Politics

Unpacking the Media‘s Christine O’Donnell Constitutional Crisis

The Blaze was quick to cover the story of Christine O‘Donnell’s “separation of church and state” comments (or more like questions) during a senatorial debate Tuesday with opponent Chris Coons. We brought you the video and some early reaction (here and here).

Since then, the media has regurgitated the story ceaselessly, and thoughts and information about it have saturated blogs, TV, and radio. Luckily, we wade through it all so you don’t have to. Below is a blow-by-blow recap of the story and what everyone’s saying about it. As I’ve said in the past, let’s go on a journey.

It’s important to start with the original comments. You’ll hear and see them plenty in the material below, but it’s good to hear them sans any commentary:

(The relevant part starts at 2:50, but the entire context is important:)

Let the panic begin.

We begin with Mediaite, who pointed out yesterday that the phrase “separation of church and state” actually doesn’t appear anywhere in the Constitution. That’s not ground breaking, but it is key.

Also weighing in early yesterday was National Review’s Ramesh Ponnuru, who quickly suggests that O‘Donnell wasn’t questioning the “establishment” clause, as much as she was baffled that Coons could say the actual phrase appeared in the document.

In a later post Ponnuru expounds:

After Coons says that the First Amendment bars the government from making an establishment of religion–earlier he had specified the federal government–O’Donnell says, sneering, “That’s in the First Amendment.” (Some accounts tack on a question mark, which I just don’t hear.) The question in my mind is: Is she expressing disbelief in the specific claim he has just made, or is she referring back to his initial claim about the separation of church and state? I don’t think the answer is obvious, and would not base large claims — e.g., she’s an ignoramus — on the proper characterization of this remark.

Hot Air‘s Allahpundit doesn’t think O’Donnell is an ignoramus, but says the perception that O‘Donnell doesn’t understand the Constitution (even if she actually understands the nuances) will be damaging:

An undecided voter who sees this and thinks “I know the Establishment Clause but she doesn’t?” may well conclude that “she’s not me” and opt for condescending Harry Reid pet Chris Coons instead.

CNN‘s Anderson Cooper admits that O’Donnell is correct about the technical point — the exact phrase is absent from the Constitution — but he bashes her for not knowing the 14th and 16th Amendments, after she has claimed many times to be more or less addicted to the document:

If O’Donnell can be faulted for not knowing the document by heart, American Thinker (and Michelle Malkin) believes Coons should be held to the same standard. During the back-and-forth, O’Donnell asked Coons if he could name the five freedoms found in the First Amendment, and Fox News reveals he couldn’t:

Coons would only respond, “I think the very first provision of the First Amendment is that a government shall make no establishment of religion, and before we get into a further debate about exactly which of us knows the Constitution better, how about we get the panel asking our questions today?”

Rush Limbaugh spent time on yesterday‘s radio show agreeing with Malkin and defending O’Donnell:

Slate’s William Saletan believes Limbaugh and others are being too generous. After hearing the exchange, he’s convinced that “O’Donnell did express incredulity that the First Amendment prohibits government establishment of religion.” He adds that to fully understand the situation one has to listen to the audio, not just read the transcript:

In expressing her disbelief, she clearly emphasizes the word First. She seems incredulous not just at Coons’ position against government-established religion, but that he bases it on the First Amendment. It’s the citation that surprises her.

Later he says that conservatives are giving her credit for making complex arguments that she just didn’t make:

At no point in the debate did O’Donnell offer any of the sophisticated church-state arguments her defenders now attribute to her. She didn‘t quote the establishment clause for the same reason that Coons didn’t quote the five freedoms: because she couldn’t.

While many who disagreed with O‘Donnell point out that her assertions weren’t idiotic, MSNBC made sure to paint O’Donnell as constitutionally ignorant. Sitting in for Keith Olbermann on last night’s “Countdown,” Cenk Uygur opened the show by saying O’Donnell “does not know the first thing about the First Amendment to the Bill of Rights” (which is itself a confusing statement — aren’t the amendments to the Constitution, not the Bill of Rights?):

Fellow MSNBC host Rachel Maddow piles on. “Sometimes things happen on tape that cannot quite be captured by the transcript,” she said during yesterday’s show. “Its remarkable … that Christine O‘Donnell seems to be challenging Chris Coons’s true assertion that the separation of church and state is laid out in the First Amendment of the Constitution.” Maddow goes on to mock O’Donnell, complete with wild hand gestures and fist pumps:

“This is a window into right-wing world,” Maddow adds. However she continually ignores that the “separation” phrase actually doesn’t appear in the Constitution.

So, now that we‘ve heard what everyone else has to say about O’Donnell, what does O‘Donnell say about O’Donnell? In an interview with National Review shortly after the incident, she clarifies the exchange:

“It seems the AP and others are twisting it out of context,” O’Donnell said. “What I was trying to prove is that my opponent does not know the First Amendment.”

“What our constitution prevents is … government establishing a religion, but it also says that it won’t prohibit free exercise thereof,” argued O’Donnell.

It’s that understanding, says The American Spectator’s John Guardiano, that proves O’Donnell is one step ahead of her opponent and many of her detractors:

So while the elites cluck in disapproval at what they believe is O‘Donnell’s faux pas, the reality is she knows and understands the Constitution better than they do.

There you have it. Journey over.

Comments (155)

1 2 3
  • Zoe
    Posted on October 20, 2010 at 8:32pm

    looked as though she hasn’t been weathered by war yet……………………….?

    She was to nice, courteous? She set herself up by not tearing apart her opponent-

    She needs to sharpen her teeth & flight check her broom before she hit’s the stage again….be ready for battle. & yep I am pullin for her!

    Report Post » Zoe  
  • DMD
    Posted on October 20, 2010 at 7:58pm

    Mr Maddow Sir I thank you for your interpitation of the 1st ammendment “you sir are soooo stupid”
    Good thing you brought the GQ expert to clarify your opinion.

    And to the law students you are going to be attorneys so you get a pass.

    Report Post »  
  • M-O-O-N Spells Moon
    Posted on October 20, 2010 at 7:57pm

    Anyone else think there are more progressive trolls visiting this site as we get closer to the November elections?

    Report Post » M-O-O-N Spells Moon  
    • abc
      Posted on October 20, 2010 at 8:26pm

      I’m not a troll. Weren’t they featured in those Shrek movies? I simply want to educate people with facts and logic on why they are wrong. And I like doing it anonymously since, well, they did kill Socrates.

      Report Post »  
    • PlaneRick
      Posted on October 20, 2010 at 8:33pm

      No, i don’t think so. I just think there is more rhetoric on this site that states if you don’t agree then you are on the left, similar to a statement I heard yesterday: “If you are white then you must be black” (referring to gradients not skin color). Such statements are oblivious to shades of grey such as different opinions. Different ideas in a civil society are as important as those which are agreed upon. There only seems to be an increase of those who are tired of reading such rhetoric.

      Report Post »  
    • TRICIA729
      Posted on October 20, 2010 at 8:37pm

      Yes I have. Their comments give me the creeps.

      Report Post »  
    • CyberPro
      Posted on October 21, 2010 at 1:00am

      @ABC – No – Shirek was an OGRE – Glad I could help you with that one, but I am afraid that we are going to have to chalk ANOTHER one up on your WRONG ANSWER list. So sorry.

      Report Post »  
    • mimitweetin
      Posted on October 21, 2010 at 8:09am

      They’re party is over. When tough times come in 2011 they will surely blame the Republicans because they are in power. We know the truth and we are just going to have to defend ourselves if there is unrest in America. I hope that Beck’s fans have been listening and acting on his advice. If nothing happens, then nothing happens, but wouldn’t you rather bee safe than sorry? Please plan for the worst and Pray for the Best!

      Report Post »  
    • abc
      Posted on October 21, 2010 at 3:10pm

      Cyberpro, you are correct. I stand corrected. I am like the guy under the bridge in the Monty Python movie. Glad you could prove me wrong on such a salient point.

      Report Post »  
  • mintyfresh
    Posted on October 20, 2010 at 7:50pm

    @restless 1 – i would love to hear an actual argument against what i said. please, prove me wrong. or at least provide some proof for your assertion.

    Report Post » mintyfresh  
  • quicker
    Posted on October 20, 2010 at 7:49pm

    Unless you take the time to teach your kid your self they`ll not learn this in the leftest controd schools .Wake up people take resposableaty for their shooling .sorry iare redneck

    Report Post » quicker  
  • Redd
    Posted on October 20, 2010 at 7:48pm

    Excellent summary Mr. Seidl…kudos and plaudits!!! Yesterday, I felt “The Blaze” was giving Christine the short end and being unfair, but your summarization helps to fairly balance things. Christine was on enemy territory in the debates with partisan questioners, and she has beaten the bearded marxist hands down. Go Christine!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    http://www.anncoulter.com/

    Report Post »  
    • abc
      Posted on October 20, 2010 at 8:24pm

      I saw no beard. I heard no marxism. I witnessed no O’Donnell victory in that debate. You must live on a different planet than the vast majority of Americans.

      Report Post »  
    • heavyduty
      Posted on October 20, 2010 at 11:38pm

      ABC I would like to know why you didn’t rebut RESTLESS1? I guess that means that your long winded jiberish is just like Coons and the rest of the Democrats. Full of hot air with no substance.

      Report Post »  
  • rdk
    Posted on October 20, 2010 at 7:37pm

    The diversion favors Coons. Sharron O’Donnell needs to drive home the point that Obama is a rabid follower of Obama. That is the issue of consequence.

    Report Post »  
  • 52tucker
    Posted on October 20, 2010 at 7:33pm

    Wow, apologist much? Spin much? Lets clear up some things: She studied the constitution for seven days at a college. She was, is, and forever shall be wrong. The “interpretation” spin the talk show hosts are engaged with is just that- interpretation.
    The students laugh as you should, but you believe the spin. The joke then, is on you.
    Lastly, every one of you commenters that want to believe with all your heart that she’s right need to take a step back, breathe, and know that this woman is a fraud.

    Report Post »  
    • NickyLouse
      Posted on October 20, 2010 at 7:48pm

      Please enlighten all of us why she is wrong.

      Report Post » NickyLouse  
    • texas16
      Posted on October 20, 2010 at 7:59pm

      Ok TUCK, as we say in Texas, “Cowboy Up”!! Are you Coons, Cenk Uygur, or Maddow??

      Report Post »  
    • Amazona
      Posted on October 20, 2010 at 8:05pm

      here’s the real fraud, the media trying to cover their tracks now.
      Christine should demand an apology from WAPO/AP on the front page.

      http://patterico.com/2010/10/20/wapoap-caught-revising-the-o%E2%80%99donnell-story-without-issuing-a-correction/

      http://minx.cc/?post=307106

      Report Post »  
    • abc
      Posted on October 20, 2010 at 8:22pm

      NickyLouse, here is why O‘Donnell’s original and main claim in this exchange–that public schools can teach intelligent design alongside evolution, and neither Coons nor anyone else has the power to disallow this–is wrong.

      1. intelligent design, which is creation science rebranded, is not science but religious doctrine, as ruled by the SCOTUS in Edwards and more recently by a federal court in the Dover case

      2. a particular religion’s doctrine cannot be taught exclusively in the public classroom because it creates an appearance of endorsement, which violates the Establishment Clause, as made clear by the Court in Edwards

      3. the Supreme Court has never left it up to “local standards,” as O’Donnell put it, to determine the application of the Establishment Clause; she is confusing the mechanism for determining what is obscenity, which is an exception to the freedom of speech clause in the First Amendment.

      4. the fact that the exact words “separation of church and state” do not appear in the First Amendment does not rebut any of the prior points or hurt the argument one bit; incidentally, that this phrase appears in a letter written by Jefferson after he helped draft the Bill of Rights means that it can be properly used to help illuminate the intent of the framers when they put the freedom of religion clause and the establishment clause next to each other in the First Amendment. No greater a conservative legal authority than Antonin Scalia explained in his Heller opinion that use of the framers’ other relevant writings is not only allowed but required when doing proper analysis of the Constitution. So Coon’s point that the IDEA of the separation of church and state being in the First Amendment is not only correct, but arguably something that Scalia would agree with…although he‘d likely debate how much separation was meant by Jefferson’s phrase. Either way, O‘Donnell’s implied insistence that the lack of those exact words appearing in the First Amendment means that the idea behind those words isn’t what the First Amendment was meant to accomplish is simply wrong; it also highlights a rather limited ability to do legal analysis.

      I think that covers it.

      Report Post »  
    • restless 1
      Posted on October 20, 2010 at 9:17pm

      ABC

      Nice try, but WRONG.

      You see, the current interpretation of the law is only good until a better interpretation comes along. You are constantly stating that “has always been; always will be” and that simply is not true.

      1947. That is when the “wall” went up. Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists simply alleviated the fears of the Baptists that the state would establish one religion as that of the whole. Nothing more, nothing less.

      Your liberal professors are doing/did you no favors.

      Report Post » restless 1  
    • NickyLouse
      Posted on October 21, 2010 at 7:50am

      ABC,
      While I may dream of a better tomorrow where schools teach children to think for themselves rather than accept the religious dogma of Darwinian evolution, it may interest you to know that the context of the Jeffersonian letter in question written to the Danbury Baptists in response to their complaint that Baptists were being excluded from public service is exactly opposite of what you are inferring.

      Report Post » NickyLouse  
    • abc
      Posted on October 21, 2010 at 3:12pm

      Restless, you need psychiatric help. You cannot tell the police officer that you really weren’t speeding, but just driving at the allowed speed limit that will be passed in some future utopia. I live in the real world. You should join me and the vast majority of the population there. The correct interpretation of the First Amendment is what the SCOTUS most recently said it is. Anything else is your opinion, not authoritative reality. Take some prozac. You’ll feel better. Or, at a minimum, start listening to one of the other voices in your head.

      Report Post »  
    • restless 1
      Posted on October 21, 2010 at 11:02pm

      ABC, remember your advice when/if some of the bs rulings of the SC get overturned.

      You progressives should really take into account that while your agenda may be easier achieved via the courts rather than amendments, it can also be more easily reversed.

      Report Post » restless 1  
    • restless 1
      Posted on October 21, 2010 at 11:09pm

      BTW, you were challenged below to rebut my post, and THAT is the best you could come up with?

      Better order up some cheetos from momma, you gotta a lot to learn.

      Report Post » restless 1  
  • NickyLouse
    Posted on October 20, 2010 at 7:04pm

    I think that people assume that the Supreme Court is the Supreme Law of the Land when the U.S. Constitution is actually the Supreme Law of the Land. The Supremacy Clause spells it out explicitly in the Constitution in Article VI, Section 1, Clause 2.

    The Establishment Clause is a Supreme Court ruling based on Everson vs. Board of Education, but it does not alter the text of the Constitution. If future Supreme Court justices reinterpret the First Amendment properly, the Establishment Clause can simply be thrown out.

    Report Post » NickyLouse  
    • abc
      Posted on October 20, 2010 at 8:11pm

      But no Court would likely do that. And, in any case, the current Court doesn’t interpret the Establishment Clause that way. So you can hope all you want, but it is not current law. Please try to live in the real world rather than the one you would prefer to live in. Or just send your kids to a private school so they can learn the bunk science of intelligent design.

      Report Post »  
    • Nooooooooorm
      Posted on October 21, 2010 at 8:40am

      ABC..

      As human beings emerged from caves and eventually became the dominate species on the planet, it seems that throughout the world people began to worship some sort of God or Gods.

      Why do you think that is? Mass hysteria?

      Or was it some sort of disease that infected the planet?

      What was the “spark” that caused human animals to believe in such things in practically every culture and civilization since humans learned to walk upright?

      Report Post »  
  • JD Carp
    Posted on October 20, 2010 at 7:02pm

    Brilliant argument Ms. O’Donnell, I am glad to see you know the Constitution better than your opponent. For the left read it. There is no separation of church and state, only a “freedom OF religion.”

    Report Post » JD Carp  
    • abc
      Posted on October 20, 2010 at 8:09pm

      You forgot the Establishment Clause. Does your bicycle only have one wheel also?

      Report Post »  
  • AntiSlaver
    Posted on October 20, 2010 at 7:00pm

    What do you expect from the ruling progressive elites and their media dog. These “‘people” don’t realize we are smarter than they and know their game. What happens after we take the Red Pill in November? Follow us down the rabbit hole.

    On another note my friend calls the liberal progressive elites, Slavers because they want us to SLAVE away so that we may “give” our wealth away.

    Report Post »  
  • MSG
    Posted on October 20, 2010 at 6:58pm

    Pelosi Asked Where Constitution Grants Congress Authority to Mandate Purchase of Health Insurance http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxXy-r7aatA

    “This Bill Does Violence to the Constitution” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GiOGlqLdjiM

    Obama – The US Constitution Is Not Relevant Today !!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NhcI8Fv_4E <<<<—— Must watch

    Report Post »  
  • woodydad
    Posted on October 20, 2010 at 6:58pm

    Unfortunately, with too many Americans, the Constitution is irrelevant. Primarily because of their ignorance of the document. This condition was deliberately fostered by those who do and find that it gets in their way in their quest for totalitarian power. We need so many more people like her to get into office. A Congress of citizens who cherish their liberties would be awesome. And long overdue.

    Report Post » woodydad  
    • abc
      Posted on October 20, 2010 at 8:08pm

      This is a silly argument. What is or is not Constitutional is not decided by the electorate–enlightened or otherwise. It is determined by educated judges who hopefully are balanced on a court in terms of ideology. It is irrelevant to the courts what a Senator O’Donnell says, since they will simply strike down a law she writes to mandate that creation science be taught in DE public schools. That she doesn’t know the Cosntitution means that she will waste time writing such doomed bills. Of course, she will have a vote to approve or vote down a Presidential justice nomination, so her presence in the Senate is not completely irrelevant to the courts. But it largely is. These discussions are more a proxy for the intelligence of our leaders in Congress. I personally want them to be really smart, but a lot of people prefer that they are really dumb. Those people likely will not mind O’Donnell.

      Report Post »  
    • Wyzer
      Posted on October 20, 2010 at 10:39pm

      @ ABC
      “What is or is not Constitutional is not decided by the electorate… It is determined by educated judges…”
      Actually I believe you are wrong in this case. Congress has the ability to “check” SCOTUS if they believe that SCOTUS is in error, in regards to SCOTUS’s interpretation of the Constitution, via Constitutional Amendments, or by reformulating the statute in question. Since Congress is established by the Electorate, they DO have a say in what is or is not in the Constitution.

      “Of course, she will have a vote to approve or vote down a Presidential justice nomination, so her presence in the Senate is not completely irrelevant to the courts. But it largely is.”
      I believe you would have to define “largely” a little more clearly. All it takes is the Electorate to elect Legislators, whom make Law, to once again “check” SCOTUS, via Constitutional Amendments, or by reformulating the statute in question. The Electorate would also include the local and State level Legislators whom take part in the Constitutional Conventions. The Separation Clause is one such thing, that was misinterpreted, simply by not continuing the reading of the First Amendment. What I mean that is the Separation Clause is always being recited with “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,“ yet most do not recall what appears at the end of that ”statement”, there is a “,”, with “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” after it.

      “I personally want them to be really smart,…”
      All the smarts in the world, or lack there of, is nothing without one very important thing. Common Sense.

      Report Post » Wyzer  
  • BRAVEHEART
    Posted on October 20, 2010 at 6:55pm

    Because of their extreme bias, liberal media and liberal politicians are incapable of understanding the Establishment Clause. They can’t understand the original intent to protect the totally free exercise of religion in all of American society and political endeavor. Christine had it 100% right, the stupid liberal “genius” media just can’t get it!

    Report Post »  
    • abc
      Posted on October 20, 2010 at 8:05pm

      That is not true. Your interpretation of the Establishment Clause is not the one made by the SCOTUS. So apparently the SCOTUS, like the mainstream media, is biased. But it cannot be biased, since its decision is not the bias. It is the law. So if your view is at odds with the SCOTUS, then YOU are biased and your criticism of a mainstream media that holds a view of the Establishment Clause similar to the SCOTUS is not biased. You are confusing your opinion with settled and authoritative opinion of the SCOTUS. That is pretty bad to not realize how far outside of the mainstream and settled law you’ve let your opinions stray. You are entitled to your opinion, but you should not be allowed to characterize it as close to settled law or anywhere near the mainstream.

      Report Post »  
    • Joseph8
      Posted on October 20, 2010 at 8:22pm

      @ABC
      “So apparently the SCOTUS, like the mainstream media, is biased”. wow i think thats the first thing you’ve said that I agree with. Progressives have found that voting amendments in to try and change the constitution is a lot harder than just voting crappy justices who’ll “interpret” the constitution how they see fit. Take prohibition as an example. Once people saw how silly it was, we were able to repeal it.

      Report Post »  
    • beekeeper
      Posted on October 20, 2010 at 11:16pm

      ABC – Quick question for you, “How many of the original 13 colonies had state religions?”

      The purpose of the establishment clause was to assure the colonies that the Federal Gov‘t wouldn’t trample their existing state religions with a new, or different, federal religion.

      Seems to me that the establishment clause really is about “establishment”, and I don‘t have to go to Thomas Jefferson’s letters to discern his “real meaning.” The Founding Fathers were very smart, and were very concerned about expressing their intentions very carefully in the Declaration and Constitution. They did not subscribe to the current philosophy of “pass anything and we’ll correct it later“ our current ”leaders” subscribe to…

      Report Post » beekeeper  
    • CyberPro
      Posted on October 21, 2010 at 12:53am

      @ABC – I understand the reasons for the SC to exist, but therein is evidence of the absolute GENIUS of the framers. These documents are written in plan, simple english. They require no special education in law to understand. I know, it is easy for liberals/progressives to become confused over simple English (”… that depends on what your definition of “is” is…” – William Jefferson Clinton)
      If the SC would stick to using the consitiution as a filter for the laws that congress passes, they would be doing their job. Instead, they have used twisted logic to parse it into saying things that it does not say, while allowing laws to stand that are in violation of the consitiution. – As an example, what part of “Shall not be infringed” is difficult to understand? Shall not? Be? Infringed? – Yet there are numerous laws on the books that make it difficult for me to purchase certain types of arms, without going through a government sponsored proctological exam. While those with bad intent ignore those laws, and carry out their bad intentions against others, violating other laws in the process.

      In a display that would be comical if it were not so serious a matter, the SC had tended a few years ago to look to OTHER COUNTRIES to help them understand OUR consitiution! OK, I could understand that, if the document were harder to understand, or if any other country was founded even remotely like the US, or had the same constitution. – This is where the Liberals/Progressives get the “living document” argument. I have even heard some people say things along the lines of “Well, the framers did not forsee weapons that would be able to fire 30 shots as quick as you could putt the trigger, so the 2nd amendment does not apply to them, it is just for guns to hunt with…: and other foolish statements along those lines. OK, Fine, let’s follow that same logic. The framers could not have possibly foreseen International TV, Satellite Radio, Radio or TV of any kind, nor newspapers that have worldwide distribution, so I suppose the first amendmet does not apply to them either. It must only apply to small, limited distribution presses, right?

      Report Post »  
  • Miami
    Posted on October 20, 2010 at 6:55pm

    A truer statement would be:

    “Separation of State and Church”

    As intended in the First Amendment :

    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.

    Report Post » Miami  
    • Libertarian
      Posted on October 20, 2010 at 7:07pm

      I would disagree. In the statement “Separation of Church & State”, state refers to either “government” in general or the “States” specifically. Either way both references are incorrect as the amendment only refers to Congress.

      Report Post » Libertarian  
    • Miami
      Posted on October 20, 2010 at 7:25pm

      And who writs the law of the land/State…?

      The Congrees is largest power of the State.

      Well till today under Obama‘s power hungry regime who has taken it upon it’s self to write laws. Even more that Bush who also misused the Executive powers. But Obama has taken it to a new level.

      Report Post » Miami  
    • abc
      Posted on October 20, 2010 at 8:02pm

      Libertarian, the SCOTUS has ruled in cases in which it was a state government endorsing a religious viewpoint. Clearly, what you are saying is not true or it’s opposite would not already be in the case law as precedent.

      Report Post »  
    • OklahomaBound
      Posted on October 20, 2010 at 10:18pm

      ABC, It is not surprising to me that you and your Constitution dismantling commie buddies love to cite case law to support your bogus claims of separation of church and state (including applying it to state governments when it applies only to Congress). Beck brought up the issue of case law and law schools months ago on his show correctly pointing out that the SCOTUS is supposed to base their decisions strictly on the Constitution, but over decades we have had Commie Progressive activist judges make rulings that were clearly in violation of the Constitution and then the commie progressive judges and law professors who have followed them through the years then started basing their current decision on bad/incorrect/unConstitutional case law rather than adhering to the Constitution. This is how the Commie left has perverted our entire judicial system. They made unConstitutional decisions which paved the way for current and future left-wing activist judges to site these unConstitutional case law decisions to pull us farther and farther from the Constitution and pervert its very meaning. Any decision made today that tries to site case law as the basis of their decision should first have to determine if the case law they are citing was itself a Constitutional decision, or better yet case law should have no bearing at all on current cases, the judges should just do their job and see if the current case meets with the Constitution period. Of course this would kill most positions held by leftist which is why they would rather site unConstitutional case law set as president by their past progressive activist judges rather than stand the scrutiny of the Constitution, the document you scum hate so much.

      Report Post » OklahomaBound  
    • restless 1
      Posted on October 20, 2010 at 11:50pm

      OKBOUND

      Stare decisis = the lousy state of our SC.

      Report Post » restless 1  
  • Awakenow
    Posted on October 20, 2010 at 6:49pm

    Her demeanor let her down while right she appeared to lack the knowlege of the constitution required. I would argue her opponent has a greater grasp of the constitution he is versed and prepared to take it apart in pieces, a true Obamaite.

    Report Post » Awakenow  
    • Joseph8
      Posted on October 20, 2010 at 8:17pm

      does that greater knowledge include his reciting the 5 freedoms in the first amendment?

      Report Post »  
  • jzs
    Posted on October 20, 2010 at 6:47pm

    I didn’t know she studied Constitutional law at a college! Take that Obama.

    Report Post » jzs  
    • abc
      Posted on October 20, 2010 at 8:00pm

      She received a master’s degree in analysis of constitutional law. But she apparently didn’t study very hard.

      Report Post »  
    • heavyduty
      Posted on October 21, 2010 at 12:09am

      One thing about JZS she sure has the liberals running scared. I haven’t seen so many comments trying to demonize her. If the voters of Deleware see this and still vote for Coons they deserve what they get. His moma probably still ties his shoes for him and puts a map in his pocket so he can find his way home.

      Report Post »  
  • Libertarian
    Posted on October 20, 2010 at 6:47pm

    Coons is wrong again. It does not say “government” it says Congress shall make no law. It refers to the national government not the states.

    Report Post » Libertarian  
    • abc
      Posted on October 20, 2010 at 7:59pm

      The freedoms in the First Amendment have been interpreted for a long time by the SCOTUS to be so integral that they apply to both the Federal and state governments. If you have studied Con Law then you would know this.

      Report Post »  
  • magdala
    Posted on October 20, 2010 at 6:47pm

    Still ignoring Coons saying his children can afford private schools and therefore afford the luxury of parental supervision, input, and control of curriculum.
    Children who can’t afford anything other than tax funded schools are denied parental supervision, input and control of curriculum.

    Report Post »  
  • marklross
    Posted on October 20, 2010 at 6:43pm

    Cenk Uyger guest hosting Countdown? The circle is complete….

    Report Post » marklross  
  • Christian Kalgaard
    Posted on October 20, 2010 at 6:37pm

    God laughs at those who laughed at Christine….

    Report Post » Christian Kalgaard  
    • mintyfresh
      Posted on October 20, 2010 at 7:28pm

      i’m always shocked when someone thinks they have divine power to know what God is thinking. very arrogant comment.

      Report Post » mintyfresh  
    • 52tucker
      Posted on October 20, 2010 at 7:37pm

      I‘m sure God in his infinite wisdom could care less if we laugh at O’Donnell or not. Seriously, get a grip. What O’Donnell is guilty of is pretending to love and cherish and be guided by a document she clearly knows only marginally well. Sounds like a lot of Christians to me…

      Report Post »  
    • Thirteenth Paladin
      Posted on October 20, 2010 at 8:11pm

      52F…
      She waded into the debate and stated fact. Coons rans from it. O’Donnell asked a simple question about the actual rights articulated in the First Amendment. Coons ran and hid behind the skirts of the moderators. Move out of you mother’s basement and learn a little. You too Mintybutt.

      Report Post » Thirteenth Paladin  
    • Pita000
      Posted on October 21, 2010 at 1:21am

      Perhaps it would be in our best interest not to speak for god(if one happens to exist). Afterall, man has been doing this for thousands of years, and , I would hope given the results we would cease to continue.

      Report Post »  
    • Tired_of_the_lies
      Posted on October 21, 2010 at 3:34pm

      Right on Minty. There seems to be a lot of posters up here that do that. How presumptuous of them. It usually happens when they don’t know how to structure a rational argument (which is, let’s face it, most of the time).

      “Hmmm, I have no idea what I am talking about because I am a sheep and just regurgitate what my fearless leader told me to say. I guess I better use my God card, and then it will not matter. All the other sheep in my flock will rise up to defend me”.

      Report Post »  
  • We Are Not Alone
    Posted on October 20, 2010 at 6:32pm

    DELAWARE: Please VOTE ♥

    Report Post » Want our country back  
    • tower7femacamp
      Posted on October 22, 2010 at 9:41am

      We must vote for the people the media hate or there will never be real Change
      surely Obama’s elections has taught us that.Her misstake was not asking Coons
      what the 2nd amendment says ? and why does he vote against it ?

      Report Post » tower7femacamp  
  • wingedwolf
    Posted on October 20, 2010 at 6:32pm

    She may surprise us. I hope she wins.

    Report Post » wingedwolf  
    • We Are Not Alone
      Posted on October 20, 2010 at 6:36pm

      No doubt she’d win if given a fair shot….

      Report Post » Want our country back  
    • snowleopard3200
      Posted on October 20, 2010 at 7:12pm

      I hope there turns out quite a few good or great suprises to bring america back to the people where it belongs.

      May the freedom of America be a beacon to all who seek freedom inside and out of her shores…and notice to the enemies of freedom, internal and external, the people of america will only put up with so much before we deal with it.

      Report Post » Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}  
    • jzs
      Posted on October 20, 2010 at 10:28pm

      SNOWLEOPARD, you’re not talking about illegal aliens are you?

      Report Post » jzs  
  • JSDAMAN
    Posted on October 20, 2010 at 6:27pm

    O’Donnell was 100% right in her comment about “separation of church and state”. The true ignorance is with those that laughed at her and the idiots in the media claiming her to be the ignorant one.

    Report Post »  
    • abc
      Posted on October 20, 2010 at 7:57pm

      That is not why they laughed. They also know that the exact phrase “separation of church and state” is not in the Constitution. However, they, unlike O’Donnell, understand that the idea of separation of church and state is exactly what the framers had in mind when they put the free expression and establishment clauses back to back in the same amendment. Jefferson’s letter, along with comments from Adams and other authors of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, make clear that this was the original intent. No less a conservative justice than Scalia clearly explained in his Heller opinion that using the writings of the founders to clarify the language of the Constitution and Bill of Rights is not only allowed but required to do proper legal analysis and interpretative work on the Constitution. So referring to this idea as the basis for the First Amendment balancing of competing aims (i.e., freedom of religion in the private sphere and freedom from religion in the public one), which is what Coons is doing–afterall, he didn’t say those words were in the First Amendment, but just that the idea was–and which is how the mainstream of America views the issue. This would explain why the mainstream media is making so much fun of O’Donnell. Got it?

      Report Post »  
    • M31Sailor
      Posted on October 20, 2010 at 8:33pm

      Everybody notice that this story has ABC , 52Tuckers panties in a bunch. . These 2 Perfessers of Constitutional Law are squealing like stuck pigs. Have a great time with these dolts and get all of your friends and relatives to vote Nov 2nd

      Report Post » M31Sailor  
    • jzs
      Posted on October 20, 2010 at 10:50pm

      Say what you want about Islamic countries, but at least they’re not trying separate the government from their religion.

      Report Post » jzs  
  • Sledgehammer
    Posted on October 20, 2010 at 6:26pm

    She correct, their wrong. Any questions?

    Report Post » Sledgehammer  
    • Oh, God!
      Posted on October 20, 2010 at 6:45pm

      Yes she is and they try to make her out to look stupid. Now my question is, the so-called law students that were there, were they laughing because they knew that it was not in there or were they laughing at her because they thought she was stupid and in their minds, that it is in the First Amendment. I bet money that it is the latter, not the former.

      Report Post » Oh, God!  
    • mintyfresh
      Posted on October 20, 2010 at 6:55pm

      I’ll look past the numerous grammatical errors in your post to ask the following: how does not knowing the 14th and 16th amendment and sounding shocked when the first is directly quoted lead to a conclusion that she is right?

      talk about spin! she doesn’t know the constitution. she shouldn’t be a senator. period. when she claims to love the constitution, she’s either lying or delusional. toss up on which.

      Report Post » mintyfresh  
    • Miami
      Posted on October 20, 2010 at 6:56pm

      Spot on, a truer statement would be:

      “Separation of State and Church”

      Report Post » Miami  
    • pajamash
      Posted on October 20, 2010 at 7:01pm

      As has been noted by the likes of Rush and Glenn the scary thing is the law students in the audience were laughing at Christine as if she were stupid not knowing where it is in The Constitution or that it was in there. These are law students. The one they should have been laughing at is Coons for making the statement that it was in The Constitution! What the hell are law professors teaching?!

      Report Post »  
    • The Tao
      Posted on October 20, 2010 at 7:07pm

      What grade are you in?

      Report Post »  
    • snowleopard3200
      Posted on October 20, 2010 at 7:10pm

      She is correct, and the more they attempt to demonize someone, the more the truthkeepers will be able to stand against the darkness. Let the facts stand out for themselves.

      Consider how the media even tried to declare that the “Nuances” of a statement can change the way things stand for.

      How about them examining the nuances of this statement “Nov2, Progressives are FIRED!!!”

      Any questions from the Progressives?

      http://www.artinphoenix.com/gallery/grimm (mix art)

      Report Post » Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}  
    • MSG
      Posted on October 20, 2010 at 7:13pm

      Pelosi Asked Where Constitution Grants Congress Authority to Mandate Purchase of Health Insurance http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxXy-r7aatA

      “This Bill Does Violence to the Constitution” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GiOGlqLdjiM

      Obama – The US Constitution Is Not Relevant Today !!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NhcI8Fv_4E <<<<—— Must watch

      Report Post »  
    • 52tucker
      Posted on October 20, 2010 at 7:34pm

      She is wrong. Lots of wrong. Whole boatloads of not knowing anything about the constitution, nor anything more than the points her trainers have given her. By the way, the Blaze was neither quick to report nor accurate in their assessment of this story. But not that any of you brainwashed dolts care.

       
    • restless 1
      Posted on October 20, 2010 at 7:39pm

      Minty fresh, you are indeed proof of the following:

      Fish don‘t know they’re wet, and idiots don‘t know they’re stupid.

      Now, go back to whistling by the graveyard.

      Report Post » restless 1  
    • abc
      Posted on October 20, 2010 at 7:52pm

      Forget the debate over whether her asking repeatedly, “in the First Amendment? in the First Amendment?” showed that she was trying to trap her opponent, was shocked that he didn’t know that the text “separation of church and state” was not in the First Amendment, or that she had no idea that the Establishment Clause that he did quote was in the First Amendment–and I’ve heard different folks claim each of these. The real issue is what she said before that. She stated that intelligent design can be taught in the local school and for Coons to say otherwise is a clear example of him imposing his will on other people. She also stated that the Supreme Court has left the decision on whether intelligent design can be taught in a classroom up to the local community who gets to set the standard. These two statements are clearly made by O’Donnell and have not been tweaked or spun by her supporters. BUT THEY ARE BOTH WRONG.

      First, intelligent design, which is merely a rebranding of creation science, has been found by the Supreme Court (Edwards, 1987) to be a religious doctrine and therefore cannot be taught alongside or in contrast to evolutionary theory. A federal court has already ruled (Kitzmiller, 2005) that intelligent design is the same as creation science and thus religious doctrine that is disallowed under the ‘87 SCOTUS ruling. O‘Donnell’s claim that intelligent design is different than creation science is, from the standpoint of current federal law and legal precedent, incorrect, and her misunderstanding of this is what led to her making the two other false statements.

      First, by arguing that Coons is imposing his will on a local community she is implying that he has no legal right to do so, but this is incorrect. The basis for the ‘87 SCOTUS decision and the ’05 federal decision was the Establishment Clause, which Coons correctly quoted as the basis for such authority. I believe that O’Donnell was confused about the First Amendment, and asked about it repeatedly, because she didn’t know that it is here that the authority to ban creation science and intelligent design from the classroom exists.

      Second, O‘Donnell reinforced the likelihood that she didn’t understand the Establishment Clause as the source of such prohibitionary authority because she began to talk about how the SCOTUS has traditionally left judgment on school content in the hands of the local community. But this reference to local standards made by the SCOTUS in the famous Miller case (1973) had to do with what standards would be set to define obscenity, which is itself an exception to the free speech clause of the First Amendment. This has nothing to do with the basis for why creation science or intelligent design would be banned from the classroom. She is confusing the free speech and establishment clauses of the same amendment. Hence, while she might have been able to name more freedoms within the First Amendment, she clearly cannot do more than name them. She clearly has failed to offer the right legal analysis in this case.

      Rather than trying to read O‘Donnell’s mind to determine what the real motive was behind her repeating “in the First Amendment? in the First Amendment?,” we should take a look at what she argued in a substantive way. In doing so, we find pretty ample evidence that even if she really does know that “separation of church and state” are not in the First Amendment but that the Establishment Clause does exist there, it really is irrelevant. Her analysis of current policy and legislation and the Constitutional provisions upon which it is based are so off-base that she really did deserve the laughter and ridicule (heard on the recording) that was directed at her by the law students and faculty in the audience.

      Report Post »  
    • mintyfresh
      Posted on October 20, 2010 at 8:06pm

      @restless 1 – i would love to hear an actual argument against what i said. please, prove me wrong. or at least provide some proof for your assertion.

      Report Post » mintyfresh  
    • PlaneRick
      Posted on October 20, 2010 at 8:18pm

      Her comments are under such heavy fire because she, at the least, gives a clear impression that she is ignorant of the use (and importance) of judicial precedence in the meaning, understanding, and execution of law in the United States.
      That is why the students, as PAJAMASH mentioned, are laughing at her. This is high school graduate level understand of the law which she seems ignorant and these law students ,just to make it into any law school, have deeply entrenched into the details of such for years. It is only a common assumption (let alone, should be a necessity) that someone running for an office responsible for making the laws should have at least a basic understand of how such laws are understood and used.
      The constitution and related cases are only the most cited and explained example in case law in the nation for secondary education. Her questioning follows the statement of her opponent, which he properly qualifies with a simple generalization of near concrete judicial precedence (from many generations) by the Supreme Court, only makes me wonder if she was even listening to her opponent.
      Her contempt of his statements show that, if she has a basic understanding, she is trying to completely ignore the spirit of the law for a strictly letter-of-the-law view combined with amnesia of precedence.
      The spirit of the law has been well defined by our Founding Fathers, such as Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and George Mason. Her statements on creationism and public education can only be viewed in hindsight as further assertions that she has little understanding of the law. I fear her understanding of the law is a proper as her understanding of science. She states that Evolution versus Creationism (which I include Intelligent Design) in public education should be left the local governments which would clearly ignore case law and the 14th amendment (which values were clearly established following the Civil War).
      On top of all this, she states Intelligent Design as a theory in science which is willfully ignorant of what is and is not science. A theory in science is something through experiment, evidence, and replication has been proven to be (highly) likely. Evolution fulfills this requirement even after 150+ years of study. Intelligent Design is not even a scientific hypothesis because it has not and CAN NOT be proven. It has been proven to be “a lack of science” that relies on a religious presupposition. For those who disagree as such, the ruling in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District was thorough and extremely well written. Of course this would also fall under case law…lol.

      Report Post »  
    • PlaneRick
      Posted on October 20, 2010 at 8:22pm

      Please do not misunderstand…I am only stating that her comments and stance have seemed ignorant. I do not think that she, personally, is ignorant, but she should represent herself better if she wishes to make it to public office.

      Report Post »  
    • restless 1
      Posted on October 20, 2010 at 8:22pm

      Minty,

      “…sounding shocked when the first is directly quoted lead to a conclusion that she is right?”

      That quote is from your post. The first amendment was not directly quoted when she asked the question. The fallacious “separation of church and state” was.

      Matter of fact, other than Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists, the “wall of separation” wasn’t practiced as Constitutional law until until 1947, when the lamentable Everson v. Board of Education ruling was made, (ironically upholding the rights to bus students to Catholic or parochial schools).

      So, if you are saying that O’donnell is wrong and Coons is right, then you must be as stupid, at least, as Coons. Which is really funny. She who you ridicule, actually has more understanding than you do.

      Report Post » restless 1  
    • restless 1
      Posted on October 20, 2010 at 8:30pm

      *SIGH*

      The judicial review you hold so highly was another consequence of the regrettable Everson decision.

      Supreme Court judges were generally loathe to be the final arbiter of legality before this. Everson was the beginning of the end for “we the people”, as our elected legislators are now looking over their shoulders hoping their legislation passes the almighty “judicial review”. :/

      Report Post » restless 1  
    • 5
      Posted on October 20, 2010 at 8:56pm

      If Delaware votes for “The Coons‘ that’s Our Problem too. This Marxist is a ‘Rubber Stamp’ of Obama and the Progressives aka: Democrats. They did vote for ‘Joe Bite-Me Biden’ for many years so they show how dumb they are. I pray they wake up before our Country has farther to come back to. Please pray for all the voters there to see the MSM Bull Crap.

      Report Post »  
    • PlaneRick
      Posted on October 20, 2010 at 8:58pm

      to RESTLESS 1: Is that not the purpose of the Supreme Court to be, among its responsibilities, the judicial check to the other branches of government. And there are numerous writings by framers of the Constitution that support the validity in the spirit of the law related to the “separation of church and state” whether they are cited or not.
      The judicial review has been in place since the formation of the court. Whether it be in this case in particular or any other, the process is not new and it is sad when it takes nearly 80 years for full clarification of the law to be realized. Rather than show disapproval in opinion of such things, why not explain your claims of fallacy and misuse?

      Report Post »  
    • PlaneRick
      Posted on October 20, 2010 at 9:02pm

      to 5: rather than throw around hyperbole and opinion, why not join the actual conversation and talk about the issues at hand?

      Report Post »  
    • PlaneRick
      Posted on October 20, 2010 at 9:33pm

      As a side question, related to the ad, can anyone point to Jesus’s teachings of “HELL”? I’ll start another comment run to do so.

      Report Post »  
    • jzs
      Posted on October 20, 2010 at 10:25pm

      SNOWLEOPARD meet FIRED UP FREE MAN. I think he missed your semi-religious post about demonizing people you disagree with. And he went to the extra length of posting the address of the Tides foundation. Do you read the news and if so, do you have any ideas about his motivation for that?

      Report Post » jzs  
    • restless 1
      Posted on October 20, 2010 at 11:46pm

      Planerick,

      Do you not find it ironic that the Everson case actually upheld the appellate court’s overturning of the original decision?

      In his writing of the majority opinion, Justice Black stated that the state must remain neutral:

      “The ”establishment of religion” clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another . . . No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions . . . In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect “a wall of separation between Church and State.”

      Seeing as the Court upheld the appellate court’s ruling, one must infer that Black that the state must not endorse any religion over another, nor must it act as an adversary to any religion.

      The subsequent SC rulings allow the state to do just that. They use this case as precedent in error.

      There are references to God, a higher power, a Creator strewn throughout our founding documents. To believe that our founders would agree with the abridgement of our religious rights, and our freedom of religious speech is ludicrous.

      Report Post » restless 1  
    • heavyduty
      Posted on October 20, 2010 at 11:50pm

      Sledghammer: The Blaze is working its magic on the liberals. There are more and more of them coming here to try to confuse the issue with their rhetoric. I agree with you in that she was correct. But what I like is that these liberals are wasting their time. Maybe everyone doesn’t know the Constitution by heart. But they know when the liberals are trying to con them. And she definitely knows more about the Constitution than Coons did/does. The liberals don’t know the Constitution because they are trying to destroy it. But all these lower liberals as I like to call them think that if the Constitution is destroyed that it doesn‘t apply to them because they don’t believe in it anyway. So keep up the good work and don‘t get conned into a debate with them because they don’t have a clue.

      Report Post »  
    • PlaneRick
      Posted on October 21, 2010 at 1:01am

      to RESTLESS 1:
      There is no irony in the fact that the original decision upheld in Everson was that such separation didn’t qualify in specifics because funds were being given to individuals to use as they chose (to exercising their religious right) and not to a religion.
      In upholding that, he also clarified the separation directly implied by intent by the framers, such as Jefferson, through the Establishment Clause. The ruling also reinforce the inferred precedence that your federal rights related to religion also apply on the state level from 14th Amendment. On all of this, I believe we agree. There are no inferences needed further after this case. The ruling you quote directly speaks to that.
      But it would be a false association to say that religion won the case because the funds we going to be going, in the end, to religious schools. The court only upheld the freedom to exercise religion because the state was not funding a religion but rather the individual was funding it. IN deeper investigation, you’ll find the reimbursements we put into place because there was disparity in the use of public funds expended and on the “local level” it was decided that transportation funding should have equality. This case is in no way a support of public funding of religion and statements purporting the opposite are a gross misinterpretation of the law.
      Ms. O‘Donnell’s statement that educational decisions in public school science courses in relation to Intelligent Design fell to the local authorities, she clearly and wholly neglects obvious and precise precedence, from cases such as Everson and Kitzmiller, that say otherwise. Her attempt to show that just because it does not say verbatim the known, affirmed intent, is blind to the meaning.
      Because the Supreme Court, in Everson and further rulings, clearly and directly state the intent of the law as stated in the Constitution, when Coons said, qualified his initial statement that from precedence, the separation of church and state is in the 1st Amendment, he was completely accurate.
      From you statement though, I can only ask what abridgment of you personal religious rights do you believe has occurred?

      Report Post »  
    • ozz
      Posted on October 21, 2010 at 5:11am

      @mintyfresh Don’t be a donkey. She was dead on. It does not appear any where but in a personal letter to a baptist church from Jefferson many years after the constitution was penned. To add to that it has been taken out of context to mean the exact opposite of what was meant in the letter. A letter I have read my self. Further I will add his opinion on the first amendment has less weight than other founders as he was away as ambassador to France when it was being discussed and written. The SCOTUS has been dead wrong on this one for years. Any one who knows their US history knows our founding fathers wanted religion in government. What they did not want was government in religion. Those who claim different are all ignorant or liars. What are you?

      Report Post » ozz  
    • restless 1
      Posted on October 21, 2010 at 8:02am

      @Planerick

      Actually we agree your whole post re. Everson. I did not mean to state that the decision was a victory for religion, just that it affirmed that the state should remain neutral. We probably disagree on what “neutral” is at this point.

      As far as the abridgement of religious rights, especially religious speech, well we are told we can pray here, or here, but not here, here, or here. We can’t pray out loud in public schools, (when did the hearing of one’s prayer make those in proximity complicit in said prayer? Really, what are we afraid of here?). Hell, even a moment of silence comes under fire, (what could be more neutral than that?).

      Just seems funny to me that we go further to protect the offensive and degrading speech in gangsta rap or pornography, (I don‘t mean we shouldn’t), than we do religious speech.

      Report Post » restless 1  
    • restless 1
      Posted on October 21, 2010 at 8:06am

      Rick,

      I forgot that we probably disagree on the importance of precedent, especially at the SC level. I think it lets courts allow bad interpretations to remain essentially the law. The SC has no worries about being overturned on appeal, so they should be rendering judgements solely on the Constitution, not precedence. Like I said, prior interpretations can be, and are, wrong.

      Report Post » restless 1  
    • Cherise
      Posted on October 21, 2010 at 10:26am

      The law students were reading the applause and laugh signs that lit up

      Report Post » Cherise  
    • Wiz001
      Posted on October 21, 2010 at 12:17pm

      Amendment 1 – Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

      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.

      ——————————————————————————–
      Read the actual words and then think about what is said… Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. this says to me that congress can not make laws to require a certian religion be forced on the people and that congress can not restrict a persons right to worship as they wish. It does not say, if my school district is christian that they can not educate their students about their religion, in fact it says if it is your schools choice is to teach it that, is fine. How many religious schools recieve govt. funds, MANY DO what about that? I think that she maybe a little sharper than most of the people who dismiss her as a nut job. All they seem to do it parrot what they have been told in their liberal school systems and do not reseach facts for themselves. BUT there is hope for them, they are here and maybe they will get some education…

      Report Post »  
    • PlaneRick
      Posted on October 22, 2010 at 10:49am

      RESTLESS 1,
      I am not totally clear to what case or incident which you refer to as an individual’s prayer out loud in school being under fire, but as far as I am aware the SC and descending courts have upheld that the individual’s right to prayer in public schools is protected excluding willful interference of classroom proceedings. Precedence is that no public-school-sponsored prayer is allowed as it is clearly non-neutral. This has even applied to school sponsored organizations and events where school property, specifically the P.A. system, has been used for public prayer. As far as I have personally seen, those rulings have been easily upheld at many public high school football games in two different states that I have attended in the last three years, where anyone desiring a pre-game prayer have either been allowed a place to pray (by an announcement over the P.A. of a gathering point such as an area of the bleechers) and were lead in prayer in group or, in one school district, prayer was just led over the audience without the assistance of a P.A. system to avoid classification as “public speech”. Please inform me of other rulings to think otherwise.
      Where moments of silence are concerned, I have only heard arguments that I feel are total intolerant and stupid. In that it sounds like we agree. As far as court rulings, the moment of silence has been held as constitutional, because it only allows for a time with which students can execute prayer as they wish. In my local school system, if vocal prayer is desired, students can take this moment in group outside of the classroom.
      As for precedence, while it seems to be your opinion that the SC easily throws out precedence for no reason. As far as I have found, SC rulings that contradict prior precedences’ application have clearly and, usually specifically defined with equal or stronger evidence that is contrary to the prior. In this case, as in several Constitutional interpretations, it is convention that in rulings doing such have evidence be stronger and clearer. In the few cases where precedence of clear intent has been employed, verbatim reduction would be unsubstantially contrary and therefore invalid. Many rulings refer to SC precedence alone to support the ruling or clarify, in specifics, the current precedences’ application where it should not apply. Disagreement with rulings, while always based in personal opinion and judgement, should essentially be based in stronger evidence than that of the ruling. Blatant lack of such for solely personal and baseless opinions could constitute impeachment.

      Report Post »  
    • Hugebrass
      Posted on October 22, 2010 at 11:19am

      Ok… Let’s see… O’Donnell clumsily, but correctly, calls out Coons on his incorrect assertion that “Separation of Church and State” is in the First Amendment. (Can you imagine if Mark Levin hade been there to tattoo the good Attorney General of Delaware…? Whoa). But I digress…

      Anyway, then ABC writes a masters thesis on how we got here “‘n stuff”, but completely omits Justice Hugo Black’s (not-so famous) opinion in Everson v. Board of Education 1947 – a 5-4 decision which, as we all know, was where the “wall” between “Church and State” was first interpreted. So, we find that O’Donnell is correct. The Establishment Clause does not contain nor imply a “separation” between church and state. It was made up out of thin air by Black, an unapologetic FDR progressive – and a racist KKK member and attorney/defender of the Klan who has a long history of aggression against the Catholic Church.

      Regardless, what we’ve (accidently?) done here is expose the left in a serious hypocritical dilemma. Have you ever noticed the standard to which folks like ABC hold conservatives (like O’Donnell in this exchange)? Wouldn’t it be cool if we could get Professor ABC to hold a few liberals to the same standard?

      Therefore, I’m hoping ABC will put together another opinion on great quotes like, “We have to pass the bill so we can find out what’s in it.” And, of course, since we’re discussing Delaware, why not a few clever statements from rocket scientist Joe Biden? (I suggest his plan to trifurcate Iraq). I’ll bet he supports the general direction these (and many other imbeciles like Pelosi and Biden) are taking the country – in the exact opposite direction that the founding fathers had intended.

      Therefore, I ask Professor ABC to take a brief position on any of these three issues. 1) Government Controlled Healthcare, 2) $1.3 TRILLION deficits, and, my favorite, 3) Since this is all Bush’s fault, please tell us what policy Bush implemented that caused the economic situation we’re in today – and please be specific.

      Are you game?

      Report Post »  
    • PlaneRick
      Posted on October 22, 2010 at 12:43pm

      HUGEBRASS,
      Did you even read the other statements made in this comment thread?
      You would probably understand or at least see the fault in your interpretation, if it can even be called that. Attempting to base your argument with “The Establishment Clause does not contain nor imply a “separation” between church and state.”, Is obviously fallacious if you have even read the Establishment Clause. By words alone, it is simply understood that the government can not make law in respect to ANY specific religion. That, in itself, is a separation! And that is just in the word of the law.
      Then, to say that Justice Black established the “wall” out of “thin air” is completely ignorant of his ruling and his proper quotation of Thomas Jefferson, just one of the many Founding Fathers whose ideals of separation have been clearly researched and affirmed by their own writings. If you even read the full quote of Jefferson, even in context, his thought is clear, as one of the originators of the clause, that its purpose was creation of the “wall”.
      Then you continue your argument by trying to frame ABC with imaginary targets that, at least in this thread and his comments, can not be found. All you speak your opinion and gross assumptions, with the faux appearance of knowledge or understanding, that seem completely void of substance from facts.
      Then you end you statement with, what I can only assume is redirection, with questions that are completely irrelevant to this discussion or ABC’s statements in this thread, and only show you to be arrogant and disingenuous.
      If you can speak against the facts presented by ABC and others, please show us with facts, not opinion.

      Report Post »  
    • Hugebrass
      Posted on October 22, 2010 at 3:35pm

      I’m sorry… I didn‘t mention Rehnquist either but that doesn’t make my argument “fallacious”.

      You say, “By words alone, it is simply understood that the government can not make law in respect to ANY specific religion. That, in itself, is a separation! And that is just in the word of the law.”

      Really? You certainly mean an interpretation by you and yours, right? I don’t believe it says that at all, and I’m not alone.

      Rehnquist in Wallace v. Jaffree, says: “It would seem from this evidence that the Establishment clause of the First Amendment had acquired a well-accepted meaning: it forbade establishment of a national religion, and forbade preference among religious sects or denominations. Indeed, the first American dictionary defined the word “establishment” as “the act of establishing, founding, ratifying or ordaining,“ such as in ”[t]he Episcopal form of religion, so called, in England.” The Establishment Clause did not require government neutrality between religion and irreligion nor did it prohibit the Federal Government from providing nondiscriminatory aid to religion. There is simply no historical foundation for the proposition that the Framers intended to build the “wall of separation” that was constitutionalized in Everson.“ ”The “wall of separation between church and State” is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned.”

      Sure, Jefferson’s letter to Danbury Baptist doves nicely with your position, but please don’t make the argument that it ends there with a clear and defined answer. It doesn’t, most especially after a racist like Hugo Black uses it to advance his political agenda.

      To my latter point, let‘s hold all of our leaders to the same standard that ABC hold’s O’Donnell. I think that addressing at least one of many of Pelosi or Biden’s outrageously stupid statements are certainly worth the same scrutiny many seem to apply only to their political opponents. Sound fair?

      Report Post »  
    • PlaneRick
      Posted on October 22, 2010 at 4:50pm

      HUGEBRASS:
      While I said nothing of the degree of separation, the words “shall not” is a form of separation by negation in the context. This is not an opinion, but a literalistic interpretation (as with only a dictionary).
      To draw upon one (of a few in that specific case) dissenting opinion (which have no consequence in the law) that only shows another’s point of view, is definitively the “argument from authority” fallacy.
      Justice Rehnquist was also stating pure opinion. He gives no reasoning for statement. He only calls is bad and useless. Why is that so? Does he continue. Even that thought that Jefferson’s statement is only metaphorical is questionable. Today, as in Jefferson’s day, the word “wall” can describe a barrier, whether solely physical or not, because of shared function. But that is simple compared to Rehnquist’s neglect, in your example, the opinions and words of other Virginians such as George Mason, let alone, the many others Representatives from other states at the Convention that, in writing and deed, have shown similar understanding to that of Jefferson.
      His words serve only as such – his. They have no bearing on the law as it is executed.
      Even in this example, Rehnquist does not deny a separation of one sort or another. He only speaks to Blacks quote of Jefferson. If you read your “evidence”, you would know that might statement is correct and does nothing to refute what I said, especially as you quoted me.
      Lastly, I agree that all leaders should be held accountable. Bierce wrote it best – “Accountability: the mother of caution”. But not only should we be able to refute be use of evidence, but we should also attempt to prove ourselves wrong before we start using opinion over reason. To label something wrong or stupid before full understanding isn’t attempted is arrogant.
      Your assumption that ABC would defend, let alone, agrees with everything you said earlier is a faulty generalization and what seemed to be a lead into to a straw-man argument.

      Report Post »  
1 2 3

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love