GOP Candidates on Civil Liberties
About.com has a section devoted to Civil Liberties. The ringmaster there, Tom Head, puts forth his ratings, in conjunction with the American Civil Liberties Union, of the Republican presidential candidates.
To preface his findings, my view is that the ACLU is approximately 50% correct in its assessment of civil liberties. They give a positive rating for Second Amendment support, despite being remarkably silent on the issue themselves. The rest of the Amendments they also view as mostly good, though seeming to make exceptions to the Tenth Amendment, falling down, for example, on issues of abortion (thinking a federal guarantee to however/whenever necessary instead of leaving it to the states) and gay marriage (opposing the Defense of Marriage Act which reiterates the state's role in marriage recognition).
The ACLU includes a couple other quirky categories in their ratings which skew the results: Homeless Rights, additional gay rights (supporting hate crime and "antidiscrimination" legislation), affirmative action. They also have a soft spot for immigration. But discussing the vice and virtue of their position on that issue is a whole 'nother blog post.
The ACLU's insistence on protection of the First Amendment, apparently the Second Amendment, and the more important, universal civil liberties makes their ratings worthwhile, if to be taken with a grain of salt on the sillier inclusions.
Tom Head's Civil Liberties ratings on the GOP presidential candidates may be found at The 2008 Republican Presidential Candidates on Civil Liberties.
To preface his findings, my view is that the ACLU is approximately 50% correct in its assessment of civil liberties. They give a positive rating for Second Amendment support, despite being remarkably silent on the issue themselves. The rest of the Amendments they also view as mostly good, though seeming to make exceptions to the Tenth Amendment, falling down, for example, on issues of abortion (thinking a federal guarantee to however/whenever necessary instead of leaving it to the states) and gay marriage (opposing the Defense of Marriage Act which reiterates the state's role in marriage recognition).
The ACLU includes a couple other quirky categories in their ratings which skew the results: Homeless Rights, additional gay rights (supporting hate crime and "antidiscrimination" legislation), affirmative action. They also have a soft spot for immigration. But discussing the vice and virtue of their position on that issue is a whole 'nother blog post.
The ACLU's insistence on protection of the First Amendment, apparently the Second Amendment, and the more important, universal civil liberties makes their ratings worthwhile, if to be taken with a grain of salt on the sillier inclusions.
Tom Head's Civil Liberties ratings on the GOP presidential candidates may be found at The 2008 Republican Presidential Candidates on Civil Liberties.
posted by Scribbler de Stebbing | 4/23/2007 08:46:00 AM
The ACLU in the end is really only a tool for the Left. I wouldn't trust them for anything.
I can't support anyone that takes an extreme view on these matters. What is the point of having a culture if we don't intend to keep it. If someone someday wants to build a radical madrassa in my neighborhood, or in my state, I want to keep the ability for the government to say NO.
I think Ron Paul would let that Madrassa be built. One more step to cultural suicide.
Is defense of the Second Amendment extreme? The First Amendment? Let's see if I can recall Barry Goldwater's quote, "Extemism in defense of liberty is no vice; moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue."
It's the made-up stuff where the ACLU runs off on its own: gay rights, hate crime/antidiscrimination, things that don't fall in line with the Constitution.
Like I said, they're about 1/2 right. At the risk of promoting Ron Paul again, see his profile on the above link. He should be the barometer for civil liberties, not the ACLU for him.
Btw, one big difference in Ron Paul and the ACLU is in immigration. I should get into this on another post, but the reason why we must severly curb immigration and kick the existing criminals out is because of our welfare state. For many reasons, we have created a magnet for a different culture. Were we not a welfare state, we would not need to be concerned about immigration as there would be no draw.
Me again. We should be curbing Muslim immigration, but guess what? We're bringing another 25,000 Iraqi refugees here, thanks to the war. Just so long as they build the Madrassa in Eden Prairie and not Excelsior . . .
Greenland is starting to look better and better.
I am all for immigration when its Legal, when its for people who want to come here and learn English, work hard, and to become American. These requirements do not include forcing our existing institutions to accomodate a foreign religion, a foreign language, or any foriegn customs. People are free to do that at home.
I think all here would agree.
Are you saying you're good with the 25,000 Iraqi immigrants then? They are legal, welcomed directly by the President.
I rather thought the ACLU supported causes first and looked for political affiliation second. As they have supported such right wing issues involving Rush Limbaugh to the KKK to the American Nazi Party, it appears that the ACLU is hardly a "tool for the left".
However, if one feels that the ACLU winds up on the side of a number of "left" persona could it be that the root reason is that the right is or has been in a position to attempt to squash civil liberties that the left holds dear and the ACLU jumps in - and as the right seems to want to squash these liberties with increasing frequence, it just appears that the ACLU leans that way?
I give you sirs, John Adams, who truly was a man who looked at causes before affiliations.
Post a Comment