Lys, you know very well that RH just wants 1 example, just 1.
The ACLU. It's a conglomerate of Progressive lawyers assembled for the sole purpose of using the US Constitution as a weapon against itself. One of those Progressive lawyers made it all the way to the highest court, dispensing her own ideals, with her very own interpretations, and condemning us all with her poisonous opinions. Her name is Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Lets see: ACLU cases.
Jennings v. Rodriguez
Which is a case regarding:
"Whether it violates the Constitution and the immigration laws to subject immigrants in deportation proceedings to long-term detention without individualized bond hearings."
The current ruling in the Ninth Circuit is that the government is not allowed to detain someone for period of time exceeding 6 months without giving them a bond hearing. Not doing so violates the 4th through 8th amendments, all of which prohibit the US government from engaging in arbitrary detainment.
Benisek v. Lamone
Which has to do with if the redistricting of maryland's congressional map by the democrats overly favours the democrats and if by doing so they've violated the 1st amendment. To quote the ACLU:
Locking up the political process for the purpose of disabling competition among partisan viewpoints is at odds with the proper role of government in administering elections. It is inconsistent with democratic values and constitutional precedent holding that government must function as a neutral referee in administering elections.
DOE V. MATTIS
Which is another arbitrary detention case, specifically if the US military is allowed to hold and detain an american citizen while overseas without trial or due process.
Xi v. Haugen
On if the US government (under the obama admin) violated Xiaoxing Xi's civil rights during it's now abandoned investigation into him, specifically in regard to the FBI's use of warrantless surveillance.
Stone v. Trump
Whether or not the trump admins ban on transgender persons in the US military violate the equation protection clause of the constitution, particularly following the Defense Department's own determination that there is no basis for refusing to allow transgender persons to serve
International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump
Whether or not the latest incarnation of the travel ban, by specifically targeting out religious groups (ie muslims) violates the equal protection clause, as well as the first amendment prohibition of government establishment of religion and the 5th amendment requirement for equal protection under the law.
So, where are they undermining the US constitution here Lys? Or is undermining the constitution just code for "v. Trump"
I guess the shots they took at and are still taking at the obama admin are also just ""progressive"" plots right?