same web page strikes me as a cheap smear tactic.

We accuse anti's of reporting half truths all the time. We should cleave to a higher standard.

Mike

 

[MJRW]

Mike,

Just wanted to chime in here to say "thank you." I find even here that people hold views that are unreasonable and I believe that to be right, one must be reasonable. To be reasonable, one must admit that which is true even though they do not like the truth. I agree that the ACLU is wrong, not hypocritical, and when we have to argue over whether or not they are hypocritical.

I'm pro-2A, I largely agree with the Heller decision, and I do not find the ACLU to be hypocritical, just disagreeable.

 

[MGshaggy]

I'm pro-2A, I largely agree with the Heller decision, and I do not find the ACLU to be hypocritical, just disagreeable.

And I'll agree with you on that...at least with respect to the ACLU's position on the 2nd Amendment. No group is perfect and while I think the ACLU does some great work when it comes to the 1st amendment, I disagree with their position on the 2nd. Perhaps they'll eventually come around; it took years for Larry Tribe to finally come to the conclusion that the 2nd was an individual right, but he did, and I think the ACLU may eventually also. But the fact thatI disagree with them on one issue does not negate the fact that I agree with them on others. By contrast, I wonder how many of the people vilifying the ACLU here and calling them hypocritical for their position on the 2nd would also vilify the NRA and call them hypocrites? The acknowledged mission of the NRA is to promote and defend the 2nd Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans, but it was the NRA that helped get 922(o) in place (the ban on new manufacture of machineguns), they didn't do anything to help the 1934 Group's case challenging the arbitrary and capricious nature of the CLEO signoff requirement for NFA weapons, and the NRA tried to scuttle Heller because they didn't want it to go to the SCOTUS. Even though the NRA has done damned little to get back our rights with respect to NFA weapons (which THEY sold down the river), I'm still a member of the NRA and I think they do some good work in other areas of the 2nd Amendment.

 

[H088]

The NRA couldn't really do anything legally about the NFA in regards to the 2nd because there was no ruling on what the 2nd amendment stood for, now its recognized as an individuals right. This will be one of the key components in fixing the NFA or at least forcing open the machine-gun registry.

 

[MGshaggy]

H088 - I think you're confusing this with Heller. It was the NRA that allowed the 922(o) ban on new machineguns to go through in the first place (1986). They gave their blessing to the bill with the ban because they wanted to get the rest of FOPA passed. In essence, they sold NFA enthusiasts down the river. However, while they did that, they promised gun owners they'd work to get 922(o) repealed in seperate legislation. That never happened and they've shown a staggering amount of reluctance to do anything related to the NFA ever since.

 

[shdwfx]

Why is it hypocritical to disagree with a Supreme Court decision?

Obviously, there is nothing intrinsically hypocritical about any action taken only by itself. The ACLU's non-support of the 2nd Amendment as an individual right in light of their claimed support for civil liberties is.

Read Heller. Aren't they agreeing almost word for word with Heller?

I have and no they aren't. Hardly. None of the nine wraiths (even Stevens) believes the 2nd is a collective right.

On the other hand...

(link) The ACLU interprets the Second Amendment as a collective right. Therefore, we disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision in D.C. v. Heller.

To assert the ACLU is in agreement with Heller, especially when even they assert their position so clearly, is...absurd.