Posted on 10/19/2010 11:39:05 PM PDT by Yomin Postelnik
Really? I came away with the impression that O'Donnell was the only one in the room who had actually read and understood the Constitution and its position on the establishment of a state sponsored religion versus the separation issue. It's a damned shame (and scary) that she would have to explain it to a group of law students. The fact that they giggled at her completely valid comments makes it obvious to anyone who has studied the Federalist Papers that she was the only one in the room with a grasp of the meaning of the first Amendment. Maybe she should have handed out a few copies of the Federalist Papers and the Bill of Rights so that those ignorant souls in the crowd could enlighten themselves?
Levin should invite them on the show for a discussion.
To be fair, the words of the constitution are of passing interest in the practice of law. In any dispute, the arguments are framed in the words of the Supreme Court's interpretation of the constitution. The plain words of the constitution may or may not have play in an actual case, where actual judges, with actual power to call up force of violence to obtain submission, dictate what the rule of law will be.
I'm not sure ignorant is strong enough term. Perhaps utterly oblivious is more fitting?
If they wanted to display some academic awareness, they would point out the policy of the separation of Church and State originated several centuries prior to our founding fathers and was well known to Queen Elizabeth I. It also was a policy established by Christians for Christian governed States.
It recognized that a righteous man would seek to remain obedient to both the Law of the Church as well as the Law of the State. By recognizing some men were sanctified by God by various steps determined by God and not by Man, then some men differed in their degree of maturity and sanctification in God. Likewise, the degree or extent of Law by the Church might differ from some men to others, as well as between different denominations of believers.
The Law of the State, also applied to believers and unbelievers alike, but had been structured to maintain order amongst unbelievers who rejected or had not yet abided by the Law of God.
The object of the policy was not as much to form a policy of Law for unbelievers, but to insure the system of Church and of the State did not preclude the Liberty of a righteous man who sought to remain obedient to both.
The voting public of that era KNEW what they believed in their Church. Those who didn’t had probably been killed over the preceding century, because one Church would come in and inquisite the population individually, kill off thousands of heretics, only to be overcome by another Church who later also purged the population of its heretics. They very well knew what the Church believed because their Liberty and many times their lives had been threatened by any lack of knowledge or obedience to it.
Those formulating and establishing the law of the State, as displayed by Queen Elizabeth I, sought to harmonize the Church and the State, not by finding a common denominator supporting the liberty of those who sought to not obey either the Law of the State nor of the Church, nor by attempting to counterfeit the Law of the Church with the Law of the State, but instead by recognizing both were valid, but the Church denomination might vary from believer to believer, but both believers in Christ were still seeking to remain obedient to both the Church and to the State.
Hence, the policy of separation of the Church and the State, so that the State could not encroach upon the power of the Church and visa versa.
The entire policy was predicated upon recognition of the Liberty and Freedom of Christian believers in the Church and in the State, not upon pagan or false religion.
Blame the Darwininian theology that was introduced into Harvard Law. Previously they used Blackstone’s commentaries as their basis.
“Law Students” these days only study “case law” instead of Constitutional Law.
Case law is evolved through the intellect of elite interpreters of the law.
Constitutional law is originalism, akin to divinely created/inspired law.
In so far as our Founders were concerned, many people forget, or perhaps don't know, that the people from Europe who came to "the new world" by and large were fleeing state sanctioned religions, like the Church of England, and the religious persecution that those institutions brought to the masses.
The question that needs to be asked of these people is this: If there were truly separation of church and state defined by the Constitution, why does every session of Congress open with a prayer (and has for more than 230 years) and why does the Congress have an official Chaplin?
“didn’t understand what was going on”
I meant mostly that she didn’t understand what was going on in the room. The audience giggled. That’s a huge signal that she needed to clarify to her audience.
Yes...that was the part where she was wrong.
So unfortunate. I think adulthood will shake some up though.
Yep. I was left with the impression that she was caught off guard a bit because she thought everyone else in the room understood the 1st Amendment as it pertains to the establishment of a state sponsored religion as well as she understands it. Obviously they didn't and for it to be a group of law students? Scary. I could have understood that audience reaction if it were a group of ACORN thugs, but law students should know better. It's no wonder that our legal system is such a mess.....
I was shocked when I heard the students laugh like they thought that was in the First Amendment...it was after she asked the first time that Coons recited his version of the Establishment clause which btw is not where the “Wall” idea is derived from anyhow.
And he could not name any other right(5 total) enumerated in the First and called out to the moderator to get her off him since he had no clue.
Did you hear the whole exchange? The media has of course held back the context.
The whole wall idea was created in the 1940s by Hugo Black to stymie Catholics...in his view.
It is not in the Constitution.
Now...could Christine have more presence...oh hell yes....I woulda killed Coons myself but what truly scares me most is the bias and ignorance of the law student and it's faculty and the media's blatant propaganda.
I was so pissed I sent this letter to all the professors there who teach in that field at Widener.
“I hope you and other faculty at Widener take the time in the upcoming days to inform your law school students that the Separation of Church and State is in fact NOT in the First Amendment and it's Establishment Clause and that it is a relatively new idea that did not become “law” until by fiat with Everson in the 1940s written by former Ku Klux Klansmen Hugo Black speaking for the majority and was drawn from some old letters by Jefferson written to New England Baptists to assure them he would protect their right to practice their faith, not to protect the State from them.
It is a sad commentary when the media propagates this myth to their own biased ends and your students go along with the same folly.
Law without truthful historical precedence is hollow.
I was an idealist in my youth too and like many of your students I was arguably left of center but the truth is undeniable and O'Donnell was correct and Coons was ambiguous and nor could he answer what were the five freedoms granted in the First Amendment btw. The media declines to show that part of the debate and his lifeline to the moderator.
God bless you and good luck.
^^^^^
Ole Miss 1980”
Did you hear the whole exchange? The media has of course held back the context.
No I did not, so you may be correct. I think Miss O’Donnell was trying to make an important point but she did not do a very good job of it. I hope she improves before it is too late.
I blame the School System for not, not teaching the United States Constitution!!!!
It’s done on purpose.
No teaching of the founding principles nor the original meaning of the Constitution
leaves the “children” open to the revisionism (lies) of the left.
“Ole Miss 1980”
Wow! One of my heroes is a former chancellor of Ole Miss, Dr. Alfred Hume. Dig up some of his speeches and articles.
Why is the second part almost always left off that says the government shall NOT prohibit the free exercise of religion?
and what makes their argument ridiculous is they quote that line and in the same breathe claim that’s why you can’t pray in schools...
GMAFB
teeman... MAHAINGTTIA
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.