The American Civil Liberties Union is something of a wildcard. Marked by caprice, it can be occasionally thrilling, but it is more often frustrating, inconsistent, and ramshackle. On issues of speech, the organization can be an ally of limited government — it recently played a key role in the gutting of the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance-reform bill, siding with Citizens United against the Federal Election Commission and winning a signal victory for the First Amendment — but, more often than it joins the chorus for liberty, it remains dumb. If, to paraphrase an old saying, 90 percent of defending the Constitution is just showing up, then the ACLU is an incorrigible part-timer.
The ACLU’s stated mission is “to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States.” Given its record, however, one would be forgiven for concluding that its copy of our charter is incomplete. Unfortunately, the ACLU appears to base its actions on the text of a tattered and torn document, from which the Second and Tenth Amendments are missing entirely, the Fourth was re-written in 1973, and the words “more or less” are appended to each paragraph along with an explicit invitation to interpret the document as broadly as humanly possible.
Advertisement
Like the Supreme Court, the ACLU is as easily judged by its sins of omission as by the active positions it takes. Certain cases that one would assume to be within its sphere of interest are met with a deafening silence. The national ALCU ignored the internment of Japanese American citizens during the Second World War, was notably quiet during the McCarthy era, and made no mention whatsoever of D.C. v. Heller, the most important Second Amendment case that the Supreme Court took since the New Deal. And until Wednesday of last week, to its long Catalogue of Things Overlooked we could have added the HHS contraception mandate. But then the ACLU spoke up — for the government.
Responding to the controversy, the ACLU’s Alicia Gay criticized the “powerful lobbying arm of the Catholic Church” for creating much ado about nothing, and then, for good measure, chastised the Church’s bishops for their perceived failure to talk about “women’s health.” Gay flatly denied that the measure violated the First Amendment, contending that “the fundamental promise of religious liberty in this country doesn’t create a right to impose those views on others, including ignoring civil rights laws or denying critical health care.”
Well, let’s break this down, starting with the charge that the Church wishes to “impose . . . views on others.” Given how often the organization has dealt with the First Amendment, one might expect the text to be seared into the collective eyes of the ACLU’s rank and file, but in the absence of such fluency, a refresher: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
In the case of the HHS mandate — which way does the coercion run? Are Catholic institutions forcing the government or their employees to do something — anything — or is the government impressing them into its service, and violating their “religion” and “free exercise thereof” by that act? The answer is clear: As with so much of Obamacare, it is free American citizens, churches, and companies that are being bullied into a particular course of action when they were previously free to choose, and it is the federal government that is doing the imposing. For an organization with the words “Civil Liberties” at the heart of its title, this should be of great concern. Alas it does not seem to be so.
The Washington Examiner correctly characterized the ACLU’s position on the contraception mandate as being that “individuals who choose not to pay for employees’ contraceptives . . . are forcing their beliefs on their employees.” But it is downright impossible to “force” a “belief” on another adult by doing nothing. By such logic, all employers who do not offer pensions or travel expenses as part of their reimbursement packages are stealing from their employees. No doubt we will hear that health-care policy is another thing that the Obama administration has marked “too important” — or in the ACLU’s words, too “critical” — for the state to consider it subject to constitutional adherence.
The "wherefore" of Juliet's question does indeed mean "why" as opposed to "where," but, specifically it means "for what purpose?" Juliet is asking, given that there is a blood feud between her family (Capulet) and Romeo's (Montague), "Romeo, why are you a Montague?" In other words, Juliet is noting that her reflexive hatred of the Montagues and her love for one of them are utterly at odds. In asking the question, Juliet is also implying that one of them will have to change their allegiance; she naively considers that this might be achieved if one of them changes their name. (This is mirrored in the "a rose by any other name" line.)
Given the ACLU's constant failure to live up to its name, I think it is a wholly appropriate title. Why, one might ask, is that institution the "American Civil Liberties Union"? There is a marked disconnect between the name and the behavior.
Thanks for that--I appreciate that you took the time to spell it out for me!
I watched part of this exchange on Chicago public TV last evening (External Link) between Illinois representives of the Catholic Church and the ACLU, which illustrates your point, I think.
The ACLU is suing the Obama administration for assassinating American citizens far from any battlefield without a shred of due process, but you think the Constitution would be better served if the ACLU were instead suing to allow the Church of Rome to deny America's working women the minimum level of health insurance required by law?
Please explain how "The Church of Rome" is denying anyone anything? Just to be clear, the Catholic Church is not denying any women health care - including contraception. A woman is free to obtain any health care they wish. What the Church objects to is being forced to provide that contraception. Big difference, Max.
Just to be clear, nobody's forcing Catholic women to practice contraception. Freedom of religion is about personal choice, not government mandates to enforce a religion's rules. If you want to employ people in America, you have to follow our laws. To exempt the Church from the nation's employment laws would violate the First Amendment. ACLU 1, NRO 0.
Unless, of course, said law violates the fist amendment to begin with.
Again, Max, women who work for Catholic institutions are free to choose contraception. Compelling an institution to actually provide a service or product that its doctrine opposes CLEARLY violates the First.
And what is this: "To exempt the Church from the nation's employment laws would violate the First Amendment." That makes absolutely NO sense.
First of all, individuals have rights. Institutions are legal creations of the state and therefore have no rights. As for your confusion, I really can't help you.
This is absurd. Even if religious institutions refuse to provide free contraception on the basis of their religious faith they are in the right. No one's rights are being denied when they are not given something for free. Women are perfectly capable of buying contraception, they just have to pay for. You are saying that religious freedom is less important than someone being given a condom for free. That is ridiculous. Although it shows off leftist priorities.
The ACLU has always shown its real priorities as being starkly against the free-practice of religion anytime it can. They fight for a freedom from religion rather than freedom of religion.
Religious institutions have to be allowed to be exempt because if the government forces them to provide contraception it can violate their religious practices. Congress cannot create a law respecting an establishment of religion or the free practice thereof.
Health care is still a product of the private market. Health care is not a 'right' that must be provided. It is something you can have or not. No matter how important health care might be, it is still NOT a right.
Free condoms do not trump religion, no matter what religion hating leftists might want.
You're missing the point. American citizens have a right to equal protection under the law. Like it or not, Obamacare is the law of the United States. It must be equally applied to all citizens, regardless of religious affiliation.
1) The two cases you cite have no relation to each other. Not an either-or choice.
2) These services / items are freely available today. Who's talking about making them unavailable?
3) Do you not understand that the law itself is the issue?
1) Nobody on the right (unless you count the Pauls, who might as well have been kicked out of your party) has a problem with murdering Americans without a shred of due process if the executive branch labels them "terrorist." Therefore, the right is only concerned with the Constitution when they can use it as a political weapon. You can't be against the rule of law when a Muslim-American is slaughtered and for the rule of law when the ability for men to control women's bodies is threatened.
2) Rick Santorum is on record saying the state can legally take these items, because Americans have no right to privacy. He recently walked those statements back because this is an election year.
3) The real issue is the right trying to drive a wedge between Hispanics' religious beliefs and their economic interests because your party is done without their vote.
Captcha: "the truth hurts"
This topic is a complete turn off to the majority of voters, especially women and independents. Republic attacks on contraception will not win any votes - particularly given that the majority of catholic women in this country ignore the church's teachings on contraception anyway.
Then, do you believe that the Federal Government should force any institution to provide a product or service to every individual? Should there be a mandate that every insurance company provide free food to insureds? Lack of food seems to be a bigger health issue than contraception.
You are remarkably selective in what part of the constitution you want to follow. Obamacare is going to the supreme court because it is so obviously unconstitutional. The president arbitrarily decided that contraception had to be provided for free. Then he arbitrarily decided that insurance companies would provide it. He is not s king, no matter how much you might want him to be. He is deciding things he simply does not have the authority to. Insurance companies, and the churches before them, should have simply stated that what he said was not constitutional and would ignore him. Why this decisions were taken seriously in the first place is ridiculous.
There is NO constitutionally given right to healthcare. None. Thus, if religious practice is violated by the law then the law is void. Congress cannot pass laws that violate the constitution.
Oh, and the constitution does give the states the right to regulate matters that the federal government is not given specific measure to. Which means states CAN ban contraception. No state wants to, nor does anyone else actually want to. The question that was asked in the debate was if the states have the right to regulate it. They do and could if they chose to. Claiming that one of the republican candidates actually supports such a thing is an outright lie.
Laws that you like are not valid if against the constitution. Deal with that.
"Thus, if religious practice is violated by the law then the law is void."
The religious practice in question is not practicing contraception. Until an individual is forced to use contraception, I fail to see how any religious practice has been violated.
As for your pro-Santorum rant, he's been on the record for years in favor of banning contraception. This isn't some new issue that originated in some recent debate. Also, Mississippi recently tried to ban birth control, so everything YOU said is a lie. Deal with THAT.
Andy, I agree with your point of view, but remember there was NO constitutional right to privacy either- before one was invented out of whole cloth. This conflict and it's ultimate decision shows us just how important it is to vote this mook out of office ASAP- we need judges that actual have read and adhere to our Constitution!
There's absolutely no evidence that this issue is a complete turn off to the majority of voters. In fact, the very opposite seems likely from the diverse groups that have com etogether on this issue.
This issue isn't about birth control, it's about the government forcing a religious organization to either a)violate its tenets, or b) pay a tax in order to exercise their religious rights. Here's a hint, Obama is a lawyer backed up by an advertising guy. Any time he makes an argument against this, consider whether it's a distraction from the actual issue.
Finally, it doesn't matter if the majority of people disagree with the Church's view. It's the moral position of a religious institution that matters, not the popularity of the position.
Follow
