Judicial Tyranny? - Ann Coulter

FrontPageMagazine.com ^ | 12/04/03 | Ann Coulter

[StriperSniper]

fascism in the Constitution?

One only need to look at many 'general welfare' and 'interstate commerce' based rulings.

[pageonetoo]

great thought, and presentation, from Ann...


BUT WHERE'S THE PICS? Aren't they required?

[Taliesan]

Most of the abortionists were shot or, depending upon your point of view, had a procedure performed on them with a rifle.

Now that is hilarious.

[Paul Ross]

Ping. The bitter truth. Depressing enough to lead one to drink!

[Pyro7480]

You failed to obey the unwritten FR By-law on Ann Coulter threads!

[Paul Ross]

What a Doll!

[Scenic Sounds]

But there is absolutely no excuse for the Massachusetts legislature jumping when Massachusetts Supreme Court Chief Justice Margaret Marshall says "jump."

Please! Don't jump!!

[arasina]

Very well stated.

[At _War_With_Liberals]

"Are we finding out in time to save our nation? I do not know."

I am not the doom and gloom type, but after an absence from work during which I have studied the situation, I believe that we will get Socialism at the very least.

[At _War_With_Liberals]

Just read the thread through. Wow.

Only on FR can you read a great column and then read equal or BETTER commentary. Amazing...

[Tax-chick]

Wow! I used to say, "Yeah, she's skinny, but she's no Mark Steyn ..." but this is as good as Steyn.

BTTT.

[Gritty]

what is the point of a constitutional amendment when judges won't read the Constitution we already have?

This about says it all.

[William Tell]

Steel and Fire and Stone said: "However, when we lose the ballot, that indeed is the turning point."

How would you suggest that I use the ballot to regain my right to keep and bear arms in Kalifornia? I don't recall voting in an election with that on the ballot.

Both Bush and Arnold seem to think that it is just peachy to outlaw some rifles. The US Supreme Court refuses to set this matter right. How, in my lifetime, do you suggest this can be corrected?

When I move to the "red zone" I may regain some of what has been lost, but Kalifornia will still be without a right to keep and bear arms.

At such time as enough liberals and illegal immigrants reach Texas, will the right to keep and bear arms not be recognized there? How shall I use the ballot then?

[Ahban]

Well said. We still have the ballot, but what matter when one side is openly against us, and the other side pretends to be with us but is also against us? What value our choice then?

Our chances are slim with the Constitution Party- and none with the GOP. http://www.constitutionparty.com

[linksduster]

"Judges are not our dictators."

And, fortunately, neither is Ann Coulter, who is no conservative, unless one's working definition of a conservative is a busy body who thinks she can run your life better than you can.

The problem with her rhetoric is that dictators use the tools of government to control the actions of other people. She objects because the supreme court has freed people to do as they wish, free from restraint or control by the government. That is not dictatorship. If the supreme court were a dictatorship, then our government (like China) would be ordering abortions.

What isn't funny is to read people on this list complaining about search warrants into Rush's medical records and in the next breath wanting to criminalize abortion. You cannot have it both ways. Either people have rights to privacy about health care or they don't. My two cents is that the government shouldn't be in Rush's exam room or any woman's exam room. Between an adult and a doctor, it's private.

[Steel and Fire and Stone]

How would you suggest that I use the ballot to regain my right to keep and bear arms in Kalifornia? I don't recall voting in an election with that on the ballot.

Understand you feelings, being both a Californian AND one of those nasty "assault-weapon" owner types.

Gun owners in California have the same problem that the Pro-Life folks have (disclaimer: I'm one of 'em), i.e. they may have a moral cause, they may be on the "right" side of the issue, the cause is literally a "life and death" issue, but alas, while the majority of Americans are uncomfortable about abortions, they are not ready to recognize that abortions do in fact stop a viable life from continuing in this world, i.e. it's murder. American's won't support legislation or an explicit Constitutional ammendment to ban abortion.

The pro-life folks need to get their act together, and so do Gun owning and Constitutional-respecting Americans, and educate Americans. The pro-life folks need to explain the innate value of unborn life in the womb. Gun owners need to educate the majority of Americans on the merits of self-defense and gun ownership, that the cause is morally legitimate. Unfortunately, it matter now a whit what the Constitution said in 1776 if we will not, like Franklin feared, pay the price in terms of treasure, political action, and eternal vigilance, and hold-on dearly to this Republic. American's could as easily vote for a Constitutional Ammendment to repeal the Second Ammendment,, or for a new "right to choose" infanticide ammendment, as support a literal interpretation of the existing Constitution. The Constitution is just paper; it's the people who give it life and sustain it. It's not the Constitution that "lives and breaths", but the people who are willing to live under it. The rest of the world perishes in the hands of tyrants.

We modern American's want everything "now", and we want evil to be vanquished "now". Life is not that way. We need to fight for what's right under God's law, and in our own eyes as we understand either God's law, or for the rest of you, as we understand the laws of nature.

I'm as fed-up with the political situation as anyone else, and the lack of Judges and politicians who respect Constitutional law. But we can change that. The first step is to gain the support and endearment of the hearts and minds of the majority of the American people. The good news is that we conservatives are a good deal closer to the American heart than the political left will ever be.

SFS

[evilsmoker]

Great Article, Spells out the problem wonderfully and even seems to suggest a solution but I don't see that happening. To few people in the country willing to fight for what they believe in. Like everywhere else in the world, they will be willing to fight only after it personnally affects them and only after it is to late.(7 to 30M is not, after all, impressive)

Who can fight the Nazis, Saddam or any other dictator after they have taken power.

What we need is for that other branch of the government to exert its power. The Senate can remove a judge for misbehavior. Violating their Oath to Uphold the Constitution, in my book, is misbehavior.

Might also be a good way to counter the lefts attempts to stack the deck by refusing to confirm the appointment of constitutionalists.

[GulliverSwift]

Coulter's diagnosis is correct but her prescription is wrong. Encouraging executives and legislatures to flaut errant judicial rulings will lead to dictatorship.

A better way is to pass an amendment stating that only the people or the other two branches are permitted to create new policy

[evilsmoker]

Ann talked about you. Follow the law (right or wrong), and form a plan to change it.

The dictatorship is now (by the courts) and any plan you come up with will be nullified (adjudicated) before you can institute it.

[GulliverSwift]

You're not getting what I'm saying. Coulter wants to minimize the influence of the corrupt judiciary and thinks that the way to do so is to encourage the other branches to reassert themselves, particularly the executive.

The problem with this approach is that she is trying to stop one branch's abuse of power by allowing the other two to abuse their own. Are you really prepared to grant this kind of power to the presidency when there's always the possibility that someone else like Clinton could come along? I don't want to risk that. And what kind of guarantee will you have even if no Clinton comes along that the order created by Coulter's solution would prevail in the future? There is none since her solution is extralegal.

What's stopping the court from overreaching when a wimpy executive comes into power? Or if a liberal president comes along who wants the court to usurp? And how is she really going to convince all the states in the union to ignore court rulings without provoking civil war?

There is no such protection under Coulter's idea.

There are better ways than the solution that Coulter offers such as passing an amendment barring the court from creating new law on any subject (not just marriage).

Or, Congress can limit the jurisdiction of the court.