O'Donnell questions separation of church, state

[geauxtohell]

Or the 14th or 16th amendment..................

Well yeah. The 14th and incorporation is another layer altogether. At the country's founding the State government weren't bound by the 1st Amendment. But I'm not sure the separation argument changes much in view of it; it just means that whatever conclusion you arrive at with respect that issue applies equally to the state and local governments.

Forget the esoterics. She didn't even know what they were. As in: "The 16th amendment establishes the federal income tax".

I can understand why Limbaugh would want to give her the benefit of the doubt, but It's possible that she really is this ignorant.

Or more scary, she isn't this ignorant and doesn't believe in the separation of church and state.

Or a third option: She knew what she was talking about, but was just trying to score cheap and asinine points that the phrase "separation of church and state" isn't literally in the constitution.

In which case, she deserves to be mocked for pulling silly rhetorical shenanigans and insulting the intelligence of the audience.

 

[strollingbones]

i always love how the party of family blah blah blah...loves and adores a drug addict with how many ex wives?

 

[geauxtohell]

Or the 14th or 16th amendment..................

Well yeah. The 14th and incorporation is another layer altogether. At the country's founding the State government weren't bound by the 1st Amendment. But I'm not sure the separation argument changes much in view of it; it just means that whatever conclusion you arrive at with respect that issue applies equally to the state and local governments.

Fact is? There is ZERO 'Separation'...if that were the case? Congress would get RID of it's Chaplin.

/Argument.

^ Another example of someone who "doesn't get it".

 

[Ravi]

It's a metaphor. A metaphor than any rational person would understand.

No. It's actually a fairly long-standing debate in legal jurisprudence - whether the Supreme Court was right to go with an interpretation Jefferson would have wanted (and which I agree with), or whether that interpretation over-extends the language of the amendment.

I realize it is easy to type 'lol' at things and pretend they're more simplistic than they are, so I'll assume that's what you're doing here.

As for O'Donnell, I highly doubt she knows of or was referencing the legal history (and debate) here. I think she'd heard it said somewhere before and just threw it out there without knowing anything about it, and consequently looked foolish.

I disagree. I believe the case you reference decided this: The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state...

Unless this interpretation is overthrown or unless there is an amendment to clarify, there is a metaphoric separation of church and state in the constitution.

 

[Steerpike]

Forget the esoterics. She didn't even know what they were. As in: "The 16th amendment establishes the federal income tax".

Yeah that's pretty bad.

Although if she'll vote to reign in out debt, she could be the spawn of Satan himself and I'd have a hard time complaining.

That said, I don't think I could make myself pull the lever for her if I lived there.

 

[mal]

O'Donnell questions separation of church, state - Politics - Decision 2010 - msnbc.com

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

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.

I thought these Tea Party candidates were all about Constitutionalism? WTF???

I Wrote this almost a Decade ago:

the latest from associalisticpress.com© Separation of Church and State is a Lie

"Separation of Church and State" is NOT in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights... Christine was Correct and everyone in that Law School Audience that Laughed at her or Doubted it is Ignorant of Fact.

The Context you Need to get Familiar with is in that Link and it Includes not only the Jefferson letter, but the letter sent to him from the Danbury Baptists...

It also Includes some other Facts you might want to Familiarize yourself with.

Carry on.



peace...

 

[Steerpike]

I disagree. I believe the case you reference decided this: The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state...

Unless this interpretation is overthrown or unless there is an amendment to clarify, there is a metaphoric separation of church and state in the constitution.

You said you disagree, but then you didn't contradict anything I said. What exactly are you disagreeing with?

 

[Ravi]

I disagree. I believe the case you reference decided this: The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state...

Unless this interpretation is overthrown or unless there is an amendment to clarify, there is a metaphoric separation of church and state in the constitution.

You said you disagree, but then you didn't contradict anything I said. What exactly are you disagreeing with?

That the law students were wrong to laugh.

 

[Steerpike]

You said you disagree, but then you didn't contradict anything I said. What exactly are you disagreeing with?

That the law students were wrong to laugh.[/QUOTE]

Ah. Well, personally I think it makes them look foolish as well, because if anyone should be aware of the legal nuances around this, it is them (even if O'Donnell wasn't aware of it).

 

[geauxtohell]

Forget the esoterics. She didn't even know what they were. As in: "The 16th amendment establishes the federal income tax".

Yeah that's pretty bad.

Although if she'll vote to reign in out debt, she could be the spawn of Satan himself and I'd have a hard time complaining.

That said, I don't think I could make myself pull the lever for her if I lived there.

I would think a tea party candidate would know the ins and outs of taxation and citizenship especially since there is so much talk of tossing them.

As someone who is in the field of biological sciences, I am more appalled by her mangling of Evolution, but that's probably another thread (well, it's about 500 other threads on here).

 

[Steerpike]

I would think a tea party candidate would know the ins and outs of taxation and citizenship especially since there is so much talk of tossing them.

As someone who is in the field of biological sciences, I am more appalled by her mangling of Evolution, but that's probably another thread (well, it's about 500 other threads on here).

One would hope.

I work in Kansas City. Don't get me started on it (Kansas is a joke on this). Most people opposed to it don't even understand it.

 

[geauxtohell]

I would think a tea party candidate would know the ins and outs of taxation and citizenship especially since there is so much talk of tossing them.

As someone who is in the field of biological sciences, I am more appalled by her mangling of Evolution, but that's probably another thread (well, it's about 500 other threads on here).

One would hope.

I work in Kansas City. Don't get me started on it (Kansas is a joke on this). Most people opposed to it don't even understand it.

Yeah. In light of the legal losses for the I.D. crowd, it's a little surprising that people are still trying to make this a campaign issue.

Most likely, people who have never actually studied what the scientific method does and does not do.

 

[The T]

Well yeah. The 14th and incorporation is another layer altogether. At the country's founding the State government weren't bound by the 1st Amendment. But I'm not sure the separation argument changes much in view of it; it just means that whatever conclusion you arrive at with respect that issue applies equally to the state and local governments.

Fact is? There is ZERO 'Separation'...if that were the case? Congress would get RID of it's Chaplin.

/Argument.

^ Another example of someone who "doesn't get it".

I get it more than you think...but the latter word has no meaning to you. I meant what I wrote.

 

[geauxtohell]

Fact is? There is ZERO 'Separation'...if that were the case? Congress would get RID of it's Chaplin.

/Argument.

^ Another example of someone who "doesn't get it".

I get it more than you think...but the latter word has no meaning to you. I meant what I wrote.

Blah, blah, blah, blah....

I get you point, it's just silly. If the congressmen/women were forced to attend service given by the chaplain, it would be relevant. The fact that congress chooses to employ a chaplain for their members who choose to worship is not a state endorsement of religion.

Fail.

 

[The T]

^ Another example of someone who "doesn't get it".

I get it more than you think...but the latter word has no meaning to you. I meant what I wrote.

Blah, blah, blah, blah....

I get you point, it's just silly. If the congressmen/women were forced to attend service given by the chaplain, it would be relevant. The fact that congress chooses to employ a chaplain for their members who choose to worship is not a state endorsement of religion.

Fail.

Wrong. But they can along with the Courts and ACLU tell the rest of us we cannot hold such exercises in Schools...

Fail? Sure. It is YOU that fail bub. This is a two-way street.

 

[ABikerSailor]

You know......someone running as a candidate in strong support of the Constitution would at least know a bit about what they're supposed to stand for.

Her excuse was that she'd not brought her copy with her, as well as her expressing gratitude that Senators aren't required to memorize it.

Combine that with the stated position of her saying she's a witch who doesn't believe in masturbation, well.......you've got a full on bat shit crazy chick.

Although.......I wonder if this is how Palin would run a campaign if she were to actually run for president?

 

[geauxtohell]

Wrong. But they can along with the Courts and ACLU tell the rest of us we cannot hold such exercises in Schools...

Fail? Sure. It is YOU that fail bub. This is a two-way street.

The Courts = The law.

You can throw a temper tantrum all you want, but you don't get to make your own laws and are bound by judicial review/interpretation of the Constitution.

 

[ClosedCaption]

The best part is how the crowd erupted in laughter after she opened her mouth and confirmed what an airhead she is

 

[The T]

Wrong. But they can along with the Courts and ACLU tell the rest of us we cannot hold such exercises in Schools...

Fail? Sure. It is YOU that fail bub. This is a two-way street.

The Courts = The law.

You can throw a temper tantrum all you want, but you don't get to make your own laws and are bound by judicial review/interpretation of the Constitution.

And it doesn't make the Court Correct...and they are NOT the final say by any stretch. The people however are.

 

[Greenbeard]

Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?

I'll grant that a total ignoramus could look exactly the same as someone making a subtle, nuanced (and decidely outside the mainstream) point about originalism and personal disagreements with a series of historical precedents.

But which of those two categories do you think someone who needed to be reminded what the 14th and 16th amendments are would likely fall into?