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
Jim: “Your comments are ridiculous. Your ignorance of the Confederation congress is not my fault. You are attempting to put that into the context of Semantics and blaming me. It doesn’t work. You are wrong but of course women always have a problem admitting fault.”
No Jim, your comments are ridiculous; further evidenced by your ‘problem admitting fault’ here:
http://jonathanturley.org/2010/10/20/bewitched-odonnell-on-the-constitution/#comment-168606
Truth be known, Blouise carved you up like the roast pig you are.
Mespo:
” It’s stupid, of course, as even Henry Ford knew if you raise the wages of workers they can buy your products,”
Ford was from a different time, one I would like to see come back in some fashion. At least in regard to how to treat the people who produce products and services.
How much of that is due to the need to satisfy the stock holders? How much is attributable to government and how much is attributable to greed? I rather agree that once you are making a few million a year, how much more do you need? Although Lebron James is making millions a year and no one seems to begrudge him his wealth. The same principle is at work, a CEO who raises the bottom line is worth what someone will pay him.
I don’t want someone tell me how much I am worth.
Blouise
Your comments are ridiculous. Your ignorance of the Confederation congress is not my fault. You are attempting to put that into the context of Semantics and blaming me. It doesn’t work. You are wrong but of course women always have a problem admitting fault.
Trust me I am educated in this area quite well. If you have never heard of the confederation congress that is your problem. The congress of the confederation is the same thing. The only thing in caps was AOC. You are trying to get away from my points about government today.
mespo,
Hope it’s only a 24 hour bug … rest up … I’m out of here …
Jim
1, October 28, 2010 at 2:25 pm
Blouise
If you never heard of the confederation congress that is not my fault. Semantics doesn’t take away from my premise that government should be downsized today.
=========================================================
Of course semantics takes away from your premise … the ignorance of your semantics casts a shadow of ignorance over your premise … ignorance of semantics shows a lack of discipline in your learning pattern and that lack of discipline would carry over into other areas of reasoning that formed the thought process of your premise.
Jim
1, October 28, 2010 at 2:08 pm
Blouise
When I said Confederate states of america I was reffering to the Conferdation because we were talking about the AOC. I guess you are ignorant.
==========================================================
No Jim, “The Style of this confederacy shall be “The United States of America.” … that’s from the Articles of Confederation.
You see, a proper education helps one learn the definition of terms. If one uses the term Confederate States of America all in caps as you did in your original post, then one is referring to the C.S.A. as identified in the Confederate States Constitution.
Look at it as if you were trying to explain the difference between the words to, two, and too … if properly educated one has no excuse for writing “give me to apples” or “give me too apples” when what one meant was “give me two apples”.
Understanding the correct words and phrases to use and the context in which to place them is part of what learning is all about. Once one has a proper education you would be amazed at how easily one can communicate with others and how clearly one can express thoughts without confusion and misunderstanding.
Blouise
If you never heard of the confederation congress that is not my fault. Semantics doesn’t take away from my premise that government should be downsized today.
No Jim, I never heard of the Confederation congress. I learned about the Second Continental Congress and its immediate successor, the United States in Congress Assembled, though they were always referred to as the Continental Congress for the 8 years (March 1, 1781, to March 4, 1789) they were the governing body of the United States of America. Congress of the Confederation was another name employed but not popularly used.
Nope … Confederation congress is not a term used unless it was a super secret term god gave to tithing Christians ….
Blouise
When I said Confederate states of america I was reffering to the Conferdation because we were talking about the AOC. I guess you are ignorant.
Blouise
Ever heard of the Confederation congress? They were recognized and operated under the AOC.
Byron:
The compliments of worthy adversaries are the only ones worth repeating. Right back at you.
Blouise,
You are wrong! The AOC created a confederacy. There was no chief executive out of fear for a King. There was procedures set in place on how to pass laws but they didn’t work.
Blouise:
“In your group of friends and acquaintances, you aren’t considered the smart one, are you?”
************************
Stop it right now! You know I’m sick with the stomach flu today and all this laughing is making me cry.
Jim,
At the risk of sounding snarky, I have to ask you because I am genuinely curious:
In your group of friends and acquaintances, you aren’t considered the smart one, are you?
Jim,
Read and learn bucko:
The C.S.A. (Confederate States of America) was an unrecognized union set up from 1861 to 1865 by eleven southern slave states of the United States of America. The C.S.A. argued that the United States Constitution was a compact among states that could be abandoned at any time; each state had a right to secede.
The Southern leaders met in Montgomery, Alabama, to write their constitution. Much of the Confederate States Constitution replicated the United States Constitution verbatim, but it contained several explicit protections for the institution of slavery.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The Articles of Confederation is a completely different document in place for a relatively short period of time in our nation’s early history. The Constitution replaced the Articles and on March 4, 1789, the government began operations under the Constitution.
This is 8th grade stuff, Jim, so once again I’m going to ask you … Where in the “H” did you get your education??!!
BLOUISE
Remember the Confederate Sates of America united under the AOC. You don’t know your history.
Byron,
Great about the “neck.” As for Mespo, he certainly does not know the AOC as well as me. That was a time when every state was out for themselves. Our constitution would protect against that today. I am only simplyfiing government to where it should be.
Jim
1, October 28, 2010 at 12:30 pm
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.
===================================================================
What??!! Where did you go to school? Who in the world told you “The AOC were a united government that had a weak constitution.”?
My goodness, you don’t know your theology and you don’t know your history …
MESPO,
200 years plus has equalled over 13 trillion dollars in debt. Justify that going forward.