From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield)
Subject: Re: [ACLU] Guardian of Liberty: American Civil Liberties Union
Organization: Syracuse University, CIS Dept.
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 19:04:33 EST

In article <1992Nov18.012018.28417@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:

>>Nor do we [the ACLU] take political sides; we
>>are neither liberal nor conservative, Republican nor Democratic. 
>
>This claim seems to be contradicted by the statements that follow it.

I read this statement about not taking "political sides" to clearly refer
to partisan politics.  Obviously, to push any agenda--civil-libertarian
or otherwise, is to become involved in political matters.

In fact, the ACLU does seem to follow this doctrine.  The former executive
director of the local chapter requested a leave of absence this past year
in order to work on the Congressional campaign of the local Democratic
candidate.  NYCLU denied her request, as they do not want to have their
employees/officials/representatives ping-ponging back and forth between
the ACLU and partisan politics.  (The local director decided to leave her
position in order to work on the campaign.)



>>The mission of the ACLU is to assure that the Bill of Rights--Amendments
>>to the Constitution that guard against unwarranted government control--
>>are preserved for each new generation.
>
>>What rights are guaranteed in the Bill of Rights?
>>First Amendment rights:  These include freedom of speech, association
>>   and assembly, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion, including
>>   the strict separation between church and state.
>>Equal protection of the law:  The right to equal treatment regardless of
>>   race, sex, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, age,
>>   physical handicap, or other such classification.  These rights apply
>>   to the voting booth, the classroom, the workplace and the courts.
>>Due process of laws:  The right to be treated fairly when facing criminal
>>   charges or other serious accusations that can result in such penalties
>>   as loss of employment, exclusion from school, denial of housing, or
>>   cut-off of benefits.
>
>This is only a small fraction of the Bill of Rights (The First Amendment
>and parts of the Fifth and Sixth.)

I hardly think that the ACLU planned to cite an exhaustive list of protected
rights in this small brochure...


>>The right to privacy:  The right to a guaranteed zone of personal privacy
>>   and autonomy which cannot be penetrated by the government or by other
>>   institutions, like employers, with a substantial influence over an	
>>   individual's rights.
>
>Technically, this right, however important, is not mentioned in the Bill
>of Rights at all. It _might_ be infered from the Ninth Amendment, however,
>this is not the ACLU's position.

I didn't read the original post.  However, from your citation above, it looks
as though the ACLU is answering the question "What rights are guaranteed in
the Bill of Rights?"

Now, if the ACLU believes that a right to privacy is implicit in the Bill
of Rights, and the SC precedent has also established this, then I can't
see how there is anything unreasonable in this statement.

(It's not as though they said "What rights are explicitly mentioned in
the Bill of Rights?")


>Nor does the Bill of Rights protect
>citizens against "...other institutions, like employers...": It's protections
>are directed solely against the government.

I agree here.  I'm not aware of any precedent suggesting that the the
Right of Privacy created by the BOR applies to private organizations.  There
are *other* laws, of course, but that's not the BOR...


>The ACLU claims to be non-political and defend the Bill of Rights. However,
>it makes, at the same time, extremely political judgements about which
>parts of the Bill of Rights "count", and which rights _should_ be
>protected (even if the Bill of Rights doesn't mention them.) This seems
>to make the claim of political neutrality a lie.

As I said above, I believe their claim was limited to the fact that they
do not engage in partisan politics, endorse or support candidates for
office, etc.



>>     1981: Creationism in Arkansas
>>       In Arkansas, 56 years after Scopes, the ACLU
>>       challenged a statute that called for the teaching
>>       of the biblical story of creation as a ``scientific
>>       alternative'' to the theory of evolution.
>
>This seems to demonstrate a comittment to the "establishment" clause
>of the First Amendment at the expense of the "free exercise" clause
>of that same Amendment.

Most reasonable people (and the US SC) recognize that the "free exercise"
of religion does not include the right to jam it down others' throats,
through law.

In any case, there are many examples of conflicts between rights embodied
in the Bill of Rights.  Obviously, such conflicts must be resolved by
one right taking precedence over another.

I mean, what's the alternative to the above?  Suppose the ACLU had defended
the law.  Would you then be writing, "This seems to demonstrate a commitment
to the 'free exercise' clause of the First Amendment at the expense of the
'establishment' clause of that same amendment?"


-- 
J. S. Greenfield                                         greeny@top.cis.syr.edu
(I like to put 'greeny' here, 
but my d*mn system wants a 
*real* name!)                        "What's the difference between an orange?"
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.libertarian