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
Mespo:
I should think Heil Ayatollah would work well enough.
Jim lost me when he called you stupid,- exasperating, cantankerous, witty, certainly but stupid not in this life or any other.
Jim:
your desperation is dripping from the screen like lava flows from Mt. Kilauea.
Jim:
“You idiot! The AOC were a united government that had a weak constitution. We have a much stronger constitution today So it would work.”
******************
Thanks Jim, we’ll just take your word for it!! What better source could we have than you. Forget 250 years of American political experience, let’s just gamble on Jim’s analysis of the political needs of 300 million people. We know Jim is guided by his religiosity and look how good that’s done for Iran. hell look what it’s done for Jim!!
Let’s weaken and cash-starve the federal government and our “stronger constitution” just to strengthen it.
Do you prefer to be called “Ayatollah” or “Mullah” when your rather unlettered opinions come to fruition?
Jim,
How do you propose to pay for protecting our borders and a strong military? With proceeds from a lottery run by the federal government? The federal lottery slogan could be: Gamble to preserve your freedoms!
Mespo:
““Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.” (Ephesians 5:22-24)”
that may well be true but every man knows the wife is the neck.
MESPO
You idiot! The AOC were a united government that had a weak constitution. We have a much stronger constitution today So it would work.
Jim:
“We need to get rid of income taxes. We also need to go back to what government in Washington should be doing: Protecting our borders and preserving our freedoms meaning a strong military. Get rid of all entitlements, thats right, social security, medicare , medicaid, pell grants, etc. Of course faze them out over time. Get back to the basics. Also, reduce government salaries and the time they spend in Washington. Everything else should be left to the states and local munincipalities.”
********************
Good move there, Jim, but if you’d bother to crack a history book, you’d know we tried that in 1777 and it was called the Articles of Confederation. Failed miserably, like most lame brain conservative, states-rights ideas. I do note with interest that your political science acumen is comparable to your theological acumen — seems you haven’t read any of that either.”
I have a grudging respect for you conservative, anti-American government, hyper-religious knaves and the outright temerity and capacity for self-flagellation that you possess as you proclaim your ignorance with such fanfare and certainty. Quite amusing. A tad pathetic, too.
anon nurse:
“No, not a surprise to some, as you rightly say, but many are blithely unaware …. What will it take, I wonder, “to dislodge Americans from their collective stupor?”
**************
I think it was Lord Moran who said, “… all it took was a little scare and we were on our knees to Winston Churchill.” Makes sense to me since as we all know (and in the wonderful words of Samuel Johnson),”Depend upon it, sir, when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully.”
Elaine,
We need to get rid of income taxes. We also need to go back to what government in Washington should be doing: Protecting our borders and preserving our freedoms meaning a strong military. Get rid of all entitlements, thats right, social security, medicare , medicaid, pell grants, etc. Of course faze them out over time. Get back to the basics. Also, reduce government salaries and the time they spend in Washington. Everything else should be left to the states and local munincipalities.
Companies Guard Tax Loopholes, Stalling Tax Cuts
The Huffington Post | William Alden First Posted: 10-28-10
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/28/corporate-taxe-loopholes_n_775185.html
As President Obama considers lowering the corporate tax rate, an impediment to reform is the corporations who, in theory, stand to benefit. In short, corporate America, can’t decide which highly lucrative tax loophole it should fight to keep.
To reduce the 35 percent corporate rate, the Financial Times reports, companies would have to give up any number of the provisions that currently allow them to engineer their own tax breaks — by, for example, deferring profits on overseas income, recording profits in low-tax countries or getting tax breaks for research. The trouble is, they can’t agree on which perks they want to give up, and, the FT reports, the divisions could stall reform.
Ralph Hellman, a senior vice president at the lobbying agency Information Technology Industry Council, told the FT that some companies are also worried about a bait and switch: If they fork over a a current tax provision, they fear, the president might fail to uphold his side of the deal.
Some of these current provisions can be quite lucrative. Google, for instance, as Bloomberg reported last week, funnels much of its overseas profit through Ireland and the Netherlands to Bermuda. The complicated strategy, whose components are called the “Dutch Sandwich” and the “Double Irish,” has effectively cut Google’s overseas tax rate to just 2.4 percent, saving it about $3.1 billion over the last three years.
Other technology companies, like Microsoft, use similar strategies. If the president were to increase corporate taxes, Microsoft threatened last year, it would retaliate by shipping not just profits but also employees overseas.
The U.S. budget deficit, meanwhile, is about $1.3 trillion
The president’s attempts to offer corporate tax breaks have, in recent months, been largely spurned by corporations. When he unveiled the part of his new stimulus plan (of course, the administration doesn’t use that word) that would give companies tax breaks for buying equipment and doing research, those companies said no thanks — they’d rather he preserve the Bush-era tax cuts for wealthy individuals.
Jim:
“God is saying that we must love him above all and I am surprised with someone of your knowledge you did not know that.”
God’s not saying anything. That would be Paul telling us – and revealing so much more.
“If you noticed men are to love their wives as Christ loved us.”
Like I love my Schnauzer. She’s very submissive, too.
mespo,
No, not a surprise to some, as you rightly say, but many are blithely unaware — and I say that with humility, and a degree of self-condemnation.
What will it take, I wonder, “to dislodge Americans from their collective stupor?” — to use Coleen Rowley’s words about certain events surrounding 9/11. Given that we’re generally a “crisis-oriented” lot, I hate to think what it will be…
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/coleen-rowley/could-wikileaks-have-help_b_772479.html)
MESPO:
You have taken Luke out of context. God is saying that we must love him above all and I am surprised with someone of your knowledge you did not know that.
You obviuosly have no clue what Paul was teaching about women and submission. If you noticed men are to love their wives as Christ loved us. Families who practice this teaching are strong and together-No divorce! Take notice for if all couples practiced this our society would be void of many of its problems.
“I’ve known intuitively for sometime that Republicans don’t have the sense to come out of the rain, but I always like empirical proof.” (mespo)
SwM is gonna love that one!
mespo,
Your Castian heritage may give you some Celts blood and thus part of my blood heritage … welcome.
Perhaps the 1/16th came from El Cid (Rodrigo Díaz de Vivar) …
Bdaman,
Great video … go Rangers
Thanks anon nurse for that update. No real surprise, is it?
My reaction:
mespo: [translation] Aye Dios Mio.
Bdaman:
I’d love to claim Latino heritage, but its decidedly Italian. I do have it on good authority that my maternal great-grandmother was 1/16 Castilian, so I have that to brag about.
Hilarious, Bdaman.
Tu es tu hombre
Mespo you know I love you. Especially now that I found out you have a Latino last name. Chew ar da man.