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
Byron,
“10% unemployment isn’t jack diddly.”
I doubt that the 10% of our population who are unemployed (and I, like Buddha, believe it to be much more than 10%) think it’s “jack diddly” that they’re out of work and can’t find jobs. Most of the currently unemployed workers aren’t moochers. Those who haven’t exhausted their unemployment benefits yet use the money to buy food, pay their bills/rent/mortgages/insurance, and keep their heads above water until they can find new jobs. And, I might add, good jobs aren’t all that easy to find.
SwM,
Had the Republicans been able to run non-crazy candidates in the districts where the teabaggers got their crazies in, the result would have been a huge bloodbath for the Democrats. The Republicans missed out big time thanks to the crazies … I don’t think they’ll make that mistake again in 2012. (the teabaggers have served their purpose)
Delaware was a no-brainer win for them till the crazies took over. Rand Paul is going to be a problem for them for the next 6 years.
On that same note … had the Democrats let Blanche Lincoln fall in the primary, they probably could have saved the seat. She lost big time … in that case the DNC was completely crazy to ignore what the locals were telling them and going with the outside, bigwigs’ choice.
Byron:
“Quit relying on government for your salvation and rely on yourself, that’s our message.”
********************
Sadly, that translates out to many hard-hearted Republicans as “Let them eat cake,” when asked what to do about the poor and helpless in our society. We had your society before. You can read about in Bleak House, Oliver Twist, and A Tale of Two Cities. Some of us don’t want to go back. As you say, you’re either your brother’s keeper or you are not. Ironically, those espousing the affirmative proposition the loudest,practice it the least.
That’s our message.
Byron,
Once again, you’ve shown an fundamental economic misunderstanding. The Bureau of Labor Statistics uses all kinds of disqualifiers (like ignoring discouraged workers, etc.) and other adjustments when calculating that number. The number you should be watching is the underemployment number – which results in the same kinds of strife as unemployment – which is about 17%.
Swarthmore Mom:
(the use of you does not mean you personally)
It’s really quite simple, we either or or or not our brother’s keeper. I believe we should fend for ourselves and only seek assistance in the direst of circumstances. First to private charity and then to government as a last resort. I resent having to bail out AIG and the dumb ass next door who had a no interest loan for a house he couldn’t afford. Tough shit for both of them. Declare bankruptcy, pay your debts off and start over.
AIG nor the man next door owns the sweat on my brow. You (SM) seem to understand that AIG doesn’t but you (SM) go wobbly for the guy next door since it isn’t your money per se. If the guy next door came to me and asked for some help I would gladly help him out to the extent rationality permitted. Government charity grants him more than he needs at the expense of tax payers. If I wouldn’t give him all the money he needs to live why should government give him tax payer money through the back door? Especially if he is capable of working.
It isn’t hard to make a decent living in this country, 10% unemployment isn’t jack diddly. Since about 5% is pretty much full employment. Go buy some hot dogs and hamburgers at Costco and a small grill and set up a lunch counter on the corner of 1st and Main. Hot Dogs 2 bucks and Hamburgers $4.00, sell sodas for a $1.50. You might not get rich but that’s how JW Marriott got started so it is possible. And I will even loan you the $200 bucks for 10% (just on the $200 bucks) to get started and help you get a business license.
Quit relying on government for your salvation and rely on yourself, that’s our message.
The message to me is that the people that voted the democrats out want a more conservative government with less government spending and fewer regulations so businesses will create more private sector jobs. That’s the American way.
Swarthmore mom,
My people won here in Ohio (I explained it on another thread)and I am happy.
The crazies didn’t win which also makes me happy.
Republican’s don’t have any kind of workable majority which also makes me happy.
If Obama didn’t get the message then Democrats are going to lose big time in 2012 … big time
Byron The rebellion makes no sense to me but you probably understand their thinking. Why do elderly white middle class people mainly residing in the midwest and south vote for people that want to cut their social security and medicare? Most of Palin’s crazies lost. That’s the only bright spot for me.
Pete:
I wouldn’t be so worried, most of the newly elected republicans wouldn’t know limited government or free markets if it bit them in the ass. A few bright spots like Rand Paul and the guy that beat Feingold but all in all? OK but nothing to write home about. Although the beating the dems took was significant even if Larry Sabato doesn’t think so.
At least the spirit of rebellion is somewhat alive.
Pete,
You said, “There’s some hope for the USofA still. Just barely. Maybe.”
We’re in real trouble. Not much hope, from where I’m sitting.
Sanity prevailed, kind-a.
Angle defeated too?
There’s some hope for the USofA still. Just barely. Maybe.
I was just going to post that Buddah. Thanks for the info. Now Angle and Miller need to lose.
UPDATE:
Christine O’Donnell (R/t) lost to Chris Coons (D).
Bdaman Keep praying for her victory.
Uh oh, looks like the Hillbuz might be right.
Obama is back to Delaware tomorrow. There is a new poll. The Monmouth University poll. Christine O’Donnell is within ten points. Two weeks ago she was down 57-38. She is within ten points. Coons has backed out of the final two debates, and in the Monmouth University poll, Christine O’Donnell is winning independents 47 to 42. In Delaware, there are a lot of Democrats fed up with the direction of the country who are going to vote Republican or who aren’t going to vote.
Bdaman- So, Christine O’Donnell is now CoD? I saw Glenn Beck’s CoD piece the other day on Fox. It was short.
Newy isn’t the only one commenting pot and Giants fans. Slugger Josh Hamilton, who battles addictions, told the New York Post, “I could smell weed in the outfield. It was crazy. I was looking at the cops a couple of times during the game.”
http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/sports/Dallas-Newy-is-the-Citys-Newest-Star-106154253.html?dr
I don’t think they would in San Fransisco unless they were smoking weed. In case you missed it.
They’re smoking weed
Reporters from around the country are in San Francisco this week covering the World Series and that means the eyes of the nation are on us.
If the reporter from our sister station in Dallas is any indication, the country thinks we are potheads.
Newy Scruggs from NBCDFW said during his live report that people next to him “are smoking weed.” The anchors then asked, “Is it legal there?” Ask that question again next week.
Video http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/sports/They-Think-Were-Smoking-Weed-105909923.html?dr
bdaman People that can afford world series tickets will cheer Bush.
I have to run but I think they will cheer him. Meeks should have dropped in my opinion. Now your friend Rubio wins but he has almost 60 percent of the voters against him.