O'Donnell questions separation of church, state

[bodecea]

And? We appreciate you taking those who can't make it here. Now, if our traffic and schools would reflect a lowering of our population.

Actually, if you go to U Haul's website you find that the cost of a 26 foot truck from SF to Austin is $1711 and from Austin to SF is $752 (just noting this for accuracy's sake).

The quote I got was from a few years back. but nevertheless the fact remains Texas is a hell of a lot cheaper to live in that bankrupt California.

And there is a very good reason for that.

 

[topspin]

you get what you pay for TEXMEX

 

[bodecea]

I don't see the word gun in the 2nd amendment, you retard.

I forgot you were mentally challenged.

Here perhaps this will help:

arms [ɑːmz]
pl n
1. (Military / Firearms, Gunnery, Ordnance & Artillery) weapons collectively See also small arms
2. (Military) military exploits prowess in arms
3. (History / Heraldry) the official heraldic symbols of a family, state, etc., including a shield with distinctive devices, and often supports, a crest, or other insignia
bear arms
a. (Military) to carry weapons
b. (Military) to serve in the armed forces
c. (History / Heraldry) to have a coat of arms
(Military)
in or under arms armed and prepared for war
(Military)
lay down one's arms to stop fighting; surrender
(Military)
present arms Military
a. a position of salute in which the rifle is brought up to a position vertically in line with the body, muzzle uppermost and trigger guard to the fore
b. the command for this drill
(Military)
take (up) arms to prepare to fight
to arms! arm yourselves!
up in arms indignant; prepared to protest strongly

But it doesn't say "gun." That's implied by the use of the word "arms" which can mean any weapon. Right to bear arms also guaranteed the right to own a sword or bayonet, all of which were in common usage at the time. So technically, guns could be disallowed, swords and bows and arrows allowed and that could still be considered bearing arms. (Yes, that's a ridiculous argument...it's meant to show the ridiculousness of claiming lack of specific wording means the intent is not there).

And the 6th ammendment says nothing about a "fair trial," but that's implied by the rights it does mention, which set the framework for a fair trial.

And the 10th ammendment doesn't cover separation of powers. Separation of Powers refers to the powers of the different branches of the Federal government. The phrase is not in the Constitution, but is implied by the actual separation of powers in Articles I to III.

And since James Madison, who wrote the 1st Ammendment, used the phrase Separation of Church and State and Separation of religion and government when talking about the Constitution he clearly believed that separation was the effect. It was certainly his intent. Surely no one is dumb enough to claim that the author of the ammendment didn't know what it meant?

Don't overestimate certain posters here.....

 

[pinqy]

No stretch of the imagination can even say the Establishment clause language is synomous with the doctrine of Church and State.

Here's a little bit from James Madison on Church and State

Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history. (See the cases in which negatives were put by J. M. on two bills passd by Congs and his signature withheld from another. See also attempt in Kentucky for example, where it was proposed to exempt Houses of Worship from taxes.

The most notable attempt was that in Virga to establish a Genl assessment for the support of all Xn sects. This was proposed in the year by P. H. and supported by all his eloquence, aided by the remaining prejudices of the Sect which before the Revolution had been established by law. The progress of the measure was arrested by urging that the respect due to the people required in so extraordinary a case an appeal to their deliberate will. The bill was accordingly printed & published with that view. At the instance of Col: George Nicholas, Col: George Mason & others, the memorial & remonstrance agst it was drawn up, (which see) and printed Copies of it circulated thro' the State, to be signed by the people at large. It met with the approbation of the Baptists, the Presbyterians, the Quakers, and the few Roman Catholics, universally; of the Methodists in part; and even of not a few of the Sect formerly established by law. When the Legislature assembled, the number of Copies & signatures prescribed displayed such an overwhelming opposition of the people, that the proposed plan of a genl assessmt was crushed under it; and advantage taken of the crisis to carry thro' the Legisl: the Bill above referred to, establishing religious liberty. In the course of the opposition to the bill in the House of Delegates, which was warm & strenuous from some of the minority, an experiment was made on the reverence entertained for the name & sactity of the Saviour, by proposing to insert the words "Jesus Christ" after the words "our lord" in the preamble, the object of which, would have been, to imply a restriction of the liberty defined in the Bill, to those professing his religion only. The amendment was discussed, and rejected by a vote of agst (See letter of J. M. to Mr Jefferson dated ) The opponents of the amendment having turned the feeling as well as judgment of the House agst it, by successfully contending that the better proof of reverence for that holy name wd be not to profane it by making it a topic of legisl. discussion, & particularly by making his religion the means of abridging the natural and equal rights of all men, in defiance of his own declaration that his Kingdom was not of this world. This view of the subject was much enforced by the circumstance that it was espoused by some members who were particularly distinguished by their reputed piety and Christian zeal.

This should be interesting to see how you claim that the author of the ammendment is stretching the imagination in interpreting his own words.

 

[Rinata]

Witches are unpredictable.

 

[boedicca]

O'Donnell's correct.

The phrase "Separation of Church and State" is not mentioned in the Constitution. The establishment clause and religious freedom are related, but different concepts in the 1st amendment.

 

[bodecea]

And? We appreciate you taking those who can't make it here. Now, if our traffic and schools would reflect a lowering of our population.

Actually, if you go to U Haul's website you find that the cost of a 26 foot truck from SF to Austin is $1711 and from Austin to SF is $752 (just noting this for accuracy's sake).

The quote I got was from a few years back. but nevertheless the fact remains Texas is a hell of a lot cheaper to live in that bankrupt California.

You know....while I truely appreciate you opening that barn door wide enough for us to drive a semi-truck thru......it puzzles me how a person as smart as you keep insisting you are couldn't see that coming......

 

[pinqy]

O'Donnell's correct.

The phrase "Separation of Church and State" is not mentioned in the Constitution. The establishment clause and religious freedom are related, but different concepts in the 1st amendment.

No one claims the phrase is in the Constitution. But Article VI and the 1st ammendment create a separation, at least according to Madison, who wrote it, and Jefferson, whose work the ammendment is based on. To say that the 1st ammendment doesn't create separation is to go against the author's clear intent.

 

[boedicca]

The absence of a State Religion is not the same as absence of all religions whatsoever, which is how the Separationists wield their club.

 

[Intense]

It would be much more valuable for libbies to focus on what the Constitution DOES say with regard to church and State.

And it worthy of note that libbies (mostly Democratics) spend such an inordinate amount of time commenting on and contemplating Christine O'Donnell. It is pretty clear to almost all observers that she's not gonna win. Coons, that tax and spend crazy lib, is probably going to win.

So the fascination with O'Donnell is telling. The libs seem to be looking for some political enemy they can defeat by ridicule. LOL. Of course, since O'Donnell is probably going to lose anyway, the reality is that libs can take no actual credit. But the petty efforts do at least distract them from the ass kicking they are about to take on Election Day.

baically your retarded ass can't admit that O'Donnell is batshit crazy and ridiculously stupid as fuck so you attack libs for stating whats obvious and you're mad about it, typical rightwing shithead diversionary tactic to get out of admitting that their own ilk is fucked in the brain.

Yet compared to Pelosi she is Wonder Woman. What doea that say for you Ass Clowns???

 

[bodecea]

O'Donnell's correct.

The phrase "Separation of Church and State" is not mentioned in the Constitution. The establishment clause and religious freedom are related, but different concepts in the 1st amendment.

And guns aren't mentioned in the Constitution either, nor is "fair trial".

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Texas is cheaper due in large part to much more widespread and efficient use of inexpensive, undocumented Mexican labor.


true story

Too bad you can't prove it.

What is true and can be proven is that more hispanics reside in California than in Texas.

Total Hispanic Population statistics - states compared - StateMaster

 

[Ravi]

I didn't watch the interview but I'm curious...did anyone claim the words "separation of church and state" are in the constitution?

Somehow, I doubt it and O'Donnell was battling a strawman.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I don't see the word gun in the 2nd amendment, you retard.

I forgot you were mentally challenged.

Here perhaps this will help:

arms [ɑːmz]
pl n
1. (Military / Firearms, Gunnery, Ordnance & Artillery) weapons collectively See also small arms
2. (Military) military exploits prowess in arms
3. (History / Heraldry) the official heraldic symbols of a family, state, etc., including a shield with distinctive devices, and often supports, a crest, or other insignia
bear arms
a. (Military) to carry weapons
b. (Military) to serve in the armed forces
c. (History / Heraldry) to have a coat of arms
(Military)
in or under arms armed and prepared for war
(Military)
lay down one's arms to stop fighting; surrender
(Military)
present arms Military
a. a position of salute in which the rifle is brought up to a position vertically in line with the body, muzzle uppermost and trigger guard to the fore
b. the command for this drill
(Military)
take (up) arms to prepare to fight
to arms! arm yourselves!
up in arms indignant; prepared to protest strongly

But it doesn't say "gun." That's implied by the use of the word "arms" which can mean any weapon. Right to bear arms also guaranteed the right to own a sword or bayonet, all of which were in common usage at the time. So technically, guns could be disallowed, swords and bows and arrows allowed and that could still be considered bearing arms. (Yes, that's a ridiculous argument...it's meant to show the ridiculousness of claiming lack of specific wording means the intent is not there).

And the 6th ammendment says nothing about a "fair trial," but that's implied by the rights it does mention, which set the framework for a fair trial.

And the 10th ammendment doesn't cover separation of powers. Separation of Powers refers to the powers of the different branches of the Federal government. The phrase is not in the Constitution, but is implied by the actual separation of powers in Articles I to III.

And since James Madison, who wrote the 1st Ammendment, used the phrase Separation of Church and State and Separation of religion and government when talking about the Constitution he clearly believed that separation was the effect. It was certainly his intent. Surely no one is dumb enough to claim that the author of the ammendment didn't know what it meant?

So you resort to arguing over semantics. Typical liberal.

 

[Ravi]

O'Donnell's correct.

The phrase "Separation of Church and State" is not mentioned in the Constitution. The establishment clause and religious freedom are related, but different concepts in the 1st amendment.

And guns aren't mentioned in the Constitution either, nor is "fair trial".

There's also nothing about eating popsicles in the constitution.

 

[topspin]

she was battling deer in the headlights syndrome, it was freaking hillarious if you didn't see it.

 

[manifold]

I didn't watch the interview but I'm curious...did anyone claim the words "separation of church and state" are in the constitution?

Somehow, I doubt it and O'Donnell was battling a strawman.

And somehow she still lost.

 

[manifold]

Texas is cheaper due in large part to much more widespread and efficient use of inexpensive, undocumented Mexican labor.


true story

Too bad you can't prove it.

What is true and can be proven is that more hispanics reside in California than in Texas.

Total Hispanic Population statistics - states compared - StateMaster

Those are documented spics.

I'm talking about the undocumented.

 

[bodecea]

I forgot you were mentally challenged.

Here perhaps this will help:

arms [ɑːmz]
pl n
1. (Military / Firearms, Gunnery, Ordnance & Artillery) weapons collectively See also small arms
2. (Military) military exploits prowess in arms
3. (History / Heraldry) the official heraldic symbols of a family, state, etc., including a shield with distinctive devices, and often supports, a crest, or other insignia
bear arms
a. (Military) to carry weapons
b. (Military) to serve in the armed forces
c. (History / Heraldry) to have a coat of arms
(Military)
in or under arms armed and prepared for war
(Military)
lay down one's arms to stop fighting; surrender
(Military)
present arms Military
a. a position of salute in which the rifle is brought up to a position vertically in line with the body, muzzle uppermost and trigger guard to the fore
b. the command for this drill
(Military)
take (up) arms to prepare to fight
to arms! arm yourselves!
up in arms indignant; prepared to protest strongly

But it doesn't say "gun." That's implied by the use of the word "arms" which can mean any weapon. Right to bear arms also guaranteed the right to own a sword or bayonet, all of which were in common usage at the time. So technically, guns could be disallowed, swords and bows and arrows allowed and that could still be considered bearing arms. (Yes, that's a ridiculous argument...it's meant to show the ridiculousness of claiming lack of specific wording means the intent is not there).

And the 6th ammendment says nothing about a "fair trial," but that's implied by the rights it does mention, which set the framework for a fair trial.

And the 10th ammendment doesn't cover separation of powers. Separation of Powers refers to the powers of the different branches of the Federal government. The phrase is not in the Constitution, but is implied by the actual separation of powers in Articles I to III.

And since James Madison, who wrote the 1st Ammendment, used the phrase Separation of Church and State and Separation of religion and government when talking about the Constitution he clearly believed that separation was the effect. It was certainly his intent. Surely no one is dumb enough to claim that the author of the ammendment didn't know what it meant?

So you resort to arguing over semantics. Typical liberal.

Wait...are you trying to say that ONLY LIBERALS are arguing semantics? Isn't that the entire issue here? The question of semantics when referring to separation of church and state?


Seriously?

 

[bodecea]

she was battling deer in the headlights syndrome, it was freaking hillarious if you didn't see it.

Was it as good as Quayle's VP debate?