Parental advisory: This column discusses 'speech' (Ann Coulter) TRIPLE XXX

worldnetdaily ^ | 4/24/2002 | Ann Coulter

[Rule of Law]

Having failed to produce any evidence for your position, you have now gone back to where we started, the preconceived idea of "limited government" which you impose on the Constitution.

I did produce evidence. You claimed that that evidence strongly supported your theory -- seizing on the word "a" as support for your argument. Now you ignore the evidence of all of the founders and at least 130 years of constitutional jurisprudence, which held that the federal government was intended to be limited in scope.

At least we now know where you stand. You stand for unlimited federal government. A government that may do anything it wants. Impose any law. Regulate the minutest details of our lives. A totalitarian federal government with the authority to enslave the citizenry.

You may say that you are not in favor of a totalitarian government. You may even believe that you are not. But when you reject the notion of limited government, you are, by definition, in favor of unlimited (i.e. totalitarian) government.

[Southern Federalist]

I do not reject the notion of limited government. I reject twisting the Constitution to fit your theory of limited government. Rest assured that my reading of the Constitution would challenge the inflation of the Commerce Clause as well as yours - mostly by insisting that it only applies to actual commerce, buying and selling. But I will not distort the Constitution into a charter for your libertarian utopia.

You have not produced any evidence whatsoever for your claim that the only interstate power given to the United States in the Commerce Clause is the power to prohibit interstate tariffs. You have simply asserted that this is so, and abused me for disagreeing with you. Beyond that, you have offered one irrelevant quotation from Madison and a flawed article which, like you, relies at crucial points on sheer assertion without evidence.

Your denigration of my observations on what the Madison quote actually says as "siezing on the letter 'a'" only shows that you are not interested in evidence or logic, but only in having your way. Yes, I do think that "siezing" on the actual words of a document is a pretty essential path to understanding it.

I am at this point quite tired of your abusive ranting, and will continue this "discussion" no further. Feel free to have a further hissy fit in response to this post, but I have no more time for you.

[Rule of Law]

Your denigration of my observations on what the Madison quote actually says as "siezing on the letter 'a'" only shows that you are not interested in evidence or logic, but only in having your way. Yes, I do think that "siezing" on the actual words of a document is a pretty essential path to understanding it.

First of all, I have worked very hard not to be offensive. I am sorry if I have offended you. Though perhaps your skin is a little thin for the rough and tumble that we are accustomed to here at FreeRepublic.

Other than sending you my apologies for any offense I may have inadvertantly caused, I would not offer a response, except for the fact that you seem to be under the impression that I have somehow unfairly characterized your arguments. I ask you to reconsider.

I have stated that the purpose of the commerce clause was to prevent states from discriminating against trade from other states. You argued that my interpretation is wrong. I cited Madison's explaination of the purpose of the commerce clause in Federalist 42. You now say that Madison's opinion of the commerce clause is irrelevant. Why Madison's veiws on the matter are irrelevant is not stated -- perhaps because they disagree with yours.

You then state that Madison's views strongly support your argument -- even though they directly contradict what you have said. You seized upon Madison's saying that "a" purpose of the commerce clause was to prevent states from discriminating against trade from other states as supporting your argument. You claim that he would have written that this was the only purpose.

I then pointed you to an article that discussed the commerce clause at length along with the history of its interpretation. This is also considered irrelevant -- again with no more explaination than because it disagrees with your position.

You say that my argument is flawed because I seek to impose my flawed notion of limited government to the Constitution. When I point out that the choice is between limited government and totalitarian government, you grow angry.

You now claim to be for limited government. But the limits you seek to impose are illusory. As pointed out in the article I pointed you to, anything can be considered "commerce". In fact, the law you are defending is not a regulation of commerce, but a regulation of pornography.

Pray, sir, how have I unfairly characterized your arguments?