3 ms·
I would say the ACLU is by definition anti-government, though. Not in the sense that they want it destroyed, just in the sense that they'll always be the opposi
by bbctol 10y ago
I would say the ACLU is by definition anti-government, though. Not in the sense that they want it destroyed, just in the sense that they'll always be the opposition to the executive branch. So they're "anti-Trump," but not in a way that's easily politicized; if any Democratic executives tried to punish people for being pro-Trump, the ACLU would be against them too.
- grandalf 10y ago> the ACLU is by definition anti-government I'd rephrase that as "in favor of the rule of law". Governments break the law all the time and need some form of checks and balances to correct wrongdoing.
- dnautics 10y agoI think the ACLU goes beyond the rule of law, and sometimes will push the line on interpretations of the law to limit government power (which I think in a fine thing to be doing).
- Vivtek 10y agoThe L does stand for "liberty", so I think this is probably the entire point.
- baconner 10y agoTWISI the org chart of the US Government is basically the constitution a the top & each branch of government below reporting to the constitution. Unfortunately the Constitution can't call up the president or file lawsuits on it's own so the ACLU takes it upon themselves to make an argument on behalf of the big boss. So many business people who want to be politicians mistake the presidency for being CEO. The president isn't CEO, more like co-COO and sometimes a swift and loud reminder of that fact is necessary.
- groovy2shoes 10y agoI don't mean to imply that you're wrong (afaik, you're actually correct here), but I do want to point out that the interpretation and legal enforcement of the constitution is supposed to be done by the Supreme Court (and, to a somewhat lesser extent, the entire judiciary branch). I'm not sure to what extent the SC can pass judgments / make rulings without being prompted by a lawsuit, though at the very least it seems to me that the ACLU at least keeps the important stuff on their radar ;)
- morgante 10y ago> I'm not sure to what extent the SC can pass judgments / make rulings without being prompted by a lawsuit, though at the very least it seems to me that the ACLU at least keeps the important stuff on their radar ;) They can't at all. Ours is an adversarial legal system and therefore the rule of law depends on dogged opposition willing to make challenges to unjust laws. That's why the ACLU is so critically important. It's also one of the big problems with secret laws and warrantless surveillance: if you don't know your rights are being violated, how do you prove a violation occurred (which is a requirement to be granted standing in court)?
- baconner 10y agoGood point and actually it cuts against my judicial review argument given FISA's reputation (and stats) for approving virtually everything.
- baconner 10y agoAgreed - enforcing the constitution is a tag team effort between the judiciary and the people. I would prefer it if there were required judicial approval for new laws and EOs, but alas that's not our system.
- masklinn 10y ago> I'd rephrase that as "in favor of the rule of law". The ACLU will fight against laws it considers unjust, illegitimate and liberticide. It has under pretty much every administration.