ACLU constitutional arguments bear no originality

Andrew Feltovich
alumnus, class of 2003

Jeanie Akamanti ("ACLU stands proudly with Constitution," Nov. 16, 2003) is correct in her assertion that our Constitution exists partially to protect the rights of political minorities from government intrusion.

The ACLU defends many who, like it or not, have rights but no voice. For example, their defense of prisoners' civil rights is to be commended. Even when they are wrong, there are a few issues where the ACLU is at least consistent. Alex Berezow (Whose side is the ACLU on? Oct. 6, 2003) noted the ACLU's defense of NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love Association) and the Ku Klux Klan. Although the ACLU erred in that obscenity and speech that advocates criminal behavior receive little or no First Amendment protection under the design, intent and historical understanding of the amendment, the ACLU at least seems to be consistent with regards to speech and expression.

What is inexcusable is the pious manner in which the ACLU wraps itself in the Constitution almost every time it finds itself on the losing side of an argument. It opposes that which is permitted under the Constitution. The ACLU opposes the death penalty on constitutional grounds even though the document itself by its language makes it clear no less than three times that the Framers did not think the practice unconstitutional. The ACLU advocates what is explicitly forbidden under the Constitution. The ACLU advocates forcing the Boy Scouts to accept homosexuals as members even though its right to exclude them is protected by the First Amendment's freedom of association.

The ACLU even makes constitutional arguments when the document is completely silent. Their defense of Roe v. Wade (1973) and innumerable other "constitutional" rights are based on privacy principles found nowhere in the Constitution.

The only common thread in the ACLU's constitutional philosophy is that it is rarely guided by the original design, intent and historical understanding of the document (save maybe those few instances when it is convenient); and it does not think that a woman, minority or homosexual should ever lose a case, regardless of the legal or constitutional principle involved.

Andrew Feltovich
Chicago resident
alumnus, class of 2003

Copyright 2009 - Daily Egyptian