I once heard an interesting thing about the separation of church and state

[dem mba]

that in fact, the familiar phrase cannot be found anywhere in the Constitution. Indeed, a quick google search proves that this is correct. The exact phrase is no where in the document.

You have to look to Jefferson's 1802 writings to the Danbury Baptists about a "wall of separation". TJ writes:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their "legislature" should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

After viewing the O'Donnell debate video in which she attempts to rebuff Coons, I believe she only remembered something that she had read somewhere; that the phrase "separation of church and state" is not actually in the Constitution. You can see her pause in the video, and then perhaps seeing an opportunity, tries to joust Coons with this pointy little factoid.

Sadly for her, Coons knew what the entire audience of law students knew: that the Establishment Clause (from the First Amendment) is in fact the "wall of separation" between Church and State.

Her ruse backfired.

[Skittles]

1. she is ridiculous, utterly ridiculous n/t

[sandnsea]

2. It's a right wing argument

That she couldn't even pull off. Separation of church and state is not in the constitution, and then you follow with something along the lines of, "it simply say the government can't create a religion".

Of course, you have to follow those comments past the original discussion about the first amendment because she gets even worse further on. Coons actually quoted the First Amendment, and she continued with her "is that in there" stuff. That's when it was clear she was a real idiot.

[dem mba]

3. yea I saw the whole thing

I think the later parts you're talking about is when it dawned on her that she didn't have the upper hand on this one (because she didn't get it the first time the crowd erupted in disbelieving laughter).

[Warren DeMontague]

4. Lotta things aren't in the Constitution.

Like the word "God".

[lumberjack_jeff]

26. +1

[ProfessorGAC]

30. I'll See Your +1 and Raise You +10

That "God" comment was very well stated.
GAC

[SDuderstadt]

5. Next time someone should ask her where the phrase...

"fair trial" appears in the Constitution, then remind her that, despite the absence of of an explicit reference to a "fair trial", we are guaranteed one nonetheless by virtue of other provisions explicitly guaranteeing compulsory process, the 5th amendment, the right to a speedy trial, the right to counsel, the right to a jury of our peers, the right to confront the witnesses against us, the right to know the charges against us, the fact the state bears the burden of proof in criminal cases, the "void for vagueness" rule and the prohibition of ex post facto laws.

She should be asked if she believes there is no right to a fair trial since it does appear explicitly in the Constitution.

[SDuderstadt]

10. Last sentence should actually read...

She should be asked if she believes there is no right to a fair trial since it does NOT appear explicitly in the Constitution.

[dem mba]

20. good point - nt

[SheilaT]

6. What I actually found shocking

was her profound ignorance about the most basic guarantee in the Constitution. It is so clear that she has absolutely never even given it a cursory reading, and was just trying to make points from what she thought she knew about it. It is scary that someone with so little knowledge of what is actually in our founding document should be running for office.

[AdHocSolver]

8. What is scary is how many idiots have already been voted into office. nt

[defendandprotect]

7. This has long been a crusade for the GOP .... to overturn Separation of Church & State ... it begins

with confusing the public as most right wing propaganda begins!

[upi402]

9. Are you making the wild claim...

that she can read... like in books an stuff?

[ProfessorGAC]

31. A Thousand Thumbs Up

Very funny! That was priceless. My prediction: When election day comes, she gets slaughtered. I just can't see Delaware voters electing this dolt. Her 15 minutes are almost up. Tick, tick, tick. . .

[cherokeeprogressive]

11. Does it matter that the First Amendment was ratified in 1791, 11 years before Jefferson's writings

which you refer to?

So you're saying that Jefferson himself defined the First Amendment 11 years after it was written, proposed, and ratified, and that his definition after the fact pretty much solidifies a separation of church and state?

I read the First Amendment and see a singular statement in the context of religion: The Government shall not establish a religion as a way to justify its own actions.

Then again, my view of the US Constitution differs with lots of people who post here at DU... I see the Bill of Rights as a LIMITATION of the powers of government, not a statement of what the government CAN do.

I see no wording in the First Amendment supporting Conway's claim that it's THE legal basis for the doctrine of separation of church and state.

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.

Yeah, I wouldn't vote for her if she were the last politician on earth, but I do disagree with the spin.

[SlimJimmy]

17. You are correct in your reading of the Amendment.

But be very careful, you might offend our fellow DU'ers with your knowledge of the Constitution. After all, the most liberal interpretation is the only one accepted here. The next thing you know, you'll be accused of being a blue-dog.

[Zebedeo]

21. This

is 100% correct.

[dem mba]

22. i may not have been clear

I am saying that Jefferson is reflecting back on the significance of the Establishment Clause (ratified in 1791) in his writings to the Dansbury Baptists. I am aware that 1802 comes after 1791. So no it doesn't matter. He's not defining anything, he's offering an interpretation - an interpretation cited in numerous Supreme Court cases on the subject of religion and public policy.

THOMAS JEFFERSON had the opinion that the 1st Amendment in effect, created a "wall of separation" between church and state. So you are disagreeing with THOMAS JEFFERSON on this matter, not with me or any other DU poster.

Also I think you meant Coons not Conway.

[Trocadero]

12. and buttress that with the "No Religious Test" provision in the body of the Constitution itself

[the redcoat]

13. It was funny seeing the expression on her face of "Oh...that's what that means?" nt

[no_hypocrisy]

14. O'Donnell is either ignorant of or ignoring precent of the United State Supreme Court

on interpreting the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the Federal Constitution. These court cases have found a true wall of separation of Church and State.

[Motown_Johnny]

15. this was Bill Mahr's explanation also.

That she heard that the phrase was not in the Constitution and she confused that with the concept not being in the Constitution.


Hasn't she been touting her knowledge concerning the Constitution as her qualification (singular) for senate?

[dem mba]

29. and Anderson Cooper's

I love it when media figures re-articulate the ideas I had the day before.

[Bitwit1234]

16. I really don't think she had sense to try a ruse

I think she was stupid enough to believe what she said. She probably heard on fox that there is no separation of church and state in the constitution and not bothering to really check it out she went with fox. Get you in trouble every time. So when will intelligent people realize that fox is s cesspool of lies, misrepresentations and things that just aren't so.

[pgodbold]

18. These people are idiots. "Love the sinner but hate the sin" isn't in the Bible either. Clueless.

[ChoppinBroccoli]

19. Here's How You Shoot Down That Argument

I've been hearing this argument a lot from right-wingers lately (must have been a freshly-distributed talking point lately or something). And while they're technically correct that THOSE EXACT WORDS aren't in the Constitution, if you try to explain to them that the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that there is, in fact, a wall of separation between church and state, you'll be met with blank stares. However, when I was arguing this point with a right-winger a few weeks ago, I came up with the ultimate smackdown of this talking point. No right-winger anywhere has EVER been able to successfully continue their argument once hearing this counterpoint.

When they start yammering on about how those words aren't in the Constitution, you simply look at them and say, "The word 'gun' isn't in the Constitution either. Does that mean you're not allowed to own a gun?"

That counterargument shoves a knife directly through their black, right-wing, gun-loving hearts and twists it.

EVERY time I've used this argument, the volume of the right-winger's reply goes WAY down, and they kind of sheepishly say something like, "Well, it IS true that those words aren't in the Constitution," while staring at their shoes. And then they usually tend to move on to something else.

[kctim]

28. I think the argument is with yourself

Even the dumbest right winger knows we have the right to keep and bear arms and would answer as such. The 1st Amendment is no where near as clear in saying there will be a separation of church and state. Well, unless you wanna be really silly and try arguing that 'keep' doesn't mean 'own' and that 'guns' are not 'arms.'

You are much better off just sticking with the SC interpretations.

[mkultra]

23. neither is "Freedom of religion"

[Bill McBlueState]

24. what we're seeing in 2010

is that the sort of dumbass arguments that have been circulating around on the internet for 15 years are finally making their way to the mouths of candidates for major office.

Too bad.

[Pisces]

25. She is no longer worth our time or comment. She is no one on this board.

[thereismore]

27. She did not have her usual audience, bwahahaha. nt