Posted on 10/20/2010 10:03:03 AM PDT by opentalk
The media are in a full-scale hyperventilation following Tuesday's separation of church and state comments by Delaware Republican senatorial candidate Christine O'Donnell.
As an Investor's Business Daily editorial points out, O'Donnell was right when questioned about this issue during a debate with Democrat candidate Chris Coons, and all the nattering nabobs of negativism filling the airwaves are wrong:
There is, of course, no such passage. Those scoffing law scholars might want to look at the Constitution's unadorned text instead of the judicial activist law review articles that take up so much of their day.
What the Constitution does say, in the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, is that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" — a restriction imposed upon the state to prevent its interference in religious practice.
IBD referenced Mark Levin's "Men in Black: How the Supreme Court is Destroying America."
The "Wall of Separation" phrase comes not from the Constitution, but from President Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists in 1802. As Levin notes, the obscure comment was virtually ignored for nearly a century and a half. It wasn't until 1947 when Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black ruled in the Everson case — which actually upheld the use of taxpayer money to transport children to Catholic and other parochial schools — that the Jefferson metaphor was used to establish "the anti-religious precedent that has done so much damage to religious freedom."
...Levin's argument is similar to that of the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist. In his dissent in a 1985 ruling against silent school prayer, Rehnquist pointed out: "There is simply no historical foundation for the proposition that the Framers intended to build the 'wall of separation' that was constitutionalized in Everson." He called Jefferson's "wall" "a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging."
... Is it any wonder that the newest Supreme Court justice, Elena Kagan, did not require the study of constitutional law when she was dean of Harvard Law School — but did require the study of foreign law? Those future federal judges graduating Harvard might catch onto the fable liberal activists have gone to such trouble weaving.
Hugo Black was a Catholic hating Klansman.
“Separation of Church and State” is in the same (liberal) Constitution wherein you can find “A Woman’s Right to Abortion.”
Why didn’t Christine O’Donnell tell Coons this? The clips I saw, she kept saying, “In the Constitution?” over and over. She obviously knew it wasn’t in there, so I don’t know why did she allowed everyone to laugh at her.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Whats with all the laws passed to restrict "the Church" from "the State"..
Democrats must be dyslexic.. they reverse the context..
AND no republicans call them on it..
THIS MUST CHANGE... and it is.. The TP Caucus is growing, growing, growing..
They must KNOW she's correct - why let the media buffoons have the floor??
I don’t need the Media to tell me about Separation of Church and State.
First off, they do not even have the terminology right, little lone any answer.
What the founding fathers referred to was the Separation of THE POWERS of CHURCH, and THE POWERS of STATE.
“Separation of Church and State” is in the same (liberal) Constitution wherein you can find “A Woman’s Right to Abortion.”
That must be the one with the right to free healthcare.
As pointed out in the article, it is very troubling that under Dean Kagan, Harvard law students were not required to study constitutional law — but did require the study of foreign law.
“Why doesn’t the damn GOP come out and back her up?
They must KNOW she’s correct - why let the media buffoons have the floor?”
Rush is talking about it now.
Maybe to make it a story. If Christine would’ve just said what the truth was, it wouldn’t have been a news story. That’s just a theory. She could’ve done better in the nat’l review interview where she brought the free exercise clause into it.
Anyway, for background - here’s the threads on Everson and Elk Grove I posted yesterday so that people could get an informed understanding of what’s actually going on with establishment clause issues.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2610824/posts - everson
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2610810/posts - elk grove
I know that Ron and Rand Paul agree with her and have a very good understanding of these matters.
it’s all in the magic penumbra.
How the Supreme Court is Destroying America.
He also wrote the majority opinion in the case involving the removal of school prayer in 1963...Engel v. Vitale.
This is not a can of worms that the media wants open.
Sometime, check out his first wife’s sister and her husband. It gets rich....real rich.
Because moderates are afraid of theocracy. Republicans don’t want to go on record talking about how the Constitution actually does not prevent Delaware from becoming officially Catholic. It doesn’t. The 1A establishment clause is in there to allow Delaware to be officially Catholic. Politicians should know this. But they know that voters don’t want to worry about Christine O’Donnell turning Delaware into an officially Catholic state. Something about extreme or something. Also something about “getting off message”. Stopping Obama from doing more terrible things. Taxes. Jobs. These are the things that the Republican candidates want to be talking about because these are the things they think are going to get them votes.
Republicans don’t really want to run under the banner of “we can institute a theocracy state by state if we overturn the Everson line of cases, but we won’t”.
Almost no one on either side of this debate seems to have any clue at all. I’m 100% for Christine for the win - donated to her again yesterday - and she did get it right in the debate - but her answers to nat’l review about free exercise after the debate were wrong. That’s ok, she didn’t go to Yale Law, but the idea that schools can teach creationism because of the free exercise clause is wrong.
Aren’t there emanations from the penumbra?
'splains a lot.
“Separation of Church and State” is in the same (liberal) Constitution wherein you can find “A Woman’s Right to Abortion.” or in the liberal Constitution that a Gay person has the right to be openly Gay in the military.
I’m not proud to admit that I didn’t know that it wasn’t in the Declaration until four or five years ago. Brit Hume had a special on FOX about the loss of liberty in our country, and he spent a few minutes on that.
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.