Now this is my type of debate. An alleged “bearded Marxist” debating an alleged “former witch” about the 17th amendment. You can imagine me wolfing down popcorn in feverish excitement while watching the debate of Delaware Republican Senate Candidate Christine O’Donnell and Democratic opponent Chris Coons.
O’Donnell was ridiculed for her apparent lack of knowledge of the Constitution last night. Now, hold on to your chair, I am about to defend . . . partially.
The first exchange to produce laughs was when she asked Coons “Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?”
That particular question does not necessary show a lack of understanding of the Constitution. Many conservative activists have argued that the Constitution was never intended to create a “wall of separation” between Church and State. Indeed, the language of a “wall of separation” is not in the Constitution. It came from Thomas Jefferson’s famous letter to the committee of the Danbury Baptist Association that reads:
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
O’Donnell may have been thinking of the “wall” debate in asking Coons, “The First Amendment does? . . . Let me just clarify: You’re telling me that the separation of church and state is found in the First Amendment?”
Coons correctly responds with a reference to the establishment clause: “Government shall make no establishment of religion.”
O’Donnell then asks “That’s in the First Amendment…?” Yup.
Coons also correct to again ask O’Donnell about her views on evolution after she appeared to question the separation of church and state. If there is no such separation in her view, it magnifies the importance of her purported view that evolutionary theories are invalid. I have previously written a column about the right of the media to press candidates on their faith when they run in part on faith-based politics.
O’Donnell clearly had trouble on the other amendments. She was asked if she would repeal the 14th, 16th, or 17th Amendments if elected.
“The 17th Amendment I would not repeal” but then asked a person in the audience to explain what the 14th and 16th amendments were, adding “I’m sorry, I didn’t bring my Constitution with me.” I can certainly understand not recalling that the 16th amendment deals with the apportionment of taxes — not exactly a hot button amendment for most people. I can even understand gapping on the 17th on the direct election of Senators. But the 14th is a . . . well . . . a biggy after the whole Civil War thing.
The gap on the 14th was particularly embarrassing after O’Donnell accused Coons of constitutional ignorance by remarking “perhaps they didn’t teach you Constitutional law at Yale Divinity School.”
Now, I want to emphasize that O’Donnell is not expressing hostility to Yale Divinity School because she is a witch. She denies she is a witch. I am still a bit unsure why going to Yale Divinity School is a put down. I would think you would want a suspected bearded Marxist to go to divinity school, particularly after you just criticized him for attacking churches in the same debate. One thing is clear. The Delaware election should never end. For constitutional scholars, this is the best reality show on TV.
Source: CBS
Jonathan Turley
OK good I was beginning to worry.
Blouise Bdaman is talking about voter fraud so much I have to wonder if their polling is showing their victory might not be as large as they anticipated. Maybe, they beat up too many people. Oh well, they can blame it on voter fraud. The New Black Panthers stole the election.
Byron,
Regarding “But arent you being sexist by excluding males?”, we didn’t say that men won’t be included. 🙂
OK, I’m bowing out of this…
anon nurse When I read that I thought, not really, if you have enough money you can avoid punishment. My puppy was spayed today. I wish I had a nurse to take care of her. I have to go pick her up soon.
Bdaman
1, October 26, 2010 at 4:56 pm
Blouise where you been all day
=========================================================
Out doing political campaigning for a good democrat at the state level.
We had quite a storm here but the winds never really picked up as much as forecasted … I wonder what the next couple of days have in store for us. I prepared very well … took stuff in, battened down the hatches but the bad weather never materialized. Haven’t has a chance to check your site yet …
Blouise, 5 pm and the first real laugh of the day. And then I saw the comment by Mr. “Live by the sword, die by the sword” bdaman. 🙂
Byron
1, October 26, 2010 at 4:58 pm
Blouise:
I know, that is why I figured I could get a straight answer.
But arent you being sexist by excluding males?
==========================================================
Yes!
Now I might vote to take mespo and Buddha (but only if Buddha agreed not to put blue sparkly paint on his head)
Byron,
Why don’t you and Bdaman go to lunch with Senator David Vitter? He’s also a Rhodes Scholar. He graduated from Oxford with a degree in economics. Maybe he can answer your question. I’m sure he’d provide you with the RIGHT answer.
Blouise:
I know, that is why I figured I could get a straight answer.
But arent you being sexist by excluding males?
Blouise where you been all day
anon nurse
1, October 26, 2010 at 4:36 pm
Byron: We’ll take the question/s to her and get back to you. 🙂
===============================================================
anon nurse is a diplomat … whereas I am just … well, you know …
Byron
1, October 26, 2010 at 4:30 pm
Can me and Bdaman come to? I want to ask her about dialectical materialism and the analytic-synthetic dichotomy. Maybe I can get a straight answer from someone who went to Oxford.
=====================================================
HELL, NOooooo!
And she didn’t just go to Oxford, she earned a Doctorate in Philosophy (DPhil – higher doctorate in the faculty of philosophy) in politics from Oxford University ….
Byron,
There is no straight answer to that question, it’s the exact opposite of a Japanese Koan.
Byron: We’ll take the question/s to her and get back to you. 🙂
Can me and Bdaman come to? I want to ask her about dialectical materialism and the analytic-synthetic dichotomy. Maybe I can get a straight answer from someone who went to Oxford.
anon nurse
🙂
Blouise, You wouldn’t have even had to ask. 🙂 You, Swarthmore mom — we’ll all have lunch together. How could we even think about “lunch with Rachel” without the two of you?
Mespo,
I figured I could count on you to flush out my Et. al. I wonder why Jim suddenly switched to your understanding of theology, and dropped the legal argument? Suppose he’ll have anything more substantive than shouting “No, you’re wrong?”
Elaine M.
1, October 26, 2010 at 1:46 pm
anon nurse,
“You and rachel Maddow must have lunch together.”
May I join you and Rachel the next time you dine together?
================================================================
Please may I come too … Maddow is one of my heroes … I’ll pay … and I’ll send a car, plane, or helicopter to pick you all up … I’ll behave …..
Bdaman:
I am having the same problem, it also seems to change my name.