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
Swathmore Mom whats your take on this whole Clinton Meeks thing?
They pullin out all the stops for Crist.
So do you think they will boo him or cheer him?
http://wonkette.com/415594/george-w-bush-probably-responsible-for-texas-rangers-bankruptcy-too I guess it its fitting that he throw out the first pitch. I guess Bush looks like a liberal now as Clinton says.
Elaine,
Believe me, even though people are not making as much money, they will spend on entertaining itmes. Keep in mind all of the tourists will have to pay sales tax as well.
George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush to throw out World Series ceremonial first pitches Sunday.
Swathmore Mom maybe ya’ll could win that one.
Swathmore Mom is it to soon to break out the broom.
and now they are debating whether or not they are going to share all the wealth
surely you meant spread. 🙂
Byron: Many of Obama’s cabinet members are Clinton retreads. I know Larry Summers has left but I never thought of him as far left. Geithner might be a republican. Sebelius is pretty moderate. Salzar? I don’t know what leftists you are talking about?
SM:
Correct me if I am wrong but Obama and his cabinet are pretty far left. Although when I think far left I think redistribution of wealth, I am more in line with the people on this blog socially but as you well know I am a very free market guy. So I see things through “green” colored glasses.
Granted Tim Kaine isn’t far left.
Jim,
With millions of Americans out of work–many who have already exhausted their unemployment benefits and who have not been able to find new jobs–our federal government might not collect as much revenue from a sales tax as you assume.
It’s hard to say because no one can with assurity know how many exports we will have. That’s the reason for the sales tax.
Jim,
You’re still not addressing my question about how much money you think will be raised by tariffs. The devil’s in the details.
Elaine,
The government is already collecting those gasoline taxes. Remember when you downsize the federal government, your expenditures will reduce. Fazing out SS and Medicare will almost by themselves cut out about 1/2 of all Federal spending and then getting rid of the Dpartments of energy and Education will cut out a lot more. Actually, with my proposal our federal treasury will be running over with excess that we not only will have a deficit, but will begin aggressivaly eliminating our national debt.
Byron After reading this blog how can you say the democratic party has been taken over by the far left?
Jim,
That’s not exactly getting into specifics about how much money you think would be raised by tariffs.
I don’t think I’d like to live in the kind of country you propose. And I certainly wouldn’t would to take a cross-country trip via car through it.
Bdaman:
already read it. It seems like the same fight the republicans are having and have had for years. Namely what do we believe in? Are we the party of lower taxes, individual liberty, and limited government or are we the party that cant find it’s ass from a hole in the ground.
The democrats are having the same problem. The far far left has taken over the party of Truman and Kennedy and now they are debating whether or not they are going to share all the wealth or just some of it. And what is the right amount to share. JFK lowered taxes to get the economy going for god’s sake.
I am guessing that the far far left will split from the dems and the far far right will split from the repubs and the people like Hillary and Crist will form a separate party or keep the name democrats.
Elaine,
With all of the trade we currently have and hopefully will see a rise in exports, we should be fine with tariff revenue. The 1% sales tax will generate a lot of money and be fair in that all Americans are treated equally by having to pay. Spend less pay less sepnd more pay more! As for the federal government being involved, only if it involves areas that could create a dispute among states, otherwise, it should be the state responsibility. Anytime money is taken by the Feds, you become the slave to the Feds.
Byron read this, it about sums it all up. Maybe others here will finally wake up.
An Open Letter to Rush Limbaugh and His Listeners — With Notes on the Democrat Civil War Already In Progress.
http://hillbuzz.org/2010/10/27/an-open-letter-to-rush-limbaugh-and-his-listeners/
Jim,
Can you be more specific about tariffs and about how much money you think will be raised by them?
I believe both Social Security and Medicare are excellent programs. I disagree with your idea of abolishing them. Those two programs have been responsible for keeping many of our elder citizens out of poverty. Unlike you, I’m willing to pay income taxes to our government for programs that contribute to the welfare of my fellow Americans. I would prefer to see, however, fewer tax loopholes for big corporations–some of which pay little or no taxes.
Do you think the federal government should be involved in helping to upgrade/build/rebuild infrastructure in this country?
Byron,
It won’t work. Every American needs to pay equally. I am not a progressive. A law forbids the national sales to tax to go up will work. This will be perfect in that all who buy in the U.S. pay. I am tired of those who get credits and pay nothing get to have their hand in the cookie jar while the rest of us who do pay can’t put our hand in the cookie jar. No free ride!