6 ms·

I don't disagree with you on the importance of the 1st and 4th amendments. I think the ACLU and EFF will indeed become stronger. I don't know of any 2nd amend

I don't disagree with you on the importance of the 1st and 4th amendments. I think the ACLU and EFF will indeed become stronger. I don't know of any 2nd amendment supporters who are also not strong 1st and 4th supporters, the issue comes down to how their voice is heard. Also I don't know any of them who who wouldn't rather change things peacefully, it is a much better solution.

skaevola 13y ago
I don't think this is true. There are many on the right who detest the ACLU as liberals trying to undermine the country.
- mindcrime 13y ago
  No doubt. That reminds me of the old joke "If you get stuff in the mail from the ACLU and the NRA, you're probably a libertarian". As somebody who is an NRA member and who has donated to the ACLU, that rings true to me. :-)
- DamnYuppie 13y ago
  Many as in raw # or as in percentage? To be honest I haven't met many of those, all the ones I know are more libertarians then conservatives so they don't take strong issue with the ACLU or EFF.
  - skaevola 13y ago
    I just did some searching to try to find what percentage of the Republican Party identifies as libertarian as opposed to conservative, and I didn't have much luck. But, considering the party's platforms on gay marriage and immigration, I think the percentage of libertarians is small.
fpgeek 13y ago
> I don't know of any 2nd amendment supporters who are also not strong 1st and 4th supporters Are you sure? For instance, on cultural grounds, I'd guess that there are plenty of 2nd amendment supporters who would be happy to ban flag-burning...
- it_luddite 13y ago
  Unfortunately, there are significant amounts of people on both sides of any debate, much less this one, with either blinders on or have selective vision. As a strict constructionist, I affirm the right of anyone to burn any flag, anyone to "protest" at a funeral, as well as PRISM being unconstitutional. Further, I believe that there is not an explicit "right to privacy" and therefore there is not a right to privacy. Them's my blinders!
  - mindcrime 13y ago
    Further, I believe that there is not an explicit "right to privacy" and therefore there is not a right to privacy. So are you saying that a "right" has to be explicitly spelled out in the BoR in order to be a right? If that's what you mean, then how the heck does a "strict constructionist" get that to jibe with the 9th Amendment? The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people
    - ScottBurson 13y ago
      Yeah, that's the funny thing about the Ninth. It pretty much says, you shall not construe the other amendments strictly. Kinda puts strict constructionists in a bind -- which was clearly its purpose.
      - vbuterin 13y ago
        Not really; strict constitutionalists can still say that the government should never infringe on amendments 1...8,10, and if it can intrude even less (ie. add more rights) then that's great. In fact, I think that was the whole point of writing the constitution that way.
    - tsotha 13y ago
      >So are you saying that a "right" has to be explicitly spelled out in the BoR in order to be a right? This is why Madison thought the Bill of Rights was a mistake. The rest of the document was written as a list of delineated powers - "this is what the federal government can do". That's much, much more restrictive than "this is what the federal government can't do". He thought the BoR would lead people into thinking the federal government is allowed to do anything it isn't prohibited from doing. I think history has born him out, too. I'd much rather see courts asking the question "is this on the list of things the federal government can do?" rather than "does it pass muster on 2A or 4A grounds?" Of course if that were the case 2/3 the federal government would go away. Not a bad thing, IMO.

skaevola 13y ago

I don't think this is true. There are many on the right who detest the ACLU as liberals trying to undermine the country.

mindcrime 13y ago
No doubt. That reminds me of the old joke "If you get stuff in the mail from the ACLU and the NRA, you're probably a libertarian". As somebody who is an NRA member and who has donated to the ACLU, that rings true to me. :-)
DamnYuppie 13y ago
Many as in raw # or as in percentage? To be honest I haven't met many of those, all the ones I know are more libertarians then conservatives so they don't take strong issue with the ACLU or EFF.
- skaevola 13y ago
  I just did some searching to try to find what percentage of the Republican Party identifies as libertarian as opposed to conservative, and I didn't have much luck. But, considering the party's platforms on gay marriage and immigration, I think the percentage of libertarians is small.

fpgeek 13y ago

> I don't know of any 2nd amendment supporters who are also not strong 1st and 4th supporters Are you sure? For instance, on cultural grounds, I'd guess that there are plenty of 2nd amendment supporters who would be happy to ban flag-burning...

it_luddite 13y ago
Unfortunately, there are significant amounts of people on both sides of any debate, much less this one, with either blinders on or have selective vision. As a strict constructionist, I affirm the right of anyone to burn any flag, anyone to "protest" at a funeral, as well as PRISM being unconstitutional. Further, I believe that there is not an explicit "right to privacy" and therefore there is not a right to privacy. Them's my blinders!
- mindcrime 13y ago
  Further, I believe that there is not an explicit "right to privacy" and therefore there is not a right to privacy. So are you saying that a "right" has to be explicitly spelled out in the BoR in order to be a right? If that's what you mean, then how the heck does a "strict constructionist" get that to jibe with the 9th Amendment? The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people
  - ScottBurson 13y ago
    Yeah, that's the funny thing about the Ninth. It pretty much says, you shall not construe the other amendments strictly. Kinda puts strict constructionists in a bind -- which was clearly its purpose.
    - vbuterin 13y ago
      Not really; strict constitutionalists can still say that the government should never infringe on amendments 1...8,10, and if it can intrude even less (ie. add more rights) then that's great. In fact, I think that was the whole point of writing the constitution that way.
  - tsotha 13y ago
    >So are you saying that a "right" has to be explicitly spelled out in the BoR in order to be a right? This is why Madison thought the Bill of Rights was a mistake. The rest of the document was written as a list of delineated powers - "this is what the federal government can do". That's much, much more restrictive than "this is what the federal government can't do". He thought the BoR would lead people into thinking the federal government is allowed to do anything it isn't prohibited from doing. I think history has born him out, too. I'd much rather see courts asking the question "is this on the list of things the federal government can do?" rather than "does it pass muster on 2A or 4A grounds?" Of course if that were the case 2/3 the federal government would go away. Not a bad thing, IMO.