ACLU Asks Court To Strike Down Arkans...

ACLU Asks Court To Strike Down Arkansas Parenting Ban

There are 3390 comments on the www.acluarkansas.org story from Jan 20, 2009, titled ACLU Asks Court To Strike Down Arkansas Parenting Ban. In it, www.acluarkansas.org reports that:

"Over A Dozen Families Affected By Act 1 Step Forward To File Lawsuit"

The American Civil Liberties Union [a few weeks ago] filed a lawsuit seeking to strike down a new law that bans any unmarried person who lives with a partner from serving as an adoptive or foster parent in the state of Arkansas.

A link to the entire press release by the ACLU of Arkansas is attached -- and from that press release there is links to other interesting information including biographies of the plaintiff families.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.acluarkansas.org.

Since: Aug 08

Lake Charles, LA

#21 Jan 20, 2009
What- wrote:
Laws even come directly from the Executive branch such as the governor and president (in the form of administrative regulations)
Those aren't laws, they are regulations. Big difference. And most of the time, regulations must be in accordance with legislative statutes (laws).
-- and the governor or president has the sole authority to take it upon himself or herself to veto (strike down) something voted in by the House and Henate of either a state or the U.S. as Governors and Presidents have to approve laws created by the legislatures.
Executive power does contain veto power, but only within a short window of opportunity. Neither presidents nor governors can veto old legislation. And their vetoes are subject to override by the legislative branch of government.
And the Courts interpret rules created by the legislative and executive branches -- and if it determines that a rule does not meet constitutional requirements it can invalidate a law.
Courts determine whether acts of congress or administrative regulations are in accordance with the constitution only when challenged.
And the Courts can also (and have always been able to) create law itself
Bullshit. Unfortunately some courts have usurped such authority, but they certainly don't lawfully hold power to legislate.
-- this is called the "Common Law" system which we have had since the countries founding...in fact we brought all English "common law" (court-made law) with us from England and adopted it...
More bullshit. Common law is not court-made law. It is natural law that exists apart from and predates government.
...although courts are empowered to make these laws, leglislatures can chage or abolished those laws as long as the legislation is consitutional...
Courts are not empowered to make laws, nor does the legislature have the power to alter or abolish court decisions.

You are in serious need of some basic civics lessons. It's been a long, long time since I saw so much bullshit being bandied about as fact.

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#22 Jan 20, 2009
First of all I want to say that you are just wrong about much of what you said "America 1st."
America 1st wrote:
<quoted text>
Those aren't laws, they are regulations. Big difference. And most of the time, regulations must be in accordance with legislative statutes (laws).
I said myself that those are administrative regulations -- and any law book will tell you that those administrative regulations are a source of law (executive orders, ect., are law). And those administrative regulations ought to be in accordance with lots of things (including the Constitution -- and that is for the Courts to decide).
America 1st wrote:
<quoted text>
Executive power does contain veto power, but only within a short window of opportunity. Neither presidents nor governors can veto old legislation. And their vetoes are subject to override by the legislative branch of government.
Who are you arguing with in this statement?

You aren't countering anything that I said.

And that override by the legislature that you speak of (which I never disputed) requires a super-majority.

And the Courts have the power to strike any of it down (and if the legislature or popular vote passes it again the Courts have the authority to continue to strike it down over and over and over).
America 1st wrote:
<quoted text>
Courts determine whether acts of congress or administrative regulations are in accordance with the constitution only when challenged.
Again -- who are you arguing with in this statement?

It doesn't counter anything that I have said.

And anyone has the power to bring suit to challenge such things as they see fit(and then the Court decides).
America 1st wrote:
<quoted text>
Bullshit. Unfortunately some courts have usurped such authority, but they certainly don't lawfully hold power to legislate.
I will cite you a paragraph from a law school textbook:

--"The judicial branch is the source of court opinions. Courts interpret rules created by the legislative and executive branches of government. If a court determines that a rule does not meet constitutional requirements, it can invalidate the rule. Otherwise, however, the court must aply the rule to the case before it. Court opinions can also be an independent source of legal rules. Legal rules mede by courts are called 'common law' rules. Although courts are empowered to make these rules, legislatures can adopt legislation that changes or abolishes a common-law rules, as long as the legislation is constitutional."--
America 1st wrote:
<quoted text>
More bullshit. Common law is not court-made law. It is natural law that exists apart from and predates government.
You don't understand what the common law system is. You should google it or something and pick a reputable site to read.

And the paragraph quoted above from a law school textbook briefly references it.
America 1st wrote:
<quoted text>
Courts are not empowered to make laws, nor does the legislature have the power to alter or abolish court decisions.
You are in serious need of some basic civics lessons. It's been a long, long time since I saw so much bullshit being bandied about as fact.
You just do not understand the legal system. The courts are empowered to make laws and the legislature is empowered to to create legislation that changes or abolishes those laws (as long as that legislation is constitutional).

You say that your information is "fact" and that what I am saying "crap" -- but where are you getting your information?

I am at a law school...
Uh Yeah

Blytheville, AR

#23 Jan 20, 2009
That is true..Jefferson did not like to talk about his religion in public, he even wrote to his nephew "Question with boldness even the existence of God; because if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear" yet his belief in a Supreme Being was deep..but moving past that..the 1st amendment section on religion was the creation of a universal religion, not the removal of it from schools and government...the ACLU is all about other religions freedoms, just not Christianity..but everyone is entitled to their own opinion..well for now anyway..
What- wrote:
Actually things like "equal protection under the law" (as well as many other applicable things) are in the constitution.
And it is funny that you mention Thomas Jefferson -- did you know that he re-wrote his own version of the Bible that he thought ought to be used, and that he too every reference to anything supernatural out of it? He even called the book of revelations the "ravings of a madman" and completely edited it out. He revision of the Bible is the "Jefferson Bible." And he was talking about keeping religion and government seperate (as religious persecution by the government was what they wanted to get away from).
And the Bill of Rights itself says in the very first sentence of the First Amendment that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
(And references to "God" was specifically and deliberately left out of the Constitution.)
And the ACLU (or ANYONE ELSE FOR THAT MATTER) has the right (and the duty) to challenge any law that seems unconstitutional...

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#24 Jan 20, 2009
Uh Yeah wrote:
That is true..Jefferson did not like to talk about his religion in public, he even wrote to his nephew "Question with boldness even the existence of God; because if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear" yet his belief in a Supreme Being was deep..but moving past that..the 1st amendment section on religion was the creation of a universal religion, not the removal of it from schools and government...the ACLU is all about other religions freedoms, just not Christianity..but everyone is entitled to their own opinion..well for now anyway..
<quoted text>
You think that the 1st Amedment created a "universal religion?"

What part of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" makes you think that?

And do you think that that "universal religion" that it created is Christianity?

And what examples do you have to support your views on what you say the ACLU does?

And Jefferson spoke volumes about religion in his published "Jefferson Bible" (where he edited out all supernatural occurences from the Bible as well as the entire book of revelations which he said was the raving of a madman) and many other places -- and I think that the quote from him that you provided is very appropriate (I agree with it).

“The Turdblossom of Topix”

Since: Dec 08

Paragould

#25 Jan 20, 2009
Oh Lord, someone else that takes apart every damn sentence. This could go on forever.
Uh Yeah

Blytheville, AR

#26 Jan 20, 2009
Ok not what I said..I said that the 1st amendment means that congress shall not make one universal religion that everyone must follow..there..better..
What- wrote:
<quoted text>
You think that the 1st Amedment created a "universal religion?"
What part of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" makes you think that?
And do you think that that "universal religion" that it created is Christianity?
And what examples do you have to support your views on what you say the ACLU does?
And Jefferson spoke volumes about religion in his published "Jefferson Bible" (where he edited out all supernatural occurences from the Bible as well as the entire book of revelations which he said was the raving of a madman) and many other places -- and I think that the quote from him that you provided is very appropriate (I agree with it).

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#27 Jan 20, 2009
Uh Yeah wrote:
Ok not what I said..I said that the 1st amendment means that congress shall not make one universal religion that everyone must follow..there..better..
<quoted text>
Actually you did say that.

You said in post #23 that "the 1st amendment section on religion was the creation of a universal religion."

But I think that your revised statement is still a bit too narrow...it prohibits a bit more than that.

...I mean, legislation on homosexuality based on religion prohibitions isn't "making one universal religion that everyone must follow" -- but it is forcing people follow a religious tennant of particular religion (and the establishment clause covers such broader things as that as well).
Uh Yeah

Blytheville, AR

#28 Jan 20, 2009
And as far as the ACLU goes, there are many examples..one of which is there are schools in California that are teaching the pillars of Islam and that seems to be ok with the ACLU, however the Ten Commandments are not..their constant attacks on Christmas,their constant attack on the Boy Scouts of America. they constantly try to deny free speech to pro-lifers..and on, and on...I read in a post back that you were at a law school..so maybe you should actually read the history of the ACLU..you'll find it interesting..
What- wrote:
<quoted text>
You think that the 1st Amedment created a "universal religion?"
What part of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" makes you think that?
And do you think that that "universal religion" that it created is Christianity?
And what examples do you have to support your views on what you say the ACLU does?
And Jefferson spoke volumes about religion in his published "Jefferson Bible" (where he edited out all supernatural occurences from the Bible as well as the entire book of revelations which he said was the raving of a madman) and many other places -- and I think that the quote from him that you provided is very appropriate (I agree with it).

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#29 Jan 20, 2009
...BUT the laws attempting to regulate homosexualty more specifically violates several other Constitutional principles as well such as equal protection under the law and privacy rights (and not just the seperation of church and state).

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#30 Jan 20, 2009
Uh Yeah wrote:
And as far as the ACLU goes, there are many examples..one of which is there are schools in California that are teaching the pillars of Islam and that seems to be ok with the ACLU, however the Ten Commandments are not..their constant attacks on Christmas,their constant attack on the Boy Scouts of America. they constantly try to deny free speech to pro-lifers..and on, and on...I read in a post back that you were at a law school..so maybe you should actually read the history of the ACLU..you'll find it interesting..
<quoted text>
I always like it when people say "if you read the history of something then you would see you are wrong" -- as if to suggest that I don't know the history of it (and that you have) and that if I would just learn that history then I would realize that you are correct.

And they are trying to "deny the free speech of pro-lifers?" LOL? How have they tried to deny the free speech of pro-lifers?

The ACLU even stands up for the free speech rights of the Klu Klux Clan when they are infringed upon (they usually send African American lawyers to defend them LOL!).

And they aren't always "attacking the boyscouts" (their status and positions are such that they are not qualified to get government funds) and they are not OK with public schools preaching Islam (though they are OK with comparative religion courses).
Tops

Rancho Cucamonga, CA

#31 Jan 20, 2009
What part of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" makes you think that? This was established because people wanted to exercise as Christians and did not want the state telling them what they could and could not do as a christian. We have non-christians that have taken that and now start a sep of church and state, which lets the state rule over Christians and tells them you must except other peoples very bad choice to be gay. The state now tells Christians we do not care what you beleive we will prohibit anyone from telling a gay/lesbian that the choice to be gay is wrong and a bad choice. What- you will continue to put your trash on here because you are an angry gay that most of America and the law disagrees with. Next people like you will want us to accept your bad choice to have sex with dogs. You say that is crazy, yes just a bad as a choice for 2 man to live as man and wife which is a choice and should never ever be a protective class. Not a law just an a protective class in an admin section of the housing regulations. We will refuse to accept your choice to be gay.

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#32 Jan 20, 2009
Tops wrote:
What part of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" makes you think that? This was established because people wanted to exercise as Christians and did not want the state telling them what they could and could not do as a christian. We have non-christians that have taken that and now start a sep of church and state, which lets the state rule over Christians and tells them you must except other peoples very bad choice to be gay. The state now tells Christians we do not care what you beleive we will prohibit anyone from telling a gay/lesbian that the choice to be gay is wrong and a bad choice. What- you will continue to put your trash on here because you are an angry gay that most of America and the law disagrees with. Next people like you will want us to accept your bad choice to have sex with dogs. You say that is crazy, yes just a bad as a choice for 2 man to live as man and wife which is a choice and should never ever be a protective class. Not a law just an a protective class in an admin section of the housing regulations. We will refuse to accept your choice to be gay.
First of all the establishment clause restricted the establishment of any religion (and it didn't establish Christianity as the official religion)-- and God was specifically and purposfully left out of the Constitution.

And Thomas Jefferson (the guy that wrote the Declaration of Independence) talked about the wall of seperation between the church and state (it isn't something new like you say).

And no one is saying that the Government should tell you that you must "accept gays" or "not say that being gay is a bad choice or wrong."

NO ONE IS SAYING THAT.

They are just saying that you do not have the authority to force homosexuals through legislation to do what you think they should do.

That is not forcing you to do anything -- it is prohibiting you from forcing others to follow your interpretation of your religion.

Where do you get off thinking that it is a violation of your religious freedom to not let you force your religious beliefs on others through legislation?

And I am not gay.

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#33 Jan 20, 2009
Tops: Also, the laws attempting to regulate homosexualty more specifically violates several other Constitutional principles as well such as equal protection under the law and privacy rights (and not just the seperation of church and state).
guest

United States

#34 Jan 20, 2009
BoatsNHoes wrote:
Just what we need, another reason for kids to be F'd up. It's hard enough to grow up in a stable home let alone an unstable home with immoral guardians.
My adult daughter and I (mother) live together. I would not consider myself an immoral guardian if there was a need for me to foster or adopt a child. It would make me sick to see my own grandchild have to be placed with a non-family member instead of me just because I chose to live with my same-sex adult child. This law can negatively affect a lot more than the gay and lesbian world.
Guest

Oak Creek, WI

#35 Jan 20, 2009
To Tops I would just add that our founding fathers believed in freedom of religion. Not just in the freedom of Christians, and espectially not in the perverse idea that religious freedom means that Christians have a right to force their religious beliefs on others. That is exactly what they didn't want.

And they did not think that just persecution against their religious beliefs is wrong. And they realized that all religious persecution is wrong. That's why they didn't create a Christian State. That's why they created the bill of rights.

No one is saying that you as a Christian can't do what you want. We are just saying that you as a Christian can't force others to adhere to your religious prohibitions. You can't keep others from doing what they want based on your religous beliefs. Nothing gives you that power.

Since: Aug 08

Lake Charles, LA

#36 Jan 21, 2009
What- wrote:
I said myself that those are administrative regulations -- and any law book will tell you that those administrative regulations are a source of law (executive orders, ect., are law).
No, they are not law, they are regulations. The executive branch has the power to promulgate regulations relative to the executive branch of government. They do not have the power to make law. Their function is to execute the law enacted by the legislative branch of government.
And anyone has the power to bring suit to challenge such things as they see fit(and then the Court decides.
That is simply not true. A party bringing suit must have an interest in the case, showing that he is harmed by operation of the law or regulation in question.
I will cite you a paragraph from a law school textbook:
You'd do far better to read the constitution, court rules and supreme court decisions rather than some half-baked online 'law book'.
You don't understand what the common law system is. You should google it or something and pick a reputable site to read.
I do understand the common law, and I understand it very well. It is you who are misinformed. I urge you to read Blackstone's Commentaries on the common law (google that!). That's the source cited by the U.S. Supreme Court in such matters. And oh btw, I have the 4 volume set on my bookshelf.
You just do not understand the legal system.
Yes I do. I've studied it for 25 years.
The courts are empowered to make laws and the legislature is empowered to to create legislation that changes or abolishes those laws (as long as that legislation is constitutional).
No, no, no, no, no! The courts are not empowered to make law!!! Courts can only make rules regarding procedures used in courts that exist in the judicial branch of government. And the legislature can't override those rules. However, courts that are created by the legislature (and therefore exist in the legislative branch of government) they can enact laws to govern procedures in those courts.
You say that your information is "fact" and that what I am saying "crap" -- but where are you getting your information?
I am at a law school...
I get my information from the constitution, statutes, court rules and supreme court decisions.

Since: Aug 08

Lake Charles, LA

#37 Jan 21, 2009
What- wrote:
I mean, legislation on homosexuality based on religion prohibitions isn't "making one universal religion that everyone must follow" -- but it is forcing people follow a religious tennant of particular religion (and the establishment clause covers such broader things as that as well).
How are laws against homosexuality (forcing people to follow a religious tennant) any different than laws prohibiting murder (thou shalt not kill) or theft (thou shalt not steal)?

Using your logic, we'd have anarchy.

Since: Aug 08

Lake Charles, LA

#38 Jan 21, 2009
What- wrote:
They are just saying that you do not have the authority to force homosexuals through legislation to do what you think they should do.
That is not forcing you to do anything -- it is prohibiting you from forcing others to follow your interpretation of your religion.
What the gay agenda is trying to do is to use the law to force the other 98% of society to accept and condone homosexual behavior.

Your position seems to be that because society has determined that something is immoral and prohibits it, that is forcing a religious view upon everyone. That's a specious argument, for every criminal law is based on morality.

Rape is wrong because it is immoral. Forcing, through legislation, the prohibition against rape is not forcing religion upon anyone. Neither do laws against murder, theft, prostitution, drugs, pedophilia, etc., force religion upon anyone.

While some cowardly judges have created a protected class of homosexuals, and have stricken down state laws that specifically target homosexual behavior, that hardly forces the rest of society to accept what even nature shows is aberrant sexual behavior.

Since: Aug 08

Lake Charles, LA

#39 Jan 21, 2009
guest wrote:
It would make me sick to see my own grandchild have to be placed with a non-family member instead of me just because I chose to live with my same-sex adult child. This law can negatively affect a lot more than the gay and lesbian world.
It makes me sick that a woman would refuse to simply move out her live-in lover and ensure that her own grandchild doesn't have to endure the trauma of being abandoned to the foster care system of the state.

And the current law in Arkansas would not prohibit you from fostering or adopting children based on the circumstances you describe.

Since: Aug 08

Lake Charles, LA

#40 Jan 21, 2009
Guest wrote:
We are just saying that you as a Christian can't force others to adhere to your religious prohibitions. You can't keep others from doing what they want based on your religous beliefs. Nothing gives you that power.
What justifies the laws against crime? What gives society the right for force upon everyone certain behavioral norms?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Parenting Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Jamie Lynn Spears To Give Up Her Baby (Jan '08) Aug 1 Victoria Dawn Jus... 28
News Judge Byrd reprimanded in Wilson County case (Feb '08) Jul 31 You brown nose 171
News Survey: Many Catholics want divorced, remarried... Jul 21 cat2009 8
News Cops: Mom Left 2 Kids in Food Court During Inte... Jul 21 DILF 4
News Same-sex couples face new questions following g... Jul 19 NorCal Native 7
News Roar proceeds to benefit program for disabled Jul 14 joe 3
News "I am Miley's mother. I am her lover. I am her ... Jul 14 Hannah 1
More from around the web