Posted on 10/19/2010 11:39:05 PM PDT by Yomin Postelnik
The First Amendment establishes that Congress shall declare no official nationwide religion. The First Amendment does not ban the mention of religion in public. In fact, it protects same. While far left radicals like Chris Coons may wish to knowingly distort or ignore this fact of American history, it is as shocking as it is sad that the entire student body of a supposedly “prestigious” law school seemed to be equally ignorant and/or oblivious to our founding principles.
Yes, I know that in saying so I’ve just bucked conventional wisdom, which dictates that self proclaimed Marxist aficionados such as Chris Coons, wise men like Al Franken, erudite speakers like Barney Frank and great thinkers of our times like Howard Dean are the epitome of normal, while hard working Americans and Reagan Democrats, now referred to as “Tea Party Activists,” are the “extreme.” Too bad.
The real radical in the O’Donnell-Coons race is Chris Coons, which is patently obvious to anyone who’s reviewed his positions or life experience. Pining that term on O’Donnell, in this race, is like saying that Queen Elizabeth should learn decorum from a more famous O’Donnell of a more Rosie nature. As much should be clear to all Delaware Republicans, Castlonians and Christinians alike.
(Excerpt) Read more at americandailyreview.com ...
it is a sad state of Affairs when a law student doesn’t know the constitution!
Mark Levin would tear these students a new one, I bet!
What got me was MSNBC trying to say she don’t know what she is talking about and they are the dumb ones!
Very true! Interesting how liberals who laugh like hyenas usually have the knowledge of one.
All true, but irrelevant. The LSM has picked up the “O’Donnell was wrong” line, and thanks to how our government and the NEA has turned schools into leftist indoctrination centers, most Americans will believe it. Sigh.
It’s sad that most Americans don’t know what the Constitution says or that 1773 was the year of the Boston Tea Party.
Separation of church and state is not in the Constitution but we don’t learn that from the liberal school teachers.
Christine O’Donnell wins again! The LSM will spin it to be the opposite. BTW - Sarah was right on 1773 being the year of the original Boston Tea Party too!
They are studying PC Law.
A school full of future societal parasites learning how to attack capitalism and free enterprise while ignoring the constitution.
All I know is that when the stock market crashed in 1929, President Roosevelt went on television live from Katie’s Restaurant to help spread encouragement to the people in all 57 states.
Why is the second part almost always left off that says the government shall NOT prohibit the free exercise of religion?
The phrase ‘separation of church and state’ isn’t even in any of our governing documents.
He did so on his show in a sense noting how correct Christine was... And he even got into Justice Black and that infamous line "separation of church and state"....
The problem is America is to addicted to ( fill in the blank ) to read or listen to history.
Beam me up Scotty, these people are historically ignorant
It is a sad state of affairs when our law students fail to keep an open and inquiring mind, but, instead demonstrate their ignorance and bias. Christine O'Donnell is correct in her statements. The intent of the law has been warped beyond recognition.
Coons is an elitist, is blind to the needs of the people of Delaware, and will lead them to nowhere as they continue to lose their jobs, their homes, their way of life, and their future.
Proof positive that the high point of their “education” is the ability to memorize obscure cases that support the LIB agenda, while ignoring the rest.
I doubt if these “students” have ever read “The Federalist Papers” or the works of John Locke, or even know who the Founding Fathers were.
BTW, I loved Christine’s question to Coons -”How does being corporate council qualify as working in business?” IMHO, it doesn’t. Wirking in business means keeping the books, knowing how to operate the equipment and dealing with customers.
I find it very relevant the words of Mother Angelica, “they are educated beyond their intelligence”, to be very fitting. Some ( most?) of these lawyers are too arrogant.
O’Donnell might have been correct but all she did in the debate was ask her opponent if the Constitution really did declare ‘separation of church and state’. Especially after the audience giggled she needed to give a lecture on what exactly the constitution said and didn’t say.
I came away thinking O’Donnell didn’t understand what was going on during that part of the debate.
O’Donnell was in over her head.
“I came away thinking O’Donnell didn’t understand what was going on during that part of the debate.”
Exactly, Coons correctly identified and recited nearly verbatim the portion of the First Amendment upon which liberals base their argument that a strict separation must be maintained between the workings of government and the symbols, values and precepts of particular religons. He didn’t say that the Constitution included the words separation of church and state. O’Donnell, apparently cluesless, then mockingly replied something to the effect of “so you really think that is in there?”, suggesting that she had caught Coons stating that the words separation of church and state actually are in the Constitution when he said nothing of the sort. The law students in the audience, well aware of the legal arguments employed in the relevant Supreme Court cases, could only laugh at Miss “I am You” O’Donnell’s “gotcha” moment.
Look, I disagree with Coons’s position on this issue, but he made the appropriate debating point in this argument. O’Donnell, so far as I can tell, was out to lunch. I hope she pulls off an upset, we need her vote when the chairmanships and staff budgets in the Senate are voted on, but even if she does she will be an embarrassment to our cause. She’s not ready for prime time.
And all the ways to circumvent and side step the Constitution....
Even more so when a Law School produces a President who takes solemn oath to defend our US constitution —but who holds it in such contempt he flaunts his status as President of an Office he is not eligible to hold.AND Far too many Americans believe the LIE of a “living constitution— whose meaning can be changed by any Judge reading it, or rather case law
preceeding their own reading.
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.