Defending Everybody ~ Diane Garey ~ 5/01 ~ Nonfict Export

by Diane Garey ~ an Emmy Award winning independent filmmaker and author. She was editor and co-producer of the award-winning PBS documentary, “The ACLU: A History.”

----- Americans tend to take their constitutional rights for granted, but for most of our history those same rights - the right to object to government policies, the right of workers to organize, the right not to be subjected to random searches of our homes - were routinely trampled.

----- Since 1920 one legal organization has been supporting the rights of the individual, igniting rage in liberals and conservatives alike. That organization is the American Civil Liberties Union.

----- This book traces the controversial past of the ACLU from its founding by Roger Baldwin through dozens of the famous and infamous cases including the Scopes monkey trial, the 1930's battles for labor's right to organize, the internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII, and the ACLU's failure to defend those called before the House Committee on Un-American Activities in the '50's.

The Bill of Rights

“Garey's history shows the ACLU's most magnificent victories as well as the organization's most inglorious warts. This book makes history of civil liberties in America come alive. The stories are gripping. The writing sparkles.”

Contact: Ella
SCHEDULE
May 1-Chapters 1-4
May 9-Chapters 5-8
May 16-Chapters 9-12
May 24-Chapters 13-15
Click on the link to buy the book ------>

Click to nominate a book for discussion -

This book is about the American Civil Liberties Union, its founder Roger Baldwin, its successes and its failures and its place in the modern world. It is not a scholarly work; the author has included an extensive bibliography in the book if one wants to pursue the subject intensely. It is a layman's book, but one I believe contains material that we could discuss for months on end.

I purposely put one link only in the heading as I thought we would decide as a group what issues we want to discuss as we go along. As you may well imagine there are numerous sites on the web regarding the ACLU.

But first, I want to hear from you?

Are you for or against the organization? What has been your experience over the years?

It has had many enemies, still does! I'll quote a few statements from the book to whet your appetite - some of the statements quoted are from famous people, some from the press, some from just folks such as us:

"I'm afraid that the ACLU does not have the gift of making itself popular. Supporting the Bill of Rights, in fact, generally makes you about as popular as a whore trying to get in the S.M.U. Theology School."

"Well, what can you expect of the ACLU, the founder of the ACLU was a communist."

"We will not, under any threat, or in the face of danger, surrender the guarantee of our liberty our forefathers framed for us in our Bill of Rights."

"There are only two instrumentalities of power, the vote and the jury."

The ACLU "is intoxicated with the idea of individual rights to such an extent that it actually works, however, unwittingly, to destroy the moral foundation of our society."

Doesn't that tell the controversy that surrounds the ACLU? The organization has defended the rights of presidents, despicable criminals, labor organizers, school children, Ku Klux Klansmen, Nazis and such personalities as Muhammad Ali, Larry Flynt, Julian Bond and Oliver North. It now handles something like 6000 cases a year, unbelieveable isn't it?

Some of the issues it wrestled with in the early part of this century are still being debated today.

Come join us in what promises to be a stimulating and provocative discussion which will begin May lst, but you may post a message of interest at any time. The book is readily available at any Library as it was published in 1998 or you may, of course, purchase it by clicking on the link provided in this heading.

I can't wait to hear your opinions!

"Opinions" is hardly the word for what you are going to hear!!

Robby

Hi Robby:

Do I hear a note of condemnation in your post?

Can you be more specific than that? For the moment, this is just general conversation regarding the ACLU and you, what you think, what you have heard, what you know.

Ella:--No condemnation whatsoever!! I intend to be part of this forum. Just my way of saying that I have never heard a discussion related to the ACLU without passions being aroused. This doesn't make it bad, of course.

Robby

Yes, I think this discussion will arouse passions. Isn't that a good thing in a democracy? In this time of great change, we need to have some one looking out for individual rights.

Yes, Dollface, I agree. I often say in the discussion group, Democracy in America, that if we didn't disagree from time to time, often passionately, that there wouldn't be a discussion group.

Robby

Welcome Dollface!

Stay with us until May 1st when we begin the book. The author has picked out a number of interesting cases, ones in which she was particularly interested, and most are not the famous ones we have all heard about.

I was fascinated by them and know they will make this discussion a hot one! Which is always fun, as you and Robby agree!

So what do you know about the ACLU? Which cases are you familiar with?

Being a Chicagoan (except in winter), and a 35-yeaar ACLU member, I remember the ACLU's defense of self-styled Nazis right to speak and march in Skokie, a suburb with many holocaust survivors. Given the Jewish people's history of being persecuted and denied their rights, the ACLU had and has many Jewish members. The Illinois ACLU lost many members, Jewish and non-, over the Skokie case and I think came close to bankruptcy.

My reaction at the time was this: The ACLU has always defended the free speech rights of Communists and agitators and outcasts of all kinds. Why would anyone think they wouldn't defend the free speech rights of Nazis?

The present debate in Congress over campaign finance reform (beware that word "reform"!) pits the ACLU against Common Cause, the leading advocate of "reform". I am a member of both! At first I gagged at the ACLU's assertion that (campaign) money is speech, so that limiting contributions or spending is a denial of free speech. But Ira Glasser (retiring Executive Director) and others offer examples like this: Rudolph Guiliani and Hillary Clinton are running for the Senate. Clinton has spent all the money the law allows. The New York Post favors Guiliani and hammers Clinton on a daily basis. If either Clinton or a supporter buys an ad in the Post to answer the Post's editorials, they violate the law. Sounds to me like, with "reform", newspapers would have more free speech than the rest of us.

Ella: The quotes up on top don't mention Ed Meese's characterization of the ACLU as "a criminal's lobby". Meese was Reagan's attorney general.

Hi Rambler! Welcome aboard, expecially as you are a card-carrying member of the ACLU. You've never become disillusioned?

The Skokie, Illinois case that the ACLU championed is in the book so I think we will wait to discuss that until May. And I should also mention that Chicago (I know from a prior discussion that this is your hometown) figures in a number of cases discussed in Garey's book, so you are in for some fun here.

Tell us more about your involvement with Common Cause - that's very interesting. And I can imagine your shock when two organizations you believe in are pitted against each other. I've read a little about the organization - a lobbying effort, correct? What happens if you don't agree with them, do you just stop paying dues? Where does their money come from?

Also there is more in the book about President Reagan and his Attorney General Meese. Those quotes above are just a few I picked out as I leafed through the book for an opening post. Many, many more, some favorable - some just nasty! - are in the book!

Do be sure to get the book at your Library close to May lst so that you can follow along with us as we venture into the passionate beliefs of Roger Baldwin.

I have never understood completely what some people have against the aCLu. Are they against Civil Liberties?

Robby

I think, Robby, that some people believe the ACLU takes cases to the extreme...that they go beyond that point that's often expressed as YOUR civil liberties stop where they infringe on MY civil liberties.

šjane›

Can the First Amendment be taken to the extreme?

Robby

I think things like the publishing of the autopsy photos of Dale Earnhart, against the wishes of his wife and family, is an example where some people may think, yes, that the Orlando Sentinel has gone too far. It's not as if a murder/unknown cause of death was involved. Does the newspaper have the right to publish this sort of thing?

That's the kind of thing I'm thinking of, Robby.

šjane›

I understand. It's the age-old conflict of public vs individual.

A phrase constantly used in a number of the ten amendments is "right of the people." Is that singular or plural?

Robby

Back in the '60s, I think it was, John Gardner(sp?), who had been Eisenhower's Secy. of Interior, founded Common Cause and sent out a 7-page direct-mail letter seeking members for his group that wanted to clean up political campaign financing. Direct-mail experts ridiculed the letter as a foolishly amateurish effort, far too long to bear fruit. To their surprise, it got a great response, including one from me, a charter member.

I think we all believe that a very rich person--Senator Corzine of New Jersey, Senator Fitzgerald of Illinois, so many others--should not be able to buy public office. But the idea seems to have been turned on its head. Under proposed "reforms", rich folks can use personal funds to buy public office, but folks who lack personal wealth, and the friends of such folks, are limited in what they can spend. This seems to be the "campaign finance reform" that Common Cause and others are suggesting.

Now, I haven't kept up with the day-to-day policy maneuverings of Common Cause and the ACLU, so I could be accidentally misrepresenting the positions of one or both. I'm certainly very fond of both.

Ella: No, I've never felt disillusioned with the ACLU. Puzzled or challenged at times, never disillusioned. Finest bunch of folks I know.

Hello Jane

It's good to have you in our discussion. In my opinion, and my understanding of the first amendment, the press has the "right" to print whatever they want to unless it infringes on the security of the country. Today decency and respect for the wishes of the family are not priorities with the press; that is all too evident in the example you quoted. I know all of us can think of a few incidents that we have read in the press that is disgusting, just awful!

The only way that the press is going to be subdued in their frenzy to "tell us what we want to read" (so they say), is for people to write letters to the paper making them aware of our disgust.

Rambler, keep us informed. I was all for the campaign finance reform bill as expressed by McCain, whom I admire. However, what you stated is nothing new - wealthy people have always been able to use personal funds to obtain public office, haven't they? I'll have to pay more attention to the details of the bill now that you have given me a different angle to think about.

RobbyI think "right" of the people can be either, singular or plural. What do the rest of you think.

And storms are coming my way - I must get off. One quick search led me to this; http://www.commoncause.org/issue_agenda/issues.htm Don't even have time to read it.

In between storms (and the one last night was fierce, it woke me up around 4 am and then I laid there listening for the sump pump in the basement and when I couldn't hear it I checked it out and never did go back to sleep) I just want to add a note to our discussion of yesterday.

Jane I did look up in a book I have at home that any "prior or previous restraint" upon publication of anything in a newspaper is a serious offense against the constitution unless it would create a major threat to national security (remember how Nixon attempted to use this to his advantage in the publication of the Pentagon Papers?). However, after anything is published the newspaper can be sued for any number of reasons, (e.g., defamation), facts of which you are aware.

Robby in thinking over the word "right" one can use examples such as "the rights of the people are...." or one could say "it is the people's right" Do you agree with that?

Rambler, I found it a coincidence that there was an editorial in our paper, The Columbus Dispatch, this morning about the McCain-Feingold bill, and this quote may be where the ACLU stands and, if so, I believe I would be on their side of the issue. Do let me know.

"Since 1976 the court has held that money and political speech are inextricably linked. Without money, very little campaigning can occur......in the court's view, to limit political contributions or spending is to limit political speech. This would be a violation of the First Amendment's free-speech guarantee.
...one of the most questionable portions of McCain-Feingold is the prohibition on political advertising by corporations, unions and independent advocacy groups, such as the National Rifle Association or Sierra Club, in the 60 days leading to a general election and 30 days before a primary election. The prohibition applies to ads that so much as mention a candidate. This is a bold attempt to suppress political speech and participation during the most crucial part of the campaign. Of all the provisions of the McCain-Feingold measure, this one seems most likely to be rejected by the high court..
A better answer would be to require full disclosure of the income and expenditures of independent advocacy organizations. Let them participate fully, but transparently."

Thanks for bringing this to our attention, it is an important issue.

I'm not a lawyer, but I think the Columbus editorial refers to a case called Buckley vs. Valleo(sp?) that went to the Supreme Court. Common Cause, the famed Chicago lawyer and crime novelist Scott Turow, and many others found the decision outrageous.

For me, this is kind of a MEGO (my eyes glaze over) issue, not because it's boring but because it's so damnably difficult.

I suppose we all agree that Money Should Not Be Able to Buy Elections. But if a candidate with enormous personal wealth is running against the average Joe, guess who wins--unless the latter is allowed to raise and spend all the money he/she can from outside sources? Under the proposed "reforms", I believe the wealthy candidate can buy all the newspaper and TV ads he wants, while the poorer candidate has limits on what money he can raise and spend. However well intended, it doesn't sound like reform to me.

By coincidence, I was in the U.S. Senate gallery a couple of years ago when the late Paul Coverdell of Georgia was making some of these points. I didn't agree with him then. I guess I do now. I don't think he and like-minded others were exactly champions of free speech, but even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

By the way, during the Senate discussion of campaign finance "reform" that I attended, one distinguished gentleman from Kansas said that we shouldn't worry about Constitutionality: "We've got nine people across the street to decide that!". As if members of Congress owe no fealty to the Constitution! Pass whatever bills we like! Let others decide if these bills, once they're signed into law by the President, are in tune with the Constitution! Yikes!

There is a place for ACLU, however, I must agree with ...Jane that at times they do go to the extreme. Two cases in point:

On a face stone of the City-County Building, in downtown Pittsburgh, PA a plaque with the Ten Commandments was laid when the building was erected--long before my time and that is a long time. Last year, the ACLU started a campaign for the removal of this plaque. Comments please.

Case number two: For many years, a huge Christmas tree has been erected, and I mean huge, in front of one of the leading department stores in the downtown section of Pittsburgh. This tree is decorated with colorful lights. This tree is lit on a night in October and remains lit for the entire Christmas season. Also, for just one night, when this beautiful tree is first lit, all the buildings in the Golden Triangle light all the room lights, what a sight to see!!

Well, the ACLU thought it was improper to call it the Christmas Season, so the name was changed to the Holiday Season. The ACLU reasoned it was not everybody’s holiday, so the name was changed again this time to the Sparkle Season not to offend any one. This is a case of extremism.

Bill H

Bill: Good comments.

But are anyone's Constitutional rights infringed upon by the ACLU actions you describe?

--the rambler (and rabid Steelers' fan!).

Welcome Bill! - Come often, stay late.

Rambler answered you very well. I could not improve on that, except to say as our country is becoming more multicultural every day, with the variety of religions these new citizens bring to our shores, it behooves us to keep to the tenet of "separation of church and state" do you not agree? We have never had religious wars or riots in this country and pray we never do!

Incidentally, our state capitol has on its beautiful mosaic tiled floor the words "In God We Trust." Different factions are attempting to get these words removed and we await the decision. I haven't heard that the ACLU is involved, but perhaps they are behind the scenes.

The book presents one or two (can't remember exactly) cases that are based on religious freedom and they have cost the ACLU the loss of a great many members. However, in other cases they have gained members.

Perhaps you will change your mind upon reading the book, who knows? They have done very good things in the past.

Sparkling Pittsburgh! I love your city, have fond memories of the times I visited there.

The Rambler asks But are anyone's Constitutional rights infringed upon by the ACLU actions you describe?

I refer the readers to my post #21. I believe the Constitutional right of the Christian Community of the Greater Pittsburgh, PA area is being infringed upon by surpressng their right to call this time of the year “Christmas Season” instead of Sparkle Season, thereby, denying them freedom of expression of religion. After all, whether one likes it or not, it is the Christmas Season for the Christian Community.

Again, in the case of removing the Ten Commandments marker from the face of Pittsburgh’s City-County building, I believe the rights of the Christian and Judaism Community are both being infringed upon. The Ten Commandments play an integral role in both religions. Readers of the Jewish Faith please correct me if I’m wrong concerning the Ten Commandments playing a role in your faith.

Bill H

Bill,, tell us the circumstances in which all this happened, e.g., in what court was this decision made, were there any protests from citizens, etc. I would imagine the press were all over the issue, right?

I find all of this intriguing. When I brought this book home from the library I also brought several books about the Bill of Rights home and I have looked over the "freedom of religion" question you have brought to our attention. Of course, I make no attempt to be an expert on this subject; but it's easy to quote from books - haha.

First let me insert the appropriate language of the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.....

In the book that Caroline Kennedy (yes, that one) and Ellen Alderman authored titled In Our Defense (which I would highly recommend as a readable source for the layman) they state this amendment has two components: the establishment clause and the free exercise clause.

In general terms, according to the Supreme Court, the establishment of religion clause...means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can they pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another... In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a 'wall of separation between church and State.' Courts have relied on the establishment clause to strike down state support for parochial schools, statutes mandating school prayers, and the erection of religious displays (for example, nativity scenes or menorahs) on public property.
In contrast, the free exercise clause forbids the government from outlawing religious belief. It also forbids the government from unduly burdening the exercise of a religious belief......If a person claims that a government action violates his right to freely exercise his religion, courts must first determine if the asserted religious belief is 'sincerely held.' If so, then the burden on individual worship must be balanced against the state's interest in proceeding with the challenged action. Only if the state's interest is 'compelling' will it outweigh the individual's right to the free exercise of religion.

It would seem to me that the "free exercise of religion" is what you believe the ACLU and the court has denied to you. Incidentally, the above underlining is mine.

In another book I read that Chief Justice Warren Burger in a case in 1971 assaulted the "wall of separation" saying that "the line of separation, far from being a 'wall' is a blurred, indistinct, and variable barrier depending on all the circumstances of a particular relationship."

In reading other statements it seems that are many exceptions to this Establishment Clause, one being the use of religious symbols in government such as flags, stamps, oaths, and money. Let me quote from the book titled The First Amendment by Leah Farish:

The ACLU, a longtime opponent of such government symbols, often takes cases on the subject. Cities and states have lost some of their battles to keep such symbols, but the United States, or federal goverment, has consistently rejected attempts to change the Pledge of Allegiance and our dollar bills and coins, which say, 'In God We Trust." The reason usually given is that these tokens of a religious heritage do not threaten our freedom to believe as we wish."

Are you bored yet, Bill? I could go on, but enough.

Do you know if other cities across America have been denied the "Chistmas" or "holiday" specification? Or has Pittsburgh been a test case for the ACLU? How long ago did this happen?

As I understand it, the ACLU has chapters in every state and each state chapter takes on the cases they deem fitting and proper for that state - maybe PA just has a very active chapter. I would like to know the reasons for their actions.

Rambler, am I correct in that statement?

Has this been at all helpful? Or just downright dry and irksome and repetitive as you undoubtedly knew all this to begin with.

Do continue to post your thoughts and I would hope others do the same in connection with the ACLU. And come May lst, Bill, I hope you read along with us.

We could take a little poll right here on this subject. In Columbus, Ohio we can still call it a Christmas Holiday, the press still advertises "after Christmas sales" and Christmas pageants are still being held, Christmas music is heard everywhere. However, we stopped putting the "manger scene" on the Statehouse lawn. Just a lighted tree such as the White House has, and a menorah and often a cross is put there by the KKK, and just as often pushed over or destroyed.

BILL: I wonder if your question about the Ten Commandments was facetious. I am a "member of the Jewish Faith" as you put it. The Ten Commandments are very important in Judiasm.

In California because of the power shortage the Governor did not light the state's Christmas tree and people were asked to keep the Christmas lighting down. That is all I know about how things are here.

I think it is overkill to try to remove things from old buildings just because they relate to religion. I would just be sure not to put them in new buildings. These references to religion have some historical significance. I don't see how not getting rid of them would infringe on someone's practice of their religion. I would just like to be sure that new buildings do not carry religious references.

Hi, Ella.and thank you for your welcome. You have quite a lively discussion here. I’m sorely tempted to read the book.

The plaque with the Ten Commandments on the face of City-County building has not yet been removed. The mayor of the city and county officials have been successful in thwarting attempts to have the marker taken away. ACLU has again this year started a campaign for its removal.

Sparkle Season vs.Christmas Season was never a court issue. The new name was brought to the fore by repeated overtures to business owners and other prominent leaders so as not to give a religious name to this holiday season. Rather than offend any one by making an issue of it, the new name was adopted. however, not by any lawful decree.

Ella, the point I’m trying to make is the extremism of it. Instead of wasting capitol on petty issues such as this, they would do well to save their leverage for useful and necessary battles.

We all remember the story of the “Boy Who Cried Wolf.

Bill H

Marjorie, I can assure you I was not being facetious nor did I intend any slight, when I asked about the role the Ten Commandments played in Judaism. I wanted to be sure of the correctness of my post. Thank you for your answer.

Bill H

Ella: I'm pretty sure the ACLU does not have a branch in every state--maybe in 35 or so of the 50. ACLU lawyers, etc., in Illinois have to fly to places like the Dakotas where there is no branch or the branch lacks the resources to litigate effectively. They want to argue ACLU positions on cases that, if decided against those positions, could set precedents with widespread consequences.

Incidentally, Colleen Connell, the new executive director in Illinois, has argued cases before the Supreme Court. Not bad for a girl who grew up in a North Dakota town, population 500.

rambler:

I was living in Chicago when the neo-Nazis decided to march on Skokie, and at the time I knew very little about the ACLU. I rememer the admiration I felt for some of the Jewish members, who, after being verbally attacked at a new conference, remained steadfast in their belief that everyone had the right to protest. It could not have been easy for them to say this to friends and relatives, many of whom wore the hated tattoo. I will always connect this ACLU organization with integrity.

Lorrie

I think that very few Americans, even those who know that the Bill of Rights consists of the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, realize that the Bill was pretty much a dead letter until around 1920. That's when you-know-who began taking cases to court and insisting that the Bill of Rights means what it says.

Rambler, the history of the ACLU is in the book and I urge all to get it (available at any library) and discuss with us this organization, how it was founded, its Board of Directors, etc. One has to admire any organization who spends its time and energy on upholding the Bill of Rights which is such an important part of our Constitution.

And thanks for your knowledge about the ACLU. I once heard the Ex.Director of the AZ chapter speak and I asked him a few questions. The national organization apportions funds to each chapter and, surprisingly, the staff is very small (they had 6 fulltime people there), but they have a wide reach of volunteer lawyers who get paid sparingly for their time. Most lawyers value the opportunity expecially if it is a controversial case and they can get the publicity. (You know how important that is!)

Thanks Marjorie for your comments. There is no doubt in my mind that new buildings in the future will have no religious symbols whatsoever due, in part, to the ACLU's actions. People are becoming more aware of the variety of religions in our country and the First Amendment Clause to the Constitution. It's taken a long time, too long.

Also I agree with you that references to religion have some historical significance. I don't see how not getting rid of them would infringe on someone's practice of their religion.

And, Bill, thanks for your post - it is quite possible the plaque may never come down. The ACLU does lose many of their cases and perhaps this time it will. If it is just a plaque will it deface the building in any way? I hope your temptation to join us as we discuss the history of the ACLU will prompt you to action come May last.

Lorrie, you too! Thanks for your post! Jewish citizens, just as Protestant citizens, or Muslim citizens have no cause to find the ACLU, who only defends Constitutional issues, contemptible. However, many do. Come read the book with us.

Ella, others: We're beginning our annual migration north to Chicago, so I expect to unplug the computer, perhaps tonight. Will probably be silent here until around April 25. In the meantime, I'll see if I can get the book at some bookstore in Atlanta, where we spend a few days attending a jazz "do". No luck getting it here; they had to order and it may not arrive before we leave.

I don't know the percentages, but I don't think the ACLU loses many cases. But with limited resources, they probably don't always try when they think they may lose.

Many Chicago lawyers from the most prestigious law firms do "pro-bono" (free) work for the Illinois ACLU. If you spend most of your career dealing with dry-as-dust stuff like contracts and anti-trust, it must be a real lure to get to litigate a case where the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are involved. I don't know any of these lawyers personally, but I can understand why they would be attracted.

Rambler, you can get the book from your home Library, I'm sure.

You'll recognize a couple of lawyers mentioned in the book and one fascinating lawyer by the name of Chuck Morgan - a very colorful character. I'm not sure if he is still living or not, but in 1962 he took on the case of Howard Levy, a self-described "brash, Jewish, Brooklyn kid who just happened to be a dermotologist" and he lost the case. One of very few he lost.

But it will keep until the discussion begins.

Hi, Ella.

I don’t know if removing the plaque from the building I spoke of would deface it.

Ella, I don’t wish to be a wet blanket on your discussion or to be argumentative; it’s not like me, I take no pleasure in it maybe I should withdraw from this discussion.

Perhaps the ACLU will be successful in having religious plaques removed from buildings; Perhaps the ACLU will be successful in having “In God We Trust” removed from our money; Perhaps the ACLU will be successful in having the bible removed from the court-room. and other pety endevours. This should please Atheist at the expense of displeasing every one else. These three steps I mentioned would go along way to turn this country into an Atheist land.

The founding Fathers saw fit to establish the above mentioned. They have been the backbone of this nation, through good times and bad, through war and peace. The ACLU in their infinite wisdom sees fit to abolish them.

Bill H

Oh, Bill I hope no one gave you the impression that you are not welcome. We respect any individual's opinion here, whether they be for or against a premise that another individual or organization has proposed or has, through court actions, resolved.

Please give the book a chance to explain the history of the ACLU and review some of its cases. We started out on an issue that is difficult to discuss,one of religion, but there are so many more that you would agree with I'm sure, e.g. labor unions, McCarthyism, the Japanese-American Internment in WWII. These are all issues that are of interest to us all, issues in our era, ones we remember very well and, in hindsight, it is easy to see the errors that were made.

Do come and discuss a few of these issues with us and get the book.

Ella, I didn't get that impression. )

Bill H

Bill, obviously you feel very passionate about your beliefs and I admire that! If we didn't have such people as yourself, the Vietnam war would never have ended, the Civil Rights protests would never have taken place and women's rights also would never have been discussed. Too bad the ERA did not garner the necessary votes to pass an amendment to the Constitution, but women someday will achieve that if we are passionate enough - argumentative enough!

I feel passionate about many things and all of us in America can speak our minds about a position and be argumentative about it! Defend it! Tis a fine country we live in and I'm proud we can all speak our minds freely. Criticize our government, criticise our constitution - and this time of the year many people are doing just that, to be sure, about the IRS!

I just heard on the news tonight that we all work until May 3rd just to pay our taxes, the rest of the year's income is ours. Passionate, you betcha!

I see nothing wrong, Bill, in being argumentative (but then you must understand I was on the first debate team in my high school years and I loved it; possibly I've never got debating out of my system.)

I think we must understand that the Bill of Rights is a living document, it has been controversial since these 10 amendments were voted on and countless cases have been argued before the courts on this First Amendment alone. Is it any wonder that we have had a bit of trouble here ourselves, when the courts are constantly interpreting it?

Bill,I hope you decide to stay in the discussion. You will enjoy it as we get into the history of this organization, Roger Baldwin, and some of the early cases of the ACLU and I do believe all of us should speak our minds and if we disagree, then so be it. It's our right! It would not be a discussion, as Robby said before, it there weren't some contentious issues.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, (sorry, Bill) that there is an internet site giving instructions to make a nuclear bomb (there might possibly be one already?). Is freedom of speech an issue here? Should the government intervene, and, if so, how? Is this an issue for the American Civil Liberties Union?

I have lurked from time to time in this forum but have not participated because "my cup runneth over" in being DL for "Democracy in America."

I am also confused because I see here Person A apologizing to Person B and Person B apologizing back and I am not seeing any reason whatsoever for anyone here to apologize!! This is a topic which is not only extremely important but which brings out one's strong beliefs. Passion runs high when all of us Americans talk about the Bill of Rights, no matter which side we are on. And thank God for that!! After reading the above, I have come to the conclusion that we are all on the same side.

And what's wrong with passionate statements, anyway, so long as we all "disagree in an agreeable way." I wish I had time to post more often.

Robby

Thanks, ROBBY for your post and I hope you find time when the discussion starts on May 1st to visit more often.

Does anyone have an opinion on whether the Internet is a matter of free speech and so should be protected under the First Amendment? Will it?

How "free" is free speech? The internet is a very complicated matter and I think that at some point the Supremes will hear a case about it.

There is some internet site that wants to broadcast,as it happens, over the internet the execution of McVeigh. This site is claiming that they have a First Amendment right to do it. Maybe they do, I don't know...but the U.S. did have public executions up until 1936 and ,I think it was only about 20 years ago, that in the state of Delaware it was legal to have public floggings.

I used to be opposed to censorship of any kind,but with all of the negative places that children can visit on the internet, I'm not so sure that some kind of restriction of "free speech" is such a bad idea,EXCEPT,that once that genie is out of the bottle,who knows where it ends.

To get back to "free speech" for just a moment,are there not already "restrictions" on what can be said. For example,in order to post on senior net,you have to observe or obey certain rules of courtesy and decorum,but WHO decides what can be posted? I guess it's a matter of the reader's perception as to what is offensive or not.

Free Speach is quite a topic. I don't know that I can contribute much more than MOON DANCER just did. It seems as I get older I get more conservative in my attitudes toward what some people describe as their "rights." Where should the boundary be between "free speech" and speech that hurts others? I haven't read in Bill of Rights in years and probably should review it.

Thank you, MOON DANCER AND MARJORIE, for your comments. Here's an Internet site you may be interested in:

The ACLU and Cyberliberties

I must confess I haven't studied it yet - too busy out in the yard and too tired when I come in, but I will.

Children and the Internet seems to be of the greatest concern, doesn't it? However, one can buy a chip of some sort, I think, to block certain sites in the home; but will that keep a child who is persistent? He/she can always go to a friend's house whose TV is not blocked. Have we ever been able to contain a child's curiousity? Isn't it much better to talk to our children frankly about sex - the little ones are not much interested and the older ones need to know badly how their parents feel on issues.

Due to my upbringing and timidity on the subject, when my children were adolescents or sometime before that I went to the Librarian and asked for help. Can you believe she had books behind shelves that were not available to the general public (children I imagine), and I took them out and gave them to the children to read with my instructions to ask me any questions. I never got any questions, the books were very explicit.

So my question ,therefore, is if they can read books on the subject of sex, read adult magazines from any number of sources, learn from each other, learn from parents hopefully, then what are we afraid of?

Would anyone watch the execution of Timothy McVeigh do you think? Oh, probably some would, I know, and, it is true, we used to have public executions. One can only speak from a personal viewpoint on this topic and I would not and I'm not even sure where I stand on the issue of the death penalty. After all these years, one should have a definitive position on the subject, but I don't.

Yes, Ella, I do think some/many/whatever people would watch the execution of Timothy McVeigh. Some of the parents/spouses/children of those who died in his bombing of the federal building have specifically requested that. I can understand someone who lost a beloved to this nutcake wanting to see him die, knowing he caused the intentional and premeditated murder of their loved one whose only "crime" was being in that building at that moment.

šjane›

Hello, JANE. Yes, I know that, it's been in the news. I hope it will help those who lost their loved ones; I wonder if any follow-up has been done before on those who witnessed a murderer being killed to see if it brought closure to their grief.

Would you want to, Jane? Would you want to if he had been responsible for the loss of someone you loved? Would it help, or can we ever know unless it happened to us?

I don't ever want to see someone in the process of being murdered. If I had had a family member killed in that bombing, I would work through the grief somehow but not by watching someone being killed.

Robby

ROBBY: I think I agree with you. I would not want to watch an execution. I wouldn't want to stop those whose family members and/or friends were victims from watching however.

I don't know, Ella, what I'd do. I can conceive, however, of the desire to see this monster, who called those who died "collateral damage," executed. To see him walking around and "explaining" must be a terrible ordeal for those survivors and those who lost loved ones.

šjane›

I must agree with Marjorie and Robby. I would not want to watch any execution, it borders on the macabre. Watching this execution is not going to make the grief of family members any less. No. It’s just going to add one more horrible nightmare to their life in years to come.

Without their meaning to, I do believe the news media both print and electronic is making a martyr of this creature for some people, and in HIS mind dignifying this unspeakable terroristic act.

Bill H

Personally, I don't think that they should execute him, because that is just what he wants.....

I think that they should put him in solitary confinement with nothing but food and paperback books, one at a time, so he can't figure out a way to commit suicide .....

Then lock up the key....

He should be taken care of well, sunlight, and fresh air pumped in , so he can spend many, many, years living alone, by himself, with the memories of the attrocity that he accomplished...

JMHO

dapph

Hi, Ella,

I read the following news article in this morning’s Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and I thought I’d share it with you and the readers. Now, I don’t have strong feelings one way or the other about the content on this article. I just thought it was pertinate to this discussion, and I would like to hear the opinion of others as to how they feel.

ACLU assails spiking of volley ball Team

By Mike Bucsko, Post-Gazette Staff Writer

Lawyers for a Keystone Oaks High School student yesterday charged that school athletic officials should be held in contempt of a court order that required the school to allow the student to rejoin the volleyball team.

The actions of school officials to effectively dismantle the volleyball team prevent senior Jack Flaherty Jr. from participating on the team and violated the April 13 order of U.S. District Judge Donetta W. Ambrose, attorneys Kim Watterson and Witold Walczak charged in a document filed yesterday.

Watterson, a private attorney, and Walczak, executive director of the Pittsburgh chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, are asking Ambrose to schedule a hearing and issue an order to allow them to collect evidence in the case.

Flaherty, 18, was kicked off the team last month after he posted messages on the Internet that criticized a Keystone Oaks teacher who is the parent of a student who belongs to a rival volleyball team. Flaherty also taunted members of another volleyball team in the electronic messages.

Ambrose last week ordered school officials to reinstate Flaherty to the volleyball team and restore his access to the Internet at school.

Since then, all the members of the Keystone Oaks volleyball team have quit, as has the coach, Jeff Sieg. The school district this week canceled the season as a result.

Flaherty's lawyers contend the district's actions violated Ambrose's order because he is now prevented from being a member of a volleyball team that does not exist.

Prior to the mass exits from the team, Flaherty was asked by school officials and his former teammates whether he intended to remain on the team, according to the motion filed by Watterson and Walczak. The implied message was that if Flaherty quit the team, Sieg would remain as coach and the other students would remain on the team, the lawyers charged.

Flaherty's lawyers are asking that Ambrose schedule a hearing so they can ask that the school officials who participated in the volleyball team's demise be held in contempt of court and sanctioned.

School officials could not be reached for comment.

Bill H

Thanks to ALL OF YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS!

We certainly all agree that this monstrous killer should be either executed or put away forever; didn't I read that he is writing or has written a book with help? I just skim the newspaper most days and don't dwell on the killing fields, but, if that's true, will you read it? Will we know anything more about McVeigh than we know now, which, incidentally, leads me to the thought of what we do know.

What was his home like, his education, friends, etc. What led him to commit such an atrocity? My husband says he read he wanted revenge for the government's actions at WACO- is that your interpretation?

I see today is the 21st and want to invite all of you to the discussion beginning May lst.

Bill, we were posting together.

I'll read your post and get back to you later.

"kicked off the team last month after he posted messages on the Internet that criticized a Keystone Oaks teacher." Under our Constitution criticism is permitted.

"taunted members of another volleyball team."Under our Constitution taunting is permitted.

"all the members of the Keystone Oaks volleyball team have quit, as has the coach, Jeff Sieg." When members of an organization quit, that does not dissolve the organization.

The school district this week canceled the season as a result. That is the school's prerogative. The team still exists even if there are no current members. If all the members of the Anytown Lions Club quit, the Lions Club still exists.

The ACLU is correct.

Robby

Bill that's an interesting article. It appears that the ACLU is representing the student who "criticized" and "taunted" a rival volleyball team and are asking the Court for a hearing to be held on the matter of school officials dismantling the home team. Of course, as Robby has pointed out, criticism and taunts are permitted under the freedom of speech - First Amendment rights.

Gosh, has anyone here been to a high school game lately and heard the "taunts" of the fans? Is it any different when it is posted on the Internet or on a bulletin board in the school?

The issue, as I see it, is not the STUDENT'S actions, but the school's termination of the volleyball team and, therefore, completely disregarding the Court's order to allow the student to participate on the team.

He can hardly be on a team that does not exist. It's an interesting case and do keep us informed of the outcome. Will the Court hear the case? Courts are very busy and may not think it a worthwhile effort.

I 'm certain that the school officials are hoping not and probably are counting the days until the school year is over. I notice that the student is a Senior and if the court does not rule by the end of the school year, it's a dead issue anyway.

Very interesting and I'm sure other schools will be a bit more careful about a court's ruling in the light of this case.

How do the rest of you interpret this rather complicated affair?

I didn’t realize I had the right to taunt people ) I wonder if I could be suid for doing that. I better not I could end up with a fat lip.hahaaah.

But you know, I don’t think taunting should be condoned. Heck, even the National Football League marches off yardage penalities, if one player taunts a memeber of the opposing football team and the NFL puts up with just about anything.

Bill H

Bill, you should come to one of our OSU-Michigan football games and hear some offensive "taunting" - although I think that word is mild! Most years the police have to break up fights and riots and often a car is turned over. Ridiculous nonsense! I've often wondered why such behavior is tolerated - if I were a university president, I would tell the students that all football games will be cancelled if there is one fight after the game. And mean it!

It is my interpretation of this article that it is the school that should be worried about the outcome of this - the Court may decide to slap the school officials with a fine!

”Under our Constitution taunting is permitted”.

Robby, I can’t help but feel you might be stretching a bit when you wrote the above. I don’t feel our Constitution gives any of us the right to “taunt” or “harass” others. Freedom of self expression stops when one’s own rights infringe on the rights of others. Depending on the degree of taunting or harassment, (for a court to decide)could be construed as criminal behavior, thereby, opening the door for civil suit or criminal prosecution.

Perhaps you could reread that portion of our Constitution and maybe post it so we (the readers) could debate it.

Pending clarification and wording of the Constitution, I must disagree with that statement.

Bill H

"The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins."

-- Oliver Wendell Holmes

This is the way Justice Holmes defined the First Amendment. You may taunt and harass me all you want, you have the right to do it. I may accept it and just walk away. Or I may sue you, as you imply. I might or might not win but unless it is slander (and that's a definition unto itself), I doubt I would win.

Sticks and stone may break my bones but names will never hurt me -- if I say they do, that does not make it so.

Robby

You may taunt and harass me all you want, you have the right to do it.

Writes Justice Holmes.

I write: Not if it interferes with the pursuit of happiness of the individual. vz a vz the Stalking Law we now have, which prevents this form of harassment. I’m not really sure his interpretation has ever been widely accepted. A thin line exists between taunting, harassment and slander. Too much of the fore mentioned could and has resulted in court ordered “cease and desist” rulings. We all know this conduct cannot be carried out by use of the telephone or mail.

Again, if a civil court finds in behalf of the plaintiff or a criminal court finds the defendant guilty of such conduct, then it turns out the individual did not have this right. Still, another Justice may write differently from Justice Holmes.

I would have to read this part of the Constitution before making up my own mind about what Justice Holmes writes.

Bill H

"I’m not really sure his interpretation has ever been widely accepted.

Right there you have put your finger on it. While the "words" of the Constitution should not be taken lightly, the interpretations are the most important factors. That is why a U.S. Supreme Court was instituted.

You and I and scores others could argue interminably (as has been done for over two centuries) what "free speech" means but, in the final analysis, that school situation will end up based upon the court says.

Robby

Yes, Robby, thank heavens for our courts of law.

Ella, if you really want to hear abuse and insults, just attend a Steeler, Clevland Brown football game. Sometimes it gets so bad security (usually in the form of off duty Pittsburgh Police officers hired by management)removes the offenders from the stadium, after first warning them. Oh Ella, you ought to hear them, but on sencond thought, no you don't want to hear it!!!ill H

No, I don't Bill. It shouldn't be this way, but there is too much money involved for it to change.

Ella, "there is too much money involved for it to change" sounds almost ominous to me and could very easily read, "too much money involved for ANYTHING to change ..." That is profoundly discouraging to me.

Why do we give so much weight to all these rights and give such short shrift to responsibilities ?

Sorry, I will not be able to actively participate when the discussion officially begins. Just wanted to express a keen feeling I have had for some time.

Traude! Good to see you here. We were talking of football games and the behavior of the fans, which we all think is atrocious, but is there any hope that such behavior can be governed when universities and the PRO leagues make so much money from the TV rights and the tickets? Is there any reason to think that the fans will behave any differently in the future? Are you a fan of any team?

Why do we give so much weight to all these rights and give such short shrift to responsibilities?

An excellent statement, Traude. Why indeed? But individuals do not always behave responsibly, as you well know, and in this discussion our subject is the American Civil Liberties Union, which steps forth when they see that our Constitution is endangered by acts of an individual or group of individuals. Do you agree that we need such an organization and are you familiar with any of the cases they have brought to court?

I'm sure you know the problems involved here - separation of church and state, the right of an impartial jury, the right to privacy in our homes, the right of an individual to assemble, freedom of speech and religion, the right to organize and protest, etc.

These rights must be preserved and this is what the ACLU strives to do in a legal fashion through the courts.

Ella,robbie,Bill H.,Traude: My view points may seem very out moded to you, as I am over 80 years of age, live alone, and rely on my computer and e-mails for companionship.

When I was a youth there was no such thing as a minimum wage, and my siblings and I worked for 10 cents an hour during the depression of the 1930s.

When WW2 broke out 4 of my brothers and myself went into the armed services, when the basic salary was $21.00 per month. and one of my sisters went to work for the War Department.

Since then my ideologies have changed many times through the years, and I now lean more to the conservative side, based on my life time experiences.p> I grew up in a large famiy, consisting of a mother and father and 14 children, in rural America in the ''20s" and ''30s", and went to parochial elementary and high schools taught by low salaried Canadian nuns. The nuns lived in communities in crowded dormitories in the upper stories of the schools.

Because of the inability of the families to afford luxuries and the necessity for them to conserve money during the depression, the students all wore the same type of uniforms, which made it easy for their parents to patch them, to wash them, and to pass the used clothing down to the younger siblings as the older children outgrew them. On any given day, you could walk through the school halls and observe the quiet, disciplined students, and see that the girls were wearing white blouses and blue serge skirts while the boys wore white shirts and black ties, blue serge pants and suit coats.

You could make the same observation at any of the parochial elementary or high school campuses anywhere in our country.

Amazingly, I do not ever recall reading or hearing about mass shootings in any of those elementary or high schools. Every home contained a hunting rifle, and the fathers taught their children the safe use of guns, and also numerous retired police officers spent their Saturdays in the State Armories teaching eager children the secure use of weapons, under the auspices of the N.R.A.

After WW2 I myself, along with other returning veterans, volunteered our spare time to teach teenagers the proper and safe use of guns in these same Armories, with the N.R.A. supplying the financial funds necessary. We never had an accidental gun injury.

What has changed in America is not the accessibility of guns, but the character of man, caused not only by the break-down of the family, but the loss of authority on the part of the teachers, lack of discipline among the students, the tolerance for mediocracy in our politicians, the liberal views of the news media and the lack of manners and politeness in our homes and schools.

Some of my relatives attended public schools in the 1920s and 1930s and they discuss the fact that for years, a standard requirement on every teacher's contract was membership in a local church, and they remembered starting every school day with the pledge of allegiance and a prayer.

They remember when girls who got pregnant in high school were ashamed, when abortions were illegal, when the divorce rate was not 50% because couples stayed together for the kid's sake, when there were no X-rated movies, when milk cartons didn't have missing kids faces on them and they didn't know anyone personally who used drugs. They remember when kids were taught respect for authority and accountability to God.

They hear people say that the good old days and their generation and their politicians weren't always so good but please don't tell them you think this younger generation and their liberal polititical leaders are any better.

The A.C.L.U. and its adherrants are adamant about ridding prayer fom the schools or any public gatherings. The more this country struggles to free itself from religion and discipline, the more we become entangled in the consequences.

The same Religious Orders of nuns and priests from Canada and Europe who set up and taught at the parochial schools and Colleges in the United States also started and staffed hospitals, orphanages and homeless shelters, with no government financial aid or help from the liberal politicians.

For those who believe that separation of church and state is not enough, that the world would be better off with no church at all, ask yourself this question. How many hospitals, universities, orphanages, homeless and abuse shelters have been founded by the ACLU or American Atheist Society?

It is the inclusion of the word Catholic, Baptist, Presbyterian, Christian, etc., in the name of so many of these institutions that proves by actions, not just words, who really cares for the suffering of mankind and desires to make the world better.

Most people of this generation get a distorted view of previous generations and history from radio, television and newspapers, controlled by anti-religious secular view points, and seem to believe that the main purpose of their own existence is to gratify their every desire, regardless of the resulting evil consequences.

Patrick says:--"My view points may seem very out moded to you, as I am over 80 years of age, live alone, and rely on my computer and e-mails for companionship."

I will be 81 this September, am also a WWII veteran, also live alone, but hope that my points of view do not seem outmoded. I think that points of view relate to a person's lifetime experiences, not his/her age.

Robby

robert and patrick I think both of you are right and have a right to those views. They do relate to your age and lifestyle. Mine have changed ovcer the years -- 73 of them bvut not radically. I'm one of those LIBERALS you speak of but find myself agreeeing with much of what you say. A cliche comes to mind with which to answer you, Patrick. "don't throw out the baby with the bath water.

Claire robert and patrick I think both of you are right and have a right to those views. They do relate to your age and lifestyle. Mine have changed over the years -- 73 of them but not radically. I'm one of those LIBERALS you speak of but find myself agreeing with much of what you say. A cliche comes to mind with which to answer you, Patrick. "don't throw out the baby with the bath water.

Claire

Patrick, your view points don’t seem out moded to me. I’m pushing 75 and a vet of WW2 and I can remember the days you speak of quite well. I do believe families were more united then. I thoroughly enjoyed the discussion “The Greatest Generation,” and remember some of your posts

I have always thought of my self as being a liberal, but of late I may have moved a little to the center.

Bill H

Welcome Patrick and Claire and good to see you again, Bill.

In reading your post, Patrick, I was reminded for some odd reason of Maurice Chevalier (sp?) who used to sing (if you can call it that) - I think the line was from the song, Gigi. He sang, "Ah, yes, I remember it well."

We're all of the same age here, we all remember the same things - my husband and I are in our 70's, pushing 80, and if that is outmoded so be it. Who cares?

I hope you all join in the discussion of this book for I know you will enjoy it. It is not only the history of the ACLU, but the history of this country, beginning at the turn of the century. To quote Ira Glasser, present Ex.Director of the ACLU, it was a time when

"People were being lynched because of the color of their skin, women couldn't vote, the majority's religion was imposed on kids in school. Working people didn't have the right to strike. The Supreme Court had never struck down any government law on First Amendments grounds, never. The Bill of Rights existed on paper, as a marvelous invention of the people who founded the country, but no one had yet invented a way to enforce it."

We don't all go back that far, of course, but did you know how much Americans admired the Russian people for overthrowing their Czar and starting a new government? And why wouldn't they - we, as a young nation, had overthrown a King and started a democracy.

The book starts there - DO GET THE BOOK AND JOIN US FOR A FASCINATING LOOK AT OUR TIME AND THE TROUBLE WE HAD AND THE TROUBLES WE AVOIDED PERHAPS?

I have never belonged to the ACLU but have no problem with its philosophy -- which is, simply, to enforce the Constitution. Sometimes it goes against the grain because we all have biases, but we either believe that this is a "nation of Law" or we don't.

Robby

Quote from the Book

"It's no accident that the ACLU came into being when it did after World War I. After all, the Wilsonian era increased the size and scope of government substantially, and it became much more authoritarian. When you look back on that period and you see some of the things that took place, it makes you wonder: was this America?" ------Roger Pilon

Unable to get the book in our small Florida town, or even in Atlanta en route north. So I phoned Barnes and Noble (in Skokie!) and hope to have it in a few days and have time to read and participate.

Being technologically challenged, it took me more than an hour to hook up my computer tonight. Had the phone line plugged into the wrong slot.

Hello Rambler! Welcome Home

I wouldn't hesitate to buy books online. I have several times and see no difference in giving your credit card online than on the phone or at the grocery store. Many folk here have bought their books online with no problem whatsoever and you get them in 2-3 days.

Furthermore, if you buy the book by clicking on the icon in the header where it says "Click on the link to buy the book" we, at Seniornet, get 7% of the purchase price. Try it!

Our Library has the PBS video co-produced by this author entitled "The ACLU: A History" and I tried this morning to check out here at home, but am told it is not available for checkout and am advised to see the Librarian. Will do that this week and hopefully can view it as I'm a very good client of the Library; however, it may be reserved for schools and universities only. I'll let you know.

TODAY'S QUOTE FROM THE BOOK

"I'm afraid that the ACLU does not have the gift of making itself popular. Supporting the Bill of Rights, in fact, generally makes you about as popular as a whore trying to get into the S.M.U. Theology School."--------Molly Ivins, author and syndicated columnist

Supporting the Bill of Rights is similar to following the Golden Rule which most of us (if we admitted it) don't want to follow either.

Robby

info must be somewhere here on line.....anyone look? I will but not right this minute.... coffee is getting cold. I'm usually on their side of an issue even when I don't like the particular situation we are both supporting...usually freedom of speech when I don't like the speaker but support his/her right to do so IN PUBLIC as long as he/she doesn't break liable laws in the process.

Claire

About 20,357 found in Web News for: origin of aclu Show Results: Web News | Newswires | News Photos

it's going to take some time, this time.......speaking of old song lyrics. there it is on the web start looking.

IF YOU ARE PLANNING TO BE A PARTICIPANT IN THIS DISCUSSION, WOULD YOU PLEASE POST A MESSAGE TO THAT EFFECT? THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YOU DO NOT NECESSARILY HAVE TO READ THE BOOK; HOWEVER, IT IS RECOMMENDED!

Hello Winsum!

In the first chapter of this book, we will be discussing Roger Baldwin, the founder of the ACLU. I'll give you just a bit of his history:

Are you familiar with the Baldwin apple? Most every cook is and they know it to be "crisp, coarse and juicy, with a spicy character." Not only does this describe Roger Baldwin himself, but his ancester, a Colonel Baldwin from Wilmington, Massachusetts, started the Baldwin orchards before 1750.

Just another tidbit from the book:

On November 11, 1918, the Great War ended. Americans woke up to a cacophony of fire alarms, church bells, and factory whistles. In every city in the country people paraded through the streets, dancing, singing, waving flags. But in Newark, New Jersey, one man was not dancing or singing..... That Armistice Day, Roger Baldwin, thirty-four years old, entered federal prison. He spent nine months there, quietly gardening, thinking....and planning an organization that would cause controversy - and create enemies - for the rest of the twentieth century.

On paper, the organization he founded seemed harmless; the American Civil Liberties Union was created to support the individual liberties guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. But the organization supported the rights of the individual against the majority and the government....

Come join us as we take a very good and deep look at this organization, what it has meant to Americans in the past, why some people dislike it, why some praise it, why some of the most admired legal minds in the country have worked for it, e.g. Clarence Darrow, Felix Frankfurter, Osmond Fraenkel and Eleanor Holmes Norton, and we'll debate the merits of some of its most famous cases.

The page 1 lead story in today's Chicago Tribune concerns yesterday's U.S. Supreme Court decision (5-4) concerning police officers' powers to arrest and handcuff offenders for minor crimes punishable by fines. So far as I can tell, the ACLU was not involved in the case.

Anyway, "the court acknowledged that a police officer...exercised extremely poor judgment and caused pointless indignity for the mother, Gail Atwater".

"Nevertheless, Justice David Souter declared for the majority that the 4th amendment, which protects individuals from unreasonable searches, is not well served by standards requiring sensitive, case-by-case determinations of government need. Otherwise, he said, every discretionary judgment by a police officer could be converted into an occasion for constitutional review."

No comment here, except to say that I like Souter more than those who voted with him.

When I was in law school, 100 years ago, there was often a gasp of exaspiration when a 5-4 decision was mentioned. Hell, what do you folks expect? These people don't get the easy cases! Those cases get decided back in Kansas City, and the Supremes decline to hear them!

Hi Ed: Yes, there is much discussion over this new decision by the Supreme Court, but also a lot of latitude given to each state as to what constitutes a misdemeanor, or at least that is the way I interpreted it.

The headline in our Columbus Dispatch paper says: "Although Texas law allows police to arrest anyone for seat-belt violations, Ohio law prohibits arrests for such minor offenses."

Last summer, at my husband's fishing camp at Lake Erie, two fellows he knows were riding in a truck. The driver was stopped by a police officer and cited for not having mudguards on the rear of his truck, but his friend who was riding as a passenger was fined $75 for not having his seat belt buckled. As the first offense was a misdemeanor, the officer was in the right to fine for seat-belt violations.

ELLA: I don't know how much I will post in this discussion. I have subscribed to it and will be lurking. I am finding the discussion very interesting. I doubt that I will actually read the book.

Ella, me too. While I'd like to read this book and probably will eventually, it won't be in time to join the discussion. I hope I'll have a worthwhile comment from time to time but won't be making any commitments now.

In Democracy in America, we have a number of people who do not have the book but their contributions help immensely. I call some of deTocqueville's comments to their attention and this helps them to relate to the book.

Robby

Hi, Ella, I do plan on being a lurker and reading the very interesting posts of others and, from time to time, making contributions myself.

Bill H

Well, according to some, I must be a glutton for punishment, because I have already purchased the book and intend to read it!!! See you on the 1st, Ella!

Lorrie

I plan to lurk, contribute now and then but the book doesn't sound very interesting to me and most of its information is probably out there on the web as well as seeping into the discussion here. It's a great subject. I look forward to joining in a discussion based it.

Claire

Thanks to ALL OF YOU for your comments about reading the book.

TODAY'S QUOTE FROM THE BOOK

Writer and law professor Stanley Fish characterized the ACLU this way: "When I describe the ACLU to anyone I say think of an organization that goes out and finds things it hates, and then grows them. Wouldn't you find that a little peculiar?" In fact, the ACLU is peculiar. Most civil liberties groups are defense organizations, set up to protect a particular group (Jews, Communists, African-Americans, prisoners) while staying largely indifferent to everyone else. The ACLU, it has been said "loves no one, but helps anyone whose rights have been violated."

TODAY'S QUOTE FROM THE BOOK

"The Bill of Rights is an extraordinary document. If anything has ever been close to perfect, the First Amendment is it. And, of course, Madison wrote it up in so few words. As a writer, I can only sit here in envy." -------------Molly Ivins, author and syndicated columnist

(paraphrasing from the book) It was the year 1786 and the fiery patriot Patrick Henry was promoting state support for teachers of the Christian religion in Virginia. James Madison, continuing a separation-of-church-and-state campaign that Thomas Jefferson had begun, fought his first great battle for religious freedom in the United States against Henry's bill and won. Under Madison's leadership, the Virginia Assembly approved Virginia's Statute of Religious Freedom.

It was in this spirit that, three years later, Madison wrote the set of Amendments to the U.S. Constitution that would become the Bill of Rights……….But for all its clarity, the Bill of Rights is a fluid document, one that has been interpreted anew by each successive generation.

I am having trouble getting the book. When I phoned long distance from Atlanta, B&N here in the Chicago 'burbs said 4-5 business days. Now they say 6-10.

The first amendment is admirable in its clarity. But the fifth and some others are admirably (if that's the right word) vague: "...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...". What does "due process of law" mean? I'm sure that question was asked in 1791, and I'm sure it will be asked in some courtroom today.

Recognizing that the standards of their day were unlikely to endure for the ages, the founders were sometimes intentionally vague. At least, that's my understanding.

James Madison is constantly mentioned but, if I am correct, wasn't it James Mason who fought to have such amendments added on?

Robby

Ella, is there any set schedule for discussing this book? The reason I ask is that I haven't started it yet, but plan to do some heavy reading this weekend, and would like to know how far along we should be by Monday?

Lorrie

That's a shame, Rambler, that you didn't get your book when promised. Can you go to your local library and get it? I know that when I've ordered books online from B&N I get them within 3 days - good service.

As to "due process of law", although I'm far from a legal eagle, I've always thought that meant that the authorities must use proper procedures - whatever the case calls for. However, let me quote from IN OUR DEFENSE by Kennedy and Alderman:

"The essential purpose of the due process clause is to prevent government from acting arbitrarily. The focus is on the procedure itself, unlike other freedoms protected in the Bill of Rights…..The right to due process of law exists in both the criminal and civil justice systems. When 'life' is at state, procedures ensuring a fair trial and appeals process are required by due process as well as by the Sixth Amendment."

There's much more about the phrase, but I think you get the meaning from that statement, right?

Hi, Robby, no doubt there is much more to the story of the Bill of Rights than what I have related; however, without going into a long study of the process, the Kennedy book mentioned above also states that it was James Madison who in 1789, after reviewing all the state-proposed amendments (by this time the public realized they were not protected by the Constitution against the state government or federal government), he proposed nine amendments to be considered by Congress. Actually 12 amendments were considered and sent to the states for ratification; however only 10 were ratified (the two that failed dealt with the apportionment of representatives and salary increases for Congress). Can you add any additional information to that?

Good to see you here, Lorrie, I'll post a schedule today and hope that all agree to it. We don't have to stick to it at all as there is much to discuss in these chapters, but it can serve as a guide. Let's start with Chapters 1-4 for the first week. Is that all right? And, of course, the Introduction is of interest also.

The U.S. Constitution contains protection for some individual rights in the body of its text, notably the rights to Habeas Corpus and jury trial and against bills of attainder and ex post facto laws. As originally drafted in 1787 by the Philadelphia Convention, however, no federal bill of rights was included. A motion by George Mason to add such a bill was overwhelmingly defeated.

Robby

I hope this doesn't sound belligerent; I can assure you it is not so intended:

Offhand, "proper procedures" strikes me as just as vague as "due process of law". I'm confident that every Supreme Court session (or whatever they call that which begins on the first Monday in October) in the last 70 years has heard several cases where the Supremes decided that "due process" was or wasn't observed.

Apparently no public library is this area has the book. Ours is affiliated with about 20 others, including Skokie (the best I've ever seen), where I would think there would be some interest.

Oh well, I'll just have to play catch-up with the rest of you. As a Chicago Cubs fan, I'm used to playing catch-up.

Definition of Due Process of Law

"The essential elements of due process of law are notice, an opportunity to be heard, and the right to defend in an orderly proceeding." Fiehe v. R.E. Householder Co., 125 So. 2, 7 (Fla. 1929).

"To dispense with notice before taking property is likened to obtaining judgement without the defendant having ever been summoned." Mayor of Baltimore vs. Scharf, 54 Md. 499, 519 (1880).

"An orderly proceeding wherein a person is served with notice, actual or constructive, and has an opportunity to be heard and to enforce and protect his rights before a court having power to hear and determine the case. Kazubowski v. Kazubowski, 45 Ill.2d 405, 259, N.E.2d 282, 290." Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, page 500.

"Due Process of law implies and comprehends the administration of laws equally applicable to all under established rules which do not violate fundamental principles of private rights, and in a competent tribunal possessing jurisdiction of the cause and proceeding upon justice. It is founded upon the basic principle that every man shall have his day in court, and the benefit of the general law which proceeds only upon notice and which hears and considers before judgement is rendered." State v. Green, 232 S.W.2d 897, 903 (Mo. 1950).

"Phrase means that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, property or of any right granted him by statute, unless matter involved first shall have been adjudicated against him upon trial conducted according to established rules regulating judicial proceedings, and it forbids condemnation without a hearing, Pettit v. Penn., La.App., 180 So.2d 66, 69." Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, page 500.

"Due Process of law implies the right of the person affected thereby to be present before the tribunal which pronounces judgement upon the question of life, liberty, or property, in its most comprehensive sense; to be heard, by testimony or otherwise, and to have the right of controverting, by proof, every material fact which bears on the question of right in the matter involved. If any question of fact or liability be conclusively presumed against him, this is not due process of law." Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, page 500.

"Aside from all else, ‘due process’ means fundamental fairness and substantial justice. Vaughn v. State, 3 Tenn.Crim.App. 54, 456 S.W.2d 879, 883." Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, page 500.

Perhaps the fact that so many have struggled, in words so different, over so many years, to define "due process" confirms the amorphousness of the words.

This is not intended as criticism of the words themselves or of the founders' intent. Far from it.

Thank you, thank you, Robby and Rambler, for your interest and your enlightenment on the subject of "due process." I assure you that the book is not a text on the law or I would be the last person to read it - as you can see, I know diddley-squat (is that how you spell that?) about the subject and am always tickled to learn something new. I read those with great care, Robby, and you just stick around and be our "legal man on the scene" when you are needed.

Furthermore that post about James Mason - I've never heard about him and perhaps we should have? If he was the first to write the Bill of Rights, was Madison copying his ideas when he wrote the ones that were ratified? I'm sure that it is a course of study in itself, would be fascinating to learn more.

QUOTE OF THE DAY

"We shouldn't win all of our arguments. We should win a large number of them, but we shouldn't win them all. There has to be some sort of balance between the needs of the individual and the needs of the group. What Roger Baldwin did was invent this marvelous machine for making that balance: the ACLU on one side, arguing as hard as it can in favor of individualism, the government on the other, articulating the needs for collective power, and the courts making the final decision. That's the way we worked this out in this century, and it's worked out quite well." -----Burt Neuborne

Ella:--As for my being a "legal man," I just know how to "copy and paste" on the computer. Thanks, by the way, to Jane who taught me that!!

Regarding James Mason, it's a good thing you live "way out there" in Ohio because the students of James Mason University, just a half hour from my house, would be pounding on your door. He was one of the guiding lights of our great United States Constitution!!

Robby

Let me correct myself!!! For some unexplainable reason, I kept saying James Mason (Hollywood's effect on me?) when I meant to say GEORGE Mason. But everything else I said stands.

Representatives from Virginia at the Constitutional Convention

Blair, John
Madison, James
Mason, George
McClurg, James
Randolph, Edmund J.
Washington, George
Wythe, George

As you can see, he was no small potatoes, he sat right alongside George Washington and James Madison.

Robby

At Philadelphia in 1787 Mason was one of the five most frequent speakers at the Constitutional Convention. He exerted great influence, but during the last 2 weeks of the convention he decided not to sign the document.

Mason's refusal prompts some surprise, especially since his name is so closely linked with constitutionalism. He explained his reasons at length, citing the absence of a declaration of rights as his primary concern. He then discussed the provisions of the Constitution point by point, beginning with the House of Representatives. The House he criticized as not truly representative of the nation, the Senate as too powerful. He also claimed that the power of the federal judiciary would destroy the state judiciaries, render justice unattainable, and enable the rich to oppress and ruin the poor. These fears led Mason to conclude that the new government was destined to either become a monarchy or fall into the hands of a corrupt, oppressive aristocracy.

Two of Mason's greatest concerns were incorporated into the Constitution. The Bill of Rights answered his primary objection. Throughout his career Mason was guided by his belief in the rule of reason and in the centrality of the natural rights of man. He approached problems coolly, rationally, and impersonally. In recognition of his accomplishments and dedication to the principles of the Age of Reason, Mason has been called the American manifestation of the Enlightenment.

Thank you, George, that we may at this moment on Senior Net say anything we want without fear of being arrested.

Forgive me, GEORGE Mason, for not recognizing you - I would have loved to have had you as my debate partner in high school, what a guy you must have been to refuse to sign the Constitution unless it was on your terms!

And Hooray for the grand state of Virginia - I did know, Robby, some of the history of those proud and wealthy landowners of your state. But it's been many a day since I've taken an American History Course, perhaps I may be forgiven for not remembering all these details??

Old George Washington, of course, was every school boy and girl's great American role model, father of the country and all that. But the last time I was in the vicinity of anything connected to George was a few years ago when we toured Valley Forge for the first time and remembering in a vague way the hardships that the soldiers had during the Revolutionary War and reading all about it on the numerous markers along the route, I was amazed to come upon a very nice comfortable home that George was quartered in at the time, with his servants and his housekeeper and HEAT AND FOOD!! And I did wonder about the "role model" I remembered as a child.

I come originally from New York State which has considerable revolutionary history of its own. But I have been in Virginia for almost 20 years and can hardly walk or drive anywhere without being surrounded by history. The town in which I live was the home of Chief Justice John Marshall and his statue is in front of the Courthouse. The balcony of the building I pass each day which was formerly a hotel was the one from which the Marquis de Lafayette spoke upon his returning to visit his old friends.

And that's not counting all the Civil War history (called here the War Between the States.) There are battlefields on all sides of us. Just down the road is the site of the Battle of Bull Run (called here the Battle of Manassas). Each day I ride by a beautiful home which during that war was taken over by Union troops for use as a hospital. We have James Madison Highway, and Lee Highway. I live five miles from Washington, Virginia (not to be confused with Washington, D.C.) which everyone calls "little Washington." This small community has streets which were laid out by surveyor George Washington and one of the streets is named Fairfax St., named after his love, Sally Fairfax.

And then, of course, there is George Mason University with one of its campuses just a half hour away.

Robby

Oh, golly, I envy you that, Robby. I have been to Virginia several times in my lifetime and fell in love with the state and of all the places I've been I would love to be "carried back to ole Virginny" and live there before I die. All that history around me - I would love to be in the midst of it. My two male cousins lived in South Carolina growing up and one time they came to visit and one of them said I'll meet you after school and "carry" you home which statement left me nonplussed!

I live in a small humble cape-cod cottage but in the evenings I sit on my front porch and watch the sun set over the Blue Ridge Mountains. These are the mountains which Stonewall Jackson and his troops crossed and re-crossed on behalf of the Confederacy. The "Ridge" at times does look blue which I am told is due to the pine trees giving off a chemical which causes a certain haze.

I am a newcomer damyankee but I sit in the nearby country store and let the mountain oldtimers give me a friendly razzing about my accent. Their fathers and grandfathers and great grandfathers before them farmed the land in the foothills which unfortunately is being sold to developers. But moonshining is still going on "up in them hollers." I hear little tales but not enough to pass on to "revenoors."

Every day on my way to work I cross over the narrow upstream section of the Rappahannock River which has been designated a "state scenic river." This river exits to the Potomac River in Fredericksburg where George Washington was raised.

Every name around here is a history memory evoker. I live a half hour from the entrance to Shenandoah National Park. I belong to the Rappahannock-Rapidan Community Service Board. I often go to the Marshall Manor nursing home in the town of Marshall named after Chief Justice John Marshall. My daughter lives near by in Madison County. On the way to a friend I go through Jeffersonton.

Should I continue?

Robby

P.S. I should probably not continue as the topic here is the Bill of Rights but in the area where I live I am reminded that it is here where the Bill of Rights was born.

Robby: Please continue here.

Your postings are unfailingly thoughtful, intelligent, provocative.

If you know how to copy-and-paste, you're 'way ahead of me. I've had this computer 14+ months, still don't know how. I know the procedure, but my iMac won't highlight.

Going to the dentist in the morning, maybe a dozen miles from here and only a few hundred yards from B&N, but they still haven't called about the book! Of course, I'll check again after the dentist.

I loved the description of where you live, Robby, a blend of the old and the new. Do you tell those mountain oldtimers about what fun we have on the Internet or are they just as modern as you are?

No southerners lurking around here that knew the word "carry" means "accompany?" I thought someone would jump on that; perhaps that expression is too old for modern times?

We are losing some colorful language; however the new is taking its place - just listen to the teenagers.

Tomorrow we start discussing the book and I am looking forward to it.

In the meantime, you might want to look over the ACLU home page:

ACLU

On p. 135 of the Sunday magazine is a picture of Uncle Sam pointing a gun at you. The text reads:

"I Want Your money, jewelry, car, boat and house. Thanks to civil asset forfeiture laws, possessions that took you a lifetime to acquire can be taken in the blink of an eye, or more accurately, the flash of a badge. Probable cause. That's all police are required to show before they can seize everything from family photos to your life savings. The forfeiture laws were designed as a new government weapon in the 'war on drugs.' But they've done little more than provide law endorcement with a license to steal. After all, who can you call when the police are the ones robbing you? Help us defend your rights. Support the ACLU. To learn more, visit www.aclu.org/forfeiture."

Intriguing, Rambler! I read the material on that web side and noticed that "last November, Oregon voters amended their state constitution to require a criminal conviction before a forfeiture action is completed. Utah's voters also approved a similar measure in November."

Perhaps other states will follow suit. That poster of Uncle Sam pointing a finger is a vivid reminder of what we all saw during WWII. Do you approve of the ACLU advertising in this manner?

Ella: Yes, I think these ACLU ads are effective and the chosen media--N.Y. Times--the likeliest to produce results. They could have inserted a sentence explaining "probable cause"; not everyone understands what that means. In the past, I have sometimes objected to ACLU direct mailings that start out (only slight parody here): "Of course, we all agree that President Reagan is the modern Attila the Hun and the worst thing to happen to civil liberties in our lifetimes...". I said, "Hey, there are folks out there who revere the Bill of Rights but are otherwise pretty conservative. Why go out of your way to offend them?"

I think the "war on drugs" is Vietnam all over again: Not worth fighting and not winnable, at least by armed forces (law enforcement).

Finally got the book today, after seeing the dentist. Waltzed into B&N, told them they hadn't called, but might my book be available? Yes, it was, and apparently it's been available for a couple of days. Whoever I spoke to on Sat. or Sun. wasn't on the ball.

Robby: No mention of George Mason in the index of this book or that of a heftier predecessor I have: "In Defense of American Liberties", A History of the ACLU, by Samuel Walker. But far be it from me to suggest that you may be mistaken!

In Rambler's Message #111 he gave a URL for the ACLU's ad in the New York Times. I'm repeating it as a clickable for those who do not copy and paste.

ACLU AD

Very happy, Rambler, that you got your book - it's not a difficult read at all, you can probably do it in an evening. However, I think it contains much to discuss and we're going to have a lot of fun with it.

As the delegates gathered at the Pennsylvania State House in May 1787 to "revise" the Articles of Confederation, Virginia delegate George Mason wrote, "The Eyes of the United States are turned upon this Assembly and their Expectations raised to a very anxious Degree." Mason had earlier written the Virginia Declaration of Rights that strongly influenced Thomas Jefferson in writing the first part of the Declaration of Independence. He left the convention bitterly disappointed, however, and became one of the Constitution's most vocal opponents. "It has no declaration of rights," he was to state. Ultimately, George Mason's views prevailed. When James Madison drafted the amendments to the Constitution that were to become the Bill of Rights, he drew heavily upon the ideas put forth in the Virginia Declaration of Rights.

GOOD MORNING EVERYONE! WELCOME TO OPENING DAY!

The first few chapters in this book pertain to Roger Baldwin and the forces that shaped his life; however there are many things to ponder as we wend our way through Chapter One through Chapter Four of this first week. For example:

In the introduction, (pg.14) what do you think of former legal director of the ACLU Burt Neuborne's statement?

It makes my skin crawl to think of some of the guys that we have had to represent over the years. It's like taking out the garbage. But somebody's got to take the garbage out.

Could you or would you do this kind of work if you were a lawyer? Could you take the heat or the hate mail you would get?

There is no statement in the Constitution about "separation of church and state." Jefferson coined this phrase in a letter he wrote to a Baptist organization and yet it is constantly being used today (and I am as guilty as anyone in quoting it). Isn't it amazing that a simple phrase can have such long-term usage? Where have you seen it being used and in connection with what?

I'll be back later today with more questions and meanwhile do let me hear from all of you! And if anyone is lurking without the book and needs to know more than I'm quoting, please post a message and let me know. I'll be happy to quote from the book.

I'm positive that this will be a most stimulting, provocative, and intriguing discussion group. Following is an excerpt from this morning's New York Times:--

"Anthony D. Romero, a 35-year-old lawyer who has been an executive at the Ford Foundation for the last nine years, will become executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union in September.

He will succeed Ira Glasser, who announced his plans to retire last August, after 23 years as head of the organization.

"It's the thrill of my life," said Mr. Romero, who will be the first gay and the first Hispanic man to head the organization.

"The A.C.L.U. is the nation's premier civil rights-civil liberties organization in the nation," he added. "It's the only one that defends the whole range of civil rights and civil liberties for all Americans."

Mr. Romero, who was born in the Bronx and whose parents were Puerto Rican immigrants, is a graduate of Princeton University and Stanford Law School. He is now the director of human rights and international cooperation at the Ford Foundation."

Robby

I was surprised to see Dave Barry's name in the middle of the first Acknowledgements page. He's a widely syndicated humor writer. There's no mention of him in the index. Does anybody know his connection with civil liberties matters?

Can anybody explain the Stanley Fish quotation following the Acknowledgements? Free speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of the press, etc.--are these "nothing of consequence"? I also don't "get" his quote at the bottom of p. 13 and top of p. 14. Does defending, for example, the free speech rights of Klansmen somehow "grow" the Klan?

To the list of distinguished folks who have worked with or for the ACLU, lower part of p. 14, the author could have added Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

At the end of the Introduction, "tinkering" seems a strange word to use: "...for better or worse, the ACLU's tinkering with the Bill of Rights has molded our national idea of liberty...". Far from tinkering, I think the ACLU is simply maintaining that the Bill means what it says.

At a gut, emotional level, I guess the Burt Neuborne quote on p. 14 makes some sense.

"It makes my skin crawl to think of some of the guys that we had to represent over the years. It's like taking out the garbage. But somebody's got to take the garbage out."

But intellectually, I don't think that sentiment stands up, and I'm sure Neuborne knows it. You can't let the police or the sheriff or the courts decide who has free speech and who doesn't. And popular speech needs no protection because nearly everyone agrees with it. The degree to which a society protects unpopular speech is the measure of whether or not it believes in free speech.

The Unitarians (p. 25), now Unitarian/Universalists, are an unusual bunch. Many believe in God, many others don't. They often avoid the term Church, preferring terms like Society or Fellowship. One unifying principle seems to be that a person should be judged by the contribution that he/she makes to the world, here and now, not on things like prayer and church attendance. That seems to fit nicely with Roger Baldwin's developing character.

From p. 29: (Margaret Sanger) "had been barred by the police from delivering a birth control lecture in a private hall in St. Louis". Bad enough that the police would bar someone from speaking 'most anywhere. But in a private hall? What's next--the living room?

There is something I'm a little curious about. We're told that, besides James Madison, there is another who was instrumental in fighting for these new amendments to the Constitution. His name is George Mason, and yet there is very little mention of him, if any, in the book. (At least so far) Why do you suppose this is?

Lorrie

I'm not sure either, Rambler, why Dave Barry's name is there. I've read the whole book but, of course, cannot remember each name and how it was used; perhaps he was just interviewed and not used in the content of the book? Garey has an extensive and useful Index in the book doesn't she?

As to law professor Fish, he is a bit of a puzzle in his statements but I took them to be positive of the ACLU. I thought he was attempting to provoke his students into contemplating the reasons why such an organization needs to exist. For example, in the quote before the Introduction I understood "THEY" to mean the public lives in a dreamland. Perhaps I'm wrong. The same as in the other quote on pg. 13. The ACLU does find things it hates (individuals that have been wronged by society, by government) and it grows them (makes those case visible to the public by lawsuit or other means).

As to Neubourne's statement, I agree absolutely with your view; however, my question was would you, if you were a lawyer, and requested by the ACLU take on a controversial case? Perhaps that question should wait until we get further in the book and ask the question case-by-case?

Thanks for your "take" on the Unitarian Church. I am not at all familiar with it and its principles but agree that would fit with RB's character.

That word "tinkering" in no way is descriptive of the work that the ACLU has done on behalf of "shaping what we call the American way of life." Poor choice of words.

ROBBY, DON'T LEAVE US NOW AFTER GIVING US THAT BIT OF NEWS!! But, of course, a gay person in a position of authority is no longer viewed by society as bad news. I think of Barney __________ (oh, what's his last name?) the senator in Congress who is so outspoken and many other gay people in government, schools, etc. All except the Boy Scouts! Robby, what do you think of their stand or has that been resolved by now?

HI LORRIE! The reason, I believe, is this is not a book about the Constitution or the origin of the Bill of Rights; it is a book about the ACLU and it just mentions briefly the fact that James Madison wrote the Bill of Rights. I'm sure that there have been numerous books on the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia - history books galore, biographies of each of those revered statesmen, etc. that would corroborate Robby's statement. It was news to me only because I have not studied to that extent the Constitution and the events surrounding it.

Back later --- are you enjoying reading the book? I hope so! I was fascinated!

Ella: Rep. Barney Frank, D., Mass., is the gay Congressman you have in mind. He was slurred as "Barney Fag" by one of those Texas dinosaurs: Armey, Archer, or DeLay; probably Dick Armey.

Lots of attorneys from top-flight law firms take ACLU cases on a "pro-bono" basis, which I think means they still draw salary from the firm but the ACLU pays them nothing. I think the law firms may be motivated by a sense of conscience.

I heard of one lawyer, working directly for the ACLU, who was in tears when he told them he could no longer afford to work for the little they could afford to pay.

That brings to mind Baldwin and DeSilver. I think they were both in position to draw on personal/family wealth if necessary. I think DeSilver paid ACLU bills out of his own pocket for many of the early years.

The Virginia Declaration of Rights was adopted in 1776 with primary credit given to George Mason. While Madison's "shall not be" is more elegant and more forceful than Mason's "ought not to be," the similarities outweigh the differences. However, great originality is not a virtue in politics. The tried and true stated well is reassuring.

Thanks, Robby, well said!

And thanks to you,Rambler for that name and your thoughts about the pro bono work of attorneys. The book mentions several well-known lawyers who handled cases for the ACLU (and I'm sure they didn't need the money) and also I'm sure their firm kept them on salary. The lawyers do like to defend the law - it's their business, it's what they were educated for.

A few thoughts for tomorrow (and I know I'm getting windy! it's a bad habit of mine), but we have a lot to consider in 4 chapters in a week.

Had you ever heard of the Espionage Act of 1917 which bill made it illegal for anyone to "willfully make or convey false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces." Sounds harmless doesn't it, until you read that this Act gave the postmaster general broad powers to determine as "unmailable" any materials deleterious to the war effort - "a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than 20 years."

I didn't remember that from my history studies of ?????? years ago, did you?

Those of you who have books know of all the organizations spawned in opposition to this Act. What surprised me is the number of women that were so influential in politics at this time, even though they could not vote. I've heard of some of them before - Lillian Wald of the Henry Street Settlement in NYC, Jane Addams of Hull House in Chicago, but Crystal Eastman was a new name to me - such a fierce and dedicated lady - with a sociology degree from Columbia and a law degree for New York University. And, of course, if it had not been for her activities, we may not ever have heard of Roger Baldwin - or would we have?

I took a Women's Studies course about 15-20 years ago at Ohio State U., about the height of the feminist movement in America, and several of these early 20th century women were mentioned in the text - I wouldn't want to tell you what was discussed in class! Jeech! Do they still have Women's Studies courses in colleges? The things these women did in their spare time!

Does it seem strange to some of you that Roger Baldwin, who came from a wealthy and privileged Boston family, educated at Harvard, and a man who could have done anything chose a career in social injustice?

However, weren't you surprised that at Harvard there was this social consciousness that I doubt we will see soon again? Let me quote a few activities Baldwin was engaged in at Harvard. There was a Social Service Committee, a sort of charity clearinghouse that was, as college president Eliot Norton said, "a benevolent association without parallel in the history of education." Concerned students were assigned to all sorts of charity programs in the city of Boston. Young men donated their time ministering to the sailors at Boston's wharf, running the Sir Galahad Social and Athletic Club for the children of the poor, or distributing coal to needy families during the winter.

Baldwin was part of a era where college life had ceased to be care-free, irresponsible, or impressionable, and became self-conscious, deliberate and immoderately mature. Young men from the upper-class wanted to make a contribution, help their fellow men, improve the world, maybe save the world. Are there any of them still around today?

Let's hear your thoughts on these subjects.

More about George Mason: (just one of many on the Internet)

George Mason and the Constitutional Convention

Ella: I think it's pretty risky to compare one era with another. Now I'll proceed to do so.

While Baldwin and his fellow students were engaged in good works, they were smiled upon by their college and the Boston establishment. Their dedication was admirable, but there were few risks involved.

In the two greatest controversies of the last 50 years--civil rights and the anti-war movement--college administrators and the establishment were not necessarily on the side of the student activists. In the case of the anti-war movement, many were sternly opposed. Students, most from modest backgrounds, risked their futures and sometimes their lives, viz: Schwerner, Goodman, Chaney, and those killed at Kent State.

Wasn't that a sorry chapter in American history, Rambler! But, if my memory is correct, weren't college students exempted from the war? And weren't many of them involved not only in the anti-war demonstrations but in the civil-rights marches? This, I think, could be compared with Baldwin's activities somewhat, particularly the civil-rights marches and demonstrations.

Young RB's first lesson in the "tyranny of the majority" was a harsh one, wasn't it? And I had heard of Emma Goldman, the anarchist and her vision of a "society so good….it didn't need governments to hold it together." What a dream - only in heaven!

And then, of course, we hear of Margaret Sanger who in 1912 advocated birth control! What a storm that created and RB, through his association with her, learned how effective free speech protests could be. So interesting isn't it? And another (risky) comparison could be made with birth control, in that era, with abortion rights in this era don't you think? Both stormy issues with people adamant that they are in the right. To my everlasting dismay, I tried to discuss abortion with my sister and bro-in-law one day (who are religiously opposed to any abortion) and swore to myself never to get onto that subject again.

Where's LORRIE, AND BILL? ANYONE ELSE AROUND?

Yes, Ella, and even the woman Roger Baldwin married, a Madeline Doty, was herself a civil libertaian and pacifist, a woman with a lengthy political resume of her own. If you are a dyed in the wool romantic, that wedding ceremony must strike you as being one of the starkest you'd heard of. No frills, held outdoors---no bridal dress, no tux, no ring. They wrote their own vows, in which the bride stated that their marriage would be "a foundation for the new brotherhood of which we strive." I guess considering the ardent leanings of both the bride and groom on political issues, this should not be surprising.

It was interesting to read, in Chapter 3, how J. Edgar Hoover was introduced into this setting. Attorney General Palmer, the controversial figure who later instigated so many illegal raids in 192, placed Hoover, a young bureaucrat, as head of the newly formed "General Intelligence Division" of the FBI. Hoover, who had once worked at the Library of Congrss, immediately launched a surveillance and records campaign. He soon had index cards, painstakingly cross referenced, on 200,000 people.

Does this foretell a taste of what was to come in future years?

I think I like this Roger Baldwin. At the very least, you must admire the man for having the courage of his convictions. Even though his stays at different penal institutions were not all that horrid, he still made good use of time served to further his cause.

Lorrie

The Espionage Act and the Sedition Act seem to have had similar aims: suppress and jail those who speak out, or even try to speak out, against national policies. Hard to believe this was America, although we saw a reprise with the red scare of the '50s.

No, I don't remember any of these issues being discussed in highschool classes in the late '40s. I was born in '33, so all the (non-WWII) issues being discussed at dinner tables concerned New Deal measures. I remember wondering why, in '48 to '50, my highschool history classes were barely reaching the '20s when the domestic issues of the day began with FDR. Maybe the issues were too hot for school administrators to deal with? But how can you have educated voters if voters haven't been exposed, in school, to recent issues?

Re conscientious objectors (sort of): I volunteered for the draft early in '53, near the end of Korea. This was not an act of patriotism: Nobody would hire you because you were draft bait. So I figured, "Let's get it over with". Korea ended before I got out of basic training.

DURING basic training, Easter or some other big Christian holiday occurred. They assembled us, said they were marching us off to church, and that anyone who refused would spend the day digging up dandelions. Then we 6-7 refuseniks (out of 150?) got taken aside for the usual there-are-no-atheists-in-foxholes blather). I spent the afternoon digging up dandelions.

A Japanese-American friend and his company were aroused on a Sunday by a sergeant who bellowed: "Why aren't you guys in church??!!" Answer: "Because we're all Buddhists!"

You're on Chapter Three, Lorrie, ahead of me I'm afraid, but I do remember that wedding - I thought of the hippies of the '60's didn't you? The Baldwins were way ahead of their time!

And J. Edgar Hoover - I always have wondered how he got his job and now at last I know - just an insignificant young fellow in government who knew how to keep good records! AND HOW! Little did he know at this point how those index cards and folders were feared by presidents from FDR on up and anyone who was important in some way to the FBI. Do you remember when the youngsters called them G-men, which I think meant "government men" didn't it?

And you are beginning to like the young Roger Baldwin? I hope that continues throughout the book - he does become a bit more controversial as we get into some of the cases this author chose to describe.

Rambler, your statement "This was not an act of patriotism: Nobody would hire you because you were draft bait. So I figured, Let's get it over with" echoes my husband's from WWII. He was faced with the same situation and rather than wait for the draft notice, he enlisted in the Navy. He's never mentioned church in the service, but all being on the same ship (a carrier) you were there for the service if you weren't on duty at the time.

And what did you think of Chapter Two entitled "Patriotic Fever: Civil Liberties During WWI"" which was primarily about Roger Baldwin attempts to get conscientious objectors exempted and a few others such as religious men and German-Americans who might not wish to fight their former countrymen, or Irish-Americans who would not care to fight alongside the British. Baldwin was then acting as Secretary in an organization called the American Union Against Militarism.

"President Wilson himself had said he hoped the (draft) bill could make allowances for men of conscience who could not bring themselves to fight." Those of you who know history better than myself, is this the first time in America that (1) such a statement was made by a president, and (2) that a universal draft law was enacted?

The draft bill was passed in Congress on May 18, 1917 and it allowed exemptions only for members of "well-recognized religions and sects." That, I believe, was also the law in WWII, was it not? Please correct me if I am wrong.

It was certainly fascinating to learn this about the Civil War in 1863:

Union soldiers on horseback rode forth to summon all able-bodied men to register for the draft. The men responded by rioting. In New York City, angry crowds sacked army and newspaper offices, then set fire to police stations. Blacks, who were seen as the cause of the war, were stoned, beaten, and hanged. A mob wielding weapons held firemen at bay while the Negro Orphan Asylum was burned to the ground. Secretary of War Stanton was hung in effigy from a 46th Street lamppost; the mangled corpse of an army officer dangled nearby. Three hundred people died in one day's rioting.

I never knew that did any of you? Opponents of the draft predicted that America would relive this nightmare in 1917, but it wasn't this brutal either before WWI or WWII was it?

For those of you who do not have the book RB was arrested for resisting the draft, and taken to jail where on October 30, 1918 he was tried and received a sentence of one year in the penitentiary.

Can you imagine that for the "crime" of speaking out against WWI Eugene Debs was imprisoned for 10 years? If such were the case during the Vietnam War, there would not have been enough jails to hold them all. Tents with barbed wire around them?

Brief thoughts after typing the above:

Why didn't we (the government) round up German-Americans and place them in an encampment during WWI or WWII, as we did the Japanese-Americans? Just interesting, don't you think? Could it have been racial?

And you should see all the stuff about J. Edgar Hoover on the Internet. Here's a sample: (looks like a whole book)

J.Edgar Hoover

Ella

That's a really fascinating report on J. Edgar Hoover. It states as fact many of the rumors that have circulated about this man for many years. I have always believed that Hoover was a much more complex man than the public ever knew.

As I read about that horrible Espionage Act, I was struck by how the Postmaster General of the time, Albert Burleson, exercised his power of virtual consorship with a heavy hand. For example, he revoked certain publications' mailing priveleges because they were not in compliance with postal regulations---they had been declared unmailable by Burleson himself. Thus these magazines were effectively put out of business. This was in addition to Burleson turning the entire postal system into a national intelligence network during World War I.

Rambler

No, I don't remember reading anything like this in our History books back in school. In fact, I can recall very little of any mention at all of the ACLU, and by that time, I know this organization had become newsworthy and involved in many national events. In fact, when I think back, what I do remember of our history texts make me think they could have been written by one or more of Roger Baldwin's detractors.

Ella

That was a good question: Why weren't German-Americans interred during the war as were Japanese-Americans?

Lorrie

I think the reason for interning the Japanese-Americans was primarily racial. The Germans had probably been here longer, some intermarrying with other nationalities, whereas many Americans looked at folks of a different race (not just nationality) as inferior.

Geography was probably a factor, too. The Germans were all over. The Japanese were very heavily in California. In the early, panicky days of WWII it must have been easy to imagine Japanese forces landing on California beaches and to imagine Japanese-Americans not wanting to resist them.

Eighty years ago doesn't seem so long in the terms of history, does it, Lorrie? And yet, such repression in the mail situation, as you mentioned, was allowed! Strange to think of that happening today - in fact, the Postal Service is crying because of their "lack" of business due to the technology of the computers. People are sending emails, doing banking online, paying bills online, etc.

One thing I dislike about emails (which doesn't stop me from using the system, haha) is that the future generation will not have the wonderful correspondence between people today that can be collected and published and that will be quite a loss. I've read a number of biographies that quote from letters, well, just think of Winston Churchill and Clementine's letters to each other - that's a huge book and such a wonderful source of history.

And speaking of biographies, if you have never read one about Teddy Roosevelt you are missing learning about a loveable man, a wise man, a stubborn man. I do remember the incident related in this book. Poor Teddy was getting old by the time WWI came, he had poor eyesight and health but tried vigorously to get in this war somehow or to lead the men on the battlefields of France, and as the book says Secretary of War Baker was horrified at the image of Teddy in charge of thousands of essentially untrained soldiers! But you must give it to an old soldier who fought the good fight!

Did you feel a bit sorry for RB when he was up against someone like George Creel, whom President Wilson appointed Chairman of the Committee on Public Information? A man who had all the government's resources at his command? But apparently RB thrived on being a non-conformist; as a relative remembered "Roger identified with Henry David Thoreau's writing on civil disobedience…and he identified with Eugene Debs."

Rambler, yes I'm sure you're right about the German-Americans assimilating into society much better than the Japanese; which doesn't, however, excuse the government's actions. It's always easy with hindsight to say it was wrong, but during the hysteria that war produces and the fact, I believe, that Japanese submarines were sighted off the California coast almost understandable.

This was all discussed in the book THE GREATEST GENERATION which was done not so long ago and is in the Archives, so no sense being repetitive here.

We'll do Chapter Four and the unions over the weekend if that's all right?

Just a couple of comments before bedtime, I couldn't pass these up after reviewing Chapter Three again:

What did you think of RB's sojourn into the "working man's world?" It didn't last very long, a scant 2 months or so if my calculation is correct. As Clarence Darrow put it: "Roger's a friend of the working man, that's a lot easier than being one." Haha I like that, it's the same as saying, easier said than done. On the other hand, he learned much, for as the book says "He was…probably the only man in his college class, and possibly the only man in his social class, who could lay claim to a Harvard diploma, an IWW card and a felony conviction."

Could a woman then or now go off and bum around the country like that? I hardly think so, so the sexes are still not equal, nor will they ever be. It would be fun though to do, wouldn't it - a real adventure to live for awhile out of your own world and into another.

When I read this statement:

"And now what will become of us without the barbarians?" was a sentiment voiced in Greece after Alexander defeated the Persians. Americans in 1919 felt much the same way. They missed the German enemy that had united them in the paatriotic cause of war."

my thoughts turned to our own country and comments after the cold war. What do we do now? For purposes of this discussion I am neither a Democrat or Republican but I wonder at the current administration plans for a strong military and worry whether we feel the need for an enemy? Perhaps to help the economy grow again? No, no, that is cynicism and I apologize for that.

How time sort of softens things, in retrospect, doesn't it? I can remember my father, who was as opinionated and "red-fearing" as his peers, talking about Eugene Debs, and what my father called his "I Won't Work" party. Dad spoke of this man with contempt, and to his dying day he thought Eugene Debs was a rank Communist. It was many years later that I learned the truth, but it shows how things heard at the dinner table as a child can be carried over into later life.

Like so many of the men of his generation, my father was a veteran of World War I, and I think that had a bearing on how angry he was about Conscientious Objecters, and later, union organizers and radical organizations. I realize now how it must have broken his heart when my eldest brother came home and announced that he was going to vote for Norman Thomas,(About whom we will discuss later) and as we grew older and were able to form our own opinions, the arguments were hot and heavy at our house.

Ella:

I don't think that's a cynical view. I have always felt that the "need" stated for a strong Defense in our country has always been based on a corporate view of our economy. And I also feel that was one of the underlying fears of the so-called "red menace." Were we really so intent on saving the people in Central America, or saving firms like the United Fruit Co? More on this later.

Lorrie

There's no doubt in my mind that the internment of the Japanese-Americans was racial. And I believe that this type of thinking still exists. Imagine, hypothetically, that we go to war with Mexico. What do you suppose will be our attitude toward Mexican-Americans even though they are American citizens and have lived here for years?

Robby

Robby
The sad part of this whole thing is this hate thing didn't end with the First World War. Even in our town, we had a family living nearby named Schwarzbauer who suffered the same indignities during WWII, and they even had two blue stars in their window, signifying two sons in U.S. military service.

Interesting thought about the Mexican-Americans.

Lorrie

Robby said: "And I believe that this type of thinking still exists."

Me,too, Robby. I've heard it from people I know. They say if we would only keep the "immigrants" out - the "foreigners" out then people would be able to get jobs, etc. Little do they know that not only were their ancestors "immigrants," but these same foreigners (Hispanics, Asians, whomever) often do the work that others will not do.

Do you have any suggestions as to how a person can combat such attitudes?

And what does the phrase "civil disobedience" mean to you?

The First Amendment says: "Congress shall make no law...abridging...the right of the people peaceably to assemble."

Martin Luther King's actions and those of his collegues were a perfect example of "civil disobedience." They gathered in the streets despite the police telling them not to (disobedience). But they did not riot (peaceable). They did what the Constitution gave them the right to do.

Robby

Then the law has no right to jail anyone that resists the law passively (no violence). Would this be true of those who in 1918, 1941 and 1961 who resisted the war draft peaceably? And remember the veterans of WWI who assembled in Washington asking for their promised bonuses and were jailed and beaten and forced to leave the city?

Many more cases that I can think of (and probably many more on the Internet), but am in a dreadful rush today - must go.

A question to think about:

Have labor unions been good for America?

Ella:

You mentioned something about the "bonus march" of the veterans of WWI. Some time ago I wrote a short piece taken from my memories of my father's reaction to that episode and it was published in Malryn's emagazine "Sonata."

JULY MADNESS

They came from everywhere. Sunburned wheat farmers from Nebraska and Kansas, burly loggers from the upper Midwest, textile workers from the mills of Vermont, pasty-faced clerks from offices all over the country, and desperate unemployed salesmen who had been roaming the roads seeking customers to buy merchandise that no one could afford.

They were 15,000 strong; all of them veterans of the recent “War to End All Wars,” and they were marching on Washington to demand what had been promised them in 1924. It was now 1932, and the city baked in the hot July sun, so they built lean-to’s and shanties near the Washington Monument, and bombarded their legislators daily with speeches and flag waving.

“The Bonus Expeditionary Force” they called themselves, and they were led by a much-decorated former Army lieutenant named Walter W. Walters. Patriotism permeated the air, and the hot summer night breezes carried the sounds of thousands of male voices singing “Over There”, “There’s a Long, Long Trail A-winding,” and the ever-haunting “My Buddy.”

My father listened to the radio reports carefully. Although he wasn’t in Washington with them, he felt a kinship to those hapless men. It wasn’t that long ago that he’d fought the same war in France, where many of his friends remained, in white-crossed graves in Flanders Field. He, too, wondered why they hadn’t been given the recognition that they’d been promised.

They waited patiently for their Congressmen to tell them that yes, their bonus would .be paid now, rather than in 1945, as originally planned. They needed the money now. Unemployment was rampant–the Depression in full force.

Critics called them “dirty Reds,” but their leader, Waters, kept order with almost military discipline, and expelled the few Communist agitators.

And Congress did act, defeating the bill near the end of July. Most of the veterans went home, but many of them stayed on, until there were only 2000 men remaining, The Washington police tried to keep order, and were mostly successful, but they were only 800 against a mass of 2000 disgruntled ex-servicemen, many of them resentful and bitter.

President Hoover finally became restless at the sight of these makeshift camps, and on July 28 he ordered the “Bonus Army” to be expelled. Under the command of General Douglas MacArthur, then the U. S. Army Chief of Staff, troops were ordered to drive these men from their wretched hovels. Leading a massed force of four troops of cavalry, and four companies of infantry supported by tanks, MacArthur assaulted the shacks, burning the entire settlement. Wielding sabers and throwing tear-gas, in a manner later described by witnesses as “being just short of barbaric,” they drove the veterans out.

MacArthur later defended his actions, claiming that “he’d felt revolution in the air,” and was “forced to use violence,” but his aide at the time, Major Dwight D. Eisenhower, described the scene as “ a pitiful affair that never should have happened.”

Little was written in later years about the events of that day, although the radio and newspapers gave it full play when it happened. Fortunately, only four men were killed, but many others were injured, and the cries of those injured could be heard for hours. It was said later that many of the troops were sickened by the orders they had been given.

What bitterness and betrayal those men must have felt, being driven away by the hooves of horses manned by soldiers with whom only recently they had shared a trench, or swapped homesick tales on quiet nights near “No Man’s Land!” Will we ever really know the disillusionment that must have set in?

My father knew. As we listened to the evening news, even I could sense his anguish. Although I was only a child, I remember the wonder I felt at seeing a grown man cry.

Years later, when a much-decorated General Douglas MacArthur made his triumphant return, and accolades were pouring his way, my father and I watched the ceremonies on television. When I turned to see how my father, sitting in stony silence, would react, I was struck by the look on his face. It was an expression of utter contempt."

Lorrie

Lorrie:--I remember reading that when it was originally published. It is very moving and tells the story exactly as it happened. My father told me about that, too.

Robby

Oh, LORRIE! what a moving story, I got chills from reading it. You write very well and you must continue to write. I can't say it's a lovely story; but a sad story told very well! My father was in WWI too, and I vaguely remember the bonus being mentioned. I never knew my father as the depression tore our family up and the children were scattered everywhere. I never lived with him but saw him occasionally.

I've read that account of MacArthur and Eisenhower being involved in breaking up the veterans'campgrounds - a contemptible move on the part of the government.

An interesting site concerning labor unions:

http://theunionworker.com/index.html

Is it fair to say that the ACLU, in championing the cause of labor, raised the standard of living in America?

Baldwin said at the first annual meeting of the ACLU "……the circumstances of industrial conflict today force us chiefly to champion the rights of labor to meet, organize, strike and picket, because labor is the class whoe rights are most attacked." He saw this as free speech issue.

What is your opinion of labor unions today? In the face of cheap labor abroad, has the labor force suffered as a result?

"The rights of labor to meet, organize, strike and picket" is exactly what our Founders meant when they said: "Congress shall make no law...abridging...the right of the people peaceably to assemble."

Obviously, the robber barons didn't want their employees to unite for in unity there is power but so long as the employees weren't violent, they were acting in an American way.

Robby

We are posting together, Robby! I could not get my URL to work properly so I gave up on it and did the new-fangled way.

Did you see the second part of my post? Just this morning in our paper the Lucent Technology plant in Richmond, VA is moving to Mexico, China and Canada; and our plant which employed around 5300 is up for sale.

For a time I worked summers at an Oscar Mayer plant in the city where I lived. I belonged to a union, which I had joined reluctantly. But after I was there for a while, I saw just how effective a union can be for employees, from an unwarranted firing to a protest of an issue over the time cards. At that time there was a no-strike warranty written into our contract, which meant the threat of a strike could not be made while negotiations were in progress, deadline or not, which both sides thought was a good thing. In those days relations were very good between employers and employees, partly because, in my opinion, our demands were quite reasonable.

Later on I became a Union member of the Teamsters when I worked in a stationery supply warehouse as an order filler. I was a steward in my department, and sat in on all the negotiations whenever the contract renewal came up. At that time, I wondered about the absolutely luxurious accomadations our union representatives had, and the money they spent wining and dining us. In fact, I noticed that the offices of the Teamsters Union in their own building were about three times as posh as the offices of the CEO of the company I worked for. So I was able to compare both sides.

Irregardless of that, I learned that working people have only one weapon-----their union. Without the right to protest and strike, the workers have no protection at all over their jobs.

Lorrie

On page 62, Baldwin demands a general amnesty for all political prisoners. "Such an amnesty would, in Baldwin's mind at least, be an admission of guilt on the part of the government." (Eventually he got the amnesty, but that didn't help people being held in state prisons.)

But then, on p. 63, he urged prisoners to apply for pardons. "Most refused. An application for pardon was tantamount to an admission of guilt." I understand the prisoners' position, but I don't understand Baldwin's. If these people's legal rights (under the Bill of Rights) were trampled upon, they've done nothing wrong, nothing to be pardoned for. If they apply for pardons, the government can say, "See, they admit their guilt" and be encouraged to continue outrageous actions.

RAMBLER: You make a good point. A pardon does seem to imply someone is guilty in the first place. What other way do we have of releasing someone wrongly imprisoned? I am waiting for my copy of the book from inter-library loan so I haven't read the section you are talking about yet.

Marjorie: "What other way" other than seeking pardon "do we have a releasing someone wrongly imprisoned?" I would substitute "did they have" for "do we have". Thanks mainly to the ACLU, most or all of those who were simply exercising free speech rights and political opinions would never be convicted of crimes today. If somehow convicted, they would surely win on legal appeal by the ACLU or others citing cases that the ACLU has won.

In 1919, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes held that, "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting 'fire' in a theater and causing panic....The question in every case is whether the words used in such circumstances are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent."

Just 5 months later, in a dissent that marks the beginning of modern First Amendment theory, Holmes and Justice Louis Brandeis changed their tune (though not about the man shouting 'fire'.). "History, they argued, taught the importance of tolerance for unpopular ideas." (Holmes) "gave judicial notice to the idea, expressed two years earlier by Norman Thomas, that free speech was the basis of democratic self government." Most of this comes from "In Defense of American Liberties" by Samuel Walker, 1990.

Thanks, Lorrie for that report on two labor unions you personally knew. Was the budget available for all members - were any interested in seeing how the money was spent? Or is it a case of as long as the union leaders are doing their job, let them alone? Am I right in thinking it was the Teamsters in which Jimmy Hoffa was president? And we'll never know!

A list of labor unions on the WEB:

http://www.geocities.com/WallStreet/3088/labor.htm

Happy to welcome you, Marjorie, into the group! Hope your book comes soon as we are about to launch our discussion into the famous "Monkey Trial."

Rambler, I agree also about the pardons. Doesn't it seem strange to read about "political prisoners" in our country? Can you think of any in recent decades? But as writer Anthony Lewis said "What seems to us today to be the mildest sort of expression of dissent was (in the '20's) just clamped down on viciously by the courts, even the Supreme Court." Imagine 20 years for throwing anti-war pamphlets!

Does anyone care to comment on cheap labor markets abroad and their effect, if any, on American labor?

Interesting site:

http://www.ilwu19.com/history/labor.htm

Note: mention of Eugene Debs and the government's position.

Do you remember the commercial -"Look for the Union Label" - a catchy tune.

Great site:

http://law.miningco.com/newsissues/law/library/weekly/aa090898.htm

I think all of us were aware of David Thoreau's feelings of quiet nonconformity, but I am ashamed to say that this is the first time I was aware that he played such a role as a sort of mentor, or guide, to later famous figures, like Roger Baldwin, Mahatma Ghandi, and Martin Luther King.

In Thoreau's "Essay on Civil Disobedience" he states: "All men recognize the right of revolution; that is, the right to refuse allegiance to, and to resist, the government, when its tyranny or its inefficiency are great and unendurable."

Ella: Yes, when I was active in Union organizing and representing, I became aware of the possible evils that could be wielded by mass organization, and were, but on the other hand, I was in a position to see how much that same union played a part in our job safety, security, and seniority. Without a strong union, the employee is strictly at the mercy of his employer.

Lorrie

Yes, Lorrie. I had an uncle that was in WW One and he never forgot,or forgave what happened in that march, even though his son was a decorated soldier for heroism in Pacific battles of WW 2

Bill H

"The ACLU was virtually the only predominantly white organization to champion racial justice in the twenties, as the modern civil rights movement...did not coalesce until the 1940s."

..."The radical left was especially anti-civil libertarian; the Communists aggressively opposed free speech for 'reactionaries'."

..."One Klan rally attracted over three hundred sympathetic Harvard students. The ACLU sprang to the Klan's defense, offering to defend them in court."

..."The ACLU clashed with the NAACP over the Klan. In 1920, when the NAACP asked the Postal Service to ban KKK literature from the mails, the ACLU's Albert DeSilver told the NAACP's James Weldon Johnson that this was 'a great mistake'."

Baldwin: "The only test of our integrity of purpose is our willingness to defend persons with whom we totally disagree".

..."For an organization committed to democratic principles, the ACLU was" (I would say is) "itself remarkably undemocratic. ...Baldwin was very much an autocrat, reluctant to share control. He usually got his way with the Executive Committee, but of course he had personally recruited most of them in the first place. He later confessed that he often manipulated the agenda by holding back a pet issue if he knew strong opponents planned to attend".

..."Baldwin's curiously puritanical attitude toward money was another problem. Money was probably the closest thing to sin he could imagine. He adopted an ascetic life-style and tales of his penny-pinching were legendary. He wore ill-fitting hand-me-down clothes for years and wrote memos on scraps of paper to save money. ...Because the ACLU was a noble calling demanding personal sacrifice, Baldwin paid himself a subsistence salary. Although this kept the ACLU budget low, it also meant that other staff salaries were unconscionably low, even by the standards of public-interest groups. In 1936, after divorcing Madeline Doty, however, Baldwin married Standard Oil heiress Evelyn Preston, whose money allowed them to maintain a brownstone in Manhattan, a farm in New Jersey for weekends, and a cottage on Martha's Vineyard for an August vacation. Norman Thomas also relied on his wife's inheritance. Like many other liberal and radical causes, the ACLU depended on inherited wealth."

All of this from "In Defense of American Liberties", cited above.

Thanks, Lorrie and Bill for your comments on the veterans of WWI, a sad commentary on America.

As I was reading your post, Rambler, I wondered where in the book you were getting that information and was about to look up those quotes until you stated the source. Thanks much for that and any other information you have from another book we would appreciate your quoting from time to time.

CREATION VS. EVOLUTION

What are your thoughts on the teaching of either in our schools? Or is the subject relevant today?

The ACLU will be battling abaout the issues raised in the Scopes trial so long as there is a United States of America.....Nat Hentoff

Roger Baldwin was not concerned about the theory of evolution until a member of his staff spotted the news in the Chattanooga Times, a Tennessee newspaper, that the state passed a new law prohibiting the teaching of evolution in their schools. Southern Baptists and various organizations insisted that schools must teach what the Bible says and only what the Bible states as a fact.

Some citizens of the little town of Dayton, Tennessee persuaded a teacher by the name of John T. Scopes to defy the law and that was all it took for the ACLU to begin proceedings in a court of law

I'm sure all of you are familiar with the case and its conclusion. This is a good site, among many others, on the Internet that define the case:

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/scopes.htm

Without getting into a religious discussion how would you have answered Darrow's questions?

"Do you believe that Jonah remained three days in the whale's belly?"
The Bible says that every living creature on Noah's ark was drowned.....does that mean the fishes drowned?
The sun stood still for Joshua....does that mean that sun was moving around the earth before that?"

What are your thoughts?

Rambler I like those personal little facts about Baldwin that you point out. For instance, when he and his wife were first married, he worked for a salary of $31 a week. He and Doty split the bills and chores 50/50. When he was remiss in his duties, he paid her 50 cents an hour. Out of their combined earnings, they were even sometimes able to hire a maid.

Didn't someone here mention that the phrase "separation of church and state" is not actually in the wording of the Bill of Rights but from a letter written originally by James Madison?

I find it ironic that after all the publicity, all the drama of the courtroom, all the hard fighting that the ACLU did in the "monkey" trial, that we are now fighting the same battle with various school boards in some parts of the country over Creationism over Darwinism, although on a much more sophisticated scale.

Lorrie

Lorrie: Interesting regarding Baldwin and his first wife. They shared expenses 50-50, depending upon some formula. A long-ago friend of mine married, and they had an arrangement whereby he paid the rent and utilities and she bought the groceries, or some such. I thought, "Is this a marriage or a business deal?".

I think creationism is bunk and a means of trying to get religion into the public schools. No respected scientist in related fields supports creationism.

I do remember, in Minneapolis at Christmastime in the '40s, student choirs walking the school halls singing carols during class hours, with official approval. How disrespectful toward Jews and others.

Lorrie, can you expound on your statement "we are now fighting the same battle with various school boards in some parts of the country over Creationism over Darwinism, although on a much more sophisticated scale."

I'm very interested in what's happening in this area and how is the present debate "more sophisticated?"

And Rambler that's a strong statement you made about creationism. There are so many private religious schools in America; you only need to think of all the Catholic schools predominant in our cities. I must add that the students from those schools are just as well educated as in the public schools, but, foremost in my mind, better disciplined. Of course, they do not have to abide by the "no discipline on the part of the teacher rule" that seems to prevail in our classrooms today.

You might be interested in this Christian College in Dayton, TN - the town in which the Scopes Trial originated, and the college was named after William Jennings Bryan, of course. But it asks this interesting question:

Who controls the schools? What role do parents, teachers, the state (and today, the federal) government have or should they have in the operation of public schools? For that matter, what rights do students have? Does academic freedom apply only to teachers, or do students have the right to hear all sides of controversial topics.

Here is the site and what I found interesting about the college is that it presents a drama of the trial every year.

http://www.bryan.edu/historical/scopes_trial/index.html

“It seems quite amazing,” said Anthony Lewis, “that the Scopes trial should still have any relevance to us today. But there are still forces in this country very vigorously trying to insist on the teaching of what they call creationism, and forbidding the teaching of the theory of evolution. Just going on right now. So it’s by no means a dead issue.” (Page 89)

Ella: On page 188, we are told that the Creationism/Science coalition continued to work its way through the state legislatures. Creationism was an uphill battle for the ACLU, but in 1987 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Louisiana creationism law had been put on the books to “advance the religious viewpoint that a supernatural being ruled mankind.” A solid victory for the ACLU, adhering to the clear principal of separation of church and state, even in that Reagan era.

Even though the Scopes trial has been called the ACLU’s “first great triumph” the results of that trial were no triumph. It took that jury only nine minutes to reach a verdict: Scopes was guilty as charged, and Judge Raulston delivered the sentence: Scopes was fined one hundred dollars.

Did anyone notice that when it came to taking the case to the Supreme Court, the ACLU wasurged to retain a “different” sort of counsel?(page 88) Some felt that Darrow was too flamboyant to plead a case within the sombre, dignified chambers of the highest court,but Stokes insisted on having him, and ironically, the original decision was reversed on a technicality.

Lorrie

Yes, Lorrie, the technicality was ridiculous, wasn’t it? The state law required that any fine over $100 was to be imposed by the jury and the Judge had imposed the fine. He should have known that! I would imagine his face was red for awhile – particularly as the whole country was watching.

As for relevance today, I read somewhere that the Tennessee Senate in 1996 considered a new bill that would allow school boards to dismiss teachers who teach evolution as fact, but it was defeated. However they did pass a bill urging homes, businesses, places of worship and SCHOOLS to post and observe the Ten Commandments believing that this perhaps might help reduce violence in the community..

Considering such laws suggests that as a country we are much closer to the past than we realize. And somewhere I read an article that said the N.Y.Times did a poll on creationism and found that the majority (I forget the figures) believed in creationism, while giving lip service to evolution The newspaper editorialized that people do not want to believe that this is all there is!

Remember the song – Is this all there is my friend? Then I’ll go dancing! I always loved that song but can’t remember who sang it or the words - the tune is buzzing around in my head (but I think the song had something to do with romance and not our subject). Oh, well!

Did any of you know that Pat Buchanan, our erstwhile presidential candidate, made the following statement: I think (parents) have a right to insist that Godless evolution not be taught to their children or their children not be indoctrinated in it.

And then there is the Christian Coalition – here is their home page if you are interested.

http://www.cc.org.

Back later --

Oh, Golly, yes! I loved that song. There was a wonderful recording of it made by Peggy Lee, really great. "Is That All There Is?"

Lorrie

It's ironic that the Scopes trial found its genesis (pardon!) as a kind of publicity stunt for the town of Dayton (see George Rappalyea, lower-middle of p. 81) and wound up as a "publicity bonanza" for the ACLU (Samuel Walker's "In Defense of American Liberties"). The Walker book says, "For the first time" (the ACLU) "defended a cause with which the national press and its readers could identify. That is, they had little interest in the rights of Communists but saw science and education as the key to progress."

On the efforts to replace Darrow from the defense team and hire someone less radical, a co-counsel at the trial said, "I never yet have found any conservative lawyer who, at the beginning, wants to undertake a case which
might reflect discredit upon him". Scopes finally said, "I want Darrow".

(Doing a line break between "which" and "might" is the only way I know of avoiding which might.)

Hi, Lorrie and Rambler! Wonder if Marjorie has her book yet, but thank you so much for telling me that is was Peggy Lee who sang the song, maybe I can find a CD of it. DO YOU KNOW THE WORDS? Haha I want it all, not just a piece of it - I'm a greedy monster.

I saw that little "slip of the tongue," Rambler, in your choice of words, but we'll pardon you! Hahaha Just don't mention words like that around your fellow ACLU members.

Whoever in the town of Dayton, TN persuaded Scopes to defy the law should have received a commendation from the Mayor! Think of the money the tourists brought in and still bring in every year as they visit the place where the famous trial took place. Ironic, indeed, yes, Rambler.

I'm going to quote the last paragraph in this chapter because it sums it up (for those people who might be reading this and don't have the book) and then we must get on to Chapter 7 and on!

"The Monkey Trial's most lasting effect could be seen in the ACLU itself. In the years and decades that followed, the ACLU would go by its own book: there must be absolute separation of church and state......To some it seems ludicrous, but writer Molly Ivins defends even these tactics by citing an 1803 letter written by James Madison: The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe with blood for centuries. Still does. The soil of Bosnia soaked with blood. That principle is so important that it's worth being a pain in the ass about. And that's what the ACLU is."

Did you like the pictures? I hope all of you noticed the fact that there were no WOMEN on the jury of the trial, did you?

Somewhere in there (or another book) I did read that Wm. Jennings Bryan was old and sick at the time of the trial; actually he died 9 days after the trial was over. He had had a remarkable career.

As it turned out, I think Judge Raulston did Darrow and company a favor by ruling that no scientist would be allowed to testify at Dayton, but that a Biblical expert could.

This seemed to free Darrow and the ACLU from defending their witnesses and leave them free to attack the ill-prepared Bryan, who seems not to have thought about the questions that Darrow relentlessly fired at him.

While Darrow and the ACLU, in a superficial sense, "lost" the case, they were able to win high regard among the public, or at least the intellectual-left public.

Does anyone remember the play and movie, "Inherit the Wind"? In the movie, I think Spencer Tracy played Darrow, Frederic March played Bryan.

Rambler and Ella:
"Genesis" indeed, Rambler! Haha Yes, I remember that movie very well. Those courtroom scenes with the perspiring participants, the looseded collars and rolled up sleeves, the vigorously waving fans provided by a dentist whose slogan, "Do you have bloody gums?" decorated same. (Actually, I'm not sure this touch was in the movie)
Yes, those pictures are fascinating, aren't they? No women on the jury, a common enough sight in those days, right? And in that picture of Emma Goldman, she really looks belligerent, doesn't she?

Lorrie

That's from p. 91. It's amazing to me how, back in the '50s and '60s, any good idea could easily be discredited merely by saying (often falsely) that its advocates were Communists. As recently as 15 or so years ago, I heard a person say that ridding South Africa of apartheid was nonsense because "Mandela is a Communist!".

How much honor these folks, inadvertently, bestowed on Communists (who are not that much different, in my view, from fascists) by insisting that any movement seeking human betterment is Communistic!

I think somewhere along the line we ought to pause to examine the concept of communism. This concept was brought to light and discussed a century before the Soviet Union came into existence. The terms "communism" and "commune" evolve from the root word "community" wherein everyone works together and on an equal level, hence the term "comrade."

The Soviet Union was not a communist nation. Stalin and others bamboozled the Russians by using the term "communism" and then surreptiously moving the nation into a dictatorship. Hierarchies were formed and it became Orwell's concept where "everyone was equal but some were more equal than others."

Therefore, in my opinion, there is nothing incongruous in a "true" communist believing in civil liberties.

Robby

Robby: Okay, name us a few "true communists". I'm sure you'll have little trouble. (Does that sound snide? It is NOT so intended.) Best wishes, Rambler.

I've repeatedly tried to water this down, but it still comes out sounding confrontational, which is not my intent.

The names of people is irrelevant. I'm speaking of the concept.

Robby

This is somewhat off-topic. It's from Molly Ivins' column in this morning's Chicago Tribune, and concerns the Texas woman jailed for driving without a seatbelt.

"...Fine for same in Texas is $25 to $50. Nevertheless, the police officer took Atwater--leaving the two kids in the car, the seat-beltless little outlaws--down to the hoosegow, and there put her through the procedure that has, until this astounding decision, been reserved for those accused at least of a serious misdemeanor.

"Congratulations: You now live in a country where you can be jailed for 48 hours and held for bond for over six times the maximum fine on any charge, including the dread underinflated tires.

"The court majority cheerfully admitted Atwater was subjected to 'gratuitous humiliations' and 'pointless indignity' before finding her fate highly constitutional.

"'This is one of the scariest decisions to come down in a long time, a horrendous decision,' said Ira Glasser, retiring director of the American Civil Liberties Union and a man not much given to overstatement.

"'The real danger here is the enhancement of police discretion at the precise moment when abuses of discretion are finally on the national agenda.'

Ivins: "The best guess about" (majority opinion-writer) "Souter's odd position is that he comes from a small town in New Hampshire and probably knows Officer Friendly personally.

"...The 4th amendment to the Constitution states, 'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable search and
seizures shall not be violated.'"

I guess the Court feels that "gratuitous humiliations" and "pointless indignity" are reasonable.

Hi, RAMBLER, you and I are posting at about the same time this morning.

You have Molly Ivins in your Chicago Tribune! Lucky you! She is quoted so often in the book I have come to admire her and would like to read all her stuff; but alas and alack, our local paper does not carry the better syndicated columnists.

Is that court decision you discussed going to be taken to a higher court? That is outrageous and I hope so. There is some major city wherein police brutality is being questioned, but my mind needs oiled this morning and I cannot think where.

ROBBY, few of us are students of the theories of government which you are, no doubt, interested in; however we can agree, I’m sure, that by “popular” opinion in this century, the Soviet Union was a communist nation. My thesaurus defines “communism” as “state socialism, Marxism, dictatorship of the proletariat, collectivism, state ownership of production.” That definition comes close to a description of the Soviet Union’s form of government as we knew it in the 20th century; it may not be a pure form of communism, but it is all we have as a working model.

Have you noticed that the chapters in this book are chronological and, perhaps, this is the way all or most nonfiction is written? Irregardless of that, I believe that Chapter 3 and Chapter 6 could have been combined somehow; both are about the problems labor faced in the early decades of this century. By Chapter 6, which covers the decade of the ‘30’s, the National Labor Relations Board emerged as a strong protector of labor’s rights and the ACLU had a smaller role to play in that arena. The stories told in this chapter are interesting, but in the history of the organization, are not of great importance. We can note that by this time Baldwin was well known throughout the country, was often quoted, photographed and in demand at political and meetings and elite parties.

In Chapter 9, we do get into the McCarthy era which most of us (all of us?) remember well and we can talk extensively about who was, who wasn’t a communist, and how it all got started and ended, etc.

Oh, yes, RAMBLER I remember the movie “Inherit the Wind” very well. Here are two interesting links about the movie, which was a play also.

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9702/iannone.html

http://www.destgulch.com/movies/inherit/

What are your thoughts today?

At the risk of seeming incredibly stupid, can someone explain to me the difference between Socialism and Communism?
I remember how appalled my parents were when my brother announced he was going to vote for Norman Thomas, and yet on that same ballot that year there was a candidate from the Communist party---Earl Browder, I think his name was. From the little I've learned since then, I would think they would be more alarmed if he had said he was a Communist.

Lorrie

Ella: When I went south for the winter, The Trib wasn't carrying Molly; now they carry her only now and then. The paper in Gainesville, Fla., carries her a little more regularly.

No, the decision Molly discusses won't be appealed to a higher court. It's a U.S. Supreme Court decision.

LORRIE, as stated previously, I am no scholar of government theories; however this is my very ignorant interpretation of the two, and PLEASE WILL SOMEONE WHO KNOWS post a correct definition.

Communism is a revolutionary type of government which overthrows an oppressive system and establishes a socialist society in which all all share equally (try to name one that has accomplished this idyllic dream?). The Soviet Union did establish the former (the revolution); however did not attain the latter.

In reading Dr. Zhivago by Boris Pasternak, (which we will be discussing in July) one is very much aware of the revolution and the horrible consequences of it and had it been successful, perhaps the atrocities committed during that time would have been viewed as a means to an end. I don't know.

”The ACLU, while professing a strong support for the right of all Americans to choose their political philosophies, or to choose to have none, fell victim to Red baiting, to the worst kinds of witch hunting. They just behaved in a disgraceful, disgraceful way”….Julian Bond.

Did you know of the Smith Act of 1939 passed into law by Congress which ”made it illegal to advocate overthrow of the government, or to be a member of any organization that advocated the overthrow of the government.” We all know the consequences of that act, and certainly remember the House Committee on Un-American Activities (HUAC), but I don’t remember the Act itself. Perhaps at the time I was aware of it, but at this time the FBI began its nefarious surveillance of organizations it deemed un-American.

Were you as surprised as I was to learn that the ACLU had communistic “leanings” and that Roger Baldwin, although never a member of the Communist party, had visited the Soviet Union (discussed in Chapter Six) and inwardly imagined it as the ideal society? That is, until the fascists (the true enemy of idealists) and the Stalinists signed a non-aggression pact in 1939 which put an end to any hope or truth he nurtured about communism. But Baldwin’s prior activities stained the reputation of the ACLU and it still remains a mystery as to how the organization was spared from the HUAC, and, in deed, during the whole Senator McCarthy hearings, the ACLU maintained a distance from the whole distasteful disregard of civil liberties.

What is your opinion of the ACLU’s 1940 resolution? There are two views cited in the book and even today this statement sparks heated debates. Remembering the atmosphere of the times, does that excuse the ACLU’s subsequent behavior? Was it, in part, responsible for the “long and bitter season of Red baiting in America” which followed?

Ella
The ACLU's witch hunt of its own members was a disgrace, just as Julian Bond said, and even Roger Baldwin teamed up with Morris Ernst and other anti-communists on the Board to "expose communists in the Union." The Resolution they passed sparked a heated debate, and some say paved the way for the excesses of the McCarthy period.

Thanks for the explanation of the two isms, Ella!

Lorrie

I have been enjoying the discussion and just got my copy of the book yesterday. Because I prefer reading a book from front to back I am only on Chapter 2. By the end of the discussion, I hope to catch up.

Marjorie: Don't feel bad. I've been here from the start, and I've only finished chapter 6.

In that chapter (lower part of p. 96), it strikes me as odd that "Although the ACLU had steered clear when Boston banned sixty-five books in a public decency campaign in 1926, they jumped in when the ban was extended to speech. It was one thing to have a sex education pamphlet banned, but another to stand by when Boston would not permit Margaret Sanger to speak". Apparently someone, no doubt Baldwin, decided that press freedom, printed speech, was less important than oral speech, or that the battle for press freedom was too awkward to fight at the time. Or did he, perhaps, associate press freedom more with newspapers than with books? Surely the First Amendment makes no such distinction.

This Baldwin statement (near bottom, p. 98) sounds very strange: "However important or significant the defense of religious liberties; of academic freedom; of freedom from censorship of the press, radio, or motion pictures, these are on the whole trifling in national effect compared with the fight for the right of labor to organize". Trifling, indeed?

Rambler
Did you get the impression that Baldwin was a bit strait-laced when it came to matters of sex, and tended to gloss over things like censorship of books, (Ulysses, for example). To me he seemed to hit constantly on labor relations, a fine thing, of course, but not the most important of our freedoms.

Ella
In fact, I'm beginning to like this man Roger baldwin less and less. He was almost Puritanical in some respects, he seemed to pick and choose which liberties he espoused, he was a dismal failure in protesting the fascist-like interrogations during the McCarthy hearings, and and most of all his treatment of a devoted friend, Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, no matter what her politidal leanings, was abysmal.

Marjorie!
Welcome! Don't worry, we're not that far along yet that you can't catch up in a hurry. Good to see you here.

Lorrie

HELLO EVERYBODY! I have been in Michigan since Tuesday (couldn't you tell - hahaha) on my daughter's computer and got home late tonight very tired! And tomorrow am up early and off to the college graduation of a great-niece (I think I've got that figured out right, good heavens! they just get greater and greater and I don't know what that makes me,) out of town and may not get back here until Sunday.

Will have some catching up to do myself then! Have read all your comments and will be thinking them over and re-reading those pages in the book. Hmmmmm. Methinks a bit of dislike for the founder's actions and words are creeping in?

Yes, Marjorie, plenty of time to catch up - we are being slow about this - but thorough, don't you think?

Lorrie, I know my explanation of "communism" and "socialism" is very elementary, but have no time to look even in the dictionary. I thought Robby, our chief of governmental theories, might drop by and tune us in on a better one. Hope he is reading this and will do just that!

Back Sunday or Monday!

Chapter 7 is tough. I was 6 or 7 years old at the time of most of the events, so of course have no memory of them, but quite a lot of their aftermath maybe 10 years later. Communists, typically denying that they were Communists (and puppets of Moscow, in my view),
would join various organizations and seek positions of leadership under what I consider dishonest pretenses. If you take your orders from Moscow, what commitment do you really have to the First Amendment or the other nine Amendments?

THAT should bring a response!

Probably I should have brought this up when we were discussing Scopes.

Anyway, I think it's accurate to say that the American military has thousands of chaplains who are paid by the Defense Department. This strikes me as an outrageous violation of the separation of church and state, the Establishment Clause.

As others at this site have noted, our society is becoming increasing diverse culturally. I think it's only a matter of time before some people in the military say, "Hey, I'm Muslim! (Or "I'm Rastafarian"--whatever that is--or "I'm a wiccan" (ditto). "Where's my chaplain? Get these Jesus and Moses freaks off my back!"

I have no problem with chaplains being available to servicemen and women. But I think they should be paid and quartered and fed either by voluntary action of those men and women, or by their religious orders, just as missionaries are. And they should not wear uniforms of the United States military.

RAMBLER: That is an interesting point you raise. I had never thought of that. Of course, I have never been in the military or had anyone in my immediate family in the military. I don't know if that makes any difference. Certainly, the way things are now, the people in the service don't have much choice.

I recall at least two occasions when we were marched to the base chapel and obliged to listen to some ignorant chaplain's drivel. One of them railed against the then-recent novel, "From Here to Eternity", which I thought was a hell of a good read and a fairly accurate depiction of Army life. The off-duty part of the latter consisted, and surely consists today, mainly of boozing and womanizing.

I would be surprised if today's Army, and the other services, show much respect for the rights of non-Christians and non-believers.

Rambler I quite agree with you that at times the actions of the ACLU were contradictory, puzzling, and we are not told why (lack of action in banning books, but defending speech); perhaps they were just getting their feet wet in the different fields. Remember they were a very young organization in 1926 and had not the support they hold today with lawyers, the public, etc. They probably had to pick and choose cases to defend with a small staff, don't you imagine?

But courage they had in plenty, for example, in one year they were defending the right of the KKK to hold meetings in Catholic-dominated Boston, the right of Catholics to hold teaching jobs in Akron's KKK-dominated school system (isn't that amazing?) and the right of the communists in Rhode Island to show movies against the combined opposition of the KKK and the Catholic church!

Welcome, Marjorie! Are you enjoying reading the book? How far are you? I think we are on Chapter 7 and about to begin Chapter 8; however, we can address any issue at any time, and here I must disagree with Ramblerin his comments about chaplains in the army. That would come under the "exceptions" in my view that are allowed by the Supreme Court. Chaplains in the service are trained to be nondenominational and can perform their duties, if necessary, in most religious rites. I think they serve a function (counseling, advising, guiding) that is vital to our soldiers in a time of terror and death.

You believe that chaplains should be somewhat like missionaries from a church, Rambler? Anyone else have opinions about this?

Yes, Lorrie, Baldwin's actions , with the cooperation of their General Counsel,Morris Ernst, in leading the expulsion of his longtime friend, Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, was despicable in my opinion. He even escorted her to that meeting where she was interrogated like a criminal, and after that night the two old friends never spoke again. Inexcusable!

Is it an excuse to say that the hysteria of the times (the approach of war, the Nazi-Soviet Union pact) forced members to actions they otherwise might never have taken? I think so, these are just human beings and all of us err. Especially when Congress later passed a law barring communists from employment in some public agencies - even the WPA - and there is little doubt that all these activites created the atmosphere in this country that would lead to the McCarthyism era.

And we come to Chapter 8 and WWII - a time described by Arthur G. Hays as one in which "I am not so fearful of what Hitler may do to us as of what he may persuade us to do to ourselves."

That statement puts into perspective the wrongful behavior of our government in the internment of Japanese-Americans.

And it brings to my mind a question of loyalty to our government in time of war - should it be blind loyalty, should we question anything, does the circumstances of the conflict (e.g. Korea, Vietnam) matter in the mind of the draftee? In our lifetime we have seen WWII, a war in which we were attacked by an enemy, but three wars (counting the Gulf War) in which we were not attacked and might even say we "interfered."

Where is the right and wrong?

I apologize for the length of this post, but have been absent for almost two days and must clear my mind in order to continue with the following chapters.

I thank you all so much for your participation - let us hear from you on Chapter 8 or any preceding comment leading up to it.

I believe Elizabeth Gurley Flynn was related to Helen Gurley Brown, feminist editor (of Cosmopolitan?) not so long ago. May have been Helen's mother or grandmother.

We have only one phone line and are expecting an important call, so I have to sign off until that call comes through.

"The initial 1938-39 hearings established the methods that HUAC used throughout its 38"(!) "year history. Persons named as Communists could not cross-examine their accusers or rebut the charges.

"...the ACLU had always opposed legislative investigations of political activities on the grounds that they violated freedom of speech and association. After the 1938 hearings, however, HUAC was politically unstoppable, and the ACLU did not press abolition vigorously.

"Anti-Communists stepped up their efforts to purge Communists from schools. ...Teachers named as Communists faced an impossible legal situation...automatic dismissal if they admitted their membership or perjury if they denied it.

"The anti-Communist fever swept through the ACLU and produced the one great deviation from principle in its history: a 1940 ACLU policy barred from official positions anyone who supported totalitarian movements. Under the policy the board purged Elizabeth Gurley Flynn from its ranks, introducing into its own affairs the kind of political test it had always opposed.

"...The 1940 Resolution, as it came to be known, declared that...'the personnel of its governing committees and staff is properly subject to the test of consistency in the defense of civil liberties in all aspects and all places'. The last three words were crucial, for they would include anyone who spoke favorably of the Soviet Union".

All of that is from "In Defense of American Liberties", by Samuel Walker.

I frankly do not see much problem with the 1940 Resolution. Hey, if you're duplicitous or if you're serving two masters, one of whom may outweigh your ACLU commitment and clearly disdains ACLU tenets, you're welcome to ACLU membership--but you're not welcome to a leadership position in the organization.

Ella: Re your #191: However much counseling, advising, and guiding chaplains may give to our soldiers in a time of terror and death, they are clergymen in the employ of the U.S. government. I cannot see how that can be anything other than a flagrant violation of the 1st Amendment. Congress made the law that pays them.

We'll have to agree, Rambler, to disagree about chaplains, but I understand your viewpoint in the 1940 Resolution, even though it divided the organization at the time.

As we read Chapter 8 to discuss it let's think about what would happen today if we (hypothetically) declared war against China or vice versa! Think of the Chinatowns across America.

Now I have a real treat in store for all of us - or maybe it was just me? No, Lorrie, said she loved the song also. Here are the words and the music to "Is That All There Is, My Friend."

I remember when I was a little girl, our house caught on fire. I'll never forget the look on my father's face as he gathered me up in his arms and raced through the burning building out on the pavement. And I stood there, shivering in my pajamas and watched the whole world go up in flames and when it was all over, I said to myself, is that all there is to a fire?

Is that all there is?

Is that all there is? If that's all there is my friends, then let's keep dancing. Let's break out the booze and have a ball. If that's all there is.

And when I was twelve years old, my daddy took me to the circus--the Greatest Show on Earth. There were clowns and elephants and dancing bears and a beautiful lady in pink tights flew high above our heads. And as I sat there, watching, I had the feeling that something was missing, I don't know what, but...when it was all over, I said to myself is that all there is to the circus?

Is that all there is?

Is that all there is? If that's all there is my friends, then let's keep dancing. Let's break out the booze and have a ball. If that's all there is.

And then I fell in love with the most wonderful boy in the world. We'd take long walks down by the river, or just sit for hours gazing into each other's eyes, we were so very much in love. And then one day, he went away. And I thought I'd die. But I didn't. And when I didn't, I said to myself, is that all there is to love?

Is that all there is?

Is that all there is? If that's all there is my friends, then let's keep...

I know what you must be saying to yourselves. "If that's the way she feels about it, why doesn't she just end it all?" Oh no, not me, I'm not ready for that final disappointment. Cause I know, just as well as I'm standing here talking to you, that when that final moment comes and I'm breathing my last breath, I'll be saying to myself--

Is that all there is?

Is that all there is? If that's all there is my friends, then let's keep dancing. Let's break out the booze and have a ball. If that's all there is.

-----Copyright Lieber and Stoller 1968

Is That All There is?

No Peggy Lee, but I do like the tinkling piano and the tune and words are haunting.

Rambler: Referring to your posts #187 and #193, what makes you so certain that anyone with Marxist leanings is necessarily a "puppet of Moscow?" And how can you be so sure that all Communists "serve two masters?"

Isn't it possible that these people, however misguided, really do not "take orders from Moscow" but do have a genuine commitment to our Constitution? Just a thought.

Ella: It's been a while, but I remember how much I liked that song when Peggy Lee first recorded it. To me it always seemed a bit bittersweet. Incidentally, a jazz-lover friend of mine once told me that Peggy Lee was hightly regarded as a vocalist by jazz musicians.

Lorrie

Lorrie, yes, bittersweet, sad. I hope when I come to the end of it all, I'll not say "Is that all there was to life?" I've experienced much, but what does it mean to "live life to its fullest?"

ELLA: I am not a great fan of non-fiction. I am reading slower than I would like in this book. I keep finding something else I need to do instead. I don't remember that song at all. I haven't gotten to that chapter yet. I am still reading about the Scopes trial.

I get the New York Times (or highlights of it) emailed to me daily. Today there was an interesting editorial. It relates to the First Amendment because it is about copywrite. Anyone who is interested may be able to use this link. Perhaps you will have to register with the New York Times to see the article I am not sure.

New York Times essay By WILLIAM SAFIRE May 14, 2001

Marjorie

Lorrie: I'm sure I didn't say that "anyone with Marxist leanings" is a puppet of Moscow. I think I did say, or imply, that anyone who was a member of the Communist Party was a puppet of Moscow. If he/she was not a puppet, he/she wouldn't be a member for long. Dissent and thinking-for-one's-self was most uncomradely.

I knew a few of these people. Most who didn't quit because of Stalin's pact with Hitler quit because Stalin died and Khruschev exposed his crimes to the world.

Thanks, Marjorie, for bringing that article to our attention. I had heard of that book - a parody of Margaret Mitchell's "Gone With the Wind," but didn't know all that about copyright and Sonny Bono's extension of it. Interesting.

Don't worry about being behind in the book, we all have different tastes in books. Just stick with us and whether you've got to that chapter or not you can talk about the issues.

We have all heard about the Japanese-American internment during WWII. Let me ask you this: Could it happen again? If we went to war with Mexico or China would it?

The decision of Roosevelt split the ACLU again, as the 1940 resolution had done. Many loyal to Roosevelt would not oppose or speak out against the decision; Baldwin did what he could.

I'm getting thunderstorms tonight and tomorrow, may be off the computer for awhile. Do carry on!

Rambler:

I tend to go along with what you say. I've never known anyone who actually was a member of the Communist party, or at least admitted it, and you have. So it's not clear in my mind just how much loyalty to the Soviet thinking they demanded.

In the building where I live there are many newcomers from what used to be known as the Soviet Union, and it's very interesting to talk to some of them. However, I get the impression that they are uncomfortable talking "politics," and try to change the subject. I also get the feeling, perhaps I'm wrong, that some of them actually miss their former political agenda. It's as though they had had decisions made for them for so long, were "taken care of" for so long, that this new precept of individual responsibility is not so desirable.

Ella:In the chapter of the internment of the Japanese-Americans, there is a very poignant mention on page 122-123.

After waiting so long for a Japanese-American citizen willing to defy the Executive Order 9066, then finding an ideal test case, it was the ACLU itself that let this young man down. They couldn't agree. So they called a referendum, then voted that the board overwhelmingly supported the contention that the government had the right to subordinate civil liberties to military needs! Not much help to that young Quaker, who was also a conscientious objecter.

Marjorie:Thanks for that link. I read about this somewhere else, and this is a very germane point to this particular discussion.

Lorrie

Lorrie: Thank you for calling the Chapter 8 matter to my attention. I have not yet read it, but will do so tonight or early tomorrow. According to Ella's schedule, time's running out!

Here are some photos of the Japanese-American camps you may be interested in:

http://www.lib.utah.edu/spc/photo/9066/9066.htm

No, no, we are in no hurry - let's take our time in the discussion, don't want to rush anyone.

Lorrie, what an opportunity to learn firsthand from the former Soviet Union citizens and then to find out they are hesitant to talk about it? Why? Language problem? Perhaps they feel our two countries were involved in a war - albeit a COLD war? Or do they feel traitorous for coming to the U.S.? Why did they come - will they answer that? Relatives? What did they expect to find here that is a disappointment to them?

Oh, it must be maddening that they will not converse - maybe if you would ask for a favorite recipe first, something not so troubling to them it would break the ice? You might tell them you can look up Russian cities, etc. on the Internet, look at photos, maybe that would bring them around??? Just ideas, but if we can't visit Russia we could, at least, hear about it from former citizens. Oh, I would love to tour their country, have read so much about it.

Several of my daughter's friends have gone there to adopt children - I wonder if that is still allowed?

Storms haven't arrived yet so I'm here for a little while.

I would be interested in comments regarding Presidential executive orders, such as those (by Roosevelt) sending Japanese-Americans to (in effect) prison, and those (by Clinton) granting pardons to apparent criminal scumbags. How does this fit within our Constitutional framework?

I was startled today, at the end of chapter 7, when I read this about Elizabeth Gurley Flynn:

At the time of her reinstatement, Flynn had been dead for twelve years.

Why bother reinstating here if she is not able to serve? Is the ACLU such am important entity that they have to "rewrite" history for posterity? Sounds strange to me.

This article appeared in todays Pittsburgh Post Gazette. I have no strong feelings about this one way or the other. I’m just interested in hearing some comments about this procedure. I also posted this in DNA.

Suspects say ouch, open wide, yield drugs

Tuesday, May 15, 2001

By M. Ferguson Tinsley, Post-Gazette Staff Writer

City police are using a new technique to extract drugs or other evidence from suspects' mouths, according to the recently published Pittsburgh Bureau of Police annual report.

Called the Oral Drug Extraction Technique, the method was developed two years ago by the narcotics squad in cooperation with local doctors.

Lt. Michael Sippey, a narcotics lieutenant who has since been reassigned to the Major Crimes Division, says the technique makes it easier for street detectives to retrieve drugs from the mouths of suspected dealers, who often hide them there to prevent them from being used as evidence against them.

Sippey said the technique was first used on Oct. 9, 1999, when Detectives Faquar "Terry" Holland and Michael Hoffman approached Sabrina Giles at Watson and Miltenberger streets in the Hill District.

After Giles popped something into her mouth, Holland curled his fingers back and pressed on the masseter muscles on either side of Giles' jaw with the knuckle of his first finger. Giles' mouth dropped open and 10 rocks of crack cocaine fell out, Sippey said

"The pain is temporary but intense," said Sippey, adding, though that suspects suffer no long-term damage

Before the technique was developed, one detective would hold a suspect while his partner would jab a finger into the suspect's mouth in an attempt to recover any evidence that might have been placed there. That method carried the risk of being bitten and contracting some contagion.

A second alternative was to place a choke hold on a suspect to force the suspect to spit out the drugs. However, a court in California has ruled the use of that method constitutes excessive force.

Sippey said police officers across the spectrum have been trained in the new technique. Last year, officers reported using it 83 times and extracting drugs 66 times.

Bill H

Unless the persons detained were previously detected engaging in criminal activity, the tactics described in Bill H's post sound to me like unreasonable searches and seizures, prohibited by the 4th Amendment.

The war on drugs just gets foolisher and foolisher. Most of these drug peddlers are non-violent folks trying to make a living in an area with no jobs--or no jobs that pay a living wage. I think the "war on drugs" should be re-named "the full-employment campaign for law officers and prison guards". C'mon, boys and girls, there are dangerous criminals out there. How about paying some attention to them?

While the "war on drugs" is a good example, mob psychology is strange and can infect anybody, including ACLU board members, as we saw with the Red Scare and internment of Japanese Americans in the '40s. But in the case of the ACLU, many if not always a majority of the leaders spoke up against these injustices. I don't think any other national organization can make that statement.

”Most of these drug peddlers are non-violent folks trying to make a living in an area with no jobs--or no jobs that pay a living wage.”

Rambler, These non-violent folks trying to make a living are causing a great many teen-agers and others to become addicts and maybe even causing a number of deaths from over dose.

Just because they are unemployed (some not all), does not excuse them from this criminal procedure

Bill H

Bill H: I never learned to copy and paste, so I have to re-type your words in order to repeat them:

"These non-violent folks trying to make a living are causing a great many teen-agers and others to become addicts and maybe even causing a number of deaths from overdose".

I would suggest that the artificial shortage of drugs, caused by the ill-advised war on drugs, drives up the prices and attracts new drug dealers to the trade. Thanks to the "war", there are big bucks to be made (and big risks worth taking, which leads to some of the violence). I wonder how many teen-agers and others have died because they consumed contaminated drugs that, had some of these drugs been de-criminalized, would have been tested and rejected by a respected agency.

I think our descendants will look back at the "war on drugs" like we look back at prohibition, the Red Scare, and internment of Japanese-Americans and wonder, "What were they thinking?".

Ella or others considering future non-fiction books for discussion may want to look at page 10 of the May 13 N.Y. Times Book Review. It chronicles months in the life of a woman trying to work and live on what passes for a living wage. Welfare reform, indeed! I most reluctantly voted for Clinton the first time, but when he came up with that "reform" turkey shortly before 1996, No Way!

Bill: I found the thought of the way the police extract evidence very unsettling. As Rambler says, it sure sounds like a violation of some kind of rights!

This whole question of drugs is moot, anyway. I know this ususally sets peoples teeth on edge, but I firmaly believe in the legalization of drugs. Let's build more treatment centers, not jails. besides, criminalizing it didn't work for prohibition, why should it now?

Rambler: I read several excerpts from that book, Nickled and Dimed (?) and one of the places where the author worked also was in my state of Minnesota. The book is a real eye-opener. It shows how almost impossible it is to get along on what is called the normal pay rate today, and this is even for a single person with no dependents! The whole scene, to me, simply widens the gap between the haves and the have-nots in our society today.

Lorrie

To get back to the subject of the Japanese-American internment, this is something interesting about that great defender of civil right, Justice Earl Warren:

The type of racism directed towards the Japanese Americans was significantly different in character from that experienced by European Americans. California Attorney General Earl Warren, later a famous champion of civil rights as Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, argued that loyalty was racially based: “We believe that when we are dealing with the Caucasian race we have methods that will test the loyalty of them, and we believe that we can, in dealing with the Germans and the Italians, arrive at some fairly sound conclusions because of our knowledge of the way they live in the community and have lived for many years. But when we deal with the Japanese we are in an entirely different field and we cannot form any opinion that we believe to be sound. “

Most liberals, including Earl Warren, supported the decision to incarcerate Japanese Americans. Warren is said to have been one of the individuals most responsible for effecting the evacuation by convincing the West Coast Military Commander, General DeWitt, that the evacuation was necessary. Warren was himself popular at least in California where he won the California governorship in 1942 and was re-elected twice before becoming Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court.

Lorrie

Hello Everybody, storms are still around us, floods to the north, but I'm getting on for a few minutes just to Hi and I wish I had more time, maybe later.

Marjorie, when I read about E.G. Flynn being reinstated by the ACLU after her death I thought it strange, as you did; however I'm sure the organization keeps minutes and want their history to be clear for those coming after and the reinstatement, no doubt, was their attempt to "make right a wrong," don't you think?

It reminded me of the effort still being made, I believe, to clear the name of the commander of the U.S.S. Indianapolis whose ship was sunk during WWII as it was returning from delivering the atom bomb to Tinian Island. The commander (captain?) was courtmarshalled and later committed suicide and yet the surviving crew swear that it was not their captain's fault and are trying to "make right a wrong." The Navy will not admit their error however. Typical of government?

Hi Bill thanks for bringing that article to our attention. I believe Rambler answered the question involved very well; there must be more to the story (on what charge were these people stopped in the first place in order to extract drugs from their mouths) than what we know from the article.

Gosh, I wish I knew more about this "war on drugs." All I know is that it has cost this country millions of dollars in the last what? - 3 decades - and the problem is still with us. So money is not the answer, perhaps it is time to try something new? As Lorrie has suggested, why not try legalizing these street drugs for a few years. Put the drug dealers out of business.

Back to the Japanese-Internment, what are your comments in response to the question, CAN IT HAPPEN AGAIN?

Gotta go, thunder outside, trouble getting on and staying on must be affecting our local phone system. Back when the storm subsides.

Lorrie, I found that article very unsettling also.

Rambler, I understand the feelings you expressed here, but just because some are unemployed is not a valid excuse to peddle drugs.

Ella, This was the complete article. I copied and pasted the whole story as it appeared in the paper, and I agree with Lorrie, it was very unsettling. I wonder how many fingers have been bitten. "Ouch!!"

Bill H

Bill H: Enough of our idle chatter! Please get the Steelers a functioning quarterback. Please report back to me and Bill Cowher in 30 days.

"Rambler, I understand the feelings you expressed here, but just because some are unemployed is not a valid excuse to peddle drugs." I understand your feelings,too. But if you're living in a ghetto where there are no jobs, you don't have a car to get to the poor-paying jobs there are, and public transportation (if it exists at all) stinks, how ya gonna make a buck? You turn to some form of crime. And if that form pays far better than the-jobs-you-can't-get-to-anyway, you're likely to stick with it until you get caught or killed. I don't see that these guys have much choice.

Lorrie: "I firmly believe in the legalization of drugs". There's something called de-criminalization, which is perhaps a first step, surely for stuff like marijuana. Don't ask me the difference between legalization and de-criminalization; I haven't the foggiest. (I happen to have glaucoma, and I understand marijuana can be helpful. Wonder if Ill have to move to Latin America or Amsterdam--or San Francisco--to get it?) A 15-year-old in our (winter) Florida town was quoted as saying, "For someone my age, it's a lot easier to get drugs than alcohol". That says something to me about the effectiveness of the war on drugs.

Also Lorrie: Your quote from then-Gov. Earl Warren, saying in effect that the loyalty of Germans and Italians was established, but not that of the Japanese, was a shocker. Like Justice Hugo Black (who had been a Klansman), he went on to a distinguished judicial career in the defense of the Bill of Rights. Politicians and judges who are no longer beholden to the whims and prejudices of their home territory can rise to greatness. Thurgood Marshall or James Farmer asked President LBJ how come he had become such a champion of civil rights, after a career in Congress where he was a consistent opponent. Johnson's answer, quoting King: "Free at last. Free at last. Thank God almighty, I'm free at last".

Rambler, I sure hope our quarter back comes thru. Maybe we need a new head coach. But, Rambler, should these "guys" be excused and allowed to peddle drugs.

Bill H

Bill H: I guess they should be allowed to peddle drugs because I guess they have no realistic "career" alternative.

Others: You can tune this out. It's a Pittsburgh Steeler thing; you wouldn't understand. Without looking up any rosters, Bill, I remember Terry Bradshaw, Franco Harris, Lynn Swann, Frenchy Fuqua, Rocky Bleier, John Stallworth, Mike(?) Webster, and on defense, Mean Joe Greene, L.C. Greenwood, Jack Ham, Jack Lambert. Chuck Noll, of course. I have no problem with Bill Cowher; it's not his fault that his best players, like Rod Woodson, get bought off by wealthier teams or bigger cities.

Ella: Delete this if you wish, or I will do so if you ask.

Now, where were we? Chapter 9.

Comment on Internment

It would be wrong to assume that a mass internment could never happen again. The lesson we should have learned from the Japanese internment is that civil rights and civil liberties are vulnerable. Even a political system with checks and an extremely strong judiciary will not always champion those rights successfully. The Justices of the US Supreme Court are themselves prisoners of culture. So therefore, judicial review might not always suffice to prevent powerful, negative stereotypes from shaping public policy.

Another insight gained from the study of the Japanese American internment, in my own opinion, is that villainy is not only to be found abroad. It might be argued that the United States obsessive concern with assimilation almost resulted in the cultural genocide of Americans of Japanese ancestry. Even though the US government did not actually exterminate the Japanese Americans (although there was fear that it might), the policy of internment certainly resulted in the devaluation of Japanese culture. To give one example, internees, out of a sense of shame, tragically often chose not to discuss their ancestry with their children. Although the United States, decades later, issued an apology as well as $20,000 checks, it can never repair the damage that was done.

Lorrie

For the next few days I will be undergoing some tests at a local clinic as an outpatient, but I am not sure whether I will be feeling up to using my computer, so if I am not heard from, never fear, I will be back!

Lorrie

Lorrie: The Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court are indeed, as you said, prisoners of culture. As Anthony Lewis says (p. 132), "The Supreme Court, under the stress of those times, was not prepared to defend what we today would think of as deserving protection." Here we have 9 white men, some quite old, at the pinnacle of the American judiciary, secure in lifetime jobs from which it is almost impossible to get fired. Among the 9 were some Roosevelt appointees like William O. Douglas and Hugo Black, who later earned wide admiration for their defense of civil liberties.

If those 9 guys can be intimidated by the culture, think what the ACLU was up against!

It was kind of a cliche at the time to say, "I like what Joe McCarthy is doing, but I don't like the way he's doing it". I guess folks wanted a more genteel witch-hunter.

When I entered the Army in 1953, you had to sign something that asked if you were a member of any Communist-affiliated groups. You could answer yes (in which case I'm sure you were in deep do-do), no, or none to my knowledge. I gave the last answer, no doubt thinking, "It's none of your damn business". Overseas, I ordered a novel by Howard Fast, who was suspected of being a Communist then and has since confirmed it. When it arrived, a couple of my buddies were really fearful that I'd get in trouble if any officer saw it. (Not much danger. Our officers weren't all that literate.)

LORRIE, I hope your visits to the clinic do not herald any serious health problem and that you will be back with us shortly. These sentences are so great that I am going to highlight them here:

"The lesson we should have learned from the Japanese internment is that civil rights and civil liberties are vulnerable. Even a political system with checks and an extremely strong judiciary will not always champion those rights successfully. The Justices of the US Supreme Court are themselves prisoners of culture."

We need your insight so please hurry back. I do like that phrase - "prisoners of culture" and that also describes the ACLU during the McCarthy era. As someone in the book said they just made noises and to quote from the book:

"Many Americans were afraid of the Soviet Union. It wasn't a totally irrational fear. Soviet-armed guerrillas had threatened Greece, and eventually Soviet-sponsored politicians took over in Czechoslovakia and then in Hungary. These were realities. But Americans frightened of communism abroad directed their fear to communism at home, which was completely unfrightening."

THE McCARTHY ERA! Probably the most extreme attack on freedom of speech in our history! Did you learn anything new in this chapter?

I did not know of Truman's Loyalty Oath required of federal workers, did you? Read the document in full here:

http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/loyal.html

That's a real eye-opener! And people just accepted that!

And you had to take an oath before entering the Army, Rambler?> What year would that be?

And I hope you and Billget the Pittsburgh Steelers shaped up! If I can talk music, you can talk baseball certainly. When you have two fans in the same conversation, what else can you expect?

Marjorie are you still around? What do you remember of Senator Joseph McCarthy and his witch-hunt?

Did anyone see the televised program presented by Edward R. Murrow and the episode wherein the army counsel asked "Have you no sense of decency, sir?" Chapter 9, pg.140.

I was a very young mother at the time and didn't watch much TV on our little black and white set. I don't think it was until much later that I was cognizant of McCarthy and the hearings.

”I guess they should be allowed to peddle drugs because I guess they have no realistic "career" alternative.”

Rambler,Perhaps they don’t want one.

Lorrie, I hope all your tests turn out fine. Good luck!!

Bill H

Lorrie: Good luck with all your tests. We need you.

Ella: I went into the Army in '53, out in '55. Oh, and the Steelers are a football team, much better than Pittsburgh's baseball team, which really stinks.

"But the view of the people who came after (Baldwin), and the view today, is that the ACLU can and should be a mass movement, that we should not be limited to five, ten, or fifteen thousand people" (p. 135). That may be the view, but hardly the reality. I think the membership is roughly 270,000, or about 1 American in 1,000; I suspect some of the smaller states can number their ACLU membership in the hundreds. The Bill of Rights is simply not a matter that interests a whole lot of people. Here in Illinois, the ACLU has a person or two who go into highschools and explain the issues to the kids. Of course, that should not really be necessary; the regular civics coursework should cover it. But a visiting ACLU rep can offer much tougher, challenging questions than most teachers would feel comfortable in presenting, even those (few?) who have a good grasp of the subject matter.

"The Korean War and McCarthy's rampage assured passage of the 1950...McCarran Act (which) required Communist and 'Communist-action' organizations to register with the new Subversive Activities Control Board (SACB) and to disclose their officers, finances, and membership. In addition, their mail had to carry the label
Communist organization. Individual members were ineligible for passports, were barred from govenment employment, and were required to register with the SACB.

"...Finally, the law authorized American concentration camps. ...The attorney general could detain any person for whom there was 'reasonable ground to believe that such person probably will engage in...acts of espionage or sabotage.' This section was
sponsored" (my emphasis) "by liberal senators Hubert Humphrey, Paul Douglas, and Estes Kefauver, who were anxious to prove their anti-Communist credentials. The ACLU was evidently" (!) "affected by the McCarthyite venom and the Korean War. The (ACLU) board thus voted to oppose the emergency detention provision only by a narrow 11-to-9 margin".

Anything to do with the ACLU stands out as though it was written in red and bold letters in the newspaper. Following are excerpts from two I found this morning, the first is a local columnist being somewhat funny or cynical, and the second is much more serious and certainly the ACLU will make their presence known in the Bush Administration's policies soon.

The Columbus schools are being sued by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of people who object to student choral groups performing Christian music. They say it violates separation of church and state (which it does)......Here are politically correct lyrics for school choral performances in the coming era:

God Bless America
<Someone bless America,
We won't say who,
Cause by saying, we're praying,
And that might trigger judicial review
From the mountains,
To the prairies,
There are lawyers,
Filing torts,
Someone bless America,
But it make secular, Sport,
Someone bless America,
But keep us out of court.(much more of this

<New federal grants to prevent drug abuse and HIV are being offered only to religious groups, a move going beyond President Bush's effort to let those organizations compete with secular groups for government money.

The application (for $4 million in grants) specifies that applicants must be "faith-based organizations" or be working with them>

ELLA: I did not get on the computer earlier today. I only vaguely remember McCarthy. I got married in 1954 and remember watching TV and seeing men sitting around the conference table. I didn't ever have to sign any sort of loyalty oath. When I was first married I did secretarial work in departments in companies where I needed Confidential Clearance. I had never been interested in politics so there was nothing for the government to even question and I was able to get the clearance I needed. I do remember disliking McCarthy. I like what you said about the court being part of society and influenced by it.

Rambler, thanks for that information about the McCarran Act and the SACB - that was new information. Congress was certainly busy passing all kinds of legislature in those days weren't they! I do remember Estes Kefauver, (who was in the news for some other reason that I don't recall now) and Hubert Humphrey, of course.

And please excuse my faux pas! The "Steelers" sounded like baseball to me! I'm not much of a fan - did I need to add that remark? Hahaha

I've been having trouble with my ISP, keep getting knocked off as soon as I get on - no doubt, some telephone lines are down due to storms. I just couldn't stay on long enough to correct the satirical poem above.

Hi Marjorie, the very fact that you made this statement - " I didn't ever have to sign any sort of loyalty oath." sends chills down my back. Truly! No one in this country should have to sign loyalty oaths. We are citizens and are loyal and should not have to prove that we are. That is why we have an FBI and an CIA agency to ferret out those that are not! Otherwise, as citizens, we are all innocent of any wrongdoing until proven otherwise.

Is this they way all of you see it? Or am I being naïve!

I think there is a place for a "loyalty oath." I took the oath when I enlisted in the Army during World War II. Many years later I took the oath when I became a federal employee (Department of Defense). The Founders of our nation actually wrote the oath they wanted the President to take.

Yes, we are citizens and supposedly loyal but there is something about standing next to the Flag with right hand raised that makes it suddenly very important. We supposedly tell the truth in court but we first take an oath.

Robby

But I did not know until reading this book, that McCarthy considered his infamous committee and those terrible interrogations a "game" and was friendly off camera to those he persecuted while in the spotlight. Did you know that? Through the years I've heard of all those Hollywood screenwriters and actors who were blacklisted and couldn't get work (some very bitter to this day!) and they didn't think of it as a game.

The naivete of the ACLU toward the FBI is almost unbelievable, isn't it? Of course, we are looking at history from the perspective of the present, still that does not excuse the ACLU's lack of action in a time of ungodly government interference in the rights of individuals.

We've been told by the media that we are cynical toward our government today, is it true?

I didn't know that the media told us we were cynical toward the government. I thought the approach of the media was that we should be cynical toward the government.

The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.

. . . Thomas Jefferson

You are right, Robby! Yes, of course, we do take those oaths! I have myself in court, a couple of times, over varying matters! But why is our veracity questioned in this manner? Just to impress upon us the seriousness of a given situation?

My daughter is in a medical unit of the Army Reserves and she takes her oath very seriously and is so loyal to the service. But she would be just as loyal without the oath, I do believe.

Perhaps it is ceremonial as you suggest - standing next to the flag and raising your right hand and swearing?

We are posting together this morning, Robby. I've had no occasion, personally, to be cynical about the government, but definitely we should be ever vigilant, I agree. I see a difference between cynicism and vigilance.

ELLA: I find it difficult to trust what the government says will work. I life in Calfornia and a few years ago everyone thought deregulation was the perfect thing for us and that our prices would go down. Look where we are today - facing blackouts and higher prices. Higher prices both in our electric bill and from stores that will pass the higher electric prices they pay down to the consumer. I don't remember if I voted for deregulation. I know I didn't pay enough attention at the time. Now I am stuck. Luckily I don't think I will have to choose between power and food.

Oh, Marjorie, we all sympathize with Californians at this point; but the government is not infallible. Unforeseen forces are working behind their decisions, such as scarcity of oil for energy (Gulf states, possibly?), inflation, lack of refineries, I truly don't know the reasons behind the brownouts you are having. The papers I have read blamed your governor, is it his fault? Do you have a Public Utilities Commission which are supposed to be on top of such situations?

Who knows? And why are our gas prices out of sight? Who knows? It has happened before many times in our lifetime and it will again, but with all the government (and when I type that word I think of this huge bureaucracy, endless agencies, thousands of federal employees)has to face daily, weekly, I cannot see how they can be blamed for any or every bad decision that comes down the pike.

I did a search on McCarthyism and here are some interesting sites:

http://www.dimensional.com/~randl/mccart.htm

http://www.english.upenn.edu/~afilreis/50s/schrecker-legacy.html

I was interested in this statement at that last site:

The political repression of the McCarthy era fostered the growth of the national security state and facilitated its expansion into the rest of civil society. On the pretext of protecting the nation from Communist infiltration, federal agents attacked individual rights and extended state power into movie studios, universities, labor unions, and many other ostensibly independent institutions. The near universal deference to the federal government's formulation of the Communist threat abetted the process and muted opposition to what was going on.

That certainly applied to the ACLU during this period of history.

Ella: But less than to any other group you can name!

There's a flap in the little town of Washington, Ill., over prayer at the highschool graduation ceremony. Both the (Catholic) valedictorian and the (Muslim) senior class president are opposed to it! Of course, the ACLU is in the thick of the fight.

The story is on page 1 of today's Tribune. See www.chicagotribune.com if interested.

Nice to know, Rambler, that the students are aware of the problems of school prayer. I was at a college graduation last weekend (a private Lutheran college in Ohio) where, not only did we have prayer, we had a minature church service during the ceremony. With no state funds involved, the college can do as it pleases.

What do we think when we read this about the FBI today:

"The McVeigh fiasco comes just as the FBI is having to defend itself against charges that it is capable of brutal indifference to individual rights if it feels justified by some larger goal. …..Two weeks ago, officials from the Boston FBI field office were hauled before the House Committee on Government Reform to explain why they had allowed Joseph Salvati to spend 30 years in prison for a murder they knew he didn't commit, just to protect one of their informants…….That same week, prosecutors in Alabama finally convicted the Klansman who bombed the black church in Birmingham back in 1963, killing four little girls. We could have done this years ago, they said, if the FBI had just handed over their secret tapes that proved his guilt. That conviction came after months of criticism that the FBI had dismissed warnings of a mole in its ranks right up until they tripped over Russian spy Robert Hanssen, an agent for 25 years."

- TIME 5/21

There is much more, an interesting article about the FBI, its broad reach and the almost impossible task it has of protecting and satisfying the citizens of this country, particularly when its directors are chosen not for their abilities in a proven field of espionage, but appointed by presidents who need to reward their friends.

Perhaps this is an area where I might be cynical about a few political tactics of our government.

Before we go on to the 1960's history of the ACLU, I wanted to give Lorrie an opportunity to talk about Senator McCarthy as she was living in Wisconsin at the time, his home state, and will have insights that we may not have.

Hi, Everybody, I'm baaaaaack!!

I've been thinking back on those McCarthy years, and I remember well, when I was still living in Wisconsin, I would occasionally visit my sister in Long Island. Whenever she introduced me to her neighbors and friends, as her "sister from Wisconsin" invariably I would be adked questions about Senator McCarthy. "How do the people of Wisconsin feel about him?" they would ask, and I would reply, truthfully, "Some of them love him." Some people did love him, I just didn't happen to be one of them. I remember the peculiar looks i would get at this response.

Rambler: When you say, (post#237) that the ACLU was right in the midst of it, I think you should remember that it was the young Valedictorian who appealed to them for help.

Be back in a few minutes, have some more thoughts on that cursed McCarthy era.

Good to see you here, Robby and Marjorie!

Lorrie

Name-calling was not new to that Midwestern area or to the nation. During the 1930s a Michigan priest, Fr. Charles Coughlin, had used the technique to make people fear "imported radicals" and "aetheistic Jews" during his radio broadcasts. Both Fr. Coughlin and Senator McCarthy based their views on "evidence" that either came from untrustworthy sources or that had been distorted.

Many people in Wisconsin thought it was a case of "local boy makes good," bedazzled by the TV coverage, and the newspapers, and the residents of that little town, Appleton, where McCarthy's family still farmed, were very proud of their "Red-hunter!" They fawned over the newspaper, magazine and TV crews that came. In fact, it was shameful for the fact alone that McCarthy was indirectly responsible for the destruction of a leading politician in the state, Phillip LaFollette, of the Progressive party, about whom McCarthy's lies and innuendoes had done such harm.

Lorrie

LORRIE, welcome back!

And you are coming back with a BIG BANG

Never heard of this Father Charles Coughlin, but here is a web site about the bigoted infamous Catholic Father:

http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/coughlin.html

I also meant to put Rambler's article in the Chicago Tribune here, which I will do now.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/metro/chicago/article/0,2669,ART-51889,FF.html

The ACLU attorney said: " "Pray before graduation. Pray after graduation. Pray by yourself in the stands. … But don't get on that intercom and commandeer the machinery of the state."

Thanks so much, LORRIE AND RAMBLER, for adding your own views and that of others to this discussion. I do appreciate it and I know that others are reading them also.

Lorrie: Good to have you baaaack!

In your #240, you say, (I) "...should remember that it was the young Valedictorian who appealed to (the ACLU) for help". Yes, and the appeal was answered, as it very often is when "mere kids" or "nobodies" feel they are being denied their rights. In many cases, these folks will have nothing to do with the ACLU for the rest of their lives. It's like, "Thanks, Mr. Fireman, for saving my house. Goodbye".

With its limited resources and huge caseload, the ACLU rarely goes looking for new cases. It waits for some citizen to come to it for help. (The Japanese internment matter was an exception: They wanted a case, but very few Japanese-Americans were willing to complain.)

Everybody who listened to the radio in those days knew of Father Coughlin. He was VICIOUS!

Robby

The name of Jay Miller drops out of nowhere on pages 144 and 145. I know Jay, though not well. He recently retired as Executive Director of the Illinois ACLU. Previously, I think he served in similar capacities in D.C. or N.Y. and in northern California.

The book quotes him (p. 144) as saying that the civil rights movement "set off the explosion of rights in this whole country. Things opened up not only for African-Americans, but for everybody. Women, other minorities, eventually gays latched onto it".

The "In Defense of American Liberties" book (p. 268) quotes Baldwin as telling Chuck Morgan, "We sent a man south in the 1930s. He lasted about six weeks". Then it says, "Morgan stayed. In his eight years as director of the ACLU's Southern Regional Office, he became an imposing figure in American politics.

"..In a courageous speech to the Young Men's Business Club he blamed the entire community: 'Birmingham is not a dying city, it is dead'. His law practice evaporated overnight, and there were threats against his life. He and his family fled to Washington, D.C., jobless and in debt.

"...A complex and contradictory figure, Morgan was...a throwback to the ACLU of the 1920s. ...He had a passionate sense of justice and identified with the poor and the outcast. ...Few other ACLU leaders shared his populist vision. Rather they were deeply skeptical of majority rule; curbing the majority, after all, was the purpose of the Bill of Rights."

For Jay Miller's retirement dinner*, we contributed this little ad to the farewell brochure:

"Liberty is the only thing you cannot have
unless you are willing to give it to others.

--William Allen White."

*Attended by Ira Glasser, Nadine Strossen, lots of others.

Rambler: How very interesting that you know one of the figures mentioned in this book? Did I misunderstand, or did you personally attend the retirement party for Jay Miller? It's fascinating to hear from someone who has met these people face to face.

I did want to make one comment on the McCarthy hearings before we move on. There was even more damage resulting from those infamous hearings. "McCarthyismm" further contributed to the diminishing of any reform impulse by diverting attention. For example, I believe McCarthyism may have aborted much needed reforms. As the nation's politics swung to the right after World War II, the federal government abandoned the unfinished agenda of the New Deal. Measures, like national health insurance, a social reform embraced by the rest of the industrialized world simply fell by the wayside. The left-liberal political coalition that might have supported health reforms and similar projects was torn apart by the anticommunist crusade. Moderates feared being identified with anything that seemed too radical and people to the left of them feared to introduce new legislation that would even have the scent of "communism" about it.

Lorrie

Lorrie: Yes, we attended the retirement party. In fact, we stayed in the hotel two nights, hoping to bum around downtown Chicago. But it turned unseasonably cold. Except for dining out and visiting Sue, the T-Rex dinosaur at the Field Museum, we didn't do much.

One of the perks of ACLU membership, at least in a big city, is that you get to rub elbows with some locally-prominent people, some of whom are on the staff or the board. Colleen Connell, Miller's successor, helped argue Roe v. Wade before the Supreme Court, I think; Dawn Clark Netch was the Democratic candidate for governor a few years ago; Abner Mikva, former Congressman, federal judge, and White House counsel during one of Clinton's many imbroglios; Christie Hefner, whose Playboy Enterprises has obvious first amendment concerns.

Hi Folks: I'm new, haven't read the book, but did do some volunteer work for the ACLU in the 70's while I was a college student of 30 something. Rambler, your quotation of White's made me see the difference between liberty and license much more clearly. Thank you. I always remember Burke: All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

Lorrie: I think your comments in #248 re McCarthyism are very perceptive. Politicians to this day are wary of "socialist" or "communist" ideas like national health insurance. Never mind that most or all of western Europe provide national health insurance: If the former Soviet Union provided it, and Cuba provides it, it's communistic and therefore un-American.

I incline toward the view that, in a democracy, the people get the government they deserve. If they buy neo-McCarthyite thinking and elect bozos who think likewise, they deserve the society that results. Of course, children (who do so much of the suffering) don't deserve the results.

Mrs. Watson: Welcome! You don't have to have read the book to contribute here, especially with your ACLU background. (I joined as soon as I could afford to pay the dues, probably around 1958.)

Mrs. Watson! Welcome to our little group here! I'm sure our discussion leader, Ella, will be along to welcome you properly, but in the meantime it's nice to have people here who have had actual contact with the ACLU, like you and Rambler.

Yes, Rambler, Those Russian emigres I spoke about who moved into our building? One of the things that simply appalled them was the high cost here of medical insurance. All that was provided for them in their former countries--- they all took proper medical care for granted, and assumed it would be the same here.

Incidentally, did Professor Alan Dershweitz,(sp?) who is seen on TV so frequently, ever have any ties to the ACLU?

Lorrie

Yes, Mrs. Watson. Nice to have you with us!!

Robby

Lorrie: I think Dershowitz, (maybe not the right spelling) is/was on the national ACLU board, though he has differences with the ACLU as he does with most everybody. Prof of law at Yale or Harvard, I think.

Hello Everybody and a hearty welcome to Mrs. Watson!

We are so happy to have you join us and as, Rambler said, you do not need the book; particularly with these next events and personalities we will be discussing. The Explosions of the 1960's! Allow me, if you will, to name a few that are mentioned in the book, and then we can all add our own to the list.

Civil Rights Movement
Anti-war protests
Women's movement
Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee
Julian Bond
Lester Maddox
George Wallace

I REMEMBER THEM WELL, DON'T YOU?

Wouldn't you have liked to meet Chuck Morgan - what a fellow! A reincarnated Clarence Darrow - they even look alike.

Rambler, that was fun hearing all about the ACLU dinner - here you were hobnobbing with all those famous lawyerly types! I've known lawyers but none that would take cases such as those Chuck Morgan took and relished!

Did any of you see the movie "Ghost of Mississippi?" It's the true story of the death of Medgar Evans and the first trial by an all-white jury of the white man who killed Evans and the second trial some 30 years later by a mixed jury and this time the killer was finally convicted. A good movie with Whoopi Goldberg as Mrs. Evans and Alec Baldwin as the prosecutor.

Paraphrasing the book, the practice of excluding blacks from juries literally allowed whites to get away with murder.

This was such a great period in America and for the ACLU which lobbied for every single piece of civil rights legislation then and up to the present.

I have loads of comments to make, but my time is limited today. Let's hear your reminiscenses from this period in our lives.

There's a pair who have nothing (that I know of) in common.

"A lot of the ACLU people were introverted. Morgan was the opposite. He was outgoing. He would shake anybody's hand."

Susannah McCorkle, 55, jazz and pop singer, jumped to her death in New York yesterday.

"Jazz singing gave her a sense of belonging. 'Before that, I had always been solitary and introverted,' she said. 'As a singer, I began meeting people who were solitary and introverted but who were also great jazz musicians. It was like finding my tribe'." P. 47, today's N.Y. Times.

Feeling kind of blue. Excuse the digression.

Cheer up, Rambler, any day that you are alive is a good day! Are you moody because you are an introvert? There's a test for that, I can't think of it at this moment, but years ago I was tested by a grad student and was a borderline introvert/extrovert - sitting on the fence is what I do best.

Someone once said that all readers are introverts! We would rather be reading a good book than be with people and I'll admit to some of that, if the people are boring and talk about nothing of consequence. And what is something of consequence?

I don't know, it all depends.

MRS. WATSON what was the nature of the volunteer work you did for the ACLU? Meant to ask that before.

Let me just quote a paragraph from the book:

"In 1966, the ACLU docket was loaded with cases that ten years earlier they simply would not have touched. The once-stodgy Union was representing draft card burners, attacking the mandatory loyalty oath imposed on Medicare recipients, and challenging the death penalty."

A LOYALTH OATH IMPOSED ON MEDICARE RECIPIENTS? WHAT????

I'll add just a couple of items to our list of the explosions of the 1960's, but I can think of many more.

Grant Park, Chicago, Mayor Daley
Southern Christian Leadership Conference, Ralph Abernathy
Betty Friedan, the NOW organization

Oh, come on, folks, you can add many more!

That reference to Chicago should wake Rambler up - his hometown! Who are you going to defend there? Daley? The police? The Chicago Seven?

Storms are coming again to our area and it seems to affect my ISP, the local telephone company. May not be able to get back on. But do carry on with this splendid discussion of the ACLU.

Ella: Re: "All readers are introverts". Offhand, I would doubt that there's much correlation; it might well be that readers, often being better informed, are more self-assured and outgoing. Robby is our resident psychologist; I'll e-mail him and ask him to post here.

On p. 146, Chuck Morgan says, "There are only two instrumentalities of power, the vote and the jury". I think Morgan said this in the context of arguing a case involving jury reform. Naturally he's going to elevate the jury issue's importance, not that it needed much elevating.

But on 149, Julian Bond took his case (regarding not being seated in the Georgia legislature) to two other "instrumentalities of power"--the courts and the court of public opinion. He won both places.

I wonder how much hand William F. Buckley had in the National Review's preachments vis-a-vis the anti-war pronouncements of Bond and his fellows: Americans should "not doubt the glee with which our enemies are exploiting this dilemma opened by our tolerant ways." (There were) "no tears for the countrymen dying in Vietnam to preserve the freedom Julian Bond so recklessly abuses." What supposed "preserved" freedom in Vietnam? What "abuse" of freedom by Bond in America? What nonsense by The National Review.

I labored about half an hour over a lengthy post of incredible wisdom, then got cut off by AOL. Maybe this medium is not all it's supposed to be. Why labor if you can get cut off at any time?

Rambler: I think all ISPs are the same. I get so impatient that I slam around. My son pointed out to me that I jump in and shut everything down when I should re-open the ISP. Started me thinking about why my fuse is so short when it comes to the internet. No answers yet...

Mrs. W. and Rambler - I just "jumped" back in for a few moments in between storms and wanted to tell both of you what I do when I get cut off the Internet. We all do - it's not unique to any one ISP. Copy the message (highlight the message first, go up to "Edit" and click on copy, and then bring up Microsoft Word or whatever your word processing capability is - you can do this by clicking on the Start button, and when you get a Microsoft Word document, go back to "Edit" and click on "paste" - it will transfer your message to the Word document, be sure to save it on your hard drive).

Then you have it and when you get on again, just do the same thing from the Word document and put it into this box.

Did you notice, Rambler that the author devoted almost 6 pages to the Julian Bond case. Certainly, it was a fascinating case, argued all the way to the Supreme Court, but not the only case in the 1960's of importance. What do you think? And you are keeping silent on the 1968 Democratic Convention? Or was that lost?

MRS.WATSON, what do you remember about the 1960's? All of it? A little? Tell us.

The hippies? Love, communes, marijuana, beads, the SDS, - was it a good time to be young? Terrible?

WHERE IS MARJORIE? ANYBODY HEARD FROM MARJORIE LATELY? HAS SHE CAUGHT UP WITH US IN THE BOOK?

I have been an avid reader all my life. At the same time I consier myself an extrovert. I have no problem being with and speaking with people and, as a matter of fact, just a half hour ago I came back from giving a speech before the local Business and Professional Women.

I don't see any correlation between being a reader and being an introvert.

Robby

ELLA: I think I am part introvert and part extrovert. It probably depends on the activity, the day, the people I am with. I am more of a follower than a leader. Does that make me an introvert?

Rambler, I, too, have been cut off at times,although I doubt if the posts were incredibly wise, and with the same fury that Mrs. Watson mentions. The trouble is, it seems to happen to me right while I'm posting, before I have time to copy and paste it. Oh, well!

Ella:I remember that Democratic National Convention in Chicago very well. We didn't go out on the streets those particular nights, but were able to view the televised scenes of the "out-of-control" police beating on the demonstrators right outside the Convention, where Mayor Daley was giving his speech. There were so many youngpeople being battered and maimed, it seemed. And the really disgusting part of it all was the way so many people thought "those hippies" deserved what they got! Incredible!

There was a brief note of irony on page 152. When N.Y.'s mayor John Lindsey denied segregationist Alabama governor George Wallace the right to use Shea Stadium, a publicly-owned facility, the ACLU supported Wallace. Eleanor Norton, an assistant legal director from the ACLU, argued the case in Queens Supreme Court.

The ACLU didn't inform the Wallace camp that the attorney they were sending was a young African American. Even so, the men from Alabama didn't flinch when Norton appeared in court to argue successfully for Wallace's right to speak. "I thought it was a magic moment,"said Norton. "not only for the ACLU, but for me a moment that demonstrated how truly I believed in free speech."

Lorrie

If you're writing with pen and ink and the lights go out, you haven't lost anything. Same with a typewriter. But if you're trying to post on the internet and your ISP cuts you off, all is lost. This is known as progress. Don't suggest that I write in simple text (whatever that is) and copy-and-paste. I never learned to do either. (For one thing, my iMac refuses to highlight with any consistency.)

If it had happened before, I might have realized that AOL's repeated question "Do you wish to continue?", or however it was worded, was a warning that I'm in danger of being cut off. Better post this now, fast.

During the '68 Democratic convention, I resented the statements from Mayor Daley and others that the anti-war demonstrators were outside agitators. Hey, lots of us agitators live here!

The war was a tragic mistake, as even former Defense Sec. McNamara has since admitted.

The conduct of the Chicago police was deplorable (the Kerner commission called it a "police riot" or words to that effect).

In my view, the Chicago Seven (Abbie Hoffman, etc.) were a bunch of rambunctious free spirits who couldn't have "conspired" to organize a picnic. Conspiracy, indeed!

Thanks, Robby, for your expert advice. The personality test given to me years ago by a grad student in Phychology is called the Myers-Briggs test and can only be administered by a professional; however there is a verson of it called the Kiersey Temperament Sorter on the Web, and if you are interested you can fill this out and find out if you are an introvert or extrovert:

http://www.advisorteam.com/user/ktsintro.asp

I'm with you, Marjorie, when you said, " It probably depends on the activity, the day, the people I am with." As said before, my test showed I am straddling the fence and perhaps we both are? What do I know about personality, psychology? Not much. But we stray from our topic…..

Concerning getting thrown off the Internet, I have one more suggestion that sometimes works for me - try it! And it has nothing to do with copy/paste, Rambler. Click on FILE at top, scroll down to where it says "offline" and click there, click on "work offline" and you can take your time with your post, and when you are ready to post it then go back to FILE, click on "work online." I don't understand HOW it works, but it does - no one can throw you offline when you already offline.

Oh, golly, I'm not making sense. Back later with something about the book………

Ella: Under "File", I don't get the choices you mention. Don't know if that's because I have an iMac or because I'm on AOL.

As both an ACLU member and an Army veteran, I got a bang out of Chapter 11. And that chapter starts with a bang. For benefit of those who don't have the book, I will quote.

The first charge was disobeying an order. The second charge was that I had made statements and written a letter to promote disloyalty and disaffection among the army troops. That's a straightforward free speech issue--the only thing I was charged with was saying things and writing things. The third charge was conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman--I thought the two were mutually exclusive, but that's another issue. --Howard Levy

Better post this before I get cut off.

Here's a little food for thought:

WHAT DO JULIAN BOND AND OLIVER NORTH HAVE IN COMMON?

When Julian Bond was excluded from the Georgia House of Representatives for declaring himself in sympathy with draft resisters, he was defended by Chuck Morgan, Director of the Southern Regional Office of the American Civil Liberties Union (Smithsonian magazine, January 1998).

When Oliver North was compelled to give testimony in the Iran-Contral scandal and then convicted by the Courts on the basis of his own testimony, he was defended by the ACLU, claiming a violation of his constitutional right not to incriminate himself, and his conviction was overturned. (Smithsonian magazine, January 1998).

Then the author leads off Ch. 11 with this doozy:

"The court-martial of Howard Levy encompassed war crimes, military discipline, Green Berets, freedom of speech, poison ivy, the Hippocratic Oath, the philosophy of Jean-Paul Sartre, and a basics physics lesson: When an unmovable object (the United States Army) meets an irresistible force (Chuck Morgan), something is likely to blow up."

I do recall, in basic training, being told that soldiers don't have the free-speech rights that other citizens enjoy. It puzzled me. But after all, what kind of military can you have if an officer tells you to do something and you tell him to go fly a kite? Or what if you say nothing but simply ignore the order? Is that not symbolic speech, like flag-waving or flag-burning? What if, what if?

Rambler: Yes, that was an asinine case, in my estimation. What should have been a trifling matter of simple insubordination became, in my estimation, all blown out of proportion, and one can't help but wonder about the military minds that let it get that far! For those of our readers who haven't access to the book, here's an excerpt:

................A dermatologist who spent his off-duty hours as a civil rights activist, Dr. Howard Levy refused to train Green Berets for duty in Vietnam because they were killers of peasants and murderers of women and children. When he was court-martialed for failure to obey a lawful order, Levy called ACLU Southern Region Director Chuck Morgan, for help. Arguing in Levy's defense that a doctor is morally bound not to train people for war crimes, Morgan was accused by the presiding judge of intimating that Green Berets were committing war crimes in Vietnam. Instantly, the case turned into a trial of the United States' conduct of the Vietnam War. John-Paul Sartre telegraphed his support from Paris and Bertrand Russell's office offered its files. Famous people including Dr. Benjamin Spock and Robin Moore, author of The Green Berets, came to Columbia to testify in the trial. The judge rejected the allegations of murder and torture by the Green Berets, found no evidence of war crimes, and sentenced Levy to three years in prison. While the ACLU had lost one of its most dramatic cases, it had also marked what some later would say was the beginning of the ACLU's transition from neutral defender of civil liberties principles to liberal political partisan ... and anti-war protestors and the organization's membership began to swell................

I would like to have seen Chuck Morgan in action. Apparently he was quite flamboyant, and a remarkable courtroom adversary.

Lorrie

"Howard Levy considered his options--they were few. He could go to prison, he could leave the country, or he could serve." I volunteered (more or less) in '53. At the time of Vietnam, I think I would have gone to Canada.

"He refused to join the officers' club, letting it be known that he didn't like tennis, golf, or officers." You got that right, pal.

Dr. Levy refused to train any special forces men, described as killer-healers. "'They made no bones of the fact that they did kill peasants and women and children. I didn't make up the rhetoric, they told me.'"

Chuck Morgan "will pour another round of drinks, stoke another of his big, self-consciously Churchillian cigars, and talk deep into the night with a racehorse logic that leaves listeners gasping for breath". Anybody explain racehorse logic? I never thought racehorses, or those who bet on them, were very bright.

Trivia question (p. 158): Wasn't Dreyfus a colonel when he was cashiered by the French army and sent to Devil's Island? The author says Dreyfus returned to the army and earned the rank of major. In our army, anyway, that would be a demotion.

The Nuremburg "war crimes" defense, suggested by the army's presiding judge(!) was denied. Chuck Morgan was relieved. "At last, I can get back to the business of defending my client instead of prosecuting the whole damn army."

(Levy spent two years in military prison. "The Supreme Court said that in the military you don't have the same First Amendment rights that you have as a citizen.")

Oh, you all are just great! Thank you, thank you. You presented the case and tried it and the verdict is there for all to see.

What an appealing fellow this Howard Levy was and has anyone yet to figure out what "DISAFFECTION" means? Hahaha! You would have to have the book to understand that sentence and it's too long to type in here for those who don't have the book, but it's HILARIOUS! A real carnival, as the book says.

What a stupid judge, in my opinion, although supposedly he was one of the Army's most respected! Colonel Brown - and his cockeyed suggestion , let me quote it here: "My research," Brown said, "discloses the Nuremberg trials involve a rule that a soldier must refuse an order to commit a war crime."

A soldier must refuse an order to commit a war crime? If it could be shown that the Green Berets were committing war crimes, then possibly Levy could be acquitted? And Chuck Morgan was to try the WHOLE ARMY?

The whole trial was a circus, wasn't it.

What is a war crime?

And the press began to make jokes about Major Confusion and General Psychosis! Can you believe this went on???

I loved this chapter even though Morgan lost the case and Levy spent time.

Lorrie, there will be more about Ollie North later in the book and I wonder if Chuck Morgan is still living. I'll do some digging on the Internet to see if I can bring up anything. Also, Rambler, I'll look Dreyfus for you.

From my own perspective, I think the 1960's was both a stimulating time and a tragic time in American History. I would love to be sitting in a classroom and listen to the students of today discuss it wouldn't you?

Whether it would be terrible time to have lived through, I doubt it - a person, no matter whether it is the 1920's, the sixties, or the nineties, doesn't change his stripes does he? One can find trouble if you go looking for it in any era. One can be a rebel or a peacemaker, passive or intractable. How much influence does the environment of the times have on a person?

I can't imagine I would have been a "hippie" but it might have been fun to have known them all!

Would you have been a hippie?

During the late 60's we had an exchange student from Chile living with us and her two requests were to find "hippies" and buy American jeans, and, believe me, she had her own idea of what those two things were (very different from our own!). We searched campuses for hippies, we searched department stores for jeans. Nothing suited!

Finally, on the way to Dayton, we went through Yellow Springs where Antioch College is and a group of students were standing on a corner. These students looked like students looked at Ohio State, any high school, no different. BUT THEY LOOKED LIKE HIPPIES TO HER!!!!

It's all in the "eye of the beholder."

The Nazis want to speak in Skokie. Their message is loathsome to the great majority of citizens of the community.

Martin Luther King wants to speak of brotherhood in a backwater town where bigotry is rampant. His message is loathsome to the great majority of citizens of the community.

Can anyone suggest how a law, a Constitutional law, might be worded that would bar the Nazis from speaking but would permit King to speak? (Of course, I don't think it can be done.)

HI RAMBLER - dinnertime, I have to go and fix us something to eat. Liver and onions, does it appeal? That's what we're having!

Here is a good article about the Dreyfus case:

http://www.wfu.edu/~sinclair/dreyfus.htm

Later about the Skokie matter.

Colonel, captain, whatever!

Ella: No thanks. I don't like liver and Barbara is allergic to onion. (The latter complicates our eating out at new places; she has to ask lots of questions. At our regular haunts, we know what she can have and the help is often familiar with her problem.)

From "In Defense of American Liberties":
"(Charles) Morgan spent half his time speaking around the country for the ACLU. A cross between Clarence Darrow (by the mid-1980s his face actually resembled Darrow's) and an old-style southern politician, he was enormously popular, regaling audiences with tales of the Old South and then offering firsthand accounts of his historic cases. Through him, members of a fledgling midwestern ACLU affiliate could feel they were in direct touch with momentous events. He was everything his northern liberal audiences wanted: a southerner who believed in racial justice and had the courage to fight for it. Between 1964 and 1969 he spoke in thirty-five states for the ACLU, and many of his speeches helped launch new ACLU affiliates."

Somewhere along here, the author (Samuel Walker), says that Morgan was the one charismatic figure that the ACLU has had besides Roger Baldwin.

Those who agree with me that the so-called War is futile and a horrendous waste of law enforcement manpower will enjoy today's Non-Sequitur comic. If your paper doesn't carry it, you can see it at: http://www.non-sequitur.com

Ha hahahaha, I like the cartoon, Rambler!

In looking up something else, I came across this very poignant article about yet another victim of the "Commie" witch-hunts. And if the picture it reveals is not entirely new, it reminds again how a nation consumed by paranoia and misspent passion can consume in turn even those who have loved and served it best.

THE EDDIE CARTER STORY

Lorrie

Another "hit" on the LAPD, Rambler, and a funny one, but nevertheless the LAPD has become a laughable police force in America - the result of Watts, Rodney King and Simpson?

An amazing story, Lorrie, thank you for finding that. Another poor fellow who was hurt by radicals in the government rushing about declaring everyone a "pinko." Poor fellow and he died before any of the truth came out.

The ACLU defended the despicable segregationist George Wallace because of his CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to speak at Shea Stadium, even though the organization despised his bigotry.

Again, in Chapter 12 entitled "HIGH CRIMES AND HATE SPEECH: From Watergate to Skokie" the ACLU defends a hated organization that is one of the most bigoted of all - The National Socialist Party of America (the Nazi party).

Is it any wonder that people feel the ACLU is an "extremist" organization?

"It's not that we begin each day by saying, 'Which client shall we take today to stir up some controversy,' said Alan Reitman of the ACLU. 'We don't create our clients, in my view, history creates them.'"

President Nixon and Frank Collin, the Nazi leader in America.

What a combination for the author to put into one chapter!

Back later today, but want to announce that I will be out of town tomorrow, Thursday through Sunday, and Lorrie has consented to substitute for me as discussion leader. Thanks so much, Lorrie!

Thank you for agreeing to take over as discussion leader for a few days and for A Soldier's Story. Good choice, Ella!

Get this (from A Soldier's Story): "Subject is seemingly potentially capable of having connections with subversive activities due to the fact that" he has lived overseas and speaks foreign languages. Wowee! "Seemingly potentially capable"! Aren't we all seemingly potentially capable of some kind of naughtiness? All men have the requisite sexual equipment; ergo, if you're a man, you must be viewed as a potential sex fiend. What rot! Some (anonymous?) military bureaucrat puts his paranoid musings in writing and a fine soldier's career is over! Our tax dollars at work.

From p. 178: "Another reason" (besides Skokie) "for the decline in membership goes to the heart of the ACLU's purpose--the Bill of Rights. People rarely joined...because they loved these constitutional amendments. They joined because they wanted to support Julian Bond or Howard Levy, or because they wanted Richard Nixon impeached. ...For most of us, the humdrum affairs of daily life, the job, the home, the family, are the paramount issues."

This discussion group may be a good example. How many are we--6 or 7 regulars out of a SN membership of thousands? And many of us are retired, with no job to dominate our energies, few family members requiring our direct care, with time to read books and discuss them.

Most Americans don't think about things like free speech because they consider it a given, something guaranteed by American citizenship. I've read that far more Americans can name TV sitcom characters and stars than can name 1 or 2 Justices of the Supreme Court. End of sermon.

Picking a few nits: It's not the Chicago ACLU, as the author repeatedly says on p. 173 and elsewhere. It's the Illinois ACLU, whose offices are in Chicago. And it's not the Chicago University School of Law, it's the University of Chicago Law School. I know 'caused I flunked out. If you're gonna flunk out, flunk from one of the best.

Thank you, Ella, and Rambler!

Have a great time, Ella, and don't worry about the old home front. We will be on our best behaviour, even Robby and Marjorie, right, you guys? And how about you, Mrs. Watson?.

In your post #178, Rambler, you say

"Most Americans don't think about things like free speech because they consider it a given, something guaranteed by American citizenship. I've read that far more Americans can name TV sitcom characters and stars than can name 1 or 2 Justices of the Supreme Court. End of sermon."

This may be true, but I find it incredibly sad. And there's something else. How many of us keep rooting on about the rights of every American, but still have secret doubts about endorsing the same? I'm referring here to the support given by the ACLU to various petitioners whose beliefs may make you cringe, like the artist, for instance, who believes that obscene or inflammatory "religious" paintings should be allowed to be shown on tax-supported public TV? I must admit that in cases like these, I find it very difficult to show support, my personal distaste seems to intrude.

Lorrie

But on the other hand, that's what the Skokie case was all about, wasn't it? No matter how revolting we may think someone else's beliefs may be, that someone else has the Constitutional right to assemble, in a peaceful manner.

Oh yes, but is it politically correct? (A phrase I have learned to detest over the past year or so)

Lorrie

LORRIE: I know the Nazi's had a right to assemble in Evanston. I had a hard time when I heard about that. My uncle was in the Military Government and when the camps were opened up was one of the first soldiers there. Horrible! I don't want to be in a position of tolerating that kind of injustice. At the same time there is the Bill of Rights. It is a dilemma.

Oh, I haven't yet gone, have packing to do tonight. Marjorie, Rambler and Lorrie, I haven't yet re-read the defense of the Nazi party in Skokie, Ill., but I will when I return. Have you noticed how many incidents in Illinois there are in this book and I'm sure that is just happenstance. But first, (lastly, we hope) there is President Nixon and....

The ACLU went political; that was the worry in 1972 when Chuck Morgan told the Union that President Nixon should be impeached. What times we have lived through, what history!

But did you know that in 1971 the Southern California ACLU had called for Nixon's impeachment for his role in the Vietnam War? Whaaaaaaat? Someone tell me, please, why this was considered. Being very aware of all of Nixon's misdeeds, including the wiretaps, the persecutions and prosecutions of people through the various branches of government, the wiretaps, the burglary, I never knew of any violations in respect to the Vietnam War?

"Presidents are teachers…..Truman taught the nation to love the piano, Eisenhower taught Americans to love golf. Nixon was teaching the country to lie and to degrade the Constitution."----Chuck Morgan

And what would Chuck Morgan think succeeding presidents have taught us, particularly the last one? Hahaha

RAMBLER, are you always happy with the way the ACLU spends your money - your dues? Do you have an avenue to express your opinions? For example, buying full page ads in the New York Times, as they did when they wanted to publicize their position on President Nixon. Have they bought such ads in the past decade or so - or how often do they take such drastic actions as that?

I have one more question for someone. Thirteen thousand illegal arrests made in Washington, D.C. in May of 1971? Who made them, who was arrested and why?

Bert Neuborne said The ACLU was perceived as finally being on the side of the majority, which made some of us nervous. I mean I get very nervous when I'm on the side of the majority. Many of us could not take the stress of always being on the side of the minority, could we?

Again, thanks LORRIE for being a pal - I'll be back either Sunday night or Monday morning.

Ella: I am not only happy with the way the ACLU spends my money (dues) (despite a few quibbles), I have given them much more and they are in my Will right after my wife. If she doesn't need it, they get it.

AOL is about to cut me off. Goodbye.

P. 329, "In Defense of American Liberties" (Have to hurry, AOL wants to cut me off. Time for a new ISP!):

"Faced with imminent financial collapse, the board appointed Jay Miller to head an emergency development campaign. Miller was an old ACLU hand. ...The turning point was a fund-raising letter signed by David Goldberger. ...He briefly reviewed the facts of the case in an unemotional manner, asking readers to think of the implications for free speech if the Skokie ordinances were upheld: 'Think of such power in the hands of a racist sh

eriff, or a local police department hostil to antiwar demonstrations, or the wrong kind of president.'

The Goldberger letter, as it came to be known, was a spectacular success...'

Gotta sign off. Big brother doesn't like what I'm sayin'!!!

Marjorie: I do believe that in your post #287 you meant Skokie, not Evanston. Both are Chicago suburbs, but I think Skokie has a more predominately Jewish settlement than Evanston. That's why the whole plan of the KKK to march there was so abhorrent to these people. Many of them were concentration camp survivors.

My brother also saw the horrors. He helpled liberate the Dachau concentration camp, and never did get over what they found there.

Rambler Any luck with your ISP? By the way, do you know to what Ella was referring when she mentioned the 13,000 arrests made in May, 1971? I can't find it. Marjorie?

Lorrie

Lorrie: No, I haven't found anything about the 13,000 arrests Ella refers to.

Ella: Near the end of your #288, you ask if the ACLU has bought full-page ads in the past decade or so. Yes, indeed, and maybe it was you who called our attention to them. Remember the full-pager, in color, about the "rights" of the police to seize money, homes, cars, etc., of people accused of drug crimes? Most full-pagers that I'm aware of appear in the N.Y. Times (Sunday) Magazine or The New Yorker.

"Many of us could not take the stress of always being on the side of the minority, could we?" Well, I suppose I'm in the majority in thinking that lilacs smell good. But I'm not sure I have any political beliefs that the majority shares.

Well, here we are! Ella asked about the time 15,000 people were arrested, mostly innocent, in May 1971 and this is what I found:

ACLU--HISTORY OF NATIONAL CAPITAL AREA AFFILIATE
BY ELINOR HOROWITZ
"From the mid-1960s through the mid-1970s the affiliate did battle regularly in cases related to anti-Vietnam demonstrations. Far the most significant of these was the "Mayday" victory. Over a three day period in May, 1971, close to 15,000 people were arrested, most of whom were innocent of any crime. In a series of ACLU/NCA suits all these arrests were declared unlawful, all arrest records were expunged, the right of people to meet peacefully on the Capitol steps was established, and plaintiffs received millions of dollars in damages. Many of these awards were donated to ACLU."

Lorrie

Rambler:

Wouldn't you say it was sort of an irony that so many significant legal battles of the ACLU were overshadowded by the attention given to that super-patriot, Oliver North? I know that many members were uncomfortable with the amicus brief filed by the Union on North's behalf---many of the members hated North's politics.

How did you feel about this man? And you, Robby? Marjorie?

Lorrie

From "In Defense of American Liberties": "The prosecution's case against North, the ACLU argued, relied on compelled testimony he had given before a congressional investigating committee. Few people, including North himself, recalled that in the early 1950s fanatic anti-Communists, such as North, attempted to gut the Fifth Amendment. North's trial was a reminder of the ACLU adage that 'sooner or later, everyone needs the Bill of Rights'."

I don't have many memories of North and I sure don't think he had many if any memories of the '50s. It was discouraging that his schoolboy good looks, Marine uniform, and Jimmy Stewart pseudo-sincerity (or maybe it wasn't pseudo; maybe he believed his own blather) won the hearts of (I think) a majority of those Americans who paid any attention.

"There I was", he seemed to say, "shredding documents and violating the law because, golly gosh, thems was my orders, and a real patriot follows orders." And the American people seemed to buy that!

Rambler, I fear I must once again play the part of the devil’s advocate. Below is the first paragraph of an article by Sally Kalson that appeared in the Post-Gazette.

Pitt has chance to cover X-rays and its own rear end

”Wednesday, May 23, 2001
”So now it's official. At long last, the University of Pittsburgh will form a committee to study domestic partner benefits for gay and lesbian employees. In return, the American Civil Liberties Union will put its lawsuit on hold while the committee goes about its work”.

What follows are my thoughts.

While I reluctantly recognize it is the right of men and women to enter into the unholy alliance of same sex union, I don’t think they should expect their employer to grant health or other benefits to the partner of this domestic union.

As far as I know the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has not yet licensed this type of union. Further, I don’t believe a “marriage” ceremony is performed by a magistrate, rabbi, minister or priest. So why should Pitt extend benefits to the partner of a union that is not legally or morally sanctioned?

It has been pointed out in this discussion that ACLU membership is not as great as it once was. Well, I can understand why. ACLU’s desire to expunge all mention of one’s god in public meetings, schools and government and now defending the union of gays and lebos to obtain benefits from employers has caused many citizens to rethink the value of belonging to this organization.

I play the part of devil’s advocate because there are a great many of us in this nation who do not agree with all ACLU’s actions. I’m sure there are others reading the post in this discussion who share my thoughts, but are to “shy” to post what they have to say. However, for me, “shyness” was never a restraint and shouldn’t be for others who do not agree with ACLU in all matters

Bill H

Bill says:--"While I reluctantly recognize it is the right of men and women to enter into the unholy alliance of same sex union, I don’t think they should expect their employer to grant health or other benefits to the partner of this domestic union."

To me, those two phrases conflict. "Unholy" is your adjective so I'll bypass that. If it is a domestic union, then they are entitled to benefits. If they are not entitled to benefits, then you are not recognzing it as a domestic union.

One can't be on both sides of the fence simultaneously.

Robby

Bill H: Devil's advocates are always welcome, especially by ACLU types.

As I and maybe others have mentioned here, I don't think the ACLU aspires to become a large organization, nor should it. Certainly such an aspiration would be unrealistic, simply because most Americans, to the extent they think of the Bill of Rights at all, take the Bill as a given that comes with American citizenship.

And many cases argued by the ACLU strike many Americans as extreme or arcane. So be it. The organization does, however, have one hell of a batting average.

Bill:
Hi, there! No,no, it's your perogative to express your feelings on this particular subject, and we welcome your point of view! Of course not everyone thinks the ACLU is sacrosanct, and I personally disagree strongly with many of the actions it has taken in the past.

But I would not like to live in a country where there was no guardian of the hard-fought Bill of Rights we have, and I keep thinking of Voltaire's words,"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Lorrie

Ella inquired recently about this topic. See posts (at this site) #111 through #115, especially the last.

Rambler

Your description of Oliver North had me laughing out loud. I never could understand how the American people could swallow all that, either!

When Bush was campaigning against Dukakis for the presidential seat, it was surprising to even a group of Republican how vehement the attack became on Dukakis' liberal tendencies. This is where the slogan came from "a card-carrying member of the ACLU" as though it were something loathsome. They attacked the Union in every state, and members were forced to apologize for belonging to an organization whose sole purpose was to defend the Bill of Rights. page 192-193

Lorrie

NPR's Fresh Aire will have a memorial today for Susannah McKorkle; interviews from their archives with the singer and her husband, songs, etc.

Lorrie: Richard Thornburgh "essentially apologized" for serving on an ACLU board, which was craven groveling in my opinion. I didn't notice anybody apologizing for holding ACLU membership. They are decidedly not an apologetic bunch. Feisty is more like it.

I liked the last sentences on p. 195: "George Buxh was our most successful membership recruiter," said Ira Glasser. "We got nearly sixty thousand new people spontaneously joining the ACLU, to become card-carrying members, within three months of Bush's attack."

(My thought there is that 60,000 may be a nice percentage jump in the ACLU's membership, but in a country of 270,000,000, it's pretty trifling.)

Mrs. Watson:

Thanks for the tip. Now if I can make some phone calls and find out just what number our area is for NPR. It shouldn't be hard to find, I usually just listen for some decent music. Haha (Incidentally, every time I read your posts I want to say, "Elementary, my dear Mrs. Watson!")

I hope I'm not pushing Ella's agenda here, but I wanted to ask you people how you felt about the "rights" of people who are trapped in low-income housing, dangerous housing, and are subject to periodic searches to eliminate drug pushers and other criminals. On page 197-199 there is talk of the Chicago Housing Sweeps. An outspoken community activist, Father George Clements, said this:

"People in public housing are not saying that they want to just give up their right to privacy and let people tramp all over their Forth Amendment rights. We're not saying that at all. What we're saying is if you're living in dangerous housing, and if you get killed, what good was the Fourth Amendment? And the ACLU doesn't seem to care about that."

-----------------Father George Clements

Lorrie

Not too long ago I saw a segment on "LAW AND ORDER", (one of the few TV programs I watch)in which the homicide detectives found some crucial evidence for a murder investigation in one of the suspect's "home," a cardboard box sitting under a tree in Central Park. Anyhow, the "evidence" was thrown out of court----it was inadmissable because the investigating officers didn't have a search warrant, said the judge. I found that very interesting, and the arguments put forth by both the prosecutor and the defense team.

Now that's interesting. Does that mean that if I have a teenage son who builds a tree-house and furnishes it, that I do not have the right to search that tree-house to see if he has drugs or other stuff, simply because that is his "home?"

Lorrie

Lorrie: I'm trying to listen to NPR's program on Susannah McCorkle while reading these posts. In answer to your "treehouse" comments, all that comes to mind is this: If the treehouse is on your property and the boy is your son, you have every right to search all you like.

But if you're a cop and it's not your property or your son, a search warrant is necessary. Now back to Susannah. I can't do two things at once when they demand this level of attention.

If you don't have a search warrant, you're just up a tree.

Robby

Robby says”To me, those two phrases conflict. "Unholy" is your adjective so I'll bypass that. If it is a domestic union, then they are entitled to benefits.”

I’ll change “domestic union” so I can stick with “unholy alliance”

”If you don't have a search warrant, you're just up a tree”

Robby, not necessarily. In some cases, if police believe an emergency search is needed to determine if a victim is being illegally detained as in kidnapping etc. and there is no time to obtain a warrant then the search may proceed with out a warrant for the well being of the victim. These cases are well spelled out in the search and seizure codes of the law. It is best to leave quotes like the one you posted to those who are well schooled in this and have a better understanding of law enforcement, otherwise we may confuse our readers into thinking what we say is a hard and fast rule.

Bill H

Sometimes I joke with a straight face.

Robby

This is a toughie. Racists, real estate interests and lots of others wanted to keep Chicago black folks confined, to keep them from spreading to white areas and from "driving down property values", as the term went and still goes. So the "powers that be" devised places like Robert Taylor Homes--12-story towers where you couldn't get to your apartment except by (if operative) elevators or dangerous stairwells. This put those towers and stairwells in full control of gangs and drug dealers. As Rev. Clements says on p. 197, what good is the 4th amendment there?

Robby: And I'll bet your tongue was firmly inyour cheek.

I've got a post, The Spirit of Liberty, by the late Judge Learned Hand that AOL surely won't allow because it takes maybe 8 minutes to type. So I'll try it tomorrow when big brother is more tolerant. Help! I need a new ISP!!!

Oh, what the hell, I'll give it a go. Learned Hand was a wonderfully respected federal judge, who should have been on the Supreme Court and who said this (now considered a chestnut) in a 1944 address (it was quoted in part by Christie Hefner at the Jay Miller retirement dinner I mentioned awhile back), : "Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it; no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it. While it lies there it needs no constitution, no law, no court to save it."

Jay Miller got up and said, in effect, "With all due respects to Christie, I think that, when you've got a good case, sue the bastards!"

In that light, the book titles "Defending Everybody" and "In Defense of American Liberties" seem a little odd. Often, the ACLU, in supposed "defense", was on the attack.

Lorrie, I received your e-mail. would love to join discussion. However, I don't really know much about ACLU other than the little I have read about that organization. I have received a few tenders of membership from them. I live in Western Washington's "Red-Neck" country. Very Conservative here. Which is strange since this is a very Blue Collar Worker area. Non-the-less this is Ronnie Reagan country. So, I must needs, to live peacfully, be a bit circumspect. I had subscribed to political Magazines ranging from the far-left, liberal, moderate, center right, and far right. Some one at the post office was short stopping the two left most magazines. I couldn't prove it so I let it go. But, I doubt if becoming a member of the ACLU which is regarded as a "Commie, Pinko, Fellow-travelling, leftist organization around here is really a good idea. But willing to learn about it and will try to contribute if I can.

"Abortion foes suffer rare loss in House. Legislators defeat parental notice bill." (This is the Illinois house.) Two quotes in the story attracted my attention. The bill's sponsor says, "I think the House...has gotten a lot more moderate and I think that vote shows it...". From the context, it's clear that he regrets the trend toward moderation. Sometime in the past 10-15 years, "liberal" became a pejorative term. Now it seems that "moderate" may be becoming one!

Colleen Connell, executive director of the Illinois ACLU, is quoted as saying, "When you play from the right, at a certain point...you get punished by the reality that most of America is in the middle".

TIGER TOM! Yea, you made it! Good to hear from you! I laughed when you described where you live, at times you must feel like a voice crying in the wilderness, but I must say I enjoy your even-handed statements. What is your perception of the way ACLU conducts its business? As you can see, we get various opinions on this.

Rambler, That was a good point about the tendency of the ACLU to attack, rather than "defend," so to speak. On the other hand, what other recourse do they have, except to bring suit (attack) against the offending parties?

p.s. I think I would like Jay Miller, were I to meet him today!

Lorrie

Lorrie, As I said I don't know that much about the ACLU other that what I have read in magazines and Newspapers. I have spent 30 some years living overseas in various countries so much of my view of the U.S. is from long distance. You would be surprised at how patriotic one becomes living in other countries under different political systms. Then to come back, live a few years in this country, and be surprised to find the country and political system you had been so proud of and telling everyone who would listen all about, had completely changed. It has you know, but I think that one has to live away from it for some years to appreciate the magnitude of the change. However, I am sure that this discussion group will enlighten me.

Tiger Tom: Yes, I remember when my sister came home from having lived in various countries for over 20 years, the first thing she said she was grateful for was the dependable plumbing we have in the USA! Not much of a patriot was she, I'm afraid! And that was back in the days when the plumbing was more dependable.

Rambler: We lived in the Chicago area during the time the Cabrini Green housing was such a dangerous place, and I can tell you that the conditions there were horrible. Not that I was ever physically near there, it was like a no-man's land for people of another color. So I can assume that lofty ideals like The ACLU encouraged seemed out of place to those residents. I have no idea if conditions there have changed---this was some years back. I hope so.

Lorrie

I know this will be a quiet weekend for some of you posters, but it would still be nice to hear your comments about this particular organization, one which I think too many of us take for granted.

I am sure Ella would want us to move on, so I think it's safe to say we can go on to the last chapter before she calls for a general rerun.

Rambler, I notice that you quote quite often from "In Defense of American Liberties." Do you consider this to be a better book, actually, than this one by Diane Geary?

Lorrie

QUIET -- YOU SAY??!!

Well, yes, there are some corners here on the Books and Literature pages where lurk some of the finest minds of our whole Senior group. Highly intelligent, inquiring, professional, sensitive minds, unlike some of our rowdy neighbors!

Lorrie

Lorrie: I think Cabrini-Green, Robert Taylor Homes and similar high-rise hellholes are being torn down. Everybody seems to agree they were a big mistake--including the police, who were sometimes the objects of target-practice from some of the hundreds of windows. The "projects", as they are commonly called, will be replaced by dwellings of more normal height and supposedly with more greenery and recreational areas.

"In Defense of American Liberties", mentioned on p. 217 of our book, is close to twice as long as the latter. Given its length and detail, I don't think an SN discussion of it could be sustained. Readers would either decline to start or wouldn't last long. Let's face it, there's little or no romance, sex, humor, or derring-do in a history of the ACLU. There IS a lot of courage, which I think Samuel Johnson (author of essays called The Rambler) once called the first among virtues. (His point was that, without courage, you may not be able to bring forth any other virtues you might have.)

I'm not sure that even I, a long-time ACLU-er, have ever read "In Defense..." cover to cover.

I really think the last chapter, only 7 pages long, is a shoddy piece of work. It's a scriptwriter's effort to wrap things up fast, in a simplistic way.

For purposes of dramatic contrast or whatever, she dredges up Roger Conner, hardly heard from since pages 11-15, and Stanley Fish, not heard from since pages 11-14, 107, 180, regarding "Sticks and stones will break my bones". The point is worth making--but why take so long to make it?

p. 212. "...the ACLU is probably the most powerful legal organization in America. With 250,000 members" (powerful, at 20 bucks each?), "it now takes on some 6,000 cases" (irrelevant, in my view) "a year. One of the great misconceptions that the ACLU has about itself," said Roger Conner, "is that they're David versus Goliath. Quite the opposite is true."

(I'd better post this before AOL cuts me off, then get back).

More from Conner: "The ACLU comes into these battles with lawyers" (what a nerve! they should come with astronauts?), "briefs" (their opponents file Hallmark cards?), "and an enormous amount of money" (compared to the resources of what city, county, state? This guy is in dreamland). "Their opponent is usually a small-town lawyer" (with a nice retainer or whatever) "who works part time for the city." (And hopes for publicity that will generate lots of business.) "The ACLU is Goliath" (yeah, right).

rambler: There are lots of isp's around. Have you tried Yahoo Chicago? (I assume that you live in that area.) That's what I do when I want to find something, even here at home. Yahoo has sites for most localities. I see where AOL just raised its price. I hope that does not create a trend!

Rambler: Yes, that chapter does seem a bit abrupt, doesn't it? However, it doesn't detract from the fact that this is an enlightening book to read.

Apropos of the ACLU, has anyone read anything about "Carnivore?" That subject came up in some of my reading, and I must say the thought of Big Brother peering over my shoulder at my computer sort of dismays me. Read this and tell us what you think:

CARNIVORE

or

LAW NEEDS CARNIVORE FIX

Lorrie

I have a problem with both Roger Conner and Stanley Fish, quoted at the beginning of the book (p. 11) and at the end (p. 212-215), and not often in-between.

I'm intrigued by the fact that neither name appears in the scholarly "In Defense of American Liberties". But that book is 11 years old. Maybe these are younger guys?

Conner is with something called the "Center for the Community Interest". I am not sufficiently adept at web-surfing to learn anything about that organization, which I have never heard of. Maybe others at this site can help?

Fish, described as a professor of English and Law, comes up with this on p. 215: "The ACLU is profoundly anti-democratic. It does not trust Americans to elect people who will do the right kind of regulating. It distrusts the democratic process". I would hope that statement was taken out of context. To cite one example, the First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law...". It doesn't say, "unless the majority wants such a law". It says NO law, period. As the women's movement has memorably reminded us (regarding date rape, etc.), "What part of 'no' don't you understand?". I wouldn't think this question would present a challenge to a professor of English and law.

If Conner, Fish, or our author are lurking here, perhaps they can enlighten us.

Rambler:

Those names sort of intrigued me, and I did a little searching. Here is a short blurb from their newsletter:

"The Center for the Community Interest (CCI) is a national organization that serves as a voice for the community on crime and quality-of-life issues. CCI is the common sense counter to the ACLU -- without going to the other extreme. CCI supports common sense policies that strike a balance between rights and responsibilities, and defends those policies when civil liberties demands are carried to unreasonable extremes that hurt or endanger others, or erode our shared quality-of-life."

And here are some links concerning Roger Conner. Apparetly he is well-funded, and has even appeared before the House, but the latest I could find was in 1997, although I'm sure there are later reports.

Roger Conner--Center for the Cmmunity Interest or About Roger Conner

Appearance before the House

Then there's Professor Fish. This is a pretty revealing "diary" about him: DIARY

Also, there's a fairly lengthy critique of Professor Fish from the American Political Science Review, Dec. '99:

ARTICLE

Gol-lee!!You folks are through with the book? And I'm still on Chapter 12 or the Skokie case and the National Socialist Party of America. But I've read all your posts and marvel at how interesting your discussion has been, and I particularly want to thank LORRIEfor stepping in while I was out of town.

I've just unpacked and ready to join in the fray! Thank you all for your participation.

Would you believe what I heard last night on TV? Do any of you watch Book Notes on Sunday evening - C-SPAN 2 I believe it is with Brian Lamb? I never miss it if it is at all possible, and last night Diane McWhorter was interviewed about a book she just published entitled CARRY ME HOME. It is the history of Birmingham, Alabama with particular emphasis on the 16th Street Baptist Church and the bombing of it during 1963. She comes from an influential family in that city which has been there for generations and has some fascinating insights into the racial problems; not only in Alabama but in the south a they pertain to labor, to unions, to whites, and to the black population.

The book is on my list to read, of course, but I had to tell you that she mentioned CHUCK MORGAN during the interview. He was a friend of her fathers, although I can hardly credit that after listening to the racist's views of her father; however Chuck Morgan is living and retired in Florida and I'd love to visit him, wouldn't you?

LORRIE asked where the reference in the book was to the 13,000 people arrested in Washington by President Nixon. Look on page 170 and that fact was listed in the full-page ad that the ACLU placed in the New York Times, together with other offenses committed by the President.

My question here is whether the ACLU is too eager to "attack," rather than just to defend? Is it in their By-Laws? RAMBLERdo you, as a member, have access to their By-Laws? It would be interesting to read them wouldn't it?

Here is a statement made by Ira Glasser, current president (????), which is a short history of the organization: (notice the Internet reference)

In 1925, we persuaded the U.S. Supreme Court that the First Amendment applied to the states as well as the federal government. Today, we are persuading state and federal courts throughout the country that the First Amendment applies to the Internet. In 1929, the ACLU defended Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, when she was banned from giving a speech about birth control. Today, we are struggling to protect women's right to reproductive freedom against a lavishly funded anti-choice movement. In 1935, the ACLU successfully overturned the murder conviction of one of the "Scottsboro boys" on the grounds that blacks were systematically excluded from Alabama juries. Today, we are exposing, through litigation and public education, the pervasive problem of racial profiling, or "driving while black or brown."

More later when I feel more organized and have reviewed the last remaining chapters of the book.

WELCOME TIGER TOM!

Ella: Welcome back!

Do you know, or can you find out, where in Florida Chuck Morgan retired to?

Nadine Strossen, a law prof at N.Y.U., is president of the ACLU. Glasser, who has announced his retirement, is/was executive director. In the national ACLU, and I suspect local branches, the president is a kind of spokesperson/p.r. specialist and the executive director runs the show. Strossen is attractive, very bright and articulate, and "sexy" (Christie Hefner's term in speaking of Strossen's many good qualities at the aforementioned retirement dinner).

I'll inquire about ACLU by-laws. Offhand, I would doubt that by-laws determine whether or not the ACLU takes up a case.

Lorrie: Congratulations on a hosting job well done. And thank you for the info on Connor and Fish. I have a neighbor who is retired from the faculty of the U. of I.-Chicago. I'll ask her what she thinks or knows about Fish.

I don't know where, Rambler, I would get the address of Chuck Morgan unless it is in the "Carry Me Home" book, which I doubt. I had forgotten how he ended his association with the ACLU until I reviewed Chapter 12 wherein Morgan was asked to "inhibit" his remarks and was asked to take steps to separate his views from those of the ACLU. Morgan answered that the step he would take was to resign from the Union.

When asked how to control Chuck Morgan, a board member said "with difficulty," - a story reminiscent of what President Teddy Roosevelt said when asked to control his daughter's behavior. He said I can only do one of two things; run the country or control my daughter. Haha His daughter, Alice Roosevelt Longworth, was for a very long time the "talk" of Washington, D.C.

The Enduring Battles Over Separation of Church and State

That is, in part, the heading for Chapter 13 and I emphasized it for the simple reason that the battle goes on and endures from one decade to another. When we have presidents spouting words that negatively impact on the Bill of Rights of our Constitution, then there will always be a need for the American Civil Liberties Union.

Let me quote President Ronald Reagan in 1980, who said of evolution:

It is not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was believed. But if it is going to be taught in the schools, then I think the Biblical theory of creation should also be taught.

Had not this president, himself an actor, never heard of the Scopes trial or seen the film "Inherit the Wind?"

And we have President Bush, the Elder, attacking a political appointee for belonging to the ACLU which is "an organization out in deep left field…..does not reflect Texas values….or Kentucky values……" An organization that hopes to strip the Catholic Church of its tax exemption and repeal kiddie porn laws."

As Molly Ivins, syndicated columnist, said, "I can remember just sitting there with horror and with sorrow, that being accused of being a supporter of the Bill of Rights could be used against you in a political race."

Amen, Molly!

As we finish up the book, may I ask if you enjoyed it? Did you learn anything new about the ACLU?

ELLA!

Welcome back! We have sorely missed you, and I don't know what I would have done without Rambler, here, and of course Bill, Robby, Mrs. Watson, and anyone else who came in, even briefly.

There's a question I wanted to ask you, Rambler:I sort of became interested in what Roger Conner and his Center for the Community Interest group had to say, and I wondered what were the relations between Conner and the rest of the higher-ups at ACLU? Was there a difference of opinion there? Or is his CCI another branch of the main ACLU?

Will have more comments on your post, Ella, as soon as I get some thoughts together. It's so good to have you back.

Lorrie

I would guess that the majority of people across the nation -- even those born here -- do not even know what the Bill of Rights means. They not only do not know that this represents the first ten amendments to the Constitution, but they have never read the Constitution (Never mind the Declaration of Independence).

I fault the schools for this. When I was young, we had "Civics" classes -- the high school level of what in college is called Political Science. We grew up knowing at least a little about the Constitution, its creation, and its meaning.

Of course many folks are against supporters of the Bill of Rights. They have no idea that what they are against is the firm Law of the Land.

Robby

I am surprised and a bit ashamed to say that, before reading this book, I don't recall hearing of Chuck Morgan. As Jay Miller says (p. 145), "Chuck Morgan really brought the South to us". Too bad that Morgan and the ACLU had a falling out, but if Morgan (as described somewhere in the book) weighed about 300 pounds, maybe it's better that he's retired and living in Florida. That may have given him a few extra years.

In an effort to answer some questions raised here, I will contact my spies at the local ACLU.

Isn't it great to have somebody in here who has "connections?" hahaha

Robby:

I couldn't agree more about faulting the schools, and your mention of Civics classes brought back memories of how we were taught the importance of elected officials to represent us, the wonderful wording of both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the stirring Declaration of Independence, the whole bit. When I was in high school, our civics classes were scheduled right after our American History classes, and they ran together in a fitting way. I never forgot, even when I had more sophisticated "political science" stuff in college. I wonder if today's youth feels the same.

Lorrie

Rambler: I think there are some points in this book that could have been gone into a little more deeply, yes. I, too, would have liked to read more about Chuck Morgan, who seems to have been a pretty colorful character, or Roger Conner, who is quoted so often in the book. I don't usually like non-fiction, but I must admit that to me this book has been a real eye-opener. Like so many people, I've always taken the Bill of Rights for granted.

Have any of you ever heard of the Jay Paul case? I came across this while looking up something, and this John H. Rees, of the Maldon Institute, sounds like a really sinister character: Police officials in Los Angeles disclosed that a detective with the "public-disorder intelligence division" had leaked information to a private intelligence organization called Western Goals, whose editor was John H. Rees. The police officer, Detective Paul Jay, had a $30,000 contract with Western Goals to create a data bank of suspected Communists and left-wing groups.

The American Civil Liberties Union sued Western Goals in 1984 and won a court order forbidding it to disseminate the information.

Undeterred, Rees, in 1985, founded the Maldon Institute - the most polished undertaking of his long career. While the ACLU and others criticized him in those years, he also forged the relationship with the arch-conservative Scaife and met with President Reagan, as memorialized in photographs in Rees' home.

The institute, named after an obscure English battle, publishes 10 bound monographs a year and a twice-monthly newsletter called Early Warning.

Its board has been made up of conservative journalists, clergy and lawyers. A board chairman in the early 1990s, Michael G. Flanagan, pleaded guilty in 1996 to grand larceny and was sent to prison after the Manhattan District Attorney's Office charged him with stealing $1million from clients in his private practice." There is an even more compelling article about this man Rees in an issue of the Philadephia Inquirer, Oct. 26, 2000:

INQUIRER ARTICLE

Lorrie

No, Lorrie, never heard of him - another "crazy that came out of the woodwork" - and some will take him seriously, as they have others most notably Joseph McCarthy. You've never said what the folks in Wisconsin had to say when their down home "hero" McCarthy was discredited?

While you are getting information from your "spies in the ACLU,"Rambler, will you ask if there any many minorities, e.g., blacks, hispanics, asians, in positions of power within any of the branches of the ACLU. Somewhere in the last two chapters I read the statement that it is a "white" organization that cannot possibly understand the plight of the minority population of the country. Certainly, the ACLU uses minority attorneys when possible, don't they?

Ella: The new head of the Philadelpha ACLU is a black former policewoman. One of the biggies in New York or national is a gay hispanic. But yes, minorities are relatively rare among ACLU membership. That's kind of odd, since they are the ones whose rights are most often violated.

The Southern Poverty Law Center, in Birmingham, Ala., does a great deal to battle hate groups in court. They've won judgments against the Klan in the south and the Aryan Nation (or whatever it's called) in Idaho. In some cases, to satisfy the judgment, the hate group has to sell its property or give it to those whose rights they've violated. I'll try to make this clickable:

http://www.tolerance.org

What a neat site, Rambler!

Equality is an unfinished dream! Yes, indeed!

Hey, you must have copied and pasted that in here, didn't you? How else - Congratulations on a skill learned!

Wonderful site, Rambler!

This will probably sound very trite, but I truly have enjoyed this discussion. I'm only sorry we didn't have a few more posters, because I found this subject matter really interesting. I've become more aware of how tenuous our hold on that precious Bill of Rights is, and of how many what I consider sinister groups there are out there who would like to weaken them.

Ella, as usual, you are a charming and to-the-point Discussion Leader, and again as usual, I enjoy posting with you.

Rambler,

it has been a real treat to have had you as such an active participant and I really hope that this will not be the last time we see you in another discussion. It was so helpful to have someone come in here who seems to be aware of the in's and out's. "A real, card-carryin' member," at that!

Lorrie

Okay, Kids, what am I gonna do? I have received another invitation to become a member of the ACLU. In this area becoming a member of the ACLU could be hazardous to one's health. Does the ACLU have a web site or e-mail address so as I can ask them if I would be the ONLY member if my area if I took out membership? I know we have to stand up and be counted, but I hate to be the only one standing in my area. HELP

Tiger Tom: I'm sure the ACLU has a website that very likely contains an e-mail address. But I have to throw out a lot of publications from them (and other outfits) or there would be no place for me to live. I'll get back to you, either at this site or by e-mail.

Ella, Lorrie: Thanks so much for you kind words both to me and others.

Nope, never learned to copy and paste--and I'm about to pay the price (lots of typing below). I'm able to do it on other machines, so I think it may be that my iMac is defective.

Okay, here are comments received from a friend at the local ACLU, verbatim:

I have attached an article from the ACLU pressroom on Roger Connor. I could not find any press releases mentioning Stanley Fish but do know that Nadine Strossen has debated him.

As to your question about case selection at the national and local levels, that is determined by the ACLU policy guide plus the resources of each affiliate.

Here's the item about Roger Connor that the ACLU National issued several years ago:

June 2, 1997: ACLU Under Fire Again

NEW YORK - When Roger Conner was in law school 25 years ago, the Boston Globe reports, he believed "that the Constitution was the Bible and the ACLU was the pope". These days, the paper says, "Conner still likes the Constitution but he spends his working hours waging war on the American Civil Liberties Union.

(Before all this typing gets wiped out by some AOL or other glitch, I will post and then resume.)

"It's nothing new, the Globe says, for the ACLU to come under attack. This is the organization, after all, that defends the rights of blacks to vote in the South, the rights of extremist political parties to hold rallies, the rights of publishers to disseminate erotic material.

The ACLU's new critics applaud these earlier campaigns, but contend that the organization's leaders have lost sight of its main goals. Conner, the head of the Center for the Community Interest, calls the ACLU's leaders "fundamentalists". Columnist Nat Hentoff says they have "a bunker mentality". And Laurence Tribe, a professor at Harvard Law School, who usually sides with the ACLU, told the Globe that the organization at times turns its values into a "fetish" with "destructive" results.

Some of the cases that the Globe says have prompted this criticism:
--In Cambridge, Mass., the ACLU persuaded the state's highest court to strike down a law that banned panhandling, arguing that begging is protected by the First Amendment's free speech guarantees.
--In Seattle and in Berkeley and Santa Cruz, Cal., statutes outlawed sitting or lying on public sidewalks during business hours and the ACLU filed lawsuits against them.
--In San Jose, the City Council invoked a "public nuisance" law to bar gang members from hanging out on street corners or carrying beepers. The ACLU argued the law violated the constitutional right to assemble.

The Globe spoke with the ACLU's national Legal Director, Steve Shapiro, who disagreed with the group's newest critics and insisted that the ACLU's current actions are consistent with its 77-year history. (Again, I will post to avoid losing all this typing.)

"This is only the latest chapter of an enduring debate that's as old as the Constitution itself," he said. "When people tried to kick out Jehovah's Witnesses in the 1930s, or when they banned certain kinds of books, they thought they were protecting community values. The principles today are no different from the principles back then."

Speaking of the case in San Jose, Shapiro told the Globe: "If gang members are engaged in criminal behavior or criminal conspiracies, they ought to be arrested, but you have to establish this fact for each individual. There are certain shortcuts that the government ought not be allowed to take.

"The state cannot says, 'You are hanging around with a gang that we think is intending to commit a crime, so we're arresting you.' That's no different from what the government did in going after people in the Communist Party in the '50s.

Even the new critics told the Globe that the ACLU serves a vital purpose. "Even when I find myself disagreeing with some specific position of the ACLU," Professor Tribe said, "I think it's important that there be an institutional voice that articulates its point of view--to make sure that the courts do decide where to draw the line between claims of community cohesion, on the one hand, and claims of dissidents and lonely voices and the downtrodden, on the other hand.

"It would be a great shame if they were any less vigilant," Tribe said.

An article in this morning’s paper contained the following by Chief Justice Rehnquist of the US Supreme Court

"Indeed, a carving of Moses holding the Ten Commandments, surrounded by representations of other historical legal figures, adorns the frieze on the south wall of our courtroom."
The carving "signals respect not for great proselytizers but for great lawgivers," Rehnquist wrote.

Even in the hallowed halls of the Suprems.

Bill H

Tiger Tom: This seems to work: http://www.aclu.org

This also. (Didn't you say you were in Washington state?) http://www.aclu-wa.org

Rambler, thanks for the clickable's. I have clicked on the WA and bookmarked it. Will see what info I can develope.

...and the debate goes on!

In our morning newspaper, a granite version of the Ten Commandments remains unconstitutional at a city building in Elkhart, Indiana due to a Supreme Court decision. The high court declined yesterday to accept an appeal by Elkhart, Indiana officials and now a federal judge will determine what to do with the 6' high monument, which has stood outside the city building since 1958.

The Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State said, "Eventually, opponents of church-state separation will learn that the law is not on their side."

Three of the Justices filed dissents stating that the Elkhart display did not conflict with the high court's ruling in 1980 that struck down a state statute requiring the posting of the Ten Commandments in public school rooms. The Justices were Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas, and, as Bill stated above, there is a frieze on the south wall of their courtoom featuring a carving of Moses holding the Ten Commandments.

Hey, guys, we could keep this discussion going forever, couldn't we?

TIGER TOM! Nice to have known you briefly; perhaps we'll meet again and I'll remember you as another "card-carrying member of the ACLU." Hahaha!

My thanks all of you who have participated in this book discussion and many of us have a clearer idea of the ACLU, its history, its founder and its goals. Whether we agree or not, we have met to debate the issues and that is a good thing in America!

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.

I’m sorry to be such a wet blanket, but I just think the readers should know about all the laws the ACLU has initiated.

Controversy dogs laws on privacy

Thursday, May 31, 2001
By Ann McFeatters, Post-Gazette National Bureau
WASHINGTON -- "Two laws and dozens of regulations have been approved in the past few years aimed at protecting children from the dangers of the Internet. A number of them are dogged by lawsuits that suggest they violate the First Amendment guarantee of free speech.
The American Library Association and the American Civil Liberties Union have sued to block the Children's Internet Protection Act, which went into effect in April and requires libraries that receive federal funds (virtually all of them) to put anti-pornography filters on computers accessible to children under rules published by the Federal Communications Commission.
The two groups argue that available screening software is too broad and blocks such Web pages as the home page of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and a Disney map of the world. The groups also say the law discriminates against the poor who cannot afford home computers.
Supporters of the law say it is a narrowly targeted and constitutional effort to protect children, and they point to other federal laws that threaten the withholding of federal funds in order to coerce enforcment, such as those requiring states to enforce seat-belt laws and drunk-driving standards.
Librarians say they can't monitor all the Web sites children launch and that many libraries already rescind library cards or computer privileges for children who violate prohibitions on viewing online pornography.
Protecting children from sexual predators through chat rooms and e-mail is an equally difficult task that legislators are not certain how to stop except through education campaigns. Increasingly, children are warned in school never to give out personal information over the Internet and never to arrange to meet someone they've connected with over the Internet without parental approval and involvement.
The Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, which restricts what information Web site operators may obtain from children under 13, took effect in April 2000. The Federal Trade Commission, which enforces the law, last month fined three commercial sites $100,000 for violating the rules -- Monarch Services Inc., BigMailBox.com Inc. and LookSmart Ltd. The FTC said they illegally collected names, addresses and telephone numbers from children through advice columns, free articles and free e-mail.
As a result of the law, some companies now ask for a parent's credit card information before allowing a child under 13 to participate in an interactive event. They don't levy charges against the card; they just use it to help ensure children have their parents' permission"

Hey, what the heck, let the good times roll, after all, the kids are very interested in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. And so are the poor kids. )

Bill H