The ACRU Blog

I swear I'm not making this up. The Tucson Citizen carries the following AP report:

ACLU says Maricopa violating TB patient's rights The Associated Press

"The American Civil Liberties Union has filed a lawsuit claiming Maricopa County officials have violated the rights of a quarantined tuberculosis patient for months by treating him like a criminal.

"The U.S. District Court complaint filed Wednesday on behalf of Robert Daniels alleges that health officials and the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office have violated numerous constitutional rights and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

"The suit seeks what it calls appropriate accommodations for Daniels, rather than severe and "inhumane" jail conditions.

"'It's good news for me,' Daniels said Wednesday evening. 'I finally have a chance to get out of this black hole.'

"Robert England, the county's tuberculosis control officer, declined comment.

"Daniels, 27, is under a court order and has been isolated in a jail ward at Maricopa Medical Center for 10 months, although he was not convicted or charged with any crime."

Now it's true that the ACLU is not litigating in favor of tuberculosis per se. It has not sought injunctive relief for the germs. Even the ACLU probably still recognizes that germs lack standing, and, even with standing, would not make the most sympathetic plaintiff class you ever saw. Nonetheless, with the overwrought characterizaion of mandatory quarantine as more-or-less of a dungeon, the ACLU walks right up to the line of suing for Mr. Daniels' "right" to have an increased opportunity to spread the disease. This "right" is apparently located in the Constitution, although the story fails to state in which part of the Constitution, exactly, the ACLU believes it is to be found.

At the time the Constitution was written, of course, quarantine was practiced far more frequently than it is today, and was enforced more harshly. Part of this was doubtless due to the medical necessity of the time, which has changed considerably since. But part of it was also due to the recognition by sensible people that the rights of the many to avoid exposure to a serious and sometimes fatal disease outweigh the rights of the few -- or in this case a single person -- to his freedom, at least until the danger of widespread infection has passed.

Thus, while this story of the ACLU's litigation priorities may be extreme -- at least I hope it is -- it is, unfortunately, emblematic of that organization's habitual inclination to put the supposed "rights" of the minority ahead of the well-being of the majority.

In that regard, there is one fact the story neglects to mention. Mr. Daniels previously violated a less onerous quarantine order when he went out in public without his facemask. So it's not as if Mr. Daniels is without a significant degree of responsibility for his present restraint.

Germs are just germs. They don't know about responsibility, and they don't make choices. Mr. Daniels did. And now, so has the ACLU.

Two days ago I had the opportunity to do a radio debate with Dr. Jeremy Gunn, Director of the ACLU's Religious Freedom Project. Let me say at the outset that I found Dr. Gunn to be a courteous and intellectually honest man, and I am grateful for his willingness to discuss with those having a different point of view the often heated question whether the Cross may properly, under the First Amendment, be displayed on government property as part of a war memorial to fallen soldiers.

I am in no positon to make a judgment about who "won" this debate. Those who had the chance to listen to it should draw their own conclusions. (If any of our readers heard it, I would welcome their assessment of how it went). I do want to mention one point, however, where in my view the ACLU position came up short.

Part of the debate concerned the war memorial in the Mojave Desert. A Cross is displayed there, although at present it is covered by a box -- this a result of a court order forbidding the display, at least until a higher court has the opportunity to rule on the matter. It is my understanding that the Cross is eleven miles from the main road, so getting to a point where one could even see it is no small feat.

The ACLU is litigating whether the Cross may remain. The gist of the ACLU suit, in this and similar litigation, is that having only a Cross shown at a war memorial sited on government land is an impermissible establishment of religion, namely Christianity, at odds with the First Amendment.

The problem with this position in the Mojave Desert case is that the land on which the Cross is located is no longer owned by the government. It is private property, having been given over to a private group in order to meet the ACLU's objections. Yet the ACLU still wants the Cross removed, arguing now that the plot of private land is too small to create any meaningful differentiation from the surrounding parcel, which is still government owned, and (I believe) that the bidding process under which the private organization obtained the land was tilted toward a group that it was known wanted to keep the Cross. The ACLU characterizes this as "evading" the First Amendment.

I characterize it as complying with the First Amendment. The Constitution poses no barrier to erecting a Cross on private property. Thus, the fact that the Mojave Desert site now is private property should have been the end of the ACLU's interest in the case. Whether the amount of private land surrounding the Cross is "big enough" has little if anything to do with the constitutional principle that, so we are told, was at the heart of the ACLU's original concerns. Under these circumstances, it is fair enough to ask whether the real motivating factor here is less constitutional rectitude and more old-fashioned hostility to religion. This single case does not, in my judgment, answer that question, but it makes it a fair question.

I have no doubt that some on the ACLU's side bear no hostility toward religion, and are committed, however mistakently in my view, to what they see as a constitutional principle. But I likewise have no doubt that there are some who simply dislike religion, or detest it, and it would bolster the ACLU's credibility to admit as much.

My suspicions in that regard are heightened by the particular facts of this case. The memorial is literally in the middle of the desert. Once a person arrives at general site, which would take some doing given its location, he would need to go another eleven miles, I believe on foot, to see the Cross. The idea that a memorial so remote does irremedial damage to the Constitution -- or does any damage at all -- is so far-fetched as to border on the preposterous. Under the circumstances, it is dificult to see the ACLU's determination to persist with this suit as motivated by anything other than an obsession, and not by either legal, much less analytical, thinking.

OneNewsNow.com features a story regarding the protests that John Edwards and his supporters staged on Memorial Day in protest of the Iraq War. (See "John Edwards Criticized for 'Trashing' Troops on Memorial Day") Edwards said that the "war on terror" was merely a bumper-sticker slogan used to justify failed policies. The story relies on its content with an interview the author conducted with the ACRU's Legal Director, Peter Ferrara.

As Peter is quoted in the article,

"These Memorial Day events are not about the war in Iraq, so they're not a place to protest. They're about celebrating the sacrifice and the honor and the glory of our American soldiers and people who serve in the Armed Forces. So, you are tarnishing that with these foolish protests."

Perhaps last week's top news story, not counting whatever Rosie O'Donnell and Lindsay Lohan were doing, was the story of Andrew Speaker, the Atlanta personal injury lawyer who decided it would be a good idea to fly a few thousand miles here and there notwithstanding his knowing that he had a virulent form of tuberculosis. The passengers cooped up with him on his long, trans-oceanic flights have not been entirely thrilled with Mr. Speaker's decisions. They bear some misgivings about having had to share enclosed cabin space with the updated version of the Black Death.

The effort to track down Mr. Speaker and keep him from re-entering the United States was not entirely unsuccessful. His passport was flagged and instructions were given that he was to be detained at the border. The border agent who encountered him when he tried to enter from Canada picked up the flag, but decided -- he claims -- that the hold-at-the-checkpoint instructions were "discretionary." So Mr. Speaker crossed the border.

This episode surely has implications for the immigration package now being considered by Congress. All sides believe (or say they believe) that concrete guarantees of effective border security must be the anchor of any new plan. But how could those guarantees be taken seriously? We saw over the last few days how easy it was for a person whose identity and risk factors were known in advance to walk right past security even though he had been flagged and stopped.

By far the major problem with border security exists at our southern border. The problem is, specifically, that anonymous illegal immigrants by the thousands cross there, mostly with impunity, because they never encounter a border guard at all and even when they do, there is at best only spotty enforcement. Since we now know how porous and inept border security is even when both the opportunity and the mechanisms for enforcement are better than they will ever be in the Southwest, it is simply impossible for sensible people to believe the "guarantees" we are hearing about will be worth the proverbial paper they're printed on.

Perhaps someone will remind the ACLU that the "A" in their acronym is for "American"? Until then, I am afraid that the American Civil Liberties Union will continue to work overtime to undermine the popular will and rights of law-abiding American citizens in order to secure privileges for the law-breakers within our borders, whether they broke our laws crossing our borders or have committed felonies.

Late last week, the ACLU filed suit in Arizona on behalf of five felons who want their voting privileges returned, despite committing crimes that under state law forfeits that privilege. According to the story in the Arizona Daily Star, "this is the first lawsuit in the nation seeking to overturn any state law that automatically disfranchises felons."

Just the week before, the ACLU posted their letter to Senator Mitch McConnell stating their opposition to an amendment to the immigration reform bill. This amendment would require voters to present a photo ID - a move that would allow voter precincts to determine if the people voting there are eligible to do so. Such a move would allegedly disenfranchise "undocumented" immigrants - who in most cases are "undocumented" because they secretly entered our country through the back door, and therefore were never enfranchised to begin with!

Meanwhile, as my colleague John Armor reported recently, the ACLU has joined a number of left-wing groups that seek to overturn a town ordinance in Farmers Branch, Texas - approved by nearly 70% of the local population when put to vote - that imposes sanctions on landlords who rent their apartments to illegal aliens. The purpose of the law is to protect the "health, safety and general welfare" of its citizens against the disproportionately greater threat to each brought by a population of non-Americans who are in this country, and that town, illegally. The ACLU has brought a similar suit against Hazelton, PA (see John's excellent paper on the subject, "The Hazelton Rebellion").

However, the ACLU supports towns that have fashioned themselves as "sanctuary cities" for illegal aliens by implementing a don't ask, don't tell policy regarding the immigration status of criminals and other persons stopped by local law enforcement. Here again the ACLU is advocating that laws duly passed by the elected representatives of law-abiding American citizens - this time, federal immigration laws - by either ignored or overturned by judicial fiat.

Whence this favoritism for the non-American and the flagrant law-breaker? Time and again, the ACLU is proving itself to be the most un-American of American institutions.

A San Francisco lesbian, Linda Carlson, has filed suit in Los Angeles against a heterosexual dating service, eHarmony, for not accommodating her sexual category (see "eHarmony accused of discrimination," San Francisco Chronicle). She claims discrimination because eHarmony specializes in men meeting women, and has no category for women seeking women.

She does NOT claim that eHarmony prevented her from taking their famous, multi-point compatibility test. She could have described herself as a liberal, lesbian from San Francisco who believes the movies of Michael Moore. Her phone might not have rung off the hook, but she could have done that.

Also, she did not explain why the many services of "women seeking women" in San Francisco were inadequate for her mating requirements.

In short, eHarmony is not a public utility, like the phone company, which must carry anyone's message. This is a junk suit which should be thrown out with dispatch.

Uttecht v. Brown, Case No. 05-413, 2 June 2008:

Justice Stevens, joined by Justices Souter, Ginsberg and Breyer, claimed in Dissent that the Court is "violating" its own prior cases, by allowing a trial judge to exclude a juror who expressed opposition to the death penalty, in a death penalty case. The Dissent made clear the belief by these four Justices that every possible step to prevent a jury from imposing
a penalty of death, should be taken.

Note this incredible statement in footnote 1 of the Dissent:

"The Court opens its opinion with a graphic description of the underlying facts of respondent's crime, perhaps in an attempt to startle the reader or muster moral support for its decision. Given the legal question at issue, and the procedural posture of this case, the inclusion of such a description is, in my view, both irrelevant and unnecessary.... 'It is not for this Court to decide whether [the Defendant] deserves to die.'"

Well, how much did Justice Kennedy say about the Defendant, for the majority in deciding the case? He wrote:

"Respondent Cal Coburn Brown robbed, raped, tortured, and murdered one woman in Washington. Two days later, he robbed, raped, tortured, and attempted to murder a second woman in California. Apprehended, Brown confessed to these crimes and pleaded guilty to the California offenses, for which he received a sentence of life imprisonment. The State of Washington, however, sought the death penalty and brought Brown to trial."

The case concerned the dismissal of a single juror (Juror Z) based on the trial court's examination of the attitudes of that juror about imposing the death penalty. Juror Z said he thought the penalty should be applied, when the defendant "might be released, and might reoffend." In this very case, the jury's only choice was to impose the death penalty or life without parole. He would never be released.

This fact reveals the hypocrisy of the four Justices in Dissent. They want to maintain the pretense that states may impose the death penalty for particularly bad crimes. But at the same time, these four want to force onto juries at least one juror who will vote against that penalty, so the penalty is available in theory, but in fact it disappears.

This also explains why these four Justices - Stevens, Souter, Ginsberg, and Breyer - object to a factual statement in the Opinion of what this Defendant did, which caused the imposition of the death penalty. These four Justices have contempt for the law, when it is established by legislators who disagree with these four about execution of heinous criminals. But they don't want the public to see clearly what they are trying to do, with and to the Constitution, in order to oppose the death penalty.

Today, a US military judge dismissed charges against a 20-year-old prisoner. This decision was widely, but not competently, reported around the world. The Associated Press story in US papers was close to accurate.

Canadian detainee, Omar Khadr, was accused of throwing a grenade in Afghanistan which killed U.S. Army Sgt. Christopher Speer. Many of the foreign reports focused on the fact that Khadr was 15 at the time, which had nothing to do with the decision.

The judge, Army Col. Peter Brownback, dismissed the charges because Khadr was classified as an "enemy combatant," whereas the law enabling the trials applied to "alien unlawful enemy combatants." The same defect applies to all of the other detainees subject to military trials.

After quoting assorted lawyers saying that all the trials are defected, the reporter finally gets to the nub of the matter. Note these two paragraphs:

The Pentagon said the issue was little more than semantics.

A spokesman said the system was not dealing with lawful combatants, who fight in uniform for a national army. It was set up to determine if a detainee acted as an "unlawful enemy combatant" who was not in an internationally recognized military, did not wear a uniform or rank insignia, did not carry arms openly and was not a party to the Geneva Conventions, he said.

Individuals are not, of course, ever parties to the Geneva Conventions. The other points are all correct. Illegal combatants - like Nathan Hale (American) and Major John Andre (British) in the American Revolution - are illegal combatants under the Law of War, because they are behind enemy lines, not in a unit and not in uniform.

Thousands of words will be wasted on this case, not counting those of Rep. Gerald Nadler of New York, who has already weighed in. The charges were dismissed without prejudice. The labels on the prisoners need to be changed in accord with their factual circumstances. Then all the trials can proceed.

Protesters, including some in Scout uniforms, organized by the homosexual activist organization Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) demonstrated outside the Scouts' national meeting in Atlanta. They were demanding that the Scouts change their policy on excluding openly homosexual individuals from Scouting. Click here for the news article with video clip. For PFLAG's press release, click here.

As a rule, we do not publicize anti-Scouting propaganda, but we have decided to make an exception here. We are including it because it is essential that you know what those attacking Scouting are telling your friends, neighbors, co-workers and even members of your own family.

PFLAG's news release is very self-serving. They use terms like "discrimination," "intolerance" and "fairness" because they know that most Americans oppose unwarranted discrimination and try to be tolerant and fair. What they don't acknowledge is that the United States Supreme Court has upheld the Scouts' constitutional right to set their own standards for membership and leadership. And, other private organizations, including churches and PFLAG itself, have the same right. If this group feels so strongly that the Scouts are intolerant, PFLAG has a constitutional right to set up its own youth organization and limit membership to homosexuals.

The Aldermen of New Haven, Connecticut, have just approved ID cards for illegal immigrants in that City. The purpose is to allow them to open bank accounts and receive city services including welfare. Was anyone on the Board of Aldermen thinking when they adopted this measure?

To put this in context, would they even consider offering Get Out of Jail Free cards for bank robbers in New Haven? How about Free Lance Pharmacy cards for drug dealers? I shudder to think what they might do, to give a free ride to rapists or child molesters.

There is, of course, a serious point here. Under federal law, it is a separate violation of federal law for anyone, including an Alderman from New Haven, to deliberately assist someone else in violating federal law. There is also a practical side for dealing with New Haven and all other "sanctuary" cities.

There is no major urban area in the nation which could survive more than three months without the steady influx of federal funds for a variety of programs. If Congress passed a law saying that no more federal money from ANY federal program would go to any city that deliberately encouraged violations of federal immigration law, what would happen?

There would be a loud sucking sound. And then New Haven, Los Angeles, and all the other "sanctuary" cities would get back in line, PDQ. Actions like this happen whenever politicians get divorced from reality. Cutting off the money is the shotgun wedding to reintroduce them to that reality.

Without any prior notification, the Philadelphia City Council voted 16-1 on May 31st to authorize the city to end the lease with the Cradle of Liberty Scout Council for the headquarters building the city has leased to the Scouts since 1928. The lease, which is below current market value, was supposedly to be in force "in perpetuity." The city is demanding that the council, which serves about 64,000 boys in Philadelphia and surrounding areas, either publicly change its policy and accept openly homosexual individuals as Scouts and leaders or else pay fair market value to continue renting the prime real estate. Several city officials said the council took the action to increase the pressure on the Scouts. The Scout council has labeled the city council's action as another example of the unfair way the city has dealt with this issue.

Article here.

ACRU Policy Board member, Walter Williams, writes about the importance of getting our terms right, and understanding what the Left's terms of compassion really mean:

Dr. Thomas Sowell, a distinguished economist and longtime friend and colleague, recently wrote a series of columns under the title "A War of Words." He pointed out that liberals succeed in duping the public because they are so clever with words that they give the appearance of compassion. Liberals talk about the need for "affordable" housing and health care. They tarnish their enemies with terms such as "price-gouging" and "corporate greed." Uninformed and unthinking Americans fall easy prey to this demagoguery.

Politicians exploit public demands that government ought to do something about this or that problem by taking measures giving them greater control over our lives. For the most part, whatever politicians do, whether it's rent controls to produce "affordable" housing, or price controls to eliminate "price-gouging," the result is a calamity worse than the original problem. For example, two of the most costly housing markets are the rent-controlled cities of San Francisco and New York. If you're over 40, you'll remember the chaos produced by the gasoline price controls of the 1970s. Socialist agendas have considerable appeal, but they produce disaster, and the more socialist they are, the greater the disaster.

Liberals often denounce free markets as immoral. The reality is exactly the opposite. Free markets, characterized by peaceable, voluntary exchange, with respect for property rights and the rule of law, are more moral than any other system of resource allocation. Let's examine just one reason for the superior morality of free markets.

Say that I mow your lawn and you pay me $30, which we might think of as certificates of performance. Having mowed your lawn, I visit my grocer and demand that my fellow men serve me by giving me 3 pounds of steak and a six-pack of beer. In effect, the grocer asks, "Williams, you're demanding that your fellow man, as ranchers and brewers, serve you; what did you do to serve your fellow man?" I say, "I mowed his lawn." The grocer says, "Prove it!" That's when I hand over my certificates of performance -- the $30.

Look at the morality of a resource allocation method that requires that I serve my fellow man in order to have a claim on what he produces and contrast it with government resource allocation. The government can say, "Williams, you don't have to serve your fellow man; through our tax code, we'll take what he produces and give it to you." Of course, if I were to privately take what my fellow man produced, we'd call it theft. The only difference is when the government does it, that theft is legal but nonetheless theft -- the taking of one person's rightful property to give to another.

Liberals love to talk about this or that human right, such as a right to health care, food or housing. That's a perverse usage of the term "right." A right, such as a right to free speech, imposes no obligation on another, except that of non-interference. The so-called right to health care, food or housing, whether a person can afford it or not, is something entirely different; it does impose an obligation on another. If one person has a right to something he didn't produce, simultaneously and of necessity it means that some other person does not have right to something he did produce. That's because, since there's no Santa Claus or Tooth Fairy, in order for government to give one American a dollar, it must, through intimidation, threats and coercion, confiscate that dollar from some other American. I'd like to hear the moral argument for taking what belongs to one person to give to another person.

There are people in need of help. Charity is one of the nobler human motivations. The act of reaching into one's own pockets to help a fellow man in need is praiseworthy and laudable. Reaching into someone else's pocket is despicable and worthy of condemnation.

Iowa has amended its state non-discrimination law to include "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" among the categories covered. Lawmakers rejected a plea from state and national Scout officials to include in the legislation a recognition of the 2000 Dale Supreme Court decision which upheld the Scouts' constitutional right to exclude openly homosexual individuals from participating in Scouting. Scout officials fear that the new law will prompt lawsuits against the Scouts in Iowa.

Article here.

Here's my latest op-ed, published in today's Washington Examiner (though they spelled my name incorrectly):

WASHINGTON - A review by Adam Cohen of a new book, Supreme Discomfort: The Divided Soul of Clarence Thomas, appeared earlier this week in The New York Times.

The review demonstrates that neither Cohen, nor the authors of the book, nor the editors of The Times have a clue about what it means to have a constitution and how such a document operates.

The review began with Cohen getting his knickers in a twist over the fact that Justice Thomas does not ask questions during oral argument. It suggests that he might be ignorant of the case, might have his mind made up or might have contempt for the process, according to Cohen.

Anyone who is experienced in practice before the court knows this dirty little secret - oral argument is just for show; cases are almost always decided on the written pleadings. The only debate that matters is the one behind closed doors on Friday morning when the justices "conference" and decide all cases argued that week. Present are just the justices, no clerks or other staff.

Regarding the two Washington Post reporters who put together this book, Cohen writes, "They offer a wealth of insight, but they have no answer to the central enigma [Thomas] poses: Why the justice who has faced the greatest hardships regularly rules for the powerful over the weak, and has a legal philosophy notable for its indifference to suffering."

Think about that statement. There have been a few societies in which judges were expected to decide cases on the basis of the social position of the parties rather than follow the law.

One of the earliest was during the French Revolution. Those on the wrong side of the law then were fed to the guillotine. A more modern example is the former USSR, in which certain classes of people were "parasites," and were left to starve, or in better times, shipped off to Siberia.

The point this review utterly misses is that the Constitution is, as it says in its text, "the supreme Law." And as Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and James Madison wrote in The Federalist, the Constitution must be the supreme law, or it could be nullified by state or federal laws, or have different meanings in different parts of the nation.

The review refers to Thomas' views as "far right," but for some odd reason does not refer to the views of Justice John Paul Stevens as "far left." Both labels, however, are misleading when applied to justices on the court.

Instead, the proper question is which justices obey their oaths of office. All justices swear to obey and enforce the Constitution. That means following the Constitution wherever it leads. That is quite the opposite of saying, "Who do I want to win this case, and how must I rewrite the law or bend the Constitution to get that result?"

The review ends with this statement, "America will be a much less just place if Justice Thomas's life experiences and moral truth start to shape the court's agenda - and the nation's."

No one who understands the role of law in the U.S. would write such a statement, nor would any competent editor allow it to be printed unchallenged. America is a "just place" only when everyone obeys the law. And the Constitution contains no exception that places justices above the law.

Cohen, the book's authors and The Times editors might prefer that justices be above the law, and be able to revise the Constitution as they wish (as long as their kind of justices are in control).

But that's not what the Constitution says. Amendment belongs only to the people, as specified in Article V. I guess the editors at The Times didn't read that part of the Constitution, either.

John Armor practiced in the U.S. Supreme Court for 33 years and currently serves as counsel to the American Civil Rights Union.

As part of its effort to stop the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) from intimidating state and local governments to remove religious symbols from public places, the American Legion is organizing its local posts to inventory and monitor local memorials in their areas. This is part of the larger campaign by the Legion which includes passage of the "Veterans' Memorials, Boy Scouts, Public Seals, and Other Public Expressions of Religion Protection Act of 2007," H.R. 725 and S. 415, which includes special protections for the Scouts. (Editor's note: The ACRU has offered to help the Legion in litigation stopping the ACLU.)

Article here.

US District Judge Leslie Southwick comes before the Senate Judiciary Committee today on his nomination to move up to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. When Judge Southwick was nominated to the District Court, his approval was unanimous. But now, the Democrat left has attacked him for being "against" homosexuals and blacks.

Both charges have to do with just two of the more than 7,000 decisions he participated in as a Judge on the Mississippi Court of Appeals. In both cases, he joined the opinion, but did not write it.

In one, the appeals court approved a trial court decision granting custody of a child to the father, rather than the mother. After a review of the mother's living conditions, the trial court ruled for the father. However, the opinion used two words, "homosexual lifestyle," which sent the Democrat left into a frenzy. This is a frivolous objection, unless one has the prejudicial view that mothers should ALWAYS win custody disputes.

In the other case, the appeals court upheld a decision of the state employment agency's decision not to fire a woman who used the "N" word once, who apologized for doing so, and whose apology was accepted. Unless one accepts the view that every slight, however small, belongs in court being settled by lawyers, this was an eminently reasonable decision.

In short, the left wants to tar Judge Southwick for using common sense in his prior judicial work. That may be a hanging offense for the left, but it is exactly what most Americans would expect from members of the federal bench.

UPDATE - BREAKING NEWS: The Democrats have now pulled the vote on Judge Southwick, and in response the Republicans have threatened to "shut down the Senate" over the issue of Democrats blocking all judicial nominees by Bush - even ones like Southwick who were unanimously approved to the US District Court just a year ago.

In what has become increasingly common tactic, the St. Joseph County United Way in Indiana has cut off funding the Scouts because Scouting no longer meets the new criteria for funding programs. The United Way has decided to focus on dealing with "conflict resolution" in the youth programs it supports and, unaccountably, it has rejected the Scout program because it focuses too much on "developing leadership." As a result the Scouts will only receive token phase out funding from the United Way this year. Other county United Ways in the South Bend area continue to support the Scouts.

Article here.

The Board of Aldermen of New Haven, Connecticut, have by an astonishing vote of 25-1 approved special City-issued IDs for illegal aliens. The program is also strongly supported by Mayor John DeStefano, Jr., who said, "It's a practical response to a real problem of a large segment of the population who felt isolated from civil authority, were fearful of civil authority and that was contributing to a lack of civility and order in our community."

New Haven is apparently the only local community which has taken such a step. The Mayor estimated that 10% of the City's 120,000 population are "undocumented." The reason why most local governments are going in the exact opposite direction can be seen in the daily press, across the country.

How will the New Haven IDs work? They "would allow access to city libraries and parks, while a debit component would facilitate purchases at some 50 stores and payment at parking meters." The claim is that the cards require the same information as banks do to open accounts. Maybe things have changed since I got my first job, had my first child, and bought my first house. But way back then, banks wanted to know that you had a legal right to stick around before they would lend you money, especially for 30 years.

Hospitals and schools are being over-crowded and bankrupted by the demands of the illegal community. Crimes, and not just drug crimes, are increasing because of the illegal community. And when the deaths from murders and drunk drivers are combined, illegals are killing more Americans every year than enemies and terrorists in all parts of the world from Iraq to the Philippines.

Why did New Haven go in the exact opposite direction from Hazleton, Pennsylvania, and Farmers Branch, Texas? Because those cities paid more attention to the interests of their citizens than the Aldermen in New Haven did. But it's not entirely their fault. They were advised by the worthies at Yale Law School.

The genesis of the program, as "Michael Wishnie, a lawyer with the legal clinics at the Yale Law School, said, was public safety and the request from immigrants to have identification they could show police." Think about that. Lawyers advising people who commit crimes how to avoid the consequences of their illegality. Let's hope this concept doesn't spread to other law schools.

Wishnie claims this is "sound local governance." He claims that police around the country see this as "moving forward." He cites Los Angeles and Chicago as good examples of police deliberately ignoring the illegal status of people they encounter.

How long will this new policy of New Haven last? Just until an illegal slaughters a few local citizens over a drug deal gone bad. Or until a drunk illegal in a car slams into a local couple at night and kills one of them and both of their children. The people will find out if the person causing the deaths had multiple encounters with the police, or worse, had been deported before, and yet was back again. Then, the Mayor and 25 of his Aldermen will feel the backlash, and this policy will die. Yale Law School, however, will feel no such backlash, and learn nothing from the experience.

New Haven could learn their lesson earlier than that. Some members of the state legislature have proposed cutting off all state aid to the city until the policy is changed. Since half of the city's budget comes from the state, this would be immediately effective. As when Congress has threatened to cut off highway funds to state governments, first there are complaints, then a loud sucking sound, then the state or local government backs down. The US Supreme Court, by the way, has approved the use of federal or state fund withholding to force changes in state or local government behavior.

I am grateful for a very thorough, factual article in the New Haven Register on 10 June, which provides much more information about the New Haven ID program than the rest of the mainstream media, put together.

Twenty years ago today, then-President Ronald Reagan stood at the Brandenburg Gate in West Berlin, West Germany. He bristled at the inclusion of "West" in the names of the city and nation, forced upon the world as they were by a wall, built by the communists in the East. More, he bristled at the totalitarianism of East Germany and the Warsaw Pact - where the communist ideology necessitated the building of the Berlin Wall, armed with razor wire and machine guns aimed, not at the West, but inward to the east in order to cut down those who would flee to freedom.

Reagan gave a speech that blustery day in 1987. In many ways, the speech represented the culmination of his near-lifelong crusade against communism, beginning as it did while he was a young adult and president of the Screen Actors Guild in Hollywood, and capped by a two-term presidency whose first order of business was to confront the Soviet menace from a position of strength - both militarily and economically. The goal was not war, but to bring the Soviets to the table on our terms. The goal was to bring about internal reforms in the East that would bring freedom to peoples long-suppressed by Marxism-Leninism. The goal was for the West to "transcend" communism, as Reagan put it, and to condemn the murderous, suffocating ideology - and its ultimate symbol, the Berlin Wall - to the "ash heap of history."

The Berlin Wall did come down, on November 9, 1989. Soon thereafter Germany was reunified, and the Soviet Empire was no more.

Here is an extended excerpt of Reagan's famous speech - the speech that tore down a Wall and helped deliver hope and freedom to millions living behind the Iron Curtain:

Behind me stands a wall that encircles the free sectors of this city, part of a vast system of barriers that divides the entire continent of Europe. From the Baltic, south, those barriers cut across Germany in a gash of barbed wire, concrete, dog runs, and guard towers. Farther south, there may be no visible, no obvious wall. But there remain armed guards and checkpoints all the same--still a restriction on the right to travel, still an instrument to impose upon ordinary men and women the will of a totalitarian state. Yet it is here in Berlin where the wall emerges most clearly; here, cutting across your city, where the news photo and the television screen have imprinted this brutal division of a continent upon the mind of the world. Standing before the Brandenburg Gate, every man is a German, separated from his fellow men. Every man is a Berliner, forced to look upon a scar.

President von Weizsacker has said, "The German question is open as long as the Brandenburg Gate is closed." Today I say: As long as the gate is closed, as long as this scar of a wall is permitted to stand, it is not the German question alone that remains open, but the question of freedom for all mankind. Yet I do not come here to lament. For I find in Berlin a message of hope, even in the shadow of this wall, a message of triumph...

Monday's divided (2-1) decision by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals is wrong in a number of serious ways (see "Federal appeals court rules against enemy combatant policy"). It refers to "enemy combatants" without knowing what that phrase means. It ignores a 1942 unanimous decision of the US Supreme Court which decided a similar case the way the dissenting judge would have decided this one.

"Enemy combatants" simply means enemy soldiers. When captured, enemy soldiers can be held for the duration of the war, without any charges, trials or access to lawyers. So say the Geneva Conventions, the Hague Convention before them, and the Law of War which preexisted the government of the US, and which was incorporated into US law in 1789 in our first military code.

"Illegal enemy combatants" are those who don't wear uniforms, are not in military units, and hid among civilian populations. Such "illegals" have always been subject to military (or "drum-head" trials and prompt execution, if not simply execution on the spot. Witness the hanging of Nathan Hale as a spy by the British in Manhattan. Witness the hanging of Major John Andre, (Benedict Arnold's contact who was in civilian clothes and behind enemy lines) in New Jersey.

For legal approval of such actions, see the 8-0 decision of the US Supreme Court in the Quirin case in 1942. It concerned two groups of four each who came on shore from German submarines, in civilian clothes, with money and plans to blow up various military facilities in the US. They all called themselves Germans, but one and possibly two of them had acquired American citizenship as children.

The Supreme Court upheld the military tribunal trial of all eight, six of whom were sentenced to death. The Court ruled that it was irrelevant that one or two of them were American citizens, because they were "illegal enemy combatants."

The final, gross error of the press coverage of such trials today is that the Court ruled unanimously that the eight defendants in 1942 were all entitled to the writ of habeas corpus. That is exactly how they obtained their Supreme Court review. That writ remains available today. What is NOT available today, because Congress and the Supreme Court both say it is not available, is the full dress application of US civil and criminal law. And unless the entire Fourth Circuit and the US Supreme Court are willing to overrule the Quirin case from 1942, today's decision will be thrown out on appeal.

Under pressure from a federal law suit of the type that has been filed by the ACLU against many small communities across the country, the City of Mamaroneck, NY, agreed that it will not enforce federal laws concerning citizens of Mexico and other nations who are in the town illegally. Instead, it has agreed to provide special benefits to these citizens of other nations beyond those available to mere citizens of Mamaroneck. (See "Day-laborer hiring site greeted by cheers, jeers in Mamaroneck")

A federal judge is expected to approve this settlement. It will probably remain in place until a number of citizens of Mamaroneck are killed in criminal activities by these citizens of other nations, or local citizens are killed in drunk driving accidents by these citizens. Until then, it is unlikely that the City leaders of Mamaroneck will be either indicted or removed from office for contributing to criminal activity in their town.

In the last week (as of 18 June), the US Senate and House have acted in opposite directions on the subject of "Sanctuary Cities." These are cities which take deliberate steps to protect illegal immigrants within their boundaries, who can and should be deported, and in some cases already have been deported at least once.

In the Senate, Senator Coleman proposed amendment #1158. This would have amended the "comprehensive" illegal immigration bill before the Senate last week, and rising from the dead to be before the Senate again this week. Coleman's proposal would have required that local law enforcement is not prohibited (in "sanctuary cities") from acquiring information about the immigration status of a person they have probable cause to believe is not lawfully in the U.S. This was defeated, 48-49.

At the same time, the House acted decisively in the opposite direction. On Friday, 16 June, the House passed an amendment proposed by Rep. Tom Tancredo to withhold federal emergency services funding from sanctuary cities. Many press accounts add the phrase "so-called" before the word sanctuary.

There is no doubt factually that there are sanctuary cities. Los Angeles has exactly the policy tying the hands of its police that Senator Coleman sought to end. New Haven, Connecticut, has just passed by a vote of 25-1 of its Aldermen to provide City ID to illegal immigrants. And last week the Mayor of Portland provided free city services to families of illegals arrested there, and referred to them as "citizens of Portland." The fact that they were also citizens of other nations apparently escaped his notice.

So there are sanctuary cities, to which Rep. Tancredo's amendment was addressed. And his proposal to amend the funding for the Department of Homeland Security was accepted by the House by a vote of 234 to 189, with 50 Democrats voting in favor. According to Tancredo's home state paper, the Rocky Mountain News, he had proposed similar amendments seven times before, all defeated.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has said that she needs "70 Republican votes to pass the immigration plan." Rep. Tancredo said that the defection of Democrats and the solidity of Republicans on this issue indicates that the House "will crush" the Senate bill on illegal immigration in anything like its current form.

No actions of the Senate and House are final, of course, until either House has passed its final version of any bill, and the versions of each House have been approved by joint committees of both Houses.

The facts for this blog, but not the conclusions, come from an article in the Detroit News on 18 June. The University of Michigan at Dearborn proposed to spend $25,000 on footbaths at the local campus, for Muslim students to use before their five-times-daily prayers. The reason for that was that "students might injure themselves, washing their feet in bathroom sinks."

There was significant local opposition to this proposal, on the grounds that a public university shouldn't be spending money for the benefit of one religion only. The Executive Director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) said that the money for this would have to be raised privately if the ACLU filed suit to stop the project. (CAIR did not flat-out offer to raise or provide the money.)

The ACLU, however, gave the project a clean bill of health, if you'll pardon the pun. The Detroit branch of the ACLU (perhaps the most compliant branch that CAIR could find) issued a statement that this was a "cleanliness issue" and that there was "no intent to promote religion."

Unless some organization which understands the First Amendment better than the ACLU stops this project with a law suit, $25,000 of the tax-payers' money will be used to build these footbaths. At least, since they belong to the public, anyone should be able to use them, even students who wear classy, pigskin shoes.

On Monday, June 11th, the Georgia Supreme Court reversed a trial court decision that a Georgia law requiring photo ID for all voters, was unconstitutional. The court's decision was unanimous, but not substantive. It was that the Plaintiff lacked standing to object to the law, and therefore the case was dismissed.

The subject of the constitutionality of the Georgia law remains open, however, because a preliminary injunction against the law has been granted in a separate, federal challenge to the law, which is still pending.

Opponents to voter ID laws, which in many cases include the ACLU, argue that requiring photo IDs will "disenfranchise minorities, the poor and the elderly." These arguments have a tough time dealing with the practical fact that someone who wants to write a $20 check at the grocery store for milk, eggs and bread for breakfast, has to present valid, photo ID. And it is hard to argue that voting is less important than buying stuff for breakfast.

Most of the arguments in Georgia and other states against such laws claim that they amount to an "illegal poll tax." States have responded to these claims by making the process free for those citizens who want a government-issued ID in lieu of a drivers license. The real reason why opponents dislike these laws is that honest drivers licenses with photos and proof of citizenship would go a long way toward shutting down voter fraud.

And the voter ID laws will be indirectly tightened up by a federal law requiring proof of citizenship for all US and state citizens to obtain state drivers licenses, with different designs and expiration laws for any legal aliens who also obtain drivers licenses. The combined effect of voter ID and license laws will be that voters in American elections would be almost entirely living, American citizens voting only once.

Similar voter ID laws have been upheld in Arizona by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and struck down by the state Supreme Court in Missouri. Since the question of "discrimination in voting laws is a First Amendment, federal issue, it is likely that a US Supreme Court decision will settle out all these cases, both state and federal.

As a 33-year practitioner in the US Supreme Court on First Amendment issues mostly, I predict that when that Court takes one of these cases, it will rule in favor of the law, as long as there is a mechanism such as a poverty affidavit by which the poorest people can obtain state photo IDs without charge.

The Center for American Progress is a liberal organization in its pedigree and staff. It has now released a "study" on the imbalance between conservative and "progressive" content on talk radio. It wants the government to compel a "balance" between these two.

Even assuming that the study rests on a legitimate definition of what is conservative or "progressive" (which means liberal all the way to socialist), the study is still a foolish enterprise. Thomas Jefferson long ago referred to "the free market of ideas." Modern talk radio is where free speech and free markets meet. Only those shows which attract listeners will attract sponsors to pay the bills. And absent sponsors, any show of any type will fail.

Any study is no better than the quality of its source. All of CAP's officers are former officials in the Clinton Administration. Plus, their funding includes George Soros as a source. Plus, the principal author of the study was a paid consultant to two liberal talk show hosts. The author has never revealed those connections.

Turning to the study itself, it eliminates National Public Radio from the equation. Most sentient beings consider NPR to be a source of "progressive" talk in its commentary shows. Then, the study does not allow for the size of radio stations. Some stations are very small because they serve only a niche market. The larger a station is, the more it has to pay attention to what most people want to hear.

The central failure of the CAP study is it denies the truth that Jefferson spoke, and the commercial truth that any free market radio station that lacks sponsors, will fail. The continuing failure of the "Air America Network" is proof that very few Americans want to hear what CAP is offering. (Most of the officials of CAP have made regular appearances on Air America; so they cannot be ignorant of it.)

This very study shows that there are "progressive" shows out there. It's just that they are wildly unpopular. (In fact, an article on The Radio Equalizer blog gives details on how the "study" slanted the ratio of conservative to "progressive" talk radio by leaving out several well-known liberal shows and hosts.)

CAP is like a buggy whip manufacturer in 1920. They cannot understand why the bottom has dropped out of the buggy whip business. They want the government to force people to buy more buggy whips. CAP and its "researchers" are apparently clueless about both freedom of speech and free markets.

Conservatives have been fighting to reverse a liberal activist Supreme Court since the 1968 Nixon campaign. Now, almost 40 years later, we are on the verge of success. But have we lost interest?

The current court is very finely balanced between conservatives and liberals. There are 4 solid conservatives on the court, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, and Sam Alito. There are also 4 solid liberals, John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter, and Stephen Breyer. Then there is Anthony Kennedy, who keeps wandering back and forth, with the outcome of every ideological case dependent on his whims.

Conservatives have already begun winning key cases in both the Supreme Court and lower courts. School vouchers, even for religious schools, have been upheld as constitutional. The Supreme Court recently upheld a Federal law banning partial birth abortion, even though the High Court and the lower courts had consistently struck down all previous bans. In 2000, the Supreme Court ruled that the Boy Scouts have a constitutional right to choose what values they want to uphold and promote, and can choose to hire only those who represent those values. Consequently, the Scouts cannot be found to have committed illegal discrimination in refusing to appoint openly gay Scoutmasters. The DC Circuit Court of Appeals also recently ruled that the Second Amendment really does protect an individual right to keep and bear arms, just like it says.

By April 20, 2009, ultraliberal John Paul Stevens will be 89 years old. He is unlikely to survive the next President's term on the court. If he is replaced by a true conservative like the other 4, the balance of the Court will shift decisively to the conservatives.

In addition, Ruth Bader Ginsburg looks every one of her 74 years and is reportedly in ill health. Before the end of the next President's term, she will be 80 years old. The next President will likely replace her as well. If another solid conservative is appointed, that would make 6 conservatives, 1 wandering moderate, and 2 liberals.

What an enormous victory for conservatives that would be. In addition to the social issues, this will make a big difference as well on such economic issues as property rights, including intellectual property, tort reform, business regulation, further school voucher cases, and others.

But are the conservatives still paying attention? They seem confused, disoriented, and diffident regarding the next election. They need to be focused on getting a President who will make appointments like Alito and Roberts, or even Scalia and Thomas. They also need to be focused on getting a Senate that will confirm them.

"With no ID requirement, I didn't even need my dog tags!"

Dog registered to vote: it's so easy! (NewsMax.com/AP)

Leftists employing a religious test? You don't say?

Victory for teacher told to pay dues or change religions (CNSnews.com)

Promise and opportunity on the High Court - will we squander it?

Black Monday for liberals? (Human Events Online)

Analysts mull possibility of Supreme Court vacancy (CNSnews.com)

When at first you can't succeed, pass a law to handcuff the competition.

Unfairness Doctrine (National Review Online)

Unfairness Doctrine (Flynn Files)

* * * * *
Are you aware of any news that the ACRU should know about? Has the ACLU been up to no good in your state? Is the Bill of Rights being undermined in some way that America needs to know about? Are the Boy Scouts, a war memorial, or another American institution under attack in your community? Then tell us about it. Post a link in the comments section below, or send us an email. Good tips will be recognized in future postings of the "Headlines"

An important reminder for Americans.

Reflections on patriotism (The Patriot Post)

Rare good news form the High Court - including a partial restoration of our speech rights during politic