The ACRU Blog

Some of the biggest supporters of the ACRU used to be big supporters of the ACLU, until they opened their eyes. Here's the latest example of an enlightened former lawyer for the ACLU:

Former ACLU lawyer calls group "the Taliban of American Secularism" (The Valley News)

The United States Supreme Court handed down a number of favorable decisions last week. But "conservative" justices don't come to their conclusions in the same way as each other and liberal justices don't think identically either:

Quandaries 4 Justices (George Will)

One right-leaning perspective on the recent decisions:

A cautious right turn: the Supremes were most united on business cases (WSJ's OpinionJournal)

Where Parents ... v. Seattle School District leaves us in terms of race policies:

Black pride, white paternalism (La Shawn Barber)

What's "fair" about the "Fairness Doctrine"? Moreover, how would regulated talk be considered free speech?:

Michael Reagan on the Fairness Doctrine: "AM Radio will die" (Human Events Online)
House votes to ban FCC on 'fairness' (The Hill)
Representatives fight assault on First Amendment rights (CitizenLink.org)

A reminder of the most important things are always timely:

What's so great about America (Dinesh D'Souza)

* * * * *
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"

Richard Henry Lee, Resolution in Congress, June 7, 1776:

Resolved: That these colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent states, that they are absolved of all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved. That it is expedient forthwith to take the most effectual measures for forming foreign Alliances. That a plan of confederation be prepared and transmitted to the respective colonies for their consideration and approbation.

It ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance by solemn Acts of Devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with Pomp and Parade, with Shews, Games, Sports, guns, Bells, Bonfires and Illuminations from one End of this Continent to the other from this Time forward forever more. You will think me transported with Enthusiasm but I am not. I am well aware of the Toil and Blood and Treasure, that it will cost Us to maintain this Declaration, and support and defend these States. Yet through all the Gloom I can see the Rays of ravishing Light and Glory. I can see that the End is more than worth all the Means. And that Posterity will tryumph in that Days Transaction, even altho We should rue it, which I trust in God We shall not.

We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.

My hand trembles, but my heart does not.

I just discovered that my most recent Op-Ed has been picked up by a local paper in Texas. My article - "Approval of Religious Expression Reveals False Dichotomy" - appeared in the Jacksboro Gazette-News and The Jack County Herald on June 12, 2007.

Dear Senator Specter,

I am writing to you as the Ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee. It's useless to write to Chairman Patrick Leahy, because his views are the same as a minority of the Supreme Court Justices -- whatever outcome in any case benefits the Democratic Party is fine with him, regardless of what that does to or with the US Constitution.

You, at least, say that you are interested in accurate analysis of the constitutional issues presented. I've read a couple of your books and I must say that your scholarship, except in the area of Scottish law, leaves a great deal to be desired.

But, let bygones be bygones. Today's issue is the incompetence of the press in dealing with the issue of habeas corpus and its application, or not, to the prisoners at Guantanamo. I'm sure you'll be hit with questions about that. And it would behoove you to know what you're talking about, better than the editors at the New York Times, to choose an example not entirely at random.

If, so, read on. Here's an explanation of that very subject in words of one syllable or less:

Thomas Jefferson, letter to Samuel Adams Wells, May 12, 1821:

The Declaration of Independence... [is the] declaratory charter of our rights, and the rights of man.

[T]he flames kindled on the 4 of July 1776, have spread over too much of the globe to be extinguished by the feeble engines of despotism; on the contrary, they will consume these engines and all who work them.

On the distinctive principles of the Government ...of the U. States, the best guides are to be found in...The Declaration of Independence, as the fundamental Act of Union of these States.

This was the object of the Declaration of Independence. Not to find out new principles, or new arguments, never before thought of, not merely to say things which had never been said before; but to place before mankind the common sense of the subject, in terms so plain and firm as to command their assent, and to justify ourselves in the independent stand we are compelled to take. Neither aiming at originality of principle or sentiment, nor yet copied from any particular and previous writing, it was intended to be an expression of the American mind, and to give to that expression the proper tone and spirit called for by the occasion.

To honor our nation's independence on this Fourth of July, 2007, I think is good to do or read something to become more knowledgable and filled with greater appreciation of our Founding Fathers and thanksgiving to God for the work He did through them. In that spirit, I reproduce the section on Thomas Jefferson and the Declaration of Independence from the essay on Jefferson I wrote back in February 2001 for the Bill of Rights Institute. You can read the full essay - which is biographical, though focused on his contributions to American freedom and government - here.

I also encourage readers to review the quotes I posted here and here from many of the Founders on the significance they believed of what they were doing and did in drafting and signing the Declaration of Independence. And, of course, the best thing of all is to read the Declaration of Independence. Happy Independence Day

Thomas Jefferson and the Declaration of Independence

...[Thomas] Jefferson's fame comes from a wide-range of achievements and roles - diplomat, secretary of state, governor, historian, philosopher, founder of a university - but he achieved greatness and secured his place in history most firmly with his primary authorship of the Declaration of Independence. In the midst of growing hostilities with the British on the eve of the Revolutionary War, the Second Continental Congress appointed Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Roger Sherman, and Robert Livingston to draft the Declaration. The other four members deferred to thirty-three year old Jefferson, one of the youngest members of Congress, to write the document. They did this for two main reasons: 1) his brilliant and powerful writing style, and 2) his Virginia citizenship. As the largest and most influential southern colony, Virginia's support for the revolutionary cause was indispensable for presenting a united front against the British.

The Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America, as it is officially titled, was signed on July 4, 1776 (though it passed on July 2). It was proclaimed to the public in Philadelphia on July 8.

Jefferson's penmanship of the Declaration grew to legendary status by the time of his presidency. This drew the ire of Adams, whose vast patriotic credentials were now overshadowed by the document, leading him to decry it and the ideas it contained as "hackneyed," utterly unoriginal. Jefferson agreed. He wrote of the Declaration, "Neither aiming at originality of principle or sentiment, nor yet copied from any particular and previous writing, it was intended to be an expression of the American mind."

Indeed, the arguments and principles contained in the Declaration of Independence - including, in some cases, the actual wording - were culled from various sources. For instance, it included Richard Henry Lee's June 7, 1776, resolution for independence nearly in its entirety, including the phrase, "that these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent states."

Other influences included George Mason's Virginia Declaration of Rights ( "all men are by nature equally free and independent") and Jefferson's own June 1774 pamphlet, "A Summary View of the Rights of British America." The Summary was intended for delegates in the Virginia legislature, and rejected all British parliamentary authority whatsoever over the colonies, while acknowledging that allegiance was owed only to the king. Given that the king had no tax or legislative authority without Parliament, this allegiance was merely ceremonial and in effect represented virtual independence from Great Britain.

In the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson sought to present the colonists' grievances against the throne, citing numerous instances of British transgressions against their "rights as Englishmen" under common law, as were often asserted. These legal rights were not enough, though, to forge a bridge with other countries around the world who were uninterested in the "rights of Englishmen." The enduring masterstroke for Jefferson was in finding that common ground through an appeal to natural law philosophy.

Like Mason and many other colonial leaders, Jefferson was greatly influenced by John Locke's thoughts on natural law. He also revered fellow natural law philosopher Christian Wolff from Germany. Jefferson had a copy of Wolff's Institutiones in his library, in which passages on the asserted right of revolutionary war were specifically marked. The Declaration's philosophical paragraph on man's inherent and inalienable equal rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness continues to exert influence and inspiration to this day...

With the comprehensive immigration reform bill dead and buried (look for it to return again and again like a horror-flick monster, though), the hot issue is the so-called Fairness Doctrine. So let's be clear: there is nothing fair about it, and it is repugnant to the First Amendment. Rather, the ACRU favors the Free Speech Doctrine. We can't repeat it enough, and we won't stop saying it: Free speech, not government control of the airwaves:

Plan to restore fairness doctrine still on track, analyst says (CNSnews.com)
'Fairness' follies (Wall Street Journal/ACU)
Back to the Fairness Doctrine? (William Rusher)
What's fair about the Fairness Doctrine? (Burt Prelutsky)
Libs long for 'Fairness' daze (Culture and Media Institute)

And our own Horace Cooper (Senior Fellow at the ACRU) chimes in on the subject:

Fake right, thrust left (Horace Cooper)

But all is not bad on the First Amendment front, given the High Court's de-fanging of McCain-Feingold:

A victory for free speech (David S. Broder)

Walter Williams, who among other things serves on the ACRU Policy Board, always sets our thinking straight:

Straight thinking 101 (Walter E. Williams)

It is always good to think deeper about one of the most overlooked rights protected in the First Amendment, too:

On freedom of association (Charles W. Baird/The Freeman)

That persnickety Second Amendment: it drives politicians mad and puts the privacy of those who practice their constitutional right at risk:

Gun issue won't stall budget (The Philadelphia Inquirer)
Ohio newspaper under fire for outing gun owners (CNSnews.com)

It is gratifying to see schools and even some states stand up to the ACLU and for the right to religious expression:

Religious rights of students affirmed in N.J. and Texas (CitizenLink.org)

Memo from Congress: Who needs the Judiciary, anyway?

Judicial vacancies leave GOP with empty feeling (Al Kamen/Washington Post)

Finally, the Fourth of July may be past, but we will never stop celebrating our freedom. Therefore, here are a few more good thoughts on American Independence:

Independence Day messages from John Adams (Michael Medved)
Immigrants become citizens on nation's birthday (CNSnews.com)
Taking America for granted (Thomas Sowell)
Patriotism (Cal Thomas)
America needs a July Fourth Seder (Dennis Prager)
Escape from New York: even Gen. Washington didn't win every battle (Brendan Miniter/WSJ's Opinion Journal)
Indivisible: no celebration of liberty can ignore America's Godly heritage (Alan Sears)

* * * * *
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"

The so-called Fairness Doctrine is so wrong and so dangerous that we'll keep hammering away at it until it goes away for good. Be sure to tell your congressman that it is unfair, and that you support the free speech doctrine instead:

The unfairness doctrine (Paul Greenberg)
Fear, fairness, freedom, and fakery (Harry R. Jackson, Jr.)

Here's Ed Feulner with an encouraging take on some good news we've had recently regarding speech rights:

A victory for free speech (Ed Feulner)

If the homosexual lobby was ever simply a "live and let live" movement, it has long since ceased being so. Now it is a "live, and publicly endorse our lifestyle choice - or else" movement that poses a threat to religious liberty, property rights, freedom of association, and free speech for those who disagree with them:

Lesbian couple wants access to religious property for civil union (CNSnews.com)

For another example, here's an article which references the ACRU's efforts to protect the rights of a doctor from being forced to administer a treatment against her religious convictions. Cited in the article is ACRU Policy Board member Ed Meese:

Calif. Supreme Court to hear contentious gay rights case (Law.com/The Recorder)
(For more information on this case, see our "Another Type of Conscientious Objector")

* * * * *
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"

Executive Summary:

An unlikely alliance between a talk radio host and a college professor, who got run down by an illegal alien, has sparked a turn-around for Tulsa, Oklahoma. From a sanctuary city it has become a watchful and wary city. And due to an extraordinary response by viewers, MSNBC has noticed and reported on this radical change.

Two lesbians have brought a complaint against a park, owned and operated by the Methodist Church, for refusing them the "right" to have their civil ceremony (wedding?) in a pavilion there. The response of the Church is that it doesn't allow civil unions of any type in that pavilion, that it is used only for religious purposes including weddings.

The lesbians are strongly supported by Garden State Equality, which represents the "lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex community." (We have no idea what the "intersex community" is.) The complaint is made under the Public Accommodations Law in New Jersey, the same one which was used to attack the Boy Scouts of America for rejecting a homosexual as an adult leader. (That case ended with the US Supreme Court ruling that the Scouts were exercising their "freedom of association" under the First Amendment, reversing the NJ Supreme Court which had ruled that the Act could be applied to the Scouts.)

If it is pushed that far, this case could wind up in the US Supreme Court. If so, the clause about "freedom of religion" should cause the lesbians to lose their case against the Methodists.

Go here, to find this story on the Internet.

The ACRU and former attorney general and ACRU Policy Board member Ed Meese are cited in a July 11 article at the Daily Blade: "When A Patient's Rights Stop Where A Healthcare Provider's Rights Begin."

One correction though, as this is the second time a newspaper has gotten this wrong: The ACRU is not proposing a "compromise" solution; we are simply defending the right of the defendant and citing the facts of what she did do. She actually was much more accommodating to the would-be patient than she needed to be.

The big news this week has been the implosion of the McCain campaign. The ironic thing is that his efforts to suppress political speech may have helped fund his undoing:

The McCain-Feingold effect: Where has all the money gone? (WSJ's OpinionJournal)

Speaking of speech (!), another excuse for suppression is being actively contemplated in the Upper Chamber:

U.S. Senate prepares to vote on dangerous hate-crimes bill (CitizenLink.org)

Fortunately, lots of senators are lining up against the assault on talk radio:

Fairness Doctrine target of new measure by GOP senators (CNSnews.org)

You may not like her message or the way she is drawing attention to her message, but protests are protected by the First Amendment. The only question is (should be) whether this lady was in violation of her private community's code:

Upside-down flag protest raises outcry (Denver Post)

Specter leads revolt on stalled judicial nomination (The Politico)

Liberals have a problem with Clarence Thomas; he has strayed from their ideological, unconstitutional, race-obsessed plantation:

Justice Thomas v. race-based school plans (The New York Times)
The Democrats' own brand of racism (Star Parker)
The ethics of affirmative action (Steven Yates/The Freeman)

The Ivory Tower loves Marx, but hates Christianity:

University of Florida sued for refusing to recognize Christian group (CitizenLink.org)

Good article on the origins and dangerous effects of the PC movement, in terms of its war on language:

Better dead than rude (John Derbyshire/The American Conservative)

Finally, this type of thing has become so common that it almost doesn't warrant news coverage - except for that fact that it is un-American: Since when has our right to the pursuit of happiness morphed into a guarantee to wear school pom-poms?:

Parents sue after daughter fails to make cheerleading squad (Victoria Advocate)

* * * * *
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"

News Channel 5 in Nashville, TN, published an article on its website on 10 July about illegal aliens suing local officials for illegally arresting them. They are claiming $100 a day for their incarceration until they are thrown out of the US in their suit against the Maury County Sheriffs' Office, and the Sheriff himself.

Nowhere does the article describe these as "illegal" immigrants. But they would not be in jail, awaiting deportation, if their status were legal.

The illegals were arrested during a raid conducted by the Sheriff and immigration officers at a mobile home park near Nashville. They were searching for, and apparently found, a man wanted for rape. The article quotes a local resident as saying, "she's scared the officers are targeting Hispanics." The rape suspect was Hispanic, as were the illegal aliens who were found and arrested.

There is no indication that the ACLU is directly involved in this case. But there is no question that the thinking here - illegal aliens have a "right" to be in the US and anyone who interferes with that "right" should pay - is right up the ACLU alley.

Go here, to find this story on the Internet:
http://www.newschannel5.com/Global/story.asp?S=6771363

Investors Business Daily ran an editorial entitled, "Jihad in Schools," on July 9. It describes a program in a San Diego public school for setting aside 15 minutes a day for Somali Muslim students to pray at Carver Elementary School. And it has added Arabic to its teaching. And it has segregated boys from girls in classrooms. And it has banned pork and other non-Islamic foods from its lunchroom.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations defends this program. What is interesting is the position of the ACLU on this. Whenever Judeo-Christian actions, or even single words, are at issue, the ACLU mounts its high horse and claims that "the separation of church and state are being violated." Yet this is an instance of far greater intrusion of religion into a public place and into the pockets of the taxpayers, and the ACLU is tellingly silent.

Apparently there is no principle of separation of mosque and state in the United States.

Go here to find this story on the Net:
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=268874251390676

The Kitsap Sun ran a delightful, and also distressing, article on July 11 on the inability of the Bainbridge Island Council and Mayor to decide whether to say, or not say, the Pledge of Allegiance at the beginning of their meetings. Most readers might think that is not a difficult question, but in the People's Republic of Washington State, it is.

A new member of the Council, who is an Air Force veteran from the Vietnam War, raised the issue. Other members of the Council objected, some because they resent the Pledge and consider it false in its claims. The Mayor tried to force the issue, and received a backlash from the Council. So, she tried to punt the issue to the Council for decision while she was on vacation, and the Kitsap Sun got its fingers on the e-mails back and forth.

The Mayor said that she "disappointed" Council members when she "forgot to say the pledge," and engendered "bitterness and resentment" when she did. One Councilman wrote to the Mayor, "Darlene, this appears to be very manipulative and self-serving." To the Council Chair he wrote, "She leaves and asks council to self implode from their own stupidity! Let's consider the fallout before we do this." The next day, he apologized for letting "my inner child take control."

In the meantime, neither the Council nor the Mayor have reached a final decision on whether the Pledge will be said at Council meetings. The ACLU has repeatedly attacked the Pledge in federal courts for its phrase "under God." However, it has not to our knowledge attacked any local governments like the Bainbridge Council for reciting the Pledge. Such an attack would be remarkably unsuccessful. According to a poll conducted by the Kitsap Sun, the local residents say by a vote of 63% to 34% they want the Pledge to be said.

Go here to find this story on the Net:
http://www.kitsapsun.com/news/2007/jul/09/still-no-decision-on-taking-the-pledge

The Honolulu Advertizer has picked up my latest Op-Ed. Here it is:

Three noteworthy cases on 9th Circuit docket

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is proving itself once again to be a powerhouse among the circuits. And based on some of the cases that it will decide this year it might actually edge out the D.C. Circuit as the most influential circuit court in the nation.

With its headquarters in San Francisco, the 9th Circuit is the largest of the 13 courts of appeals, and this term there's a lot happening. Three of the cases awaiting final disposition by the 9th Circuit are quite noteworthy. And depending on the outcome, they could literally change the world.

Regulating "Fairness" is inherently subjective, and as such is inherently leftist, given that government is the regulator. Freedom is the only truly fair doctrine:

The Fairness Doctrine lives! (Campus Report Online)
The 'Fairness Doctrine' power grab (Family Security Matters)
Senate Democrats foil attempt to bar 'Fairness Doctrine' (Washington Times)

What is happening in the Senate over the President's judicial nominees is despicable. (For more info, be sure to check out The Committee for Justice website):

Senate scrap looms over judicial nominee (CNSnews.com)
Senator Specter defends judicial nominee Southwick (CitizenLink.org)

No state church and freedom of religious expression should be simple; then why does the High Court further muddle our religious liberties with each passing year?:

The Supreme Court giveth, the Supreme Court taketh away (Ken Blackwell)

Well said:

Why hate shouldn't be a crime (Gregory Koukl)

The ACLU is like a broken clock - but at least broken clocks don't attack our fundamental values:

The ACLU: Enemy of America and Christianity (Rabbi Aryeh Spero/Human Events Online)
A perception issue? Revolving door between the ACLU and National Public Radio (Tim Graham)

The reach of Leviathan knows no bounds:

Elderly couple may lose house because of $1.63 tax bill (USA Today)
8-year-old boy barred from plane for appearing on terrorist no-fly list (FOXNews.com)
This state can take your dreams, too (Debra J. Saunders)

The ACRU is working to restore the right to self-defense in the nation's capital and elsewhere. Gun-grabbers are naturally up in arms (bad pun intended) about it:

DC to appeal handgun case to Supreme Court (AP/WUSA9.com)
Gun ownership becoming a Capital idea (Project 21/National Center for Public Policy Research)
Banning handguns would save lives? It just ain't so! (PDF) (Clayton E. Cramer/The Freeman)
D.C.'s assault on the Second Amendment (Terence Jeffrey)
Gun-control bill passes PA legislature (The Philadelphia Inquirer)

* * * * *
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"

Dear __________________,

Thank you for your email and questions.

However, your questions betray a fundamental lack of understanding of what the Constitution actually says and does, given that you are presuming 1) that equality of outcome equals equality under the law and 2) that government-mandated political correctness over the consciences and convictions of private individuals and organizations is somehow the definition for what is "constitutional." Rather, what is constitutional is what is in accordance with the Constitution, our governing document that dictates what the federal government may do and what it must not do.

Taking your questions in order, then - and briefly:

First, discrimination is inevitable. You do it yourself every time you chose one product over another in the marketplace, or decide to befriend one individual and not another. You discriminate when you don't allow anyone and everyone free access and use of your home and property. The right of the Boy Scouts of America to determine its own moral code and impose conditions upon membership and participation in their private organization is recognized and protected by the Constitution. This is just as it is for you, me, or any other private organization.

Specifically, the right of the Boy Scouts to discriminate (i.e., determine its own membership requirements free from outside coercion) is bound up in the sanctity of private property (Amendments III, IV, & V) and its freedom of conscience (religion), speech, and assembly (Amendment I) - collectively known as the Freedom of Association - is clearly protected by the U.S. Constitution.

Second, there is no inconsistency in our support of the Boy Scouts and our stated mission to preserve equality under the law. Equality under the law simply means that everyone will be treated the same by the laws of the land, and that these laws will be applied without favor to one individual or group over another. Fundamentally, what the American Founders mainly had in mind was that our government leaders would not be free from prosecution for crimes that would most certainly lead to the average citizen being prosecuted. There is no special "above the law" status that is to be afforded to any aristocracy or specially-favored group in America. However, when a law is passed that applies to one group or individual and not another, equality of law has necessarily been violated.

Therefore, any law that "protects" a class of people from "discrimination" (especially when it does so by violating the freedom of association of another individual or organization) has introduced an inequality under the law. That these politically correct laws may be aiming for some greater equality of outcome (in someone's mind) does not alleviate this fact; to attempt to achieve this requires the subtraction of some individual's property and/or rights and the redistribution of that property and/or special privileges to individuals among the group or groups now favored by the law.

Finally, that atheists and homosexuals are barred from membership and positions of leadership with the Boy Scouts is most certainly not in conflict with our mission to preserve equality under the law for all Americans, as guaranteed by the Constitution. Private atheistic and pro-homosexual organizations - and even scouting organizations of the such - have the same rights as the Boy Scouts. Their freedom of association - to admit or not admit members and leaders under whatever criteria they should choose - receives the same protection under the law as the Boy Scouts have. We believe that is good and right, and certainly constitutional.

In conclusion, our actions in regard to the Boy Scouts of America are not hypocritical, as you suggest, but are entirely consistent with our stated mission and values.

Respectfully,

Eric Langborgh
Director of Development, The American Civil Rights Union

With the Democrats in the Senate stalling on the consideration and confirmation of 19 nominees to the district court level - thus creating a "judicial emergency - and esp. with the malicious attempts to derail the confirmation of Judge Leslie Southwick to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, the American Civil Rights Union has sent a letter to each member of the Senate Judiciary Committee and other important Senate leaders. Here is that letter. (Document is in PDF format.)

On July 18, the San Francisco Chronicle reported on a well-deserved loss in court by the ACLU. Two fans of the San Francisco 49ers filed suit against the team and the National Football League, with the legal assistance of the ACLU. They claimed that their constitutional rights were trampled by the policy of the League, carried out by the 49ers, to conduct "pat down" searches of fans entering their stadium.

The First District Court of Appeals (state court) in San Francisco, ruled that these fans had "consented to the searches" when they showed up for the game, knowing of the policy in advance. The majority rested its decision on the fact that the Team and the League are private organizations, and are not bound to be open to all citizens without restriction, like government agencies.

While the ACLU is talking about appealing this case, to continue its attack on "pat down" searches, the article noted that a federal appeals court in Atlanta had reversed a trial court decision against such searches. Also, a federal trial court had dismissed a similar claim against such searches in Seattle.

Also, note that the searches conducted on people about to board the NY subway system were also upheld in court, on the grounds that people who did not want to be searched were welcome to turn away, and not enter the system

All these are common sense decisions, seeking to keep Americans from being killed wholesale, in public places. The ACLU does not care, or worse, is actively hoping for, the killing of large numbers of Americans in such places.

According to an article on the webpage of Channel 6 in Orlando, the Florida Civil Liberties Union is considering a challenge to the red-light cameras being used at dangerous intersections in Orlando, Apopka and Orange Counties. The group cited a recent Minnesota Supreme Court decision which ruled against the cameras that take pictures of cars running red lights.

The Minnesota decision claimed that car owners "cannot confront their accusers" since the accuser is "a machine." Apparently, the court did not notice that all the crime scene photographs in the known universe, including those in Minnesota, were also taken by a machine known as a camera.

The Mayor of Orlando said that he wanted to keep the red-light cameras because they save lives. The article noted that there were 165,000 Americans injured as a result of cars running red lights anywhere in the nation, in 2005. Of those, "nearly 800" were fatalities, and of those, half were drivers and passengers in cars that were hit by drivers running red lights. The article noted that an intersection in Orlando with an "experimental" camera experienced a 40% decrease in violations, and a 50% decrease in crashes, when the camera was in place, and in use.

Since there is no question that a policeman who saw a car run a light could charge the driver, the ACLU position is that using cameras is unconstitutional. That's a stretch for the real ACLU position; anything which helps get criminals off the street and save lives, MUST be unconstitutional.

It reminds one of a Joey Bishop line from a very forgettable movie, "Who are you going to believe? Me, or your lying eyes?"

On 21 June, the Supreme Court decided the case of Rita v. United States. There were a total of four Opinions in the case, the majority Opinion by Justice Breyer, two Concurrences by Justices Stevens and Scalia, and a solitary Dissent by Justice Souter. The question was marvelously simple, and didn't seem to justify the time and firepower devoted to it. (The ACLU did not file a brief in this case, but several of its legal and political allies did, on behalf of the criminal.)

Victor Rita bought a "gun kit" from InterOrdinance which apparently when assembled produced an operating machine gun, contrary to federal law on the selling of such guns. Contacted by agents of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, Rita showed them the kit. When the agents came back, he had returned the kit and presented a different one to them. He also lied under oath to a federal grand jury about these matters.

After conviction, the issue became sentencing. Under the federal guidelines, his offense as a first offender (he had a prior firearms conviction, too old to consider) should have been 22 to 41 months. Rita's attorney argued for a shorter sentence because of Rita's health problems, and because he had "served in the US Military for 25 years." The judge gave him the minimum guideline sentence of 31 months, and refused to reduce it.

The question was whether the trial and appellate courts should presume that any sentence within the guidelines was "reasonable" unless proven otherwise. Eight of the nine Justices agreed with this point, though they advanced different reasons for reaching the conclusion. The ACLU position on this case - go easy on the criminal - garnered the vote of only one Justice.

Arizona Wins, Tree-Huggers Lose

On 24 June, the Supreme Court decided the case of National Association of Homebuilders v. Defenders of Wildlife. At issue was the interplay between the Environmental Protection Agency and the Endangered Species Act, as they jointly affected a water discharge plan in Arizona, which in turn affected the ability of contractors to build houses. Justice Alito wrote the Opinion of the Court, joined by Justices Scalia, Kennedy and Thomas, and the Chief Justice, approving the Arizona plan. There was a Dissent by Justice Stevens, joined by the other three Justices, and a separate Dissent by Justice Breyer.

The ACLU did not participate in this case. However, several of its political allies filed briefs on behalf of the Defenders of Wildlife.

Under the EPA law, the federal agency initially regulated pollution discharges, however, once a State had met nine specific criteria, the regulation was shifted to a State agency. Under the Endangered Species Act, the Fish and Wildlife Service was to be "consulted" before final EPA action. It was consulted, here, and concluded that the transfer of this power to Arizona would not adversely impact any species.

The tree-huggers, otherwise known as the Defenders of Wildlife, wanted the courts to order that Fish and Wildlife would remain in the decision loop after the transfer. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco agreed. The Supreme Court reversed.

Five Justices of the Court concluded that when the law is constitutional, and the parties have obeyed the law, the Court has no further business in the matter. Four Justices of the Court wanted to order more than the law required, because they wanted a particular outcome. Instead of being even-handed judges, they wanted to force the outcome in the direction they preferred.

This case demonstrates why the judicial philosophy of the various candidates for President is a very important factor in electing anyone as President of the United States.

On 25 June, the Supreme Court decided the case of Hein v. Freedom from Religion Foundation. As the name of the appellee suggests, they seek to remove all references to religion from all public places. They filed suit seeking a court order that the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives (directed by Mr. Hein) was an unconstitutional use of federal funds.

The ACLU did file a brief in this case, supporting the effort of the Freedom from Religion Foundation to shut down the White House Office of Faith-Based ... Initiatives.

The trial court, however, dismissed the case for lack of standing to sue. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed. But the Supreme Court reversed again, dismissing the case. Justice Alito, joined by the Chief Justice and Justice Kennedy, concluded that the Seventh Circuit was in error in reading broadly the Supreme Court precedent of the Flast case. Justices Scalia and Thomas would have gone further, and overruled the Flast case. Justices Souter, Stevens, Ginsburg and Breyer would have agreed with the Seventh Circuit, and expanded Flast to mean that any taxpayer at any time could file suit if he thought any reference to religion in public, was excessive.

Because Justice Scalia combines a logical mind with an acid tongue, a brief quote from his Concurrence is appropriate:

"If this Court is to decide cases by rule of law rather than show of hands, we must surrender to logic and choose sides: Either Flast v. Cohen, 392 U. S. 83 (1968) , should be applied to (at a minimum) ALL challenges to the governmental expenditure of general tax revenues in a manner alleged to violate a constitutional provision specifically limiting the taxing and spending power, or Flast should be repudiated. For me, the choice is easy. Flast is wholly irreconcilable with the Article III restrictions on federal-court jurisdiction that this Court has repeatedly confirmed are embodied in the doctrine of standing." [Emphasis in the original.]

His comment is telling. The Supreme Court should always decide cases "by rule of law rather than show of hands." Yet in this very case, seven Justices went by show of hands. Only two can claim a logical, legal basis for their conclusions.

"Everyone" supports free speech. So does the left, until you support something that they find is "inflammatory." We wouldn't want to offend them. And speaking favorably about traditional families can get you in some really hot water, apparently:

Speech police, riding high in Oakland (George S. Will)

Some politicians will go to extraordinary lengths to restrict speech they find "hateful." Fortunately, the latest attempts on the Hill have been delayed:

Senate delays important hate-crimes vote (CitizenLink.org)

In the "you have got to be kidding me" department, should want of speech supersede justice?:

Md. judge dismisses sex-abuse charges for want of translator (Washington Post)

This one should be so obvious that it is amazing it was even a question. But such is to be expected in the anti-Christian times we are living:

Third-grader has right to read Bible at school (CitizenLink.org)

One of the worst decisions handed down by the Supreme Court in recent years was the Kelo v. New London decision, which helped undermine property rights for the poor and disfavored by distorting the language of the Fifth Amendment. Now, it is clear that the warnings of then-Justice O'Conner and Justice Thomas are coming to fruition:

Two years after Kelo decision, justices' warnings coming true (Worcester Telegram & Gazette)
The blight of eminent domain (Steven Greenhut/The Freeman)

A bit tongue in cheek, but this one does speak for itself, doesn't it?:

Tiny brain no problem for tax official (Spiegel Online)

* * * * *
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"

The American Civil Rights Union is proud to be a signatory to this letter mentioned in the press release included below from the Committee for Justice and linked here (PDF document). Be sure to also read our own letter sent independently to members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, "In Defense of Judge Southwick: An Open Letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee."

60 Groups Demand Judiciary Cmte Do Its Job on Judges
Decry Character Assassination of Iraq War Vet Southwick

WASHINGTON, DC - Today, a coalition of about 60 organizations - including the Committee for Justice (CFJ) - delivered a letter to each of the 19 members of the Senate Judiciary Committee expressing deep concern that the "lack of progress in reporting judicial nominees out of committee . . . has made it impossible for the Senate to fulfill its constitutional duty of advice and consent in good faith."

The letter reminds the senators that "[t]he American people want you to do your job, [including] processing and voting on the President's judicial nominees." It explains that "[t]he broken promises and personal attacks on nominees that have accompanied this inaction . . . only add to the public perception that your committee is not living up to its responsibilities."

The coalition decries the fact that some of "the nominees are being subjected to obstruction borne of partisan politics" and cites as a prime example the "ugly campaign of character assassination" against Judge Leslie Southwick, an Iraq War veteran nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Southwick is rated "unanimously well-qualified" by the American Bar Association. "The American people will ask why you put the demands of [liberal] special interest groups above the fair treatment of a man who interrupted a highly successful career to serve his country in Iraq," the letter notes.

The letter concludes by asking that Judiciary Committee members "allow the Senate to fulfill its constitutional duty of advice and consent, by ensuring that each and every judicial nominee is given a hearing and is reported out of committee for consideration by the full Senate in a timely manner. . . . In other words, we ask only that you do your job by putting statesmanship above politics and special interests."

"Special interest groups on the Left hold a lot of sway over Democratic senators on the judges issue," explained CFJ executive director Curt Levey. "But it is the responsibility of Senate Democrats to stick to their earlier promises about confirming Judge Southwick, and it is the responsibility of Republican senators to fight for this exceptionally qualified nominee. That responsibility needs to start in the Judiciary Committee."

Click here for the full text of the letter, including a list of signers..

The Committee for Justice is a non-partisan, non-profit organization devoted to promoting constitutionalist judicial nominees and the rule of law.

A tragic decision was handed down yesterday, striking down the right of local communities to defend themselves against the blight of illegal immigration. The ACRU is in the lead in defending the prerogatives of Hazelton, PA, and other communities in this regard, so I encourage our readers to consider our opinion on the case, found in John Armor's excellent article, "The Hazelton Rebellion." The good news is that this case is likely to go all the way to the United States Supreme Court. Here's the news from yesterday:

Judge strikes down Hazleton's illegal immigrant law (AP/The News Journal)
Judge overturns Pa. city's illegal immigrant ordinance (CNSnews.com)

Though there is no constitutional prescription for the number of justices on the Supreme Court, FDR's court packing scheme was a blatant grab at power and an attempt to further undermine the U.S. Constitution. Some people want to try FDR's ploy again:

Proposal to expand size of Supreme Court draws fire (CNSnews.com)

Congress rightfully has oversight and "advice and consent" powers over the President's nominees and officers of the Executive Branch. But blatant political ploys and racial gerrymandering of the dis