Why did not 1 person tell Santorum that Separation of Church/State is enshrined in the Constitution?

[kpete]

WED FEB 29, 2012 AT 07:04 AM PST
Why did not one person tell Santorum that the Separation of Church & State is enshrined in the Constitution?
bywinterparkFollow

This will be a short rant on the asshole otherwise known as Rick Santorum:

So as everyone now knows, Santorum wanted to throw up at JFK's pronouncement to follow our Constitution and keep the church and state separate. What confounds me is that at no time, on any show, by any commentator or guest or moderator, was it thrown back in his face that the Separation of Church & State is enshrined in the Constitution of the United States of America.

"Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

George Stephanopulos just sat there smiling and letting him spew his hateful vitriol without saying a word. Chris Matthews, et al, sat around discussing because JFK is his supposed hero, but no one came out and said that it is part of our constitution which republicans are so fond of saying they want to defend.

the rest:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/02/29/1069367/-Why-did-not-one-person-tell-Santorum-that-the-Separation-of-Church-State-is-enshrined-in-the-Const?via=siderecent

[salvorhardin]

1. It wouldn't have made a difference

People like Santorum believe the establishment clause applies only to the federal government, but the states are free to do whatever they want. If you call them on it, you just go further down the rabbit hole.

[zbdent]

5. The only important thing in The Constitution for Republicans

is a portion of the 2nd amendment ...

[Fumesucker]

2. They didn't know?

Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity.

[Ptah]

3. Article Six is more relevant, I think:

Article Six states "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

[progress2k12nbynd]

4. I think it depends on what "separation" issues Santorum is talking about...

If he's talking about a plastic Jesus on the courthouse lawn, a hyper-conservative judge could make the argument that there's nothing in the 1st amendment about that because putting a plastic Jesus on the lawn isn't "making a law respecting an establishment of religion" the same way that requiring school prayer would be.

However, I suspect Santorum's focus would be more on establishing the latter, which would be a clear violation of the 1st amendment...

[HopeHoops]

6. Technically it isn't. That was a USSC interpretation from 1956 or something around there.

[zipplewrath]

7. Old arguments over the establishment clause

These arguments have been had for decades, and you won't even find anything close to universal agreement in law schools. The BoR explicitly prevents congress from enacting laws. The question has always been, to what degree can individuals bring religion into the public square, and to what degree SHOULD they. The left has taken a pretty hard line on these questions, making the assertion that government recognition OF religion is tantamount to "[a] law respecting an establishment of religion". The right has taken the view that attempts to block public expressions of religion, in the public square, is "prohibit[ing] the free exercise thereof.

The conflict becomes a bit more bizarre when those who object TO religion AT ALL, enter the public square. Because then the government acknowledging religion AT ALL, becomes a potential 1st amendment violation.

To be quite honest, even those that wrote, and voted for the provision probably wouldn't take nearly as strict a position as many on the left do today. Alternately, as history has borne out time and again, when religion and government start to engage each other in any formal or specific way, it usually takes a bad turn quickly. In a pluralistic society such as we have become today, the original concept is more important than ever, in ways the original authors could never have understood.

[CTyankee]

8. And why, Rick, does the "no establishment" part come BEFORE the "free exercise" part?

Original intent, indeed...

[libtodeath]

9. The term is a technocality

those exact words are not there so they can get away with saying it and it is technically true.

[Javaman]

10. because dimwit repukes need everything spelled out for them. nt