Go to search and look for HTML Sandbox, all you need to know is there.
Posted on 10/26/2003 1:46:38 PM PST by moneyrunner
I don’t want to brag, but I had dinner with Ann Coulter last night.
The event was the gala celebration of the 25th Anniversary of Regent University. To celebrate, we were treated to a debate pitting the lovely and gracious Ann, David Limbaugh and Jay Sekulow against the evil trio of Alan Dershowitz, Barry Lynn (Americans United for Separation of Church and State) and Nadine Strossen (head of the ACLU).
The subject of the debate was “Has the Supreme Court Overstepped it Authority.”
There was some excellent back and forth and all had a good time. More on that issue later.
However, my wife and I were excited to find that Ann Coulter would join our table for dinner after the debate. She was charming, gracious with all her fans, and passionate about her views.
She had her ever-present can of Diet Coke, didn’t eat much and needs to put on a few pounds, but hey, she’s Ann. She can do what she likes.
During part of the debate, panel members were allowed to ask each other questions. One that our side could have handled better – I think – was proposed by Alan Deshowitz. He asked about a decision handed down by the Supremes in the 1920s that allowed for the mandatory sterilization of idiots. His question was: do you agree with that decision?
Our side ducked. Modern sensibilities don’t allow us to forcibly sterilize idiots or anyone else for that matter.
We are allowed to kill babies, but that’s another issue.
Based on the debate topic the answer we should have given is: Yes. We agree with the decision.
This is one of those topics in which justice, social policy and the law collide. Today we do not sterilize imbeciles. Many, perhaps most, would make the case that such a policy is morally or ethically wrong. But is it unconstitutional?
Amendments 1 – 13 do not seem to cover this issue. Neither do amendments 15 through 27. We then come to the 14th amendment. A thorough reading of this amendment makes it clear that it is intended to deal with the aftermath of the Civil War. However, just as a person will confess to anything if put to enough torture, the courts have tortured the 14th amendment, section 1, to cover literally any social policy they wish to impose.
The primary evil of a Court system that arrogates to itself the power to right every wrong, to heal every hurt, and to impose it’s view of a just society, is as much of a dictatorship as any that has been seen in history. It undermines the fabric of a healthy republic and is ultimately the cause of the decline of freedom in this country.
Diet? I wonder if Ann thinks she's fat? It certainly wouldn't be the first time a tall, sub-100 lb woman held that delusion.
Then why did you.
I don't want to brag either, but I stayed at a Holiday Inn last night!!!
me either...but...I saved a lot of money on my car insurance.
Go to search and look for HTML Sandbox, all you need to know is there.
How else is he gonna get scoops? :)
Do you think the Founding Fathers would have thought it permissible to require the surpassing of an intelligence threshhold on the right to bear children? I agree with you that the issue is not necessarily specifically addressed in the Constitution, but what about this excerpt from Section 1 of Amendment 14:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Wouldn't bearing children be considered a "privilege" of citizens of the United States? It's arguable isn't it?
Strange, I don't remember it being that way at all. My memory is that some unkind types posted some "nazi" related things here and Drudge took offense at them (the was before "Admin Moderator" days) and so removed the FR link on his page, giving no real explanation as to why he did it at the time. The "nazi" rationale only seemed to come out a few months later, as I recall.
My understanding is that there was a thread on him and Lucianne talking about Drudge as a homoerotic icon, or something to that effect.
Of course this was back in the days when FR used to post conspiratorial scat such as Michael Rivera on the same plane as the news of the day.
Head north if ya don't like it here pal.
That is why we are a free people. That is why we have legislators. That is what the democratic process is all about.
This country must not be ruled by benevolent philosopher kings. They have a habit of liquidating those who stand in the way of their view of the perfect society.
Then we should redefine all judicial systems in this country to be courts of law only and dispense with the concept of equity. By defining our courts to be in law and in equity, we subscribe to the concept that judges are somehow god-like. We also need to dispense with judicial immunity. We can never be truly free until judges are held to the same standards that they impose upon the rest of us.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.