DOES THE ACLU DO MORE GOOD OR MORE HARM?

Do they stand firm and let the ACLU file suit and then spend up to a half million or so that they don't have defending it? Or do they capitulate as so many others, including the much larger and better financed Bernalillo County, have done and just remove whatever the ACLU tells them to remove? And then they setthe knowing that a part of their heritage, an artistic historical symbol that was hurting nobody, has been taken from them.

Foxfyre wrote:

Do they stand firm and let the ACLU file suit and then spend up to a half million or so that they don't have defending it? Or do they capitulate as so many others, including the much larger and better financed Bernalillo County, have done and just remove whatever the ACLU tells them to remove? And then they setthe knowing that a part of their heritage, an artistic historical symbol that was hurting nobody, has been taken from them.

It is your BIASED opinion that governmental endorsement of religion hurts nobody. The Supreme Court disagrees with you.

If 42 U.S.C. § 1988 provides a financial disincentive for "the Village" to engage in conduct that violates the Constitution and prompts "the Village" to discontinue its unconstitutional conduct, then the law serves a practical purpose in conserving judicial resources.

Debra_Law wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Do they stand firm and let the ACLU file suit and then spend up to a half million or so that they don't have defending it? Or do they capitulate as so many others, including the much larger and better financed Bernalillo County, have done and just remove whatever the ACLU tells them to remove? And then they setthe knowing that a part of their heritage, an artistic historical symbol that was hurting nobody, has been taken from them.

It is your BIASED opinion that governmental endorsement of religion hurts nobody. The Supreme Court disagrees with you.

If 42 U.S.C. § 1988 provides a financial disincentive for "the Village" to engage in conduct that violates the Constitution and prompts "the Village" to discontinue its unconstitutional conduct, then the law serves a practical purpose in conserving judicial resources.

You have you wonder why it was not a violation until somebody could make money by making it a violation.

In all due respect, a symbol depicting the role religion has had in the history of an area is not an endorsement of religion.

Do they stand firm and let the ACLU file suit and then spend up to a half million or so that they don't have defending it?

Foxfyre wrote:

In all due respect, a symbol depicting the role religion has had in the history of an area is not an endorsement of religion.

That's what we have judges for, isn't it? To decide those very things. the ACLU doesn't get any money unless they prevail.

In all due respect, a symbol depicting the role religion has had in the history of an area is not an endorsement of religion.

Foxfyre wrote:

In all due respect, a symbol depicting the role religion has had in the history of an area is not an endorsement of religion.

Or in other words, in your opinion, the Supreme Court's establishment clause jurisprudence has gone too far. This opinion may be valid or not, but either way that's a separate issue from the one about the ACLU. There is nothing wrong with paying lawyers for helping their clients assert their constitutional rights. Even assuming you are correct about the scope of those rights, and that the Supreme Court is mistaken about it, that wouldn't justify punishing the ACLU for the Supreme Court's errors.

Last Update: 06/21/2005 8:16:26 AM
By: Associated Press

ALBUQUERQUE (AP) - The American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico has suspended its Las Cruces chapter.

The suspension followed revelations that a member of the group's board was heading the formation of a Minuteman-style organization in New Mexico.

The ACLU says the move was to make sure the leader of the New Mexico Minutemen no longer had authority to act or speak on behalf of the ACLU.

The Minutemen group is a spinoff of the controversial civilian border patrol group the Minuteman Project.

Clifford Alford is the leader of the New Mexico Minutemen. The phone went unanswered Monday night at his home in Organ.

Alford has said he's not a hateful vigilante and that he would like to see immigration policy reformed.
(Copyright 2005 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)
SOURCE

It is the ACLU's misuse of the establishment clause coupled with their right to collect attorney fees if they prevail in a suit that is the issue here.

Nobody is suggesting that the ACLU be 'punished'. What is suggested is removing the profit motive for the ACLU to file these kinds of suits.

The latest in the string is the ACLU going after Las Cruces NM, founded 1881, saying that its name is unconstitutional, not to mention the three crosses logo it has used since 1881. Why go after Las Cruces instead of say Corpus Christi TX or St Paul MN who also have religious names?

There is speculation also that the Las Cruces chapter of the ACLU took exception to their town name being 'illegal' and that is the real reason they were dechartered.

Las Cruces' name (Spanish for "the crosses") has been a disputed topic amongst historians. The most common theory is that in 1830, there was an Apache massacre of a party of nine travelers, including a Mexican Army General, a priest, and five choir boys. Only one choir boy survived the massacre, and buried the other, marking the graves with crosses. The area became known as "El Pueblo del Jardín de Las Cruces." The nearby village of Mesilla was founded in 1848 by settlers from Doña Ana, a village just north of the newly established U.S.-Mexico border, who wished to stay in Mexican territory after the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo that year. However in 1853, the region was incorporated into the United States with the Gadsden Purchase. Las Cruces was incorporated as a city in 1907.

In all due respect, a symbol depicting the role religion has had in the history of an area is not an endorsement of religion. It is an acknowledgment of a part of the history of a region. It is ludicrous to deny the role religion has played in the history, mores, laws, and development of American culture as a whole and in specific regions or areas.

kelticwizard wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

In all due respect, a symbol depicting the role religion has had in the history of an area is not an endorsement of religion.

That's what we have judges for, isn't it? To decide those very things. the ACLU doesn't get any money unless they prevail.

Judges can be wrong, but that is irrelevent at this point. Win or lose, the Village of Tijeras won't be reimbursed for their legal expenses to defend an innocuous artisitic depiction of the history and culture of the village and area. And they can't afford a half million or so in legal fees to defend it through appeal after appeal, etc. even if judges keep ruling in their favor.

Foxfyre wrote:

It is the ACLU's misuse of the establishment clause coupled with their right to collect attorney fees if they prevail in a suit that is the issue here.

The ACLU is in no position to misuse the establishment clause. It is only in a position to make legal arguments and try to convince courts of their merit. If they fail, they don't collect. If they succeed, they have either made a good legal argument, in which case there is nothing wrong with their earning a fee; or the court made a mistake, in which case your petition would not solve the problem.

But the ACLU has the potential to collect their legal fees. Win or lose, the defendent does not. Therein lies the inequity.

Foxfyre wrote:

Nobody is suggesting that the ACLU be 'punished'. What is suggested is removing the profit motive for the ACLU to file these kinds of suits.

Why? What kind of libertarian are you to decry the profit motive?

I am libertarian in the model that nobody should be able to use legal coercion against other people with impunity in order to promote a particular ideology. There is no 'victim' in these cases all of which are based on ideology alone.

Foxfyre wrote:

The latest in the string is the ACLU going after Las Cruces NM, founded 1881, saying that its name is unconstitutional, not to mention the three crosses logo it has used since 1881. Why go after Las Cruces instead of say Corpus Christi TX or St Paul MN who also have religious names?

In an effort to fact-check this, I googled '"las cruces" aclu'. The first hit was a local New Mexican newspaper, whose article mentions nothing about any issue with the name. Their problem is with the logo. If it is true that this logo has been used for 150 years, as the city alleges, I predict this lawsuit will fail, and the attorneys will lose money. If it is a recent invention, as it seems the plaintiffs may allege, I guess it may succeed. Either way, I would have no problem. Given that, can you please show me a credible source stating that the aclu lawsuit has an issue with the city's name?

In a discussion on our local radio station this morning, I learned that the ACLU has not formally entered into this suit as yet, so I was in error on that point. They are counseling and advising a plaintiff and may join in the suit at a later time. The general opinion of legal analysts during this discussion is the ACLU is measuring their potential of winning this suit as they are not wishing to set a precedent in future suits. There is opinion out there that the Las Cruces ACLU chapter's interest in defending the City in this case drew fire from the state and national organizations, and may have played a part in the Las Cruces chapter's charter being pulled, though they are not using that as the reason as previously posted. That is speculation from a Las Cruces attorney that participated in the program this morning.

Foxfyre wrote:

There is speculation also that the Las Cruces chapter of the ACLU took exception to their town name being 'illegal' and that is the real reason they were dechartered.

There is also speculation that masturbating will make your palms grow hair on them. In this case as in yours, that doesn't mean the speculation is in any way credible.

Foxfyre wrote:

kelticwizard wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

In all due respect, a symbol depicting the role religion has had in the history of an area is not an endorsement of religion.

That's what we have judges for, isn't it? To decide those very things. the ACLU doesn't get any money unless they prevail.

Judges can be wrong, but that is irrelevent at this point. Win or lose, the Village of Tijeras won't be reimbursed for their legal expenses to defend an innocuous artisitic depiction of the history and culture of the village and area. And they can't afford a half million or so in legal fees to defend it through appeal after appeal, etc. even if judges keep ruling in their favor.

If you agree with judicial decisions, then the judges are right; if you disagree with judicial decisions, then the judges are wrong. You make no effort to support any of your assertions by reference to actual facts or actual law.

So sorry I disappoint you, Debra. I am not an attorney and no doubt look at these things from a different perspective than you do. A sense of right and wrong, irregardless of legal schmeegle, comes to mind. But enlighten me. If you disagree with a judicial decision, then the judge is right? That's really amazing.
Nevertheless, your concern for the Village's ostensible financial hardship to defend its seal or logo in its present form is misplaced. The WorldNetDaily reports: "The Alliance Defense Fund, a pro-religious-liberty organization, has agreed to represent the municipality." It seems odd that a pro-religious organization would be interested in defending an allegedly religious-neutral city seal or logo that merely depicts the regional history.

Well hallelujah. I had not heard that. But thank goodness somebody has the cojones to help the little guy fight back on this nonsense. It doesn't seem odd to me that a pro-religious organization would have an interest in seeing that all religious cultural and historical heritage is not stripped from every public venue in the country which seems to be the intent of some. Some of us actually think it would be a grave loss for the public, regardless of their religious beliefs, to be denied the great religious art--to wit Da Vinci, Michaelangeolo, et al--and all the great religious music from the classical period forward, or all the wonderful old church buildings currently on historical registers and receiving public funding to preserve them.

The Constitution becomes a meaningless piece of paper if the government may violate individual civil rights protected by the Constitution with impunity. Congress enacted 42 U.S.C. § 1988 to ameliorate the disparity of power between an offending government body and the victim of a civil rights violation. By federal law, Congress provided both a financial incentive for attorneys to represent persons in the vindication of their civil rights and a financial disincentive for government bodies to violate civil rights.

Again tell me what civil rights are being violated by a historical county seal? What personal risk is involved? What property is being violated or put at risk? Who is unable to pursue happiness or earn a living or is incurring any other loss due to an artistic rendition of the religious history of the area? Who is being required to genuflect when a county truck rolls by or who is being required or rewarded to believe anything other than what they already believe?

If the Village, a government entity, intends to defend its official seal against a constitutional challenge, then the Village is well aware that a potential legal loss on the issue would subject the Village to financial liability for the opposing party's attorney fees. It appears that the Village has determined to assume the financial risk of losing in court.

Sign the ACLJ's petition letter to Gov. Richardson to keep the crosses up in Las Cruces, New Mexico


10/18 Though not an ACLU case, this involves their friends at Americans (Dis)United and their leader & former ACLU attorney, Barry Lynn. The AU, on behalf of two atheists, is suing the city to remove three crosses from their logo, despite very high poll numbers in its favor.