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. Jim:

    a national sales tax is bad unless you make a constitutional law preventing it from going up. All that is is a value added tax that gets charged at every transaction. It can also be raised stealthily.

    A flat tax for everyone is the way to go, you make a hundred bucks in any manner send in between 10 and 15% (includes state and payroll taxes) no deductions of any kind for any reason. the savings in compliance alone would be huge and it would eliminate the dread of April 15 or March 15. And it would quit making us all criminals because we would be able to figure out our taxes. And 10 or 15% seems reasonable to me. Let people who make under 35k pay no tax at all, either federal or state and no payroll tax for them either.

  2. Elaine,

    We pay for it through tariffs. The government also can continue to have a tax on gasoline and I would support a 1% national sales tax. All other taxes including payroll taxes would end. Of coarse to faze out SS and Medicare, we would need to also faze out those taxes as well. Now comment on my points.

  3. Bdaman:

    Those pictures of her in a ladybug(?) costume can only help her. She is actually pretty cute. I see the under 40 male vote breaking for her.

  4. The media is not factoring people like me into the equation.
    On the other side of the aisle, I can’t imagine many, if any, Republicans voting Democrat.

    So someone at the DNC came up with a formula that takes all of this into account…and when THAT formula is applied to the Delaware race, CoD is ahead.

    And that terrified the DNC enough to send the SOS to the big money guys like my friend for a Hail Mary pass.

    “They are terrified of her winning”, my friend said. “Scott Brown terrified”.

    And I add: these people have all been at this so long they don’t get this freaked out over nothing.

    http://hillbuzz.org/2010/10/26/democrats-at-defcon-1-is-christine-odonnell-now-leading-in-internals/

  5. Democrats at DEFCON 1: Is Christine O’Donnell now leading in internals?

    Today I talked to a friend from Team Hillary who is a big Dem fundraiser. He told me that for the last week or so the DNC has been at DEFCON 1 leaning HARD on the rainmakers because they are terrified of a CoD win in Delaware.

    The problem is some internal poll that apparently shows that a high percentage of Democrats early voting are voting straight ticket Republican instead…they are Democrats voting against Democrats.

    I am still registered Democrat here in Chicago and I voted straight ticket Republican except for Tom Dart for Sheriff because I know and like him. Other than that, it was all Republican. But, in terms of early voting stats, I was a Democrat early vote on paper.

  6. Gawker’s Christine O’Donnell tell-all backfires
    An anonymous source tells the piggish tale of his “one-night stand” with the candidate

    I really hate Gawker for making me do this, but … I’m going to have to defend Christine O’Donnell. The site just published an anonymous first-person essay with the headline “I Had a One-Night Stand With Christine O’Donnell.” Apparently Gawker’s headline writers go by a different definition of “one-night stand” than the rest of the world, though, because her anonymous lay didn’t actually get laid.

    http://www.salon.com/news/christine_odonnell/?story=/mwt/broadsheet/2010/10/28/christine_odonnell

    Gawker on Christine O’Donnell is absolutely, totally, offensively out of line. Awful. You won’t get link from me.

    Jill D Lawrence

  7. On The Trail Of “Anonymous,” Christine O’Donnell’s Sex-Free Pal

    Readers of today’s first-person account of a sexless one-night stand with kooky Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell might have noticed that the author–whom Gawker cloaked as “Anonymous” –was wearing an actual Boy Scouts uniform in photos accompanying the story about the purported Halloween night encounter three years ago.

    While the man’s identity remains a secret (at least for the time being), TSG has determined that the uniform’s owner is a buddy of “Anonymous” who actually works for the Boy Scouts of America.

    http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/gawker/trail-anonymous-christine-odonnells-sex-free-pal

  9. Jim:

    Knowing Blouise, I doubt she’ll be “called out” by such silly bait as you’ve offered. Now run along and tell all of your know-nothing friends you’ve bested everyone here at the Turley blog by your own admission. We adults would like to have a discussion not peppered with religious stupidity or eighth grade civics questions.

  11. Ladies and Gentlemen, Mr. Mose Allison!

    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCpekvOkwNM&fs=1&hl=en_US&rel=0]

  12. Jim,

    In an earlier comment that you addressed to me you wrote the following: “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.”

    I responded to you with the following question: “How do you propose to pay for protecting our borders and a strong military?”

    You never answered my question. Should I generalize from your lack of response that conservatives like to evade questions?

    I’m calling you out.

    P.S. I doubt you have any real understanding of how liberals think. And we DO think for ourselves–unlike some folks who just like to spout their party’s talking points.

  13. Blouise,

    By the way, aside from your insults, you never addressed any of my points in regard to less government. This clearly shows how liberals think. They divert the attention away from the subject and then feel good about themselves knowing full well they accomplished nothing but are excited that no one picked up on it. I, however, am calling you out.

  14. HenMan

    If you would be paying attention, you would know that I want very little government.

  15. Blouise

    BLOUISE

    Remember the Confederate Sates of America united under the AOC. You don’t know your history.

    What you posted above is not caps but rather “Bold” print. You don’t know your typing or about the AOC.

  17. Jim, Jim

    Here is your recent disclaimer:

    Jim
    1, October 28, 2010 at 2:50 pm
    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.

    Jim
    1, October 28, 2010 at 1:24 pm
    BLOUISE

    Remember the Confederate Sates of America united under the AOC. You don’t know your history.

    That’s your caps, Jim … your use of AOC is an acronym … your acronym, for it is not one commonly used by scholars.

    I’m not at all interested in your views on government today … just as I’m not at all interested in your views on Christianity because you are spouting half-baked ideas that you have overheard or read without understanding the terminology let alone the concepts that guide legitimate thinking on either subject.

    Ask for another assignment … your knowledge base is too shallow and you mind isn’t quick enough to handle this crew. Off you go Jimbo.

  20. Bob,Esq

    Who are you again? I’ll put my credibility up against you any day. There is a confederation congress that operated under the AOC so buzz off!!

Comments are closed.