O'Donnell questions separation of church, state

[Hepburn]

"Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?" O'Donnell asked him (Coons).

When Coons responded that the First Amendment bars Congress from making laws respecting the establishment of religion, O'Donnell asked: "You're telling me that's in the First Amendment?"

Her comments, in a debate aired on radio station WDEL, generated a buzz in the audience.

"You actually audibly heard the crowd gasp," said Widener University political scientist Wesley Leckrone, adding that he thought it raised questions about O'Donnell's grasp of the Constitution.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/19/AR2010101902501.html

This debate took place in front of law students and legal scholars at Widener University Law School. Perfect place for one to admit that one is clueless about the 1st Amendment!

[cleanhippie]

1. As if we even needed more reason to know she is an ignorant ding-bat.

But she just keeps on giving.

[Wickerman]

3. the trick is to get the populace to understand way too many of the teabaggers

as right behind her and in fact, are her. :evilgrin:

[joeybee12]

2. It's because of her "faith" Being such a religious person, what's in the Constitution

is what she BELIEVES is in there.

[uncommon]

4. Even the hard core rwers are having a hard time defending her at this point.

She has shown herself to be ignorant of the contents of the Constitution, ignorant of the decisions of the Supreme Court, and many other things.

She is not fit to govern.

[BlueJazz]

5. Geez....what can you say about this Woman...I mean she's in some strange...

...reality/world were she actually believes she's capable of ANY normal "below the surface" thoughts.
The Woman simply amazes me with her total, complete ignorance of even the most basic knowledge.

If I were going up on my roof, I wouldn't hire her to hold the ladder...She wouldn't know how to do it...

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

9. She's that perfect combination of arrogant and stupid. nt

[SpiralHawk]

6. Stunning ignorance is typical of the TeaBagliCons (R)

And Fox 'news' (R) is a big part of the reason for their stunning ignorance...

[edhopper]

7. She is right

This is a Christian nation, founded on the Bible and should be governed by the literal truth of the Bible.
:sarcasm:

[Hepburn]

10. And Noah had dinosaurs on the Arc...

...at least that is what I have been told.

:rofl:

[edhopper]

12. No

He didn't put Dinosaurs on the Ark (not Arc). That's why they are extinct.
Dontcha read the Bible.

[malaise]

8. The sooner this woman disappears the better

I'm sick of Grifters Inc.

[LynneSin]

11. She's like a raging case of herpes. Just when you think the mess is cleared up....

it comes roaring back again.

I suspect we'll see her try to run for senate against Tom Carper.

[TwilightGardener]

13. It's over. Or at least it should be. But some teabagger will still vote for her anyway.

[KharmaTrain]

14. She's Not Alone...

Most teabaggers who claim to know the Constitution couldn't tell you what it says...they even screwed up understanding their coveted 2nd and 10th ammendments. What they use is make-believe Constitution that was written by Saint Raygun and interpreted by hate radio. It's a marvelous Constitution cause you can write and rewrite it to suit your needs. The ignorance is only superceded by the arrogance and the compliance by a corporate media that just can't get enough of the crazy.

[edhopper]

15. Unfortunately

that's the same Constitution the SCOTUS is using now.

[RaleighNCDUer]

18. That becomes obvious when they pull (mis)quotes from the

Declaration of Independence and say it's from the Constitution - and visa versa.

[1776Forever]

16. You betcha she did! The uninformed eat this up! They have no reality as to what this means!

All they see is their fundamentalist issues of gays and abortion and don't realize this is what causes civil wars and other unrests! They only think of themselves and their virtuous sermons on how they are the chosen ones. Jesus himself ranted against it and they still don't get it!

[spanone]

17. she's an embarrassment to any thinking american....

[krabigirl]

19. That woman is such an idiot. She will be on fox and friends soon, with a bad dye job.

[Diablo Abogado]

20. The problem is

... she technically correct. When discussing separation of church and state in modern context this condition is referenced as a two way separation. Neither side gets to influence the other. That's where the problem comes in because the Constitution only supports this from the direction of preventing state influence on church, the Constitution makes no mention of preventing church influence on state. She was certainly trying to bait him, and it seems he managed to avoid it due to her inability to redirect the question based on his answer. However, that doesn't make the point any less accurate.

This is one of those subjects that as progressives, the movement should not want openly discussed. The last thing progressives need is the general populace to realize is that interpretations of the Constitution that don't necessarily fit with the text as written or the original meaning but instead with a desirable outcome is a tactic used in the efforts to re-engineer society.

[Caliman73]

21. I disagree.

Ultimately it is a two way separation. The government cannot establish a state religion, nor can it discriminate against religious groups. Certainly religious people can participate in politics and government but ultimately the establishment clause keeps them from establishing government sanctioned religion. The separation of church and state is implied by the prohibition of the government on establishing religion.

[onenote]

22. Fail

The understanding that the Constitutional prohibition on the establishment of religion was intended to create a wall of separation between church and state was first expressed by no less than Thomas Jefferson and has been the consistently held view of the Supreme Court for over 125 years. The issue that O'Donnell was raising involved whether the state, through the public school system, is allowed to promote religion by teaching religious doctrine as science. The answer clearly is no.

You are right that O'Donnell probably (and as always ineptly) was trying to make the point that the phrase "separation of church and state" doesn't appear in the Constitution. But for her to make her underlying point, she (and you) would have to reject the contemporaneous interpretation of the Constitution offered by Thomas Jefferson as well as over a century of Supreme Court jurisprudence.

Which, of course, leads to the question: what other positions taken by the founding fathers regarding the meaning of the Constitution and what other century-old interpretations of the Constitution, does Ms. O'Donnell think are wrong.

[Scurrilous]

23. K & R

:thumbsup:

[Manifestor_of_Light]

24. Have you checked out Joe Miller's opinions?

He has a law degree from an Ivy League school, and he should know better.

He says that unemployment bennies are unconstitutional, but it was OK for his wife to receive them of course.

I get so mad when these people have actual law degrees and come out with these idiot opinions.

I have a law degree and Constitutional Law is a REQUIRED COURSE. You study various amendments and how the case law has changed.

These idiots should be asked about Marbury v. Madison which was decided in 1802. This is the case that established judicial review as a concept. It said that courts may overrule statute law with case law, and that they must do this because society changes and concepts of justice, and protected classes change.

This throws "original intent" out the window. Back in the days of Watergate they called it "strict construction".

:banghead: :wtf:

I'm waiting for someone's head to explode over the "general welfare" clause. That covers entitlements, health care, and LOTS of stuff.