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.
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?
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?
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.