Limbaugh Defends O’Donnell in First Amendment Debate
- Posted on October 19, 2010 at 6:59pm by
Meredith Jessup
- Print »
- Email »
Conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh defended Delaware Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell who questioned her opponent’s assertion that the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment mentions the “separation of church and state.”
Rush says news accounts of the debate event were “purposely written to make it look like Christine O‘Donnell does not know what’s in the First Amendment when she was right.” Audio via Daily Rushbo:
Popular Stories
Does Misstated Marathon Claim Prove Paul Ryan Is Dishonest? (POLL) 705 Comments
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 543 Comments
‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 364 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 358 Comments
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 358 Comments
Faith
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 358 Comments
Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 364 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
- President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 277 Comments
- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 149 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 302 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 358 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (129)
Redwing1
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 10:33pmI wonder if ABC will start bringing up why Coons has no clue that the establishment clause and separation of church and state are not related. I think the ‘Bearded Marxist” keeps getting the communist constitution mixed up with the US Constitution. Funny how ABC is infatuated with O’Donnel and the 14th amendment but has nothing to say about the ignorance of Coons.
Report Post »MrObvious
Posted on October 20, 2010 at 12:42amABC is a troll. He/She/It never seems to be bothered by a little something the rest of us like to call reality.
Report Post »abc
Posted on October 20, 2010 at 3:41pmThe Establishment Clause IS related to separation of church and state. In discerning what the founding fathers had in mind as they interpret the tension between the free expression and anti-establishment clauses, courts have properly looked to clues from other writings by the Founding Fathers, including Jefferson’s letter in which he so eloquently described it as such. The short-hand has been corrupted over time and folks on the right sometimes feel that the Court has gone too far in carrying the analogy; however, the Court has cited it in prior cases and it has served as a guide. Many people who have studied constitutional law will argue rightly that it helps to define the Court’s current view on how to balance those two First Amendment clauses that are clearly in tension with each other. The difference is that Coons is talking about the CONCEPT of church-state separation while O’Donnell is trying to rebut this concept merely by saying teh WORDS do not appear in the document. This is nonsense, of course, since Scalia has repeatedly argued that even his most conservative form of constitutional interpretation allows for Founding Father writings to be used to inform what words in the Constitution mean. This is why a group of law students, who understand Con Law, would laugh at O’Donnell but not at Coons.
Report Post »SHEEPDRINKTEA
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 10:18pm“ Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ”
Rush is as stupid as O’Donnell.
Report Post »Redwing1
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 10:37pmSheepdrinktea please put down your smoking device. You and Coons would make good running mates as neither of you understands what you are saying.
Report Post »Rowgue
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 10:39pmOk so the government isn’t supposed to “ESTABLISH” a religion. Everyone already knows that einstein. Now put down the Chris Mathews kool-aid and explain where the seperation of church and state is. It doesn’t exist, just like the fictional right to privacy.
Report Post »Constitutional_Patriot_in_SC
Posted on October 20, 2010 at 9:52amKeep going…………….. You maggots liberals always stop there, why? Here allow me.
…….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.
Report Post »Christian Kalgaard
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 10:05pmGod bless Rush Limbaugh
Report Post »lostandfound65
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 9:46pmRush rocks!
Report Post »conservativeone
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 9:23pmThe Liberal Cult will never admit they were fooled by this so-called moron. Hmmm … Now really, who’s the moron here now?
Report Post »conservativeone
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 9:21pmGod Bless Rush … I always knew that liberal intelligence was self proclaimed, but this woman has clearly made these idiots look foolish.
She asked “where is separation of church and state in the Constitution”, and set this bozo up perfectly. He went into the First Amendment … Again she asked, and was mocked by such brilliant minds.
The Constitution says nothing about separation of church and state …. nothing.
Report Post »...............R..U..Kidding...Me
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 9:19pmThe 1st thing O’Donnell should do when asked a question is to show some humility by making this statement ” I’m new to politics so I may not be able to address the issue as articulate as Slick Willey the Car Salesman ah (politician) here but I think…..”
Report Post »Contrarianthinker
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 8:36pmABC, sdo you feel ganged up on??? (grin) Shall I help by being a true Contrarian here?
Report Post »claymoremacm
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 8:23pmcommerce clause needs to be revaluated,since the goverments argument is weak at best,then the Feds ran amuk
Report Post »abc
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 8:40pmThe SCOTUS is already moving the scope of the Commerce Clause back a bit, from the peak of its scope during the clinton administration in the mid 1990s.
Report Post »NoProlesHere
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 7:56pmhttp://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html
Report Post »Maybe the GEESE Know More than the BEES Know
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 7:44pmi listened to the debate real time and she put Coons in his place many many times…i will not be surprised if she wins.
Report Post »FreedomGal76
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 8:24pmI really hope she does. We can’t repeat it enough that he is a SELF-AVOWED MARXIST! What we need to stress is that he is FOR changing our constitution to mold it to their consensus. She does know the constitution and more importantly she knows what it means. Separation of church and state was in a letter. The phrase “separation of church and state” is nowhere to be found in the constitution.
Report Post »Pendragon
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 7:43pmI am amazed at how ignorant people are concerning this. It is not freedom from religion but freedom of Relgion and it is based on the Judeo Christiian basis. Our Founding Fathers had no concept of any other Relgion ever being in USA. when writing our constitution. The only referece ever made about any seperation was that of the Danbury Baptists who said to Jefferson they wanted the same ablitilies as the Angelican Church of England denomination because at that time if you were not part of the Church of England you could not do anyting exceot serve on the front lines as all officers wre first Chosen out of those who where of the Angerlican faith, as well as any other privledged postions in the government or business world of that time. If you wre baptist or Luthern or any other denomination otherwise you were not as important. The Danbury Baptists were given that support in return for favor of votes for Jefferson fter the Consititution had been written
Report Post »ghstuder
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 7:40pmHey ABC, remember when Obama stated there were 57 States? If not, here you go. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws
We made him the President.
Report Post »abc
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 8:35pmTo compare a gaffe like that to a repeated claim that scientists are putting human brains into lab rats or that one has privileged security information regarding China is to compare my misspellings on this blog to Nazi hate speech run throughout the fascist period in Germany. One is the exception that proves the rule, while the other is the rule. That is my opinion, but I‘ll hold it until you show me evidence that Obama repeatedly asserted the existence of 57 states as many times as O’Donnell repeated the lie that she had security information on china (which she stated at least six times, according to John King on CNN).
Report Post »clhathaway
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 10:06pm“To compare a gaffe like that to a repeated claim…”
OK ABC, show where Christine has repeated that gaffe. You know of course she was refering to a report that scientists had put functioning human brain CELLS in lab rats, don’t you? Kind of makes your point ridiculous i think.
Report Post »abc
Posted on October 20, 2010 at 3:35pmShe used the word “brain” not “brain cell” and made the claim multiple times. I have seen three different clips which you can find on YouTube.
Report Post »CDSDAD
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 7:38pmThe separation of church and state is in the constitution – The SOVIET UNION CONSTITUTION – Article 52 – Look it up – That is what the progressives did
Report Post »CatB
Posted on October 20, 2010 at 12:12amSounds about right … they don’t seem to follow the U.S. one.
Report Post »jose wasabi
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 7:37pmCould electing anyone from Delaware to the Senate be worse that Biden? I don’t want those slick politicians who never answer a question directly and know exactly what to say, rather than saying what they believe.
Report Post »charliego
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 7:30pmExactly, Mr. Limbaugh! Thank you. And the laughter in the audience proclaimed their own ignorance. Case law vs. Constitutional law—as some of our illustrious judges proclaim in judgements–we will make it up as we go along or legislate it if that fits our mood for the day.
Report Post »seekjusticeandmercy
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 7:28pmRush nails it here in this commentary. If only the average American read and understood our constitution and the original writings of our founders they would know that. It is sad that a group of law students did not and a socialist candidate could not name any other freedom guaranteed in the 1st amendment and purposefully distorted the one he did know. It’s a big product of the dumbing down of America by liberal, socialist philosophies permeating our educational system. Teach your children well America – the school system isn’t going to.
Report Post »Devil Dog 7175
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 7:27pmShe is RIGHT and so is Rush. Tells you all about the lawyers being turned out when you hear them gasp and laugh, God help us! 14 and counting!!!
Report Post »Maybe the GEESE Know More than the BEES Know
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 8:22pmamen!!
Report Post »Joseph8
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 10:04pmwatching the video a few times, I kinda feel bad for Odonnell. You can see her reaction when she hears everyone start laughing at her comment because she thinks everyone is on the same page as her, that she just humiliated Coons. She didn’t know that all those idiots were laughing at her because they all thought the 1st amendment said “separation of church and state”.
Report Post »BocaBaby
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 7:25pmI do beleive that when it is all said and done, that Rush will have been seen as one of the greatest gifts ever given to this nation.
Rush we love you so much!!!! You TOTALLY rock!
Report Post »abc
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 7:16pmWho cares what Rush says. He is not an expert on the Constitution, and he is highly partisan. He conveniently ignores the fact that she also had no clue what the 14th amendment said, arguing that a Senator doesn’t have to have the Constitution memorized. This is definitely true, but the 14th amendment is kind of important, so her not knowing that one makes it seem likely that she doesn’t know what is in the 1st amendment either. Remember, this is a woman that claims that scientists are putting human brains into lab rats and that she has classified knowledge about China–these statements are far nuttier (to borrow a phrase from Rove) than her latest gaffe and highlight a general lack of intelligence and knowledge. Too bad conservatives would elect a potted plant running for the GOP before they admit that it is not qualified for office.
Report Post »Ortho
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 7:26pmABC
Report Post »There is nothing Christine O’Donnel can do that would cause more damage than any Democrat has and will continue to do. Wake up, we are broke. It is a very clear choice. We follow Obama’s path to self destruction or we save ourselves.
booger71
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 7:43pmThe Constitution was written so to be easily read and understood by the farmer or the attorney. Congress and the courts have for decades have passed and interpreted laws that are unconstitutional. No one has to “interpret” it, it is clearly written, and can only be changed by the amendment process
Report Post »seekjusticeandmercy
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 7:52pmABC, I believe it is abundantly clear that you are a pure propogandist on this site as is evidenced by a continual lack of listing sources and or reciting gossip and opinions as facts. Did you listen to the clip at all? You continually regurgitate leftist philosophies and opinions as facts. Rush’s quote of justice Scalia points out that not all of our judiciary agrees with the current legal interpretation of the amendment. I would guess that Scalia is far from alone on this. So, you can‘t say that the court’s opinion automatically or definitively defines that separation of church and state is found in the first amendment. Court opinions have changed in the past and are sometimes overturned by future judgements. Nobody is saying that the separation it isn’t being implemented as the law of the land. The current interpretation is simply being debated for it’s accuracy in respect to original intent. We all know that social philopsophy and political affiliations as well as personal convictions influence our judiciary as well as their understanding of the law. They’re human, it’s bound to happen which makes the selection of judges so critical. If we don’t make every effort to be strict constructionists then the constitution is only a vague guideline and we can make it say whatever we want it to in order to achieve a particular social or political end. Let’s just be honest about this in our debate.
Report Post »rightside
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 8:18pmI listened to Mark Levin tonight and he is very qualified. He gave a fantastic explanation of separation of church and state. He said Christine was right.
Report Post »abc
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 8:20pmOrtho, that is your opinion and you are entitled to it. But it is nothing more than that.
Seek, I have cited a lot of sources. Today, I left an editorial from Robert Reich with lots of statistics in its entirety. In the past, I have left a bunch of links to important scientific information and did so again today. Your claim that I only cite gossip and make unsourced claims is totally false. In fact, I leave more sources than any other person blogging on this cite. That you do not agree with it doesn‘t mean that I’ve made it up or have not sourced it. I not only listened to the clip but heard the larger, unedited version of it that the Blaze couldn’t edit to minimize the damage. You are working with weak information, not me. The majority opinion of the SCOTUS is the final word on all interpretation of law, and if Scalia is not writing or part of the majority opinion, then his opinion counts for nearly as little as yours (which counts for nothing). This is civics 101. Can the interpretation move with future Courts? Of course, but then you are dealing with hypotheticals and not reality. It is hard enough keeping people in reality rather than their own version of it–like your spurious claims about my facts and sourcing. Let’s start with that and call it a win.
Report Post »Contrarianthinker
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 8:31pmABC is right. He/she does post links more so than anyone else including myself. He/she is attempting to have a respectful dialogue but all he/she gets back is name calling. Some have asked why I respond to ABC. Simple.. he/she tries hard to have a helpful dialogue. Stop attacking him.. I’m sure he/she would welcome facts and links that show your position and why he\ie/her psotion is incorrect. Please ABC save me the trouble of saying he/she. Are you a he or a she? (grin)
Report Post »abc
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 8:31pmRightside, Levin is a constitutional scholar and his opinion counts more than Rush by a wide margin. But I wonder whether Levin said anything about the fact that last week O‘Donnell claimed she had a master’s degree in constitutional interpretation (the video was aired by King on CNN about an hour ago), but today she didn’t know what the 14th amendment said.
Report Post »Joseph8
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 9:58pm@ABC
Report Post »LOL at your links. You post AOLNEWS links that no other news source covers.
Madisonian
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 10:40pmABC, were the farmers that founded this country qualified? I’d rather have an honest citizen who is not polished in the art of politics, one who will doubtlessly say things that are not “politically correct.” Those that have not been groomed to be part of the political class, normal folks, may say things that are deemed a bit crazy. But by which measuring stick are we putting it against? Also, I know it bothers me much more when seasoned politicians, who have been groomed and who keep handlers around, make gaffes that garner far less coverage. More telling is the career politicians who are more often caught unveiling the truth, which is far more scary.
Report Post »walkwithme1966
Posted on October 20, 2010 at 12:30amRush is just an entertainer – he could care less what anyone says or does as long as he does a good show and keeps the cash coming in – http://maboulette.wordpress.com
Report Post »Supreme Galooti
Posted on October 20, 2010 at 1:38amHaving followed your simplistic reasoning(?) to this point, I just have to jump in, waxing dogmatic for the occasion since it is obvious that you cannot follow any sort of basic logic, Rush is right – you are wrong. Sorry. You are probably a school teacher and can’t help yourself due to your limited intelligence. I wish you well in future life.
Report Post »EqualJustice
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 7:15pmhttp://patriotpost.us/opinion/david-limbaugh/2010/10/15/the-sophistry-of-coons-professed-loyalty-to-the-constitution/
Report Post »Amazona
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 7:14pmChristine was right in her point. The federal goverment should have no say what students learn in school.
Report Post »abc
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 7:19pmWrong. If a public school is violating the anti-Establishment clause, then the federal government has a right to intervene, and this is established law. You can disagree with it, but you cannot state it as fact rather than opinion. You are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts. Please try to avoid embarrassing yourself by showing that you know the difference between the two.
lordjosh
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 7:28pmABC,
Based on what? How does the language of the first amendment translate into federal authority over what is tuaght in school?
Report Post »bob6466
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 7:47pmABC, Let’s see how this works. Managing education was not a power given to the Federal Government in the Constitution, but the Federal government assumes the power presumaby based on a commerce clause argument that books are sold interstate, Federal government can regulate interstate government, Federal government can manage education.
Now that Federal government can manage education, it has a mandate to prohibit religious practices according to you because of separation of church and state as per the first amendment. However, the first amendment does not require separation of church and state, Ms. O’Donell is right. You have to lay down a lot of track to get from the the text of the first amendment to separation of church and state.
Ms. O‘Donnell unforunately wasn’t able to articulate the argument well, but her instincts were good. Some of us would rather have citizen representatives that maybe lack polish but have good instincts regarding the proper role of government than skilled politicians who think the government shold be able to do any $##@% thing it wants.
Report Post »azkenreid
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 7:59pmABC, there is plenty of room for debate regarding whether teaching the concepts of creationism is school violates the anti-establishment clause. “Congress shall make no LAW regarding an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. Comparing and contrasting creationism and Darwinism in the classroom does not violate the 1st amendment. A little common sense goes a long way here.
PS, if you can’t play nice with the others, stay out of the playground.
Report Post »Amazona
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 8:01pmABC my dear, here’s a link to the dictionary so you can look up the definitions for fact and opinion : )
http://www.merriam-webster.com/
Report Post »abc
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 8:09pmBob, the track has been laid. There is loads of prior precedent from the SCOTUS to set the parameters of what violates the anti-Establishment clause and, according to that body of opinion, it is likely that creationism cannot be taught without also including other competing religious theories. This authority flows directly from the 1st amendment and doesn’t require other basis in the Commerce Clause.
Azken, teaching creationism and evolution only would likely violate anti-Establishment since only one is religion and teaching only one religious theory would draw an inference of endorsement. Teaching it in a biology class as an alternative to evolution is also terrible science, so all 50 states should avoid it if they are doing their jobs in educating their children properly. And I do play nice. I respond in kind to personal attacks and harshly criticize people who make dumb comments of unsupported opinions masquerading as factually supported arguments. If you can’t stand the heat, then get out of the fire.
Report Post »azkenreid
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 8:16pmABC, I didn’t use the word “only”, I simply gave an example. Nice straw man. Telling people to not “embarrass themselves” is an example of not playing nice. The other commenters here are correct, you don’t know the difference between opinion and fact.
Report Post »abc
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 8:24pmAzken, if you are saying that a course would compare and contrast creationism and evolution and other religious beliefs that you didn’t name, then perhaps. But you didn’t mention anything besides creationism and evolution, so I didn’t assume anything else. Try to be more precise in your language. And, yes, I am offering an opinion on what would be allowed by the SCOTUS since they haven’t ruled yet. But the facts around how they’ve ruled in other cases frames my opinion. That is not conflating the two, but using one to offer the other in a more intelligent way. If you disagree, then make an argument. Claiming that I don’t have a clue what the difference between facts and opinion are, when I’m one of the few citing the former to qualify the latter, is just not playing fair. Not that I care. I’d welcome the ad hominem arguments if they came with anything more substantive, and I’m still waiting…
Report Post »Madisonian
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 9:58pmThe problem is, the 1st amendment is very clear. “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.” Let’s break it down into bite sized little chunks….
Congress shall make no law respecting establishment of religion (aka, the part progressives constantly cite), or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
Congress, meaning the United States House of Representatives and United States Senate are not granted rights, by the Constitution and Bill of Rights to establish a state endorsed/sponsored/sanctioned (is that enough coverage?) religion. The United States is not a Catholic, Jewish, Protestant, Muslim, Atheist, Buddhist, etc state. It was a backlash against the divorce inspired Church of England that allowed and encouraged the persecution that drove the pilgrims and founders to form the colonies. It does not preclude a state or commonwealth, nor a local government from subscribing to a religion (see the Massachusetts Constitution, which has a lot of similarities to the US Constitution as example of state sponsoring religious tenets), as the colonies when founded were often done so under specific religious guidelines.
As for prohibiting free exercise, while Congress has no authority to mandate a religion, it also explicitly denies them from dictating removal of religion. Again, that refers to Congress, and Congress alone (oops, maybe we can get an Executive order), not the states or municipalities from engaging in those goals.
Abridging Freedom of Speech – Sedition Acts – um, way to go Congress, you broke that part really quickly. This goes back to the recent case in front of SCOTUS about the church goers protesting at funerals. It’s disgusting, morally reprehensible, and God will judge them, but not man, and not a law preventing them from saying it. I think moms say it best when we’re little, “if you don’t have something nice to say, don’t say anything at all.” Notice they don’t forbid it, they just suggest it might be a good idea to use discretion.
Abridging free press – A free press is vital and should remain independent and suspicious of the government. I realize there is opinion in there, but there is plenty of Founders precedent with the Federalist Papers, and pamphlets created leading to the Revolutionary War and the founding documents.
Right of the people to peaceably assemble – If I am not causing pain or issues to you, then I’m good to go.
Petition the government for a redress of grievances – Sorry, need to go commentary here, so the things that have been done by this Congress and President, when do we get our redress of grievances? They wouldn’t listen leading up to the things they did, I don’t think that tune is going to change.
Report Post »Joseph8
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 10:17pm@MADISONIAN
Report Post »well put. even Obama realizes that the constitution is a list of what federal government can’t do. Odonnell keeps trying to make the point that States should have the ultimate decision on what goes on in the states. The constitution puts very few limits on states, and even the limitations on states powers, it includes “except” and “unless”. And you gotta love the 10th amendment. The “ABC”s of the world will tell you that individual states are too irresponsible to govern themselves and they need the all wise and all powerful federal government to manage them.
Madisonian
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 10:29pmABC makes some valid points based on SCOTUS precedent. Unfortunately (for us, that is), there have been very notable instances of the court overstepping (insert your favorite like Roe v. Wade, Kelo, Scott, etc) and taking on an increased power. It’s why the Supreme Court and the Federal Court System are so vitally important, there is essentially no check on their power, unless you can garner support for an amendment.
Where I will take ABC to task is that the 14th amendment is like the court’s paper clip. They’ve bent and twisted it, where we still recognize what it is, but we can’t get it back to its original shape. Perfect example of 14 being used is the recent action in Montana with guns manufactured, sold, and maintained within the confines of the state. Absolutely ZERO interstate commerce impact, and 14 was cited. A major goal of all Americans who are big believers in 1-10 need to start the push to redefine and limit, CONSTITUTIONALLY, the power of 14. It’s been bastardized and you can pretty much bet in any controversial case for SCOTUS, 14 will be there and cited.
Report Post »abc
Posted on October 20, 2010 at 12:31amMadisonian, while I agree that the Commerce Clause has been pushed to an extreme by arguing that even intrastate commerce can be regulated because goods and dollars are fungible and impact markets outside the states, the use of this concept has been limited since the 1990s by the SCOTUS. I do take issue with the idea that a state may establish a religion under the current interpretation of the First amendment by the Supreme Court. State and federal buildings have been forced to remove overtly religious, single-sect iconography that would appear to endorse a particular set of beliefs. This clearly shows that the federal government may impose the Establishment Clause on the states. I don’t see how you can conclude otherwise based upon precedent.
Report Post »Independent Tess
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 7:14pmThe Constitution says nothing about separation. It says that the government cannot establish an official religion, and must NOT interfere with our practice of our religion.
Report Post »It was written to keep the government out of religion, not religion out of government.
lordjosh
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 7:20pmThe first amendment only restricts the federal government.
Report Post »Joseph8
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 10:02pmeven Obama knows that “the constitution says what the federal government can’t do to you…”
Report Post »notsodumblond
Posted on October 20, 2010 at 6:24pmThe Progressives have been subverting the constitution for years. When anyone attempts or succeeds in changing the meaning of a public document , it is subversion. When Obama left our “endowed by our creator” he has publicly and willingly subverted the constitution to change it’s meaning. The way he quotes it makes it sound like the government created uninalienable rights..
Report Post »marklross
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 7:09pmIt is obvious to any thinking person that O‘donnel’s question, “where is separation of church and state in the Constitution” was meant to be sarcastic. We always say, “show me where in the Constitution it says ‘separation of and state’ – it doesn’t. Thats the point she was trying to make….
Report Post »abc
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 7:17pmIt is actually unclear that she meant to be sarcastic or to trip up Coons rather than really didn’t know. When you add the further facts that she didn’t even know what the 14th amendment says, then your theory starts to look weak. Finally, add her comments about human brains in lab rats and your faith in her and her intelligence would seem totally misplaced.
Report Post »clhathaway
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 7:41pmC’mon ABC. Who asks such a question in a debate? It is only a presumption that she didn’t know the answer that could lead one to reasonably suppose it was anything other than a question meant to sdhow his error. But since you obviously have such an unreasonable presupposition, otherwise known as prejudice, there is little point in argueing the case with you.
Report Post »abc
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 8:03pmCLHathaway, so I will try to keep my biases to a minimum. But I would ask that you please address the related issue that last week O’Donnell stated on the record that she has a Masters Degree in Constitutional Analysis or somethign to that effect and went on to say that she has learned how to analyze the Constitution. And then, the next week she has no idea what is in the 14th amendment, which is an important amendment (due process, equal protection, immigration, et.al.). Hidden in this whole debate over what she knows and doesn‘t know is the obvious point that she claimed to be an expert in constitutional interpretation and then didn’t know one of the more important amendments. Talk about the soft bigotry of low expectations. Could the bar be any lower for O’Donnell?
Report Post »Joseph8
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 10:00pmABC could never admit that Odonnell got something right, that would crush his world
Report Post »Maybe the GEESE Know More than the BEES Know
Posted on October 20, 2010 at 8:11ami listened to the ENTIRE DEBATE…and she was being sarcastic. i‘m surprised that even the Blaze blog didn’t get this either.
Report Post »paulrevere911
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 7:06pmGoogle “ building 7 ” and wake from the war matrix ! Please , you need to see this ! After you see this, ask yourself why you don’t know about it and what mainstream media partnership it takes to keep you from knowing about it.
snowleopard3200
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 7:19pmGood for Rush – once again we see the stage and screen the Progressives are continuing to use in the charades of evil. Why Mr Obama continues to deliberately omit key parts of the Constitution and Declaration such as the “ALL PEOPE” and “CREATOR” still amazes me, save for one consideration I came to recently…the king of the first lie, lucifer, is making this the great battle for our day and for our country – he tells the lie with just a bit of truth to make it seem palitable and then destroys us.
http://www.artinphoenix.com/galley/grimm (mix art)
5
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 7:20pmThe Constitution says nothing about separation of Church and State. The Lady knows what She’s talking about “The Coons” is a Marxist saying he’s a conservative.
‘CAPL’ COONS ANOTHER PROGRESSIVE LIAR!
Report Post »snowleopard3200
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 7:29pmIt occured to me why Mr Obama and the progressives keep hoping to change the constitution by their outright lies – they called it a living document or something to the same effect.
To them, a living document probably means evolution with time, so to them they can leave out and change it to fit their current schemes and distortions of the twilight zone known as DC.
Report Post »M31Sailor
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 7:39pmRush must bother Already Been Chewed
Report Post »He/She /It had a laser-like focus on this special subject
Conservatives , Repub’s Tea Partiers Have to know every fact ,by rote, and be able to reply to any question asked by any Lib, Soc, Prog, Commie,s, Democrat ‘s All,. If an immediate PC
response is not given they are automatically not qualified for the job. I’ve met many potted
plant’s over my 60 years and can say that I respect them much more than Jimmy Carter,
Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama
pajamash
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 7:43pmYou are right Rush but the trouble is she didn‘t hammer it home properly and when you don’t finish off your opponent they can look good rather than bad. What she should have done is school him that the 1st Amendment was put in place to prevent the Federal Government from establishing a religion as the “official” religion.
Report Post »PatriotDaze
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 7:46pmA foolish, foolish comment Paul
Report Post »Mortis
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 9:27pm@Paul
You should make your case over at HuffPo.
Nobody here cares much for the MSM.
Besides, building 7 has been debunked. It’s you who live in the matrix, and you’ve built it for yourself.
Also, I’m your father. You this to be true.
Report Post »Mortis
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 9:49pmSearch your feelings Paul.
Report Post »LUDWIKA BRONISLAWA
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 10:30pmI think you already said that Paul.
Report Post »Rowgue
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 10:36pmEveryone knows about this throuroughly debunked conspiracy theory. The real question is how stupid do you have to be to still believe it.
Report Post »ironman789
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 11:06pmDude Realy get a clue here there is no way that could have been kept secret.
Report Post »ltb
Posted on October 20, 2010 at 12:02amsnowleopard3200, Liberals (aka, Communists, Progressives, etc.) have been trying to perpetuate the lie that the Constitution is a living, breathing, evolving document for decades. In fact, the Constitution is a contract. It is a contract between the Citizens of America and Our representatives, which specifies what the federal government is allowed to do under the auspices of serving American Citizens. The U.S. Constitution is no more dynamic than a marriage contract and the ONLY way it can be changed to mean anything other than what it meant when it was originally penned is by amendment.
Report Post »angryworkingman
Posted on October 20, 2010 at 12:06amFrom wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center): World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories say that the building collapses on September 11, including that of building seven, were the result of controlled demolition.[54][55][56][57] The draft NIST report rejected this hypothesis, as the window breakages and blast sound that would have occurred if explosives were used were not observed.[58]
Report Post »The use of thermate instead of explosives is discarded by NIST on the basis that it is unlikely the necessary 100 pounds of thermate for each steel column could have been planted without being discovered.[32]
MrObvious
Posted on October 20, 2010 at 12:39amIf you skip over the conspiracy junk, the first halfway decent link is the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center
As far as waking up from the matrix goes, it’s not the spoon that bends.
Report Post »chazman
Posted on October 20, 2010 at 7:46amHey SAILOR! Please read over your posts before you post them. Geez …
Report Post »dheard
Posted on October 20, 2010 at 8:54ami watched about 3 minutes of the building 7 video on youtube until i couldn’t take the false garbage anymore. it doesn’t take too much thinking to know that about 90% of the statements and secondhand knowledge that the video was using as incontrovertible truth is actually false and circumstantial AT BEST. for instance, the firefighters saying that they were going to “pull it” and then making the flying leap to how that statement is used by demo teams is a ridiculous attempt to back up a ridiculous story. older firefighters use the term “pull it” to say they are ceasing internal operations not that they are about to blow up a freaking building. geez…
Report Post »Libertarian25
Posted on October 20, 2010 at 9:45amhttp://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html
I hate to break it to you, but the first amendment does imply a separation between church and state. It doesn’t “say” that, but it does imply, and it‘s there in Jefferson’s own words.
Report Post »Really though? I guess Christine O’Donnell is better than her running mate. I’m not sure. We defend her automatically because she’s from the tea party, failing to realize that the Tea Party has already been hijacked by the republicans. They’re all for limited government, right now, but what happens when they get in? We‘re worrying about whether or not she’s a witch, and I‘m wondering why in the hell we can’t find a better candidate? We have to be taking this more seriously here. I‘m not convinced that O’Donnell does know what the first amendment means. She’s still willing to legislate the bedroom. From my understanding she’s against gay marriage. Instead, the argument that she SHOULD be making is that the government should get out of ALL marriage. How do they get to choose our partners? Who the hell are they? God is between you and Him, not US and Him. We individually must turn to God, in our individual lives, to make an individual difference. The collective will follow automatically, if we can all learn to practice self governance.
jamesctheman
Posted on October 20, 2010 at 10:25amWhat the hell are you even talking about? Did you read the headline up above. I know it’s about the first amendment & all but find the story your comment matches & put it there. Or keep it on the truther sites.
Report Post »Peters
Posted on October 20, 2010 at 11:57amBut to the next question: Will O’Donnell boldly pursue the opportunity to smash the issue back at her opponent? He made such an ardent point of expressing the importance of the “fundamental misunderstanding” that Ms. O’Donnell has with the Constitution. The question is now, has her opponent learned anything from his error after a day of reflection, instruction . . . What does he have to say now . . . now that maybe, and that’s maybe, he has read what he previously prematurely professed to already know. In most circles, during most job interviews, that’s a problem . . . but we are dealing with another breed, liberalism that is.
Where’s the follow up Christine . . . ? You have him against the ropes; beat him up a little . . . let’s see if liberals bleed red or blue . . . maybe it’s green . . .
Report Post »halacour
Posted on October 20, 2010 at 12:19pmpaulrevere911, You are a nut…
Report Post »1776Federalist
Posted on October 20, 2010 at 3:03pmLibertarian25, If you read the letter you provide the link to in context, and not in pieces, you will understand that Jefferson was referring to the government having power over ,and being able to legislate laws concerning the establishment and practice of religion. It mentions a wall of separation protecting churches from the possible abuses by government. Jefferson, and all of the other founding fathers had a deep mistrust of any government, and felt the need to enumerate protections for the people and private institutions from an abusive government. There was never any desire expressed that established religion and religious principles could not be expressed in government or churches having no say in government.. Government was restricted to having no power to interfere with religion. Study our Declaration of Independence; it obviously has religious ties in it.
Report Post »FIRED UP FREE MAN !
Posted on October 20, 2010 at 9:29pmMr. SOROS is an international criminal. Any government official taking money from this monster or those he supports should be brought up on treason charges. Anybody who takes money from this monster has sold his soul and our government to HELL ! GOD BLESS AMERICA AND THE LIGHT OF DAY! For only TRUTH and the light of day is what this country DESERVES. Democrats seemed to have been infected by this DEADLY parasite and his minions. This country will NOT rest until SOROS is in prison orange and handcuffs standing in front of a military tribunal in Guantomino Bay, Cuba
If you have any complaints about Mr. SOROS here are the names and addresses, maybe you can send them a line.
Tides Foundation Info:
National Office
Physical Address: 1014 Torney Ave. San Francisco, CA 94129-1755
P.O. Box 29198*
San Francisco, CA 94129-0198
415-561-6400
415-561-6401 Fax
info(at)tides.org
New York Office
Tides New York
55 Exchange Place, Suite 402
New York, NY 10005-3304
212-509-1049
212-509-1059 Fax
nyinfo(at)tides.org
Center for American Progress Information:
1333 H Street Northwest
Washington D.C., District of Columbia 20005
Phone: 202-682-1611
Fax: 202-682-1867
Mailing Address
Democracy Alliance
P.O. Box 18607
Washington, DC 20036
Media Matters Information:
455 Massachusetts Ave. NW
Suite 600
Washington, DC 20001
(202) 756-4100
..
Report Post »