Human Events Man of the Year: Roy Moore (Exclusive Ann Coulter Feature Article)

Human Events Online ^ | December 19, 2003 | ANN COULTER

[IGOTMINE]

I love that woman.

[Revel]

"I read it very carefully and found it to be totally repugnent - supporting a judge with so little regard for the law. Judges, and the rest of us can disobey any law we want - as long as we're ready to accept the outcome of our actions."

If you educated your self on this matter then you should come to the conclusion that Judge Moore was only one lawful in this matter. The courts did not follow the law at all. They were lawless. Liberal who hate God and write there own law to suite there whims. They are the ones who should be run out of town.
No matter how many times people with your train of thought have been asked to define how the courts ruling is legal...I have not ever been witness to a legitimate answer.

You just figure that they can break the law and that is ok. But anyone being ordered by such a court must obey. How long before you think the courts are going to get back to following the law if every just sits back and says "no problem".

[King Prout]

oh, really?
here's the full text, prove your point.
I think you've swallowed a pantsload.

AMENDMENT XIV
Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868
Section 1.
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 to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election f or the choice of Electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or Elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State Legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5.
The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

[King Prout]

As a word of caution:
You raised the 14th Amendment as the lynchpin of your rebuttal. It is thus the ONLY text I will permit you for continued debate. If it isn't in the text, it isn't in the Law - it really is exactly that simple. Anything else is shades of penumbrae and emanations, and your recourse to their use will mark you forever for an anti-constructionist.
FIND YOUR POINT IN THE CLEAR TEXT OF THE AMENDMENT, OR CONCEDE YOUR FOLLY.

[King Prout]

As a word of caution:
You raised the 14th Amendment as the lynchpin of your rebuttal. It is thus the ONLY text I will permit you for continued debate. If it isn't in the text, it isn't in the Law - it really is exactly that simple. Anything else is shades of penumbrae and emanations, and your recourse to their use will mark you forever for an anti-constructionist.
FIND YOUR POINT IN THE CLEAR TEXT OF THE AMENDMENT, OR CONCEDE YOUR FOLLY.

[King Prout]

exactly. thanks.

[King Prout]

it had a name the last time it existed: Baal

[Dan Evans]

I would be interested in your reply to King Prout. How exactly does the 14th ammendment make the establishment clause apply to the states?

[bray]

To brain-dead liberals like Berry, you have to upset the 80% so you don't upset the 1%?? Fundamentalist Athiests are worse than Fundamentalist Islam! We need to sue the ACLU every chance we get.Ann Rox!

Pray for W and The Truth

[MissAmericanPie]

She is so far ahead of the curve that she stuns us every time with her arrow sharp wry humor and laser insight.

[Syncro]

Your comment pretty much sums it up, so I will repeat it:

She is so far ahead of the curve that she stuns us every time with her arrow sharp wry humor and laser insight.

Good job.

[vigilo]

"I read it very carefully and found it to be totally repugnent - supporting a judge with so little regard for the law. Judges, and the rest of us can disobey any law we want - as long as we're ready to accept the outcome of our actions."

Your attitude clearly indicates that you have not understood the Coulter article and are clearly one of the surrendering 'conservatives' Ann is talking about, if you are even a conservative. Moore broke no laws, he stood against bigoted oppression. Something you don't understand. You'd probably jump off a cliff if they passed a law saying you had to...in the name of the rule of law, like a good little sheep.

[My Dog Likes Me]

Ann stumbles here when she entangles the ACLU with Roy Moore. I disagree with most everything that the ACLU does, but I cannot let that blind me to the truth that Moore was wrong, and his continuing legal battle is a complete waste and speaks more to the former Judge's ego than the Commandments.

[Qwinn]

"Stating that the Alabama constitution required him to recognize God (which is a flat out falsehood) raused similar questions."

How is this a falsehood?

The Alabama Constitution specifically invokes "the favor and guidance of Almighty God". It doesn't get much more blatant than that. Now, if you want to argue that that doesn't mean he's -required- to do so, have a field day! But it's a strawman. The text of the Constitution makes it pretty obvious that he is, at the -very- least, PERMITTED to invoke "the favor and guidance of Almighty God".

Frankly, my interpretation of his saying it was "required" was not that it was "required" on the face of it, but that it was required because it was under deliberate attack. His oath "requires" him to defend the Constitution, and that part of the Constitution that gives him PERMISSION to invoke God was under attack. He is therefore -required- to defend it. That's the context I saw that part of his statement in.

Fair warning: I'm Agnostic. This isn't about religion to me, it's about what the government has the power to do, and it does -not- have the power to smack down religious expression EVEN WITHIN ITSELF. I have a strong libertarian streak, and it is THAT part of me that absolutely rejects the current interpretation of the Establishment clause. Your brand of libertarianism is as polluted as that of liberals - you pick and choose what in the plain meaning of the Constitution to enforce, and reword the rest to your liking in order to sate your anti-religious bias.

I'm with Ann all the way on this.

Qwinn

[EveningStar]

Man of the Year: Roy Moore

This is a joke. This article belongs in the humor section