Are there any cases where the ACLU supported Scouts?

[whitewater]

In the interest of fairness:

 

If the ACLU is truely concerned about upholding the constitution and they don't have a vandetta against the Boy Scouts there must be some cases where the ACLU actually supported the rights of the Scouts or of a Troop somewhere. Anyone know of any?

 

Personally I think the ACLU only uses the constitution to support their agenda. They interpret it the way they want.

 

 

[OldGreyEagle]

"Personally I think the ACLU only uses the constitution to support their agenda. They interpret it the way they want."

 

I think the above can be said about many people and factions in the US, the reality of the situation is that the ACLU never, ever decided any Court case, the presiding judge did. Railling against the ACLU is wasted energy, the only authority in a Court case that can actually do anything aer the judges. Where did they come from, how did they get their job, are they honest, aer they elected? WHo elects them, did you vote for them, lets not waste energy, lets turn it to what can actually change things.

[whitewater]

OGE: I agree that the judges decide the case and they are the ones that probably deserve the criticism.

 

However, the point was made in another discussion that the ACLU was simply defending the constitution. My point is that they are pushing their own agenda.

[OldGreyEagle]

then perhaps its time to push OUR agenda

[scoutingagain]

For yuks I did a quick search to see if I could find any cases where the ACLU supported the BSA. I confess I didn't find any.

 

I did find the following summary of supreme court cases brought by the ACLU.

 

1938 Lovell v. Griffin

The Court held, in this case involving Jehovah's Witnesses, that a local ordinance in Georgia prohibiting the distribution of "literature of any kind" without a City Manager's permit, violated the First Amendment.

1939 Hague v. CIO

An important First Amendment case in which the Court recognized a broad freedom to assemble in public forums, such as "streets and parks," by invalidating the repressive actions of Jersey City's anti-union Mayor, "Boss" Hague.

1944 Smith v. Allwright

An early civil rights victory that invalidated, under the Fifteenth Amendment, the intentional exclusion of African Americans from Texas' "white primary" on the ground that primaries are central to the electoral process even though the Democratic Party is a private organization.

1948 Shelley v. Kraemer

An important civil rights decision that invalidated restrictive covenants -- contractual agreements between white homeowners in a residential area barring the sale of houses to black people.

 

1954 Brown v. Board of Education

In perhaps the most far-reaching decision of this century, the Court declared racially segregated schools unconstitutional and overruled the "separate but equal" doctrine announced in its infamous 1896 decision in Plessy v. Ferguson.

 

1965 Griswold v. Connecticut

Among the 20th century's most influential decisions. It invalidated a Connecticut law forbidding the use of contraceptives on the ground that a right of "marital privacy," though not specifically guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, is protected by "several fundamental constitutional guarantees."

1971 Reed v. Reed

A breakthrough women's rights decision that struck down a state law giving automatic preference to men over women as administrators of decedents' estates. For the first time, the Court ruled that sex-based -- like race-based -- classifactions violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

1978 Smith v. Collin

The peculiar facts of this, one of the ACLU's most controversial First Amendment lawsuits ever, attracted enormous attention: American Nazis wanted to march through a Chicago suburb, Skokie, where many Holocaust survivors lived. The ACLU's challenge to the village's ban on the march was ultimately upheld.

Following Threat of ACLU of Virginia Lawsuit, Officials to Agree Not to Ban Baptisms in Public Parks (06/03/2004)

RICHMOND, VA -- Under pressure from the American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia, Falmouth Waterside Park Manager Brian Robinson has agreed not to prohibit baptisms in Stafford County, the ACLU announced today.

 

Which of the above cases should the ACLU not have taken? Should we not allow African Americans the right to vote? What about women? Perhaps the government should be allowed to outlaw organized labor? Perhaps we should allow states to pass laws that prevent the use of contraceptives? Or maybe we shouldn't allow Christians access to public lands? All cases the ACLU has brought to protect civil rights.

 

The ACLU primarily takes on cases that protect civil rights. I agree with OGE, it's not the ACLU that's the issue, they simply ask the questions, the COURTS decide the cases based on their interpretation of the CONSTITUTION and LAW. The issue of preferential treatment of the BSA has been taken up by several courts in many jurisdictions. The problem seems to me is not the Judges, they all seem to agree on their interpretation of the Constitution and the Law. It's not like it's one or two activist Judges. So the problem is that darned Constitution that protects the rights of those in the minority. I guess we'll need to change that.

 

What changes should be made in the Constitution to allow the Government to support organizations that practice lawful religious discrimination?

 

Be careful what you wish for. You may get it.

 

 

SA

[NJCubScouter]

Great post, Scoutingagain.

[LovetoCamp]

The Nazi's got the ACLU. The Jewish Holocaust survivors that lived in Skokie got to re-live Hell on earth. It should never have happened.

[evmori]

The ACLU has fought for some good causes. And the Skokie case is a classic 1st Amendment case. And I know the ACLU only files these suits on behalf of others. But I gotta believe they do go looking for people to file do they can further their war on the BSA. They are ticked off they lost the high profile Dale case and they want revenge! This BSA/military case has nothing to do with the Constitution! It's all about the ACLU wanting to bury the BSA.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[OldGreyEagle]

To me the best part of the Skokie/Nazi thing was that the ACLU lawyer that ended up getting the parade permit was jewish. As I remember it, the head of the Illinois Nazi party resigned as he was humiliated a jewish lawyer ended up helping him

 

Just a note, the Nazis never did march in Skokie,

 

Remember in Middle School or maybe for you it was High School, College even when you were first introduced to Robert's Rules of Order? After a few classes most people would think they were pretty well acquanted with Parlimentary Procedure until...

 

Until someone studied the book and got the rules down backwards and forwards and found he could manipulate a meeting by just following the rules. When you were against this guy, he was the most infuriating human on earth, because all he did was obstruct progress and good ideas. However, were you to be on the same side as he, then it was "Hey, rules are rule and we have to do what the book says". I see the ACLU as the same thing, they dont make up the rules, they just make sure the "book" is followed.

[scoutingagain]

Ed,

 

You may have a point. I agree, I believe there is an element of selective prosecution or enforcement in some of these cases. Unfortunately that does not change the Constitutional and legal basis on which these cases are decided. I think the BSA needs to do a better job of choosing when these cases should be defended rather than wasting money on legal fees when the issues seem pretty clear.

 

Remember this is the same Contitution and Court system that decided the BSA, as a private organization, has a right to set it's own membership standards. What we don't have a right to, is the expectation that the Government should then provide support to us as a private organization beyond that available to others of similar status. Remember a Scout pays his own way.

 

SA

 

 

[Its Me]

In the cases cited it was a fight for a group to GAIN access to government controlled land.

 

Here the ACLU is asking the DoD to prohibit access. To exclude a group because their member list is not as open as the ACLU has detremined it should.

 

(This message has been edited by Its Me)

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

scoutingagain writes:

I think the BSA needs to do a better job of choosing when these cases should be defended rather than wasting money on legal fees when the issues seem pretty clear.

 

The BSA wasn't involved in this case at all; it was the ACLU v. DoD. Since the BSA is a private organization that can discriminate, the ACLU is making sure government agencies don't practice discrimination by sponsoring BSA packs and troops.

[NJCubScouter]

OGE, I agree on all points. It may not surprise too many here to learn that I was one of those annoying kids in high school and college who learned more about Robert's Rules than anybody else, though of course I think I always used it only to promote truth and justice and never to obstruct anything. (But I do recall a few people who might have felt differently at the time.) I also agree that the ACLU plays sort of a similar role on a larger scale, holding everyone to the rules even when the results may be unpleasant, even to the people within the ACLU.

 

I also agree that the Skokie case is the best example of how the ACLU stands on principle even when they individually may not like the people they are representing. There was a thread about this before. Not only was the lawyer Jewish, but there were a number of major contributors to the ACLU who withdrew their support over the ACLU's position in that case. I have really mixed feelings about the case but in the end I have to conclude the ACLU did the right thing, pushing protections for free speech as far as they could possibly go. My main reservation from a legal point of view was that I thought an argument could be made that uniformed Nazis marching past the homes of elderly Holocaust survivors could represent not just "speech," but an implied threat of violence, which is not protected by the First Amendment. (That was my legal reservation, I had many strong emotional reservations about it, but I suspect the attorney representing the Nazis did too.)

[Proud Eagle]

To fight for Nazis to march through a neighborhood of Holocaust survivors is an evil thing.

 

The ACLU may in fact have been correct on the law. It certainly appears that way. However, human decency should have demanded that they not take that particular case.

 

You can not justify doing an evil thing just because it is legal, or advances the rights within the constitution.

[OldGreyEagle]

I learned a long time ago that which is legal may not be moral, and that which is moral has nothing to do about what is legal.