Bizarre, Congress, Constitutional Law, Media, Politics, Society

Bewitched: O’Donnell on the Constitution

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

416 thoughts on “Bewitched: O’Donnell on the Constitution”

  1. Elaine:

    Maybe mythology is an inappropriate word and my apologies for the offense, but Thomas Sowell does point out and pretty well, the other side of what you were saying about job loss to other countries.

    I had actually thought the same way as you until I read a couple of his books. He makes a good deal of sense and he is not a “conservative” in the traditional understanding of the word. He is what you would call an early 19th century liberal.

  2. Elaine/Byron:

    “Some of those same responsible unemployed people may have been put out of work by greedy companies who have outsourced their jobs to other countries where they can pay foreign employees slave wages.”

    *******************

    One finds it hard to conclude patriotism or free market capitalism forms the basis for conservative support of taking jobs from Americans and exporting them to India or other offshore sites. I think it a priori that an entity whose only reason for being is the making of profits likely makes its labor expenditure decisions on purely financial grounds, too. (Our recent experience with our corporate citizens makes this conclusion a posterori, as well). In that context, isn’t Sowell just a Fifth Columnist for the large financial interests. His flaming rhetoric comparing Obama to Hitler and Mao; his condemnation of the NAACP for even mentioning the racist origins and underpinnings of the Tea Party movement; and his unbridled attack on public schools as “trying to destroy” America, disqualify him from any credibility on matters of race, politics, education, and by vivid extension, his own field of economic theory. An ideologue with a mortar board is an ideologue nonetheless, and need not be believed.

  3. Jim,

    “I am glad that God requires all to pay 10% and doesn’t have one rate for one group and one rate for another.”

    What/whose God requires all to pay 10%? Does God send you a bill at the end of every month?

    Become an atheist and you won’t have to pay anyhting!

    😉

    *****

    I’m not sure who the “they” are that you are referring to. There are corporations that pay little or no taxes that can afford to lobby Congress for all kinds of things that benefit them. There are also people who work hard all their lives, pay taxes, contribute to society and don’t ask for any “cookies” until the time comes when they’re unemployed or too sick or too old work. I’m glad my government has programs to benefit such people.

  4. Byron,

    What is MY “mythology?” I’m not an adherent of any particular ideology. I follow my conscience and I use my common sense and ability to reason. I think you’re the ideologue.

  5. Elaine:

    agreed but go read some works by Thomas Sowell, he gets into the things you are talking about and he explodes your mythology.

  6. Jim:

    “I am glad that God requires all to pay 10% and doesn’t have one rate for one group and one rate for another.”

    ********************

    If you’re paying “God,” why is is that the check is always made out to the priest or pastor?

  7. Elaine,

    Answer this question: Why should americans who pay nothing into the Fderal treasury be allowed to have their hands in the cookie jar while those who do pay into the treasury can’t get any cookies?

    I always hear that they pay payroll taxes. This is true but with the credits they get, they end up getting more money back than they paid in and therefore pay nothing. I am glad that God requires all to pay 10% and doesn’t have one rate for one group and one rate for another.

  8. Byron,

    You make the assumption that all individuals are rational. BTW, who would you suggest should be responsible for managing “the fund” of which you speak?

    Another thing–one can act responsibly, work hard all one’s life–and then, through no fault of one’s own, find oneself out of a job. Some of those same responsible unemployed people may have been put out of work by greedy companies who have outsourced their jobs to other countries where they can pay foreign employees slave wages. It’s all about the bottom line and the corporate “screw the working man–we can get cheaper labor elsewhere” attitude. Maybe if corporate executives didn’t receive such exorbitant salaries and bonuses and corporations took better care of their US employees, we wouldn’t have to have so many government programs in place to help them.

    I think you and I are going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

  9. Elaine:

    Some people need temp help. The problem is that people pay taxes and so they take ownership of the programs available and rightly so. Maybe the solution is to make everyone responsible for their own life and have a fund for people unable to help themselves.

    The irrationality and hypocrisy is with the system, humans change behavior to adjust to their environment. Rational practices from government would lead to rational choices by individuals.

  10. I see whats goin on here Byron. First you invite me to lunch and now you got them all alone to yourself.

    You dirty dog you.

    Ruff, rrrrrrrrrRRRRuff

  13. Swarthmore mom, Thank goodness for pain medication. Happy to hear that she’s doing well.

    Well the midterms are upon us. Wonder where we’ll be next week at this time. Still hoping for a last minute October surprise, as I’ve said. Probably won’t happen, but one can hope.

  14. Byron,

    You can spin it anyway you want. Joe Miller and a number of other tea party candidates are big hypocrites. I believe that’s one of the reasons many of them try to evade the press. They don’t want the truth to come out. It’s okay for them to get benefits from the social programs put in place by the state/federal government–but not “so okay” for others.

    *****
    As Matt Taibbi put it in that article I linked to earlier:

    You see, when a nice white lawyer with a GI Joe beard uses state aid to help him through tough times and get over the hump – so that he can go from having three little future Medicare-collecting Republican children to eight little future Medicare-collecting Republican children – that’s a good solid use of government aid, because what we’re doing is helping someone “transition” from dependency to economic independence.

    This of course is different from the way other, less GI-Joe-looking people use government aid, i.e. as a permanent crutch that helps genetically lazy and ambitionless parasites mooch off of rich white taxpayers instead of getting real jobs.

    I can’t even tell you how many people I interviewed at Tea Party events who came up with one version or another of the Joe Miller defense. Yes, I’m on Medicare, but… I needed it! It’s those other people who don’t need it who are the problem!

    Or: Yes, it’s true, I retired from the police/military/DPW at 54 and am on a fat government pension that you and your kids are going to be paying for for the next forty years, while I sit in my plywood-paneled living room in Florida watching Fox News, gobbling Medicare-funded prescription medications, and railing against welfare queens. But I worked hard for those bennies! Not like those other people!

    This whole concept of “good welfare” and “bad welfare” is at the heart of the Tea Party ideology, and it’s something that is believed implicitly across the line. It’s why so many of their political champions, like Miller, and sniveling Kentucky rich kid Rand Paul (a doctor whose patient base is 50% state insured), and Nevada “crazy juice” Senate candidate Sharron Angle (who’s covered by husband Ted’s Federal Employee Health Plan insurance), are so completely unapologetic about taking state aid with one hand and jacking off angry pseudo-libertarian mobs with the other.

    *****

    You and I have very different viewpoints about paying taxes and about certain government programs like Social Security and Medicare. You even believe that public schools should be privatized. I bet you’d welcome a return to a Dickensian type society in the US.

  15. Thanks for asking, anon nurse. She rested comfortably and I just gave her her pain meds.

  17. SM:

    I don’t know anything about Angle and I think O’Donnell is pretty wacky. But with that being said she (O’Donnell) will be better than Coons.

  18. Byron: I am just going by what the casino owners say. They are in the business. Angle is scary and not very knowledgeable. She spends a lot of time avoiding the press. If only the republicans could have hidden O’Donnell.

  19. Elaine:

    How much did he pay in taxes? Seems to me if you pay taxes getting some of the money back is not hypocritical at all. If I could find a program that would legally enable me to recoup my tax money I would be all over it.

    The problem is that too many on the left don’t seem to understand that taxes are not owned by the state, they are monies that are forcibly taken from individuals to give to other individuals who have no moral right to the hard work of others. That Joe Miller sought to retrieve some of that money is in no way hypocritical nor does it philosophically diminish his opposition to the welfare state. The money is his, it was taken from him by the force of government. We are all mugged every April 15th, that some of us are able to recoup some of the stolen money is cause for celebration not opprobrium.

Comments are closed.