[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
U.S. Constitution Title: Christine O'Donnell Asks Where Constitution Calls For Separation Of Church, State
WASHINGTON -- Republican Senate nominee Christine O'Donnell of Delaware is questioning whether the U.S. Constitution prohibits the government from establishing religion. In a debate at Widener University Law School, O'Donnell criticized Democratic nominee Chris Coons' position that teaching creationism in public school would violate the First Amendment by promoting religious doctrine. O'Donnell asked where the Constitution calls for the separation of church and state. When Coons responded that the First Amendment bars Congress from making laws respecting the establishment of religion, O'Donnell asked: "You're telling me that's in the First Amendment?" Delaware Senate The exchange Tuesday aired on radio station WDEL generated a buzz among law professors and students in the audience. Subscribe to *Tea Party On Parade* Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 232. Pssst. She's right. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say a thing about 'seperation of church and state'. The history, and the revisionist history, related to this...theory, is facinating and revealing. It was from a USSC minority ruling, designed to keep a specific religion from attaining elective office, in short.
#17. To: Badeye, All (#1) Pssst. She's right. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say a thing about 'seperation of church and state'.
Relax, Christine O'Donnell! Nobody knows the First Amendment. By Alexandra Petri | October 19, 2010 "Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?" -- Delaware Republican Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell's question during a debate with Democratic challenger Chris Coons. Christine O'Donnell doesn't know that the Constitution guarantees the separation of church and state. Who does? Christine explicitly said she didn't bring her Constitution with her! That ought to be enough. Why taunt her? Instead of pretending we know what the Constitution says and are indignant that she doesn't, let's fess up. I studied history for years, so I know that our nation was founded by Sacagawea. Also, Columbus Day is a holiday where we celebrate that city that isn't Dayton, because it doesn't get enough love! When it comes to the Constitution, I know that if someone ever approaches me and suggests that I'm a "loose constructionist," I'm supposed to throw my drink in his face and say "Maybe your mother was, but I'm not that kind of girl!" Sometimes, it makes sense! And when it comes to knowing my amendments? On Law and Order, people always say "I'm pleading the fifth," so I bet the Fifth Amendment is the amendment where Mariska Hargitay looks steely and thinks about alcoholism. There's some amendment that has to do with cruel and unusual punishment, probably saying something along the lines of "absolutely fine, as long as you feel somewhat convinced he's a terrorist." I bet that's the one they used to open Guantanamo! I don't know what the Nineteenth Amendment is, but I have a bad feeling about it. If I ever become a lawyer, I plan to tell my clients to "use the Fourth" a lot, then laugh mysteriously. I went to a bar once called the Twenty First amendment, so I am fairly convinced that the Twenty First Amendment had something to do with bars. Or maybe that was the Eleventh Amendment. I don't remember that evening very well. Maybe Christine O'Donnell's been there. And maybe it's not just me. A survey on the First Amendment conducted throughout high schools found that students don't know the rights the First Amendment guarantees -- and when it was explained to them, more than one in three felt it went too far. So instead of jumping on Christine, maybe we should take a look at ourselves. Like she says, "I'm you." voices.washingtonpost.com...stine_odonnell_nobod.html
#25. To: lucysmom (#17) There's some amendment that has to do with cruel and unusual punishment, probably saying something along the lines of "absolutely fine, as long as you feel somewhat convinced he's a terrorist." I bet that's the one they used to open Guantanamo! Not true. The Bill of Rights ONLY applies to people who are on American soil. Actually,it doesn't even apply to active duty members of the US military. They are governed by the Universal Code of Military Justice,and the Bill of Rights does NOT apply to them.
#31. To: sneakypete (#25) (Edited) The Bill of Rights ONLY applies to people who are on American soil. A US military base isn't considered US soil? Well then, whose soil is it... Fidel's? Well then, that's mighty convenient. Randomly capture people on foreign soil, send them to Cuba, and then proudly declare that due process doesn't apply to them. You betcha!
#39. To: meguro (#31) A US military base isn't considered US soil? I know this is a complex matter for you to work your way through,but it's only on US soil if it is IN the US. Well then, whose soil is it... Fidel's? Yes. I hate to disappoint you,but the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base is NOT a US state. It is leased land belonging to Cuba. Well then, that's mighty convenient. Duhhhhh! Think of that all by yourself,Captain Obvious? Randomly capture people on foreign soil, Yeah,the poor downtrodden fundie Muslim masses,caught setting bombs or carrying arms against US troops. Duh poor bayb-bees! send them to Cuba, and then proudly declare that due process doesn't apply to them. It doesn't,numbnuts. You betcha! We already knew you are a Dim. Now you provide proof of your qualifications.
#128. To: sneakypete (#39) (Edited) Yes. I hate to disappoint you,but the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base is NOT a US state. It is leased land belonging to Cuba. Oh yes, and I'm sure if/when the lease expires and Cuba refuses to renew, the US will just pack up and leave, eh? Sure, you betcha! What about Iraq and Afghanistan... are they leased too? Yeah,the poor downtrodden fundie Muslim masses,caught setting bombs or carrying arms against US troops. Duh poor bayb-bees! What part of "innocent until proven guilty" confuses you? Has it been proven that all of them captured were engaged in those activities? We already knew you are a Dim. Now you provide proof of your qualifications. Well, not all of us can be card carrying members of the Gay Old Party like you! Well then, I guess we've found something on which you agree with Obama that a disagree with... imagine that!
#132. To: meguro (#128) (Edited) What part of "innocent until proven guilty" confuses you? Has it been proven that all of them captured were engaged in those activities? Excellent point! Since Obama has taken over the trials have been stopped. He refuses them due process while keeping the base open.
We now learn he is operating a secret prison in Afghanistan!
#133. To: WhiteSands (#132) Excellent point! That's right, and I disagree strongly with Obama on this. On the other hand, I'm imagine you're ecstatic about it, and fully support Obama on this. Am I wrong?
#138. To: meguro (#133) (Edited) Am I wrong? Yes you are wrong. Again. Your support of Obama and silence on this important issue displays just how fake your concern for humanity is. I have posted several articles on Obama's on going torture at Gitmo and his new secret Afghan prison. You have been absent from them all. Nor have you posted any articles about his issue.
#139. To: WhiteSands (#138) Yes you are wrong. Piss off, wacko.
#140. To: meguro (#139) Piss off, wacko. You always have to resort to personal attacks.
#141. To: WhiteSands (#140) You always have to resort to personal attacks. You start them, Whitey.
#144. To: meguro (#141) Use my copy anbd paste instructions to prove you assertion. Or remain the syph infected liar we see here.
#145. To: WhiteSands (#144) Use my copy anbd paste instructions to prove you assertion. Eat shit and die, mental case.
#147. To: meguro (#145) Eat shit and die, mental case. You have chosen , or do you feel it's gentic, to remain the syph infected liar we see here.
#153. To: all (#147) Saying there is no separation of church and state, is like saying there is no separation of powers in the US constitution. Both are paraphrases for what the constitution says. Any conservatives going to argue the constitution doesn't have a separation of powers? The Constitution gives the Federal government no power over religious matters, and specifically bans establishment and bans the infringement of religious freedom. To the critics who say there is no federal separation of church and state, where does the Constitution give the government power to influence the church? Where does it give the government the power to regulation a persons religious beliefs? What are you going to do argue the commerce clause?
#163. To: Rhino (#153) Saying there is no separation of church and state, If there is separation of church and state, then the Federal governmemt should have no say so in what religion is or is not taught in local schools. Of course, we know that is notxthe case. Idiots like Coons don't realize they are not arguing for separation; they are arguing against it.
#169. To: no gnu taxes (#163)
The 14th amendment now forces all levels of government to follow the Bill of Rights. This means the State governments have to have a separation of church and state as well. Of course most states have a separation built into their constitution as well. The Federal government doesn't tell the states they can't teach religion, the US Constitution does. You are effectively arguing that the right to bears arms, means the Fed's can't tell you whether your state can tell you have guns or not have guns. That is really twisted logic. Furthermore why do Conservatives want godless commie schools teaching their kids religion anyway?
#180. To: Rhino (#169) The 14th amendment now forces all levels of government to follow the Bill of Rights. The 14th Amendment did not repeal the 10th Amendment.
The Federal government doesn't tell the states they can't teach religion, the US Constitution does. Feel free to point the words that do so. You are effectively arguing that the right to bears arms, means the Fed's can't tell you whether your state can tell you have guns or not have guns. Actually, that's what YOU are arguing. What is taught in local schools is none of the Feds business.
#195. To: no gnu taxes (#180) The 14th Amendment did not repeal the 10th Amendment. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The 14th amendment makes the Bill of Rights apply to the states by the Constitution. That is perfectly in line with the bolded part of the tenth. The states are now prohibited from infringing our rights. Those powers are prohibited by the Constitution (14th amendment).
#202. To: Rhino (#195) The 14th amendment makes the Bill of Rights apply to the states by the Constitution. That is perfectly in line with the bolded part of the tenth. You are just repeating yourself. Here is the 14th Amendment: http://www.14thamendment.us/amendment/14th_amendment.html Cut and paste the WORDS whick make you think the Federal Govt now has the authority to involve itself in local religious practices.
#205. To: no gnu taxes (#202) Cut and paste the WORDS whick make you think the Federal Govt now has the authority to involve itself in local religious practices. I don't think the federal govt has the authority to involve itself in local religious practices.
#207. To: A K A Stone (#205) I don't think the federal govt has the authority to involve itself in local religious practices. It doesn't. But neither does your local government.
#210. To: Rhino (#207) It doesn't. But neither does your local government. constitutionally they do. I wouldn't want someone telling me which church to go to. That isn't really the issue. The issue is the govt taking prayer out of school and butting into church business. Prohibiting judges from hanging the 10 commandments on their court wall. Stuff like that.
#232. To: A K A Stone (#210) The issue is the govt taking prayer out of school and butting into church business. Someone said, "as long as there are tests, there will be prayer in school".
Replies to Comment # 232. There are no replies to Comment # 232.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 232. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|