Since the presidential election began in earnest earlier this spring, the GOP candidates have been in a race to attach themselves to the DNA of Ronald Reagan, Abraham Lincoln and Grover Norquist. This is nothing new. What is new — and a race of its own — is their ferocious competition to be seen as defenders and guardians of our Constitution.
Over and over during debates, on TV ads and splashed across campaign websites and Twitter feeds, the candidates have invoked the Constitution as a means of undermining policies they oppose and promoting policies they support.
It’s a great political device to use a document revered as much as the flag itself. What sometimes gets lost, however, is that the Constitution wasn’t written as fodder for political campaigns. It was written to be the foundation for all our freedoms.
That’s why the American Civil Liberties Union launched a new campaign this year — ACLU Liberty Watch 2012 — to be a watchdog on the candidates of all parties so that the Constitution is defended throughout the election campaign.
Just in time for the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary, we’re releasing a report card today, with the ACLU’s Constitution and civil liberties experts providing a critical assessment of the major candidates of all parties, grading them with four to zero constitutional “torches” on seven key issues, including national security, immigration, marriage equality and reproductive choice. More issues will be added.
We may surprise some people in that the scores in the report card — which is viewable here — don’t divide along party lines. In fact, the report card reveals a deep ideological rift in the GOP.
Our experts found that Republicans Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman earned solid scores, with four, three and two torches across most major categories, although both received one torch on marriage equality and none on reproductive rights.
President Obama also achieved solid scores or better across most categories, including four torches for ending the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. However, he received just one torch and none for keeping Guantánamo Bay open and continuing unconstitutional surveillance under the PATRIOT act, respectively.
Republican-turned-Libertarian Gary Johnson scored even better than Paul, Huntsman and Obama, earning four and three torches on most major issues.
They stand in stark contrast to the other major GOP candidates, three of whom — Michele Bachmann, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum — didn’t earn a single torch in any of the seven major categories.
Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich received torches in only one category: two torches each for promoting a humane immigration policy, including their support for a path to legal status for some long-term residents.
Ultimately, the good news from the report card is that genuine support for our constitutional values and freedoms has no partisan boundaries. Indeed, Ron Paul’s recent surge in Iowa has been attributed to his adherence to the Constitution and civil liberties.
Like the Constitution, the ACLU Liberty Watch report card is a dynamic, living document that we’ll continue to update throughout the 2012 election. Because our rights matter. And because we’re choosing our president in 2012, not our liberties.
Follow ACLU Liberty Watch 2012 on Twitter @ACLULW, on Facebook.com/ACLULibertyWatch and at www.ACLULibertyWatch.org.
Cenk Uygur: Vote Against Obama in Iowa
Jonathan Weiler: Republican Nonsense on Regulation
Pearl Korn: Will the Seeds Sown in 2011 Grow Into Real Political Change in 2012?
ACLU Launches Liberty Watch 2012 | American Civil Liberties Union
Karl Frisch: Republicans Infected by 'Constitutional Conservative' Virus
ACLU going to challenge NDAA...............ASAP I hope ?
Congress and President seem determined to create Monarchy ?
Can't think of a statement more profound than this one. Thank you!
There are as many ways to interpret the Constitution as there is the bible.
Each person is positive that they are right and anyone disagreeing must be fought.
If the ACLU is only going to pay attention to the two major parties, that's their decision. But don't claim that you're going to cover "candidates of all parties," and then ignore 8 out of 9 candidates for President from the two largest third parties in the country.
http://blogdredd.blogspot.com/2011/12/why-trial-by-jury-2.html
Citizens United - the group - wanted to ban ads for Fahrenheit 9/11 during the 2004 election since it was critical of Bush. the FEC disagreed. So Citizens United tried to advertise for Hillary the Movie in 2008 but was blocked by the DC court since they deemed it advocacy.
Therein lies your problem. The advocate for the government even argued that the govt could ban advertising for books that advocated for or against a client.
This is where we went beyond the slippery slope. You either ban it all or allow it all. That's what the case was about.
So tell me: where do you stand? Should Fahrenheit 9/11's advertising have been banned as well? What about if say late 2012 the movie about OBL's death is about to be released and it shows Obama in a positive light. Should ads for that movie be banned?
You seem to believe this is a simple issue so please enlighten me.
The candidates who SUPPORT the constitution, are the ones doing the worst in the Republican polls?
"The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all." -John F. Kennedy-
Thank you................Fox News.
In fact we now have a president who is a student of that document who endorse surveillance without warrants, extra judicial (meaning--outside the law) termination of citizens anywhere in the world without trial, indefinite detention, use of the military as a police force arresting suspected enemies on our soil, protecting the past administration from prosecution by claiming 'state's secrets' here and leaning on countries like Spain internationally to stop legal actions, etc etc...
The Bush era created a slippery legal slope that our current president is now hurtling down, and taking us with him. This is not the change I voted for.
Sanders/Warren in 2012--or as soon as possible!