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.
There is a man who put a lightbulb in place or turning on the lights made the man appear. Yep, same thing?!
And you let the issues of schools redefining what is and is not sin with regards to homosexuality and the whole Gaia matter of Lord Al Gore...
sure.
I’m making the assumption that she might’ve had something up her sleeve with the “thats”. But if not, it would’ve been better to just clean that up. What would’ve been better would have been “that’s in the constitution ...? government?” To point directly at one of his errors.
Yes, I would think that Scalia and Thomas could debate the Constitution well.
Ok cool, yes, I agree.
I’d like to see Fox get some constitutional scholars up there who back Christine up.
Both Jefferson and Madison referred to the desired effect of the 1st Amendment being a separation between Church and State. Jefferson used the term “wall”, Madison called it a “perfect separation”.
I have seen Scalia debate Breyer twice on CSPAN and every minute was a pleasure. He is one person who can explain why an evolving constitution is no constitution in terms everyone can understand. I don't know that Thomas has that articulate ability.
RE :”What would’ve been better would have been “that’s in the constitution ...? government?” To point directly at one of his errors.”
We cant undo the damage of a video clip by argument anymore than a Democrat can for theirs. When you watch that last exchange it comes across as a 'Huh?' moment. "That is in the constitution ?" which is why there was loud laughter.
Unless she feels really comfortable with the topic after dummy practice debates she should avoid it. Face it, she is on trial and the jury already had their minds mostly made up after that previous debate when asked what her favorite disagreed case is and she really looked surprised . I am not trying to be critical just trying to see it through average voters eyes to guess what they will do .
That’s because the dumbasses at that crappy law school laughed.
Christine happens to be right on that one.
She can make the case on that if she wants too.
I don’t watch TV news much. Is this something that is being discussed on TV news much?
Cmon there, ok. Here’s a question. Please answer.
What is the relationship, if any, between “Everson” and “a wall of separation between church and State”?
For myself, I don't see how the government paying to bus kids to whatever school the kids (parents) want is an establishment of religion, and the majority opinion agreed, IIRC.
And that was the first time the quote was ever used by the supreme court.
RE :”I don’t watch TV news much. Is this something that is being discussed on TV news much?”
I think that one link I pulled was yahoo news which is MSM and its all over youtube.
Remember she ended with “That’s in the constitution?”, not “You are wrong, the constitution doesnt say that” even after that exchange even though the audience was laughing. It didnt come across like she was stating the obvious as ‘government is not the same as congress’.
The problem with this is it ruined the overall point that the First Amendment DOESNT say “Separation of Church and state”, meaning the viewers came away not believing her on that more obvious argument. That was really the point that needed to be sold. ‘State Church’ is not the same as supporting Christianity.
Ok. I read what you said.
On the other hand, she was correct. If she chooses to make an issue of it going forward, she will be able to show how she was right and he was wrong.
But I get that you’re trying to say something negative about Christine. I get it. You don’t like Conservatives.
And the 1A DOES ALLOW a state church, or did, pre Everson.
I’ve been reading news accounts of the debate today. The constitution was not discussed. So, it appears that both sides would prefer at this point not to make this particular race about Incorporation Doctrine and the Establishment Clause.
So.... are we pretending this is a religious thread? Looks a lot like the Catholic vs Protestant discussions that crop up. Major lack of civility brewing.
Consider this a friendly reminder that demeaning the character of your fellows does not detract from their arguments, nor does it strengthen your own. All it does is serve to irritate those of us entering the discussion and give us the inclination to dismiss whatever otherwise valid contributions you might make.
In other words, just make your points and stop calling each other names. This isn’t an elementary school playground or the DU.
Thanks.
I am not a cool aid drinker. I gave it up after the past Republican train wreck when we were told Republicans were moving ahead in 2006 just before the elections. I remember Hannity telling his audience the day before election 2008 that Republicans were going to win and wondered what they would think the next day.
I really ripped Rand Paul when he went on MSNBC Maddow program and she made him out to be a racist. I was much less polite with him than I am with CO'D. He thought a principled well thought out position would help him and ended up spending the show saying “I am against racism over and over”. Then he released a couple of clarifications. Why he thought she would be fair to him is beyond me. he must have not watched the show. The libertarians were upset with me on that one. If you always tell them they are doing the right thing even when it is hurting them (A+E Intervention) you dont help them, and you end up surprised yourself in the end.
I was complaining about Sharon Angle for a while till she did that illegal immigration attack Reid ad that turned things around, then I posted the ad myself and called her campaign. Yes, I got some grief about those opinions too. That is the way it goes.
I wish O’Donnell would have asked Coons where in the Constitution is the part that allows the Federal Government to control education in the first place - and see him justify that. If the Feds weren’t controlling so many areas of our lives, so much land that should be under state/local control, etc., their “separation of church and state” mantra wouldn’t be so onerous since it would at least be limited.
Try raising a kid and telling them they do everything right, no matter what. Never, ever, say a critical word.
You will have raised an egomaniac. Hmmmm... sounds a lot like some of our politicians.
Your analogy reminds me of the mom that picks up her kid from the police caught shoplifting and complains about the police not having anything better to do... 5 years later the kid is in jail. By then Mom has a long list of everyone else at fault.
Try : "We have to defend them no matter what. This is life and death. You are with us or against us. Pick a side. Are you with the enemy or ME ?? You hate her don't you? Mary had a little lamb. Humpty Dumpty fell off a wall. Ga-Ga-Goo-Goo, more coolaid please "
The best is "She's right!, covers nearly everything!
And secularism is more or less a religion. As is atheism.
It's based on theory. Scientific theory. There is no evidence to suggest that the universe begun with a bang, big or small.
It's like arguing that man is totally responsible for the melting of the icecaps. Where's the evidence?
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.