mpr@mb2c.UUCP (Mark Reina) (08/30/85)
I am aware that some people may oppose the extreme views taken by the ACLU.
A recent article pointed out a few of these. (ie. Nazi's free speech,
Christmas displays and the Establishment Clause) However, the arteicle
made reference to In Re Walter Polovchak. Please add more about this case.
Mark ReinaT3B@psuvm.BITNET (08/31/85)
I recently spent three years on the board of directors of my local
ACLU chapter. I quickly learned that one of the reasons the ACLU
is selective in the application of its very limited influence is that
it is swamped with appeals for help, and that most its work is done
by volunteers. And, of course, in every case it takes on, the ACLU
is dealing not simply with rights, but with COMPETING rights. And,
very frequently, it is dealing with cases that, taken out of context,
appear silly because they are the small end of a wedge. Time after
time, cases would concern some private person who was aggrieved
because a social agency, in the name of some large social good, wanted
to set aside the person's rights (just this once). As I see it, the
ACLU stands for the notion that we live in a community governed by
a constitution under which competing rights are the norm; that the
dignity of every person matters every day. So, if you agree with the
general aims of the ACLU (protect constitutional freedoms) but think
they have their priorities mixed up, my suggestion is to join and help
take responsibility for ACLU policy.
-- Tom Benson
Penn State University --But these are my opinions,
227 Sparks Bldg., University Park, PA 16802 --not necessarily Penn State's
814-238-5277 (ATT)
{akgua,allegra,ihnp4,cbosgd}!psuvax1!psuvm.bitnet!t3b (UUCP)
T3B@PSUVM (BITNET) 76044,3701 (COMPUSERVE)
mmar@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Mitchell Marks) (09/03/85)
> I am aware that some people may oppose the extreme views taken by the ACLU. > A recent article pointed out a few of these. (ie. Nazi's free speech, > Christmas displays and the Establishment Clause) However, the arteicle > made reference to In Re Walter Polovchak. Please add more about this case. > > Mark Reina Just to clarify things: I provided that list, but not in the spirit of complaint. There *was* a complaint against the ACLU, and I was urging that we discuss it; but I pretty much agree with ACLU positions. The list was just my guess at some of the things that might be bothering the person who posted the complaint, or others who don't much like the ACLU. The Walter Polovchak case is the second one mentioned below by Ray Frank. > From: ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) > Here in Rochester the ACLU prevented the police dept. from issuing good > driving tickets to motorists deserving them. It was only a good will drive > by the police dept., but the ACLU said it was unconstitutional. I don't understand it exactly, and maybe they were being silly, but in any case we need more information. were the police _stopping_ cars to give these good-driver citations? Did they stop a car for this purpose and then search it? Did the good-driver citations carry any cash value, or special deals on your next violation (sounds weird, but who knows)? I'm not sure how each of those questions (or others) would affect the issue, but let's find out before plunging into a hypothetical debate. > When that 15 yr. old Russian boy wanted to stay in America and not leave the > country with his parents several years ago, the ACLU said he must go back. The issue under which ACLU handled this, I believe, was family relations and parents' rights. Their position was not that he must go back, but that the U.S. government and the state of Illinois must not prevent his parents from taking him back. The effect is much the same, of course, but the issue may be clearer when you see it the way it was posed. It's accepted that sometimes the government is entitled to step in and meddle with family affairs, e.g. child abuse, and custody. But they certainly shouldn't be able to do that whenever they want to. If you were moving from one state to another, and your 14-year-old wanted to stay behind, you wouldn't want the state police to guard him, and the Governor to issue special documents (not normally available to minors) to help him stay behind. That was the crux of the Polovchak case. BTW, he's just about to turn 18. The ACLU, having won these cases and helped shore up the principle of parents' rights, is not objecting to see Walter file applications for citizenship etc _as_an_adult_ and get to stay after all. That principle is more or less the one being expressed by these posters: > What about parents who don't believe in corporal punishment > for their children? I have spanked our four-year-old twice > so far, only as a last resort and after many warnings, but > I don't want anyone other than my wife and me to dole out > spankings. That is my job. [Todd Jones] > Anyone that spanks or paddles my kid in school or anywhere without > my permission is going to incur my wrath, I don't care what the reason. > > One of my most difficult responsibilities as a parent is knowing when to > inflict physical punishment upon my children. It is certainly a > responsibility that I would never entrust to strangers or even our closest > friends. [Ned Robie] These parents make a lot of sense to me. (And do you think that deciding what country the family will live in is a less serious matter?) -- -- Mitch Marks @ UChicago ...ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!mmar