In this article, Coulter says basically that states can establish a religion (respecting the establishment of religion); and therefore that the establishment clause of the 1^st amendment does not limit their power, but earleir in the same article she said the free exercise clause of the 1^st amendment does limit the power of the states.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise of Religion;

I can only imagine that she believes that the first clause of the 1^st amendment doesn’t limit the states because the first 10 amendment were added to the constitution with the intent to limit the power of the national government and not that of the states, and because she does not agree with the Incorporation Doctrine, which holds that the due process clause of the 14^th amendment imposes the Bill of Right limits unto the states as that is the most common argument for allowing states to do what they did for years in this country.

However, I have never heard anyone take the position that there can be a partial rejection of the Incorporation Doctrine that  applies to only one part of the 1^st amendment like Ann seems to be taking.  I’d like to know how she’d defend that position, if she can.

Such inconsistency seems to suggest that she has no firm principles about interpreting the constitution, and that she is simply willing to make, whatever she wants it to say and mean, her default position – how indefensible.

Oh and before I forget, Ann if you’re out there and you usually are, you might also want take note of your candidate’s problem before you come down on others. His is a credibility problem.

It’s not that Romney can’t defend his positions; it’s that no one believes his true positions are conservative.