The exchange came in a debate before an audience of legal scholars and law students at Widener University Law School, as O'Donnell criticized Democratic nominee Chris Coons' position that teaching creationism in public school would violate the First Amendment by promoting religious doctrine.
Coons said private and parochial schools are free to teach creationism but that "religious doctrine doesn't belong in our public schools."
"Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?" O'Donnell asked him.
When Coons responded that the First Amendment bars Congress from making laws respecting the establishment of religion, O'Donnell asked: "You're telling me that's in the First Amendment?"
Her comments, in a debate aired on radio station WDEL, generated a buzz in the audience.
"You actually audibly heard the crowd gasp," Widener University political scientist Wesley Leckrone said after the debate, adding that it raised questions about O'Donnell's grasp of the Constitution.
Noooooo. Really? Somebody actually would question Christine O'Donnell grasp of the Constitution? You're kidding me.
Look, Delaware. If you haven't figured out this nutjob is a national embarrassment yet, think about her making laws for the entire country, and what the other 49 states will think about you. I'm used to it, I had to explain through college why not everyone in North Carolina was an ignorant, racist, homophobic assclown because of Jesse Helms.
But honestly, if you think a working knowledge of the US Constitution is only for elitist arugula-eating snobs like Democrats, you've got bigger problems than Christine O'Donnell.
EPIC FAIL. (Also, read the damn thing, woman.)
Also, speaking of Maddowblog, Rachel was brilliant last night as she connected the Village conventional wisdom dots to the Tea Party propaganda dots and discovered that they are the same. Do watch this.
Posts
12 comments:
"Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?" O'Donnell asked him.
When Coons responded that the First Amendment bars Congress from making laws respecting the establishment of religion, O'Donnell asked: "You're telling me that's in the First Amendment?"
O'Donnell wasn't wrong, Coons was. Using his false, living Constitution theory, Coons is telling a lie. Congress not being able to establish a religion doesn't mean separation of church (religion) and state.
I know, there's a plethora of Supreme Court decisions used as precedent on this that assumes there is this separation, but that's because those Justices who ruled that way also believed in the false living Constitution theory.
...if you think a working knowledge of the US Constitution is only for elitist arugula-eating snobs like Democrats...
That is exactly what arugula-eating snob Democrats believe, otherwise they wouldn't have set up Obamacare as they did or tried to pass the abominable DISCLOSE Act. These jerk Democratic politicians think the Constitution is there to expand their personal power and, like Coons, will try to say there are things in the Constitution that just aren't there, like the non-existent separation of church clause.
Oh I'm sorry, I forgot on top of being an obnoxious lout, you're an expert on Constitutional Law.
O'Donnell had an out on the church and state issue...until she then questioned "That's in the First Amendment?"
What Coons said is correct. freedom of religion is indeed in the First Amendment, although Republicans seem to only think that applies to Christianity and Judaism.
Oh I'm sorry, I forgot on top of being an obnoxious lout, you're an expert on Constitutional Law.
Compared to Coons, yes. And so is O'Donnell, as another point made during that same debate, not reported in this post, shows:
O’Donnell was later able to score some points of her own off the remark, revisiting the issue to ask Coons if he could identify the “five freedoms guaranteed in the First Amendment.”
Coons named the separation of church and state, but could not identify the others — the freedoms of speech, press, to assemble and petition — and asked that O’Donnell allow the moderators ask the questions.
“I guess he can’t,” O’Donnell said.
Maybe Coons wouldn't be one of those arugula-eating Democratic snobs if he actually read the damn Constitution instead of citing false Democratic talking points about what's in it.
What Coons said is correct. freedom of religion is indeed in the First Amendment,...
Coons didn't say that either, he said that Congress couldn't make laws establishing a religion, which isn't the same as separation of church and state, which the Politico piece got wrong as well; he didn't mention the other part that makes up freedom of religion, that Congress couldn't make laws prohibiting free religious exercise, which is something he wants to violate (along with the 10th Amendment), as O'Donnell points out. Then he couldn't name any of the other rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. And you don't question Coons' grasp of the Constitution, despite the fact that he doesn't seem to have any?
Wow.
SteveAR missed the question where Christine O'Donnell was asked her opinion of the 14th, 16th, and 17th amendments and she couldn't answer because she left her copy of the Constitution home, but that it was OK because Senators didn't have to know it from memory.
I can't imagine how he left this out of his exhaustive recap of the debate.
Interesting how Allan doesn't question Coons' dishonest interpretation of what is in the Constitution.
There's a flaw in your argument, Allan. Instead of admitting that he didn't know the Constitution from memory, Coons, from his memory, used a Democratic talking point to make up what is in the 1st Amendment as if it were a fact, even though the separation of church and state doesn't exist in the Constitution; that is, Coons lied. And that doesn't trouble you, Allan?
I don't engage with you, Steve, I simply point out the part of the story you omit.
Interesting that you didn't acknowldege that I busted you on your significant omission.
That doesn't trouble you, Steve?
Allan:
Interesting that you didn't acknowldege that I busted you on your significant omission.
Earlier, you said O'Donnell couldn't answer about her positions about the 14th, 16th, and 17th Amendments. While she was fuzzy about the first two, she actually did know what the 17th Amendment is. All without having the Constitution in front of her. Maybe if what you busted me on were the facts, it might help your case.
That doesn't trouble you, Steve?
Nope. By the way, it would be nice of one of Coons' supporters actually answered my questions why Coons, a Yale law school graduate, lied about the separation of church and state being in the Constitution and why he couldn't name even one freedom protected by the First Amendment, with or without the Constitution in his plain view.
You're still going on about this? Coons said flat out that the First Amendment states that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the establishment of a religion. That's in the First Amendment, and that's one of the freedoms in the First Amendment.
The US Supreme Court has said that this is the basis of their decision on separation of church and state and has been for 60 plus years.
End of argument.
Coons said flat out that the First Amendment states that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the establishment of a religion.
Nobody is arguing that. It's also only half of what is actually in the First Amendment. You know it, I know it, O'Donnell knows it. Only Coons doesn't seem to know it.
The US Supreme Court has said that this is the basis of their decision on separation of church and state and has been for 60 plus years.
No, it based it on that Danbury letter from Jefferson, which has nothing to do with the Constitution. Besides, those members of the Supreme Court who believe(d) there is a separation of church and state are doing nothing more than interpreting what they say is in the Constitution, not what is actually in the Constitution. Members of the Court are certainly learned people, but because they are people, they can make mistakes or willfully lie.
With your argument, that would mean that Plessy v. Ferguson would still be considered settled law because of how long it was used as precedent. It also means that Korematsu is still settled law because it has never been overturned. Your argument has no merit.
And that is the end of the argument.
So now the Supreme Court has no power because their interpretation of the Constitution is meaningless and so is precedent, and the Constitution only means what Steve thinks it means.
Got it.
We're done here.
But the Supreme Court is not the Constitution.
So O'Donnell's question still stands.
Show me in the Constitution where "separation of church and state" is.
You can't, because it doesn't. O'Donnell is right. You're wrong. SteveAR had this argument won 12 hours ago.
You are such a pathetic hack.
Perhaps you two can be each others' date to the Christine O'Donnell victory rally? You make a lovely couple.
Post a Comment