Please, allow me.
Posted on 02/18/2005 3:22:55 PM PST by Jacob Kell
University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill has written that "unquestionably, America has earned" the attack of 9-11. He calls the attack itself a result of "gallant sacrifices of the combat teams." That the "combat teams" killed only 3,000 Americans, he says, shows they were not "unreasonable or vindictive." He says that in order to even the score with America, Muslim terrorists "would, at a minimum, have to blow up about 300,000 more buildings and kill something on the order of 7.5 million people."
To grasp the current state of higher education in America, consider that if Churchill is at any risk at all of being fired, it is only because he smokes.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
I think David Horowitz was there on Monday, and he was pretty well received.
Please, allow me.
BTW, that is my second fave pic of Ann!
If I was President, I'd want Ann Coulter as Attorney General.
Seemed especially appropriate for a late Friday afternoon.
Too skinny ... Hehehe...
Mr. Churchill, can you explain how we earned the attack, when some nut that we never actually harmed decides to attack us? In fact, we were said nut's friends not too long ago. So how did we become the guilty parties, and the war-mongering nut become the victim?
I am watching her right now on cspan. She just slammed a liberal caller for having no point.
My husband brought up a good point about Churchill today,(we can't escape this story since we live 10 miles from Boulder). Would Churchill feel he deserved it if the terroritsts had chosen CU as their target and Mental Ward was one of the vicitms?
Would like to have somone ask this fruit that question.
Or a Supreme Court Justice for pausing to take notice of the fact that..
...modern constitutional law, which willy-nilly applies the Bill of Rights to the states....
..which is used to infringe upon the rights of citizens by the states, especially California.
Why don't you post from Ann's site ? I would rather give her the traffic.
Didn't know Ann was a Deadhead... I like her even MORE now.
I would love to see Ann debate Ward.
She'd serve him his @ss on a platter.
Or a Supreme Court Justice for pausing to take notice of the fact that..
...modern constitutional law, which willy-nilly applies the Bill of Rights to the states
Much as I love Ann, that's not the best point she's ever made. 'Modern' constitutional law has applied at least some portions of the Bill of Rights to the states ever since a recent little development we lawyers like to call the 'Fourteenth Amendment'. Ann, who of course is a lawyer herself, didn't even see fit to mention it even though it was ratified in 1868 (with massive GOP support, by the way).
Fortunately it's not relevant to the main thread of her argument, which is right on.
well check out the concert poster she is standing by...
I just watched the repeat of Ann on CSPAN. Most of the liberal callers did not want to debate the issues. They just wanted to call her names. The left in this country shows everday how consumed with hate that they really are.
Didn't know Ann was a Deadhead... I like her even MORE now.
Apparently there's more information on this in the new DVD 'Is It True What They Say About Ann?' I like the Dead too, though I was never even remotely tempted to follow them around everywhere they went.
HEY!! My new wallpaper!
Debate? I'd love to see Ann drop him with a sucker punch to the gut.
Debating a treasonous slimeball fraudulent Indian would be a waste of her sweet breath.
what is "Ipse dixit"?
It drives the Deadheads crazy over at Dead.net!!!
Fake professor, fake indian, fake american, and I suspect a fake MAN.
She's only been to fifty shows. Nah, .....
That was the Europe 1990 tour. She saw them in Berlin, where she is standing next to a poster in the subway. There are a lot of conservatives that are Deadheads. Myself, TheOtherOne, ...
bad dog
Is this really a full pic of Ann or is this one of photo enhanced pics? Please tell me this is ALL Ann.
And the Fourteenth Amendment is as well applied in a similar "willy-nilly" fashion per the "Modern" interpretation of the privileges and immunities clause of that same amendment. Don't snow me, counselor, the law, including rights, is applied according to convenience and interests, rather than by letter or intent.
didn't even see fit to mention it even though it was ratified in 1868 (with massive GOP support, by the way).
Not unusual. The reason for California not including a version of the federal 2nd Amendment is because of the influence of the NRA in the 1800's. For the State to guarantee the right of arms in it's constitution would have meant that Mexicans, Chinese and the now freed slaves, would have the same rights as a white man. So they left it out. They knew of course that any white man could own a gun with no problem, wink, wink, but there would be no guarantee for others. Now the white man can't buy a gun and a version of the federal 2nd Amendment is not likely to be included into the California Constitution by the super majority Democratic legislature.
If I was President, I would want Ann Coulter!!!!!
LOL! Isn't that the truth.
photoshop. sorry
The courts hadn't held that it applied any of the BOR to the states until over half a century after that little development.
And the Fourteenth Amendment is as well applied in a similar "willy-nilly" fashion per the "Modern" interpretation of the privileges and immunities clause of that same amendment. Don't snow me, counselor, the law, including rights, is applied according to convenience and interests, rather than by letter or intent.
</snow>
Whether or not the Fourteenth Amendment is currently applied consistently and defensibly, there's no plausible interpretation under which it doesn't apply any portion of the Bill of Rights to the states. (Heck, it repeats some of the language of the Fifth Amendment verbatim.) And a claim that the First Amendment right of free speech doesn't bind the states really really really needs to make some mention of the Fourteenth Amendment in order to be taken seriously as an argument.
If Ann wants to argue against current interpretations/applications of Amendment XIV, I'll be happy to listen to her. But in order to do that, she needs to acknowledge its existence.
(By the way -- not that this is important to your point -- I believe the first SCOTUS case to rely on the Privileges and Immunities Clause was Saenz v. Roe (1999). Before 1999, the 'modern' interpretations you mention were of the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause.)
'Modern' constitutional law has applied at least some portions of the Bill of Rights to the states ever since a recent little development we lawyers like to call the 'Fourteenth Amendment'.The courts hadn't held that it applied any of the BOR to the states until over half a century after that little development.
Which, at worst, brings us up to the early twentieth century -- about a hundred years ago. Still worthy of mention, isn't it? I mean, if you're going to make an argument that the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to the states, isn't there maybe a wee bit of reason to take note of an established interpretation of a century-and-a-half-old Constitutional amendment that dates back two-thirds of the way to its ratification? Even if only to refute it?
Ann for prez 2008!
Ann for prez 2008!
Sounds like a plan to me. With Condi for veep -- okay?
In the 9th Circuit Court District there is. Specifically, that the 2nd. Amendment of the U.S. Bill of Rights, is to be considered only a guarantee of the State of California's "collective right" to organize and equip a militia.( I was not aware that states actually had rights under the Natural and Common Law basis of the US Constitution. I would like to see a definition of "Collective Rights". I do know that the Feds and States have "Powers", but "rights" are never mentioned in the Constitution in regards to the States or Congress.) In the 5th. Circuit Court, the right was interpreted as "individual". Therefore, the 14th Amendment is applied one way in the 9th's. jurisdiction and another way in the 5th's.
The case that you cite, Saenz v. Roe, concerning welfare for new residents, passed through the 9th. Circuit on its way to SCOTUS. I have little doubt that the 9th. and Scotus found national merit to this case and the appropriate maneuvers were done for the case to reach the highest court in the land, "with all deliberate speed".
I'm sorry counselor, you may believe that the Fourteenth Amendment is applied consistently, but there are many cases where this is simply not true. And the misapplication is cynical and injures respect (?) for the law. Example: California does not have any "right to bear arms" in its Constitution, therefore, according to the CASC and the 9th. Circuit, the State legislature cannot pass any form of gun control law that would violate the States Constitution. Furthermore, since the Feds are not doing the "infringing" on California and the 9th. considers the US 2nd. Amendment to only apply to a militia, then any state law would would not be in violation of the US 2nd. unless it denied the state the "right" (?) to form and equip its militia.
The Fourteenth Amendment is a contraption, a contradiction and a paradox in a Free Republic as it is now applied. It is a black mark on your profession.
What I ponder is who convinced this person to speak out. We have a relatively unknown professor who, all of a sudden, decides to start speaking out on a touchy subect and in a manner that is sure to bring ramifications down upon himself.
To me such acts simply scream "influenced" to speak.
...there's no plausible interpretation under which it doesn't apply any portion of the Bill of Rights to the states.In the 9th Circuit Court District there is. Specifically, that the 2nd. Amendment of the U.S. Bill of Rights, is to be considered only a guarantee of the State of California's "collective right" to organize and equip a militia.
Reread my statement. Did I say there was no plausible interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment under which it doesn't apply the entire Bill of Rights to the states?
Nope. I said there was no plausible interpretation that it didn't apply any of the Bill of Rights to the states. And there isn't. The language of the Fourteenth Amendment deliberately picks up the language of the Fifth, and binds the states to the same sort of due process as the federal government (whatever that's understood to be). This is clear not only from the language of the amendments but from the Slaughter-House Cases (1873), heard shortly after the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified.
There have been Supreme Court justices who thought the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the entire Bill of Rights (Hugo Black comes to mind), but it's not a majority view and it's not the view I was defending. 'Some' is not 'all'.
I'm sorry counselor, you may believe that the Fourteenth Amendment is applied consistently, but there are many cases where this is simply not true.
Again, reread what I actually wrote and not what you imagine I must have secretly meant by it. I don't recall claiming here or anywhere else that the Fourteenth Amendment is applied in a reasonable or consistent fashion. My point, then and now, was that Ann should have referred to the Fourteenth Amendment (rather than just the First) in a constitutional argument that free speech rights didn't limit state governments. And if that had been the main point of her article, I have no doubt that she would have done so.
What a ticket that would make.
Amen! Coulter/Rice in 2008. Ann, Condi -- are you reading this?
I stand corrected.
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.