What’s Dumber Than Laughing at Christine O’Donnell…
…for correctly stating that the phrase “Separation of Church and State” Doesn’t Appear in the Constitution?
[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here.]
Laughing at author S.E. Cupp for correctly pointing out that O’Donnell was correct, five days after O’Donnell made her remark. That is what happened on the Orwellianly titled Reliable Sources. They had five days to think about what O’Donnell said, and yet they didn’t quite get it.
Howard Kurtz was running things, who also works for the Washington Post, which together with the AP almost completely revised their initial story about O’Donnell’s comments without issuing a correction. Maybe he only read the uncorrected version. Update: I forgot that Kurtz now works for the Daily Beast.
Meanwhile, Hot Air is asking, Why is Chris Coons running attack ads against O’Donnell?
[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]
Howie has left WaPo, and is now Washington bureau chief for The Daily Beast.
AD-RtR/OS! (61e7e4) — 10/25/2010 @ 2:31 pmah, geez, that’s right. i’ll fix when i get home.
Aaron Worthing (b1db52) — 10/25/2010 @ 2:35 pmPlease. Come one. No it is not specifically worded that way. Clearly it has been interpreted that way repeatedly. Whether it is word for word there is irrelevant. She is still a ding-bat, and you are too if you don’t understand that. What a losing battle to fight. Once again stretching reality to make room for your arguments.
Chris Hooten (97f816) — 10/25/2010 @ 2:42 pmChris Hooten ; A wise man once said that, when commenting on the faults of another, be sure that you are looking out of a window and not into a mirror. You are the one streching reality.
Longwalker (4e0dda) — 10/25/2010 @ 2:48 pmIt’s clear o’donnell went to the Claremont post graduate institute and got that the phrase ‘separation of church and state’ is not in the constitution. (she remembered that one, but not the 14th amendment). However, she then messed up when delivering that — countering Coons’ claim of a “principle” with her factoid of a phrase — forgetting to highlight she was picking a bone over a phrase.
Most of the audience seemed to get it. But not her.
imdw (df0dab) — 10/25/2010 @ 2:54 pmChris, I’ve noticed this about you, and about some O’Donnell backers.
You guys decide what can and can’t be said based on some concept of fighting and winning, instead of being fair.
Being honest about O’Donnell is worthwhile on its own. And no, she isn’t a dingbat. I used to think so, but I’ve actually watched the debates and she’s very sharp. Even sharper if you believe, as I do, she is playing politics with many of her positions. I can’t believe a reasonable person would think she’s a dingbat after she’s held her own in 3 on 1 debates.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/25/2010 @ 2:56 pmBut let’s not ignore the real accusation.
It’s the same as how the eminently more worth Clarence Thomas is called a national embarrassment and stupid. Same with Estrada.
These people, women, gays, blacks, etc, must be stupid Uncle Toms. Otherwise, why would they be conservatives? That’s really what the left is trying to say. Not that they don’t bash ‘real’ Republicans (male, straight, WASP businessmen) too, but they especially hate the hell out of these people who must be idiots to oppose the real movement meant to help women and minorities.
O’Donnell’s so unauthentic and dumb, right? That’s why Larry Reilly keeps bashing her figure. That’s why Chris ignored Coons’s screw up over the first amendment, or a number of other gaffes, while pretending O’Donnell’s a moron. Coons is undoubtedly a better politician, but he’s also the dingbat in this race.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/25/2010 @ 3:01 pmWhat crissyhooten calls stretching reality is referred to as basic knowledge and honesty by the rest of the world.
ZOMFG she stated something that is true she is a freaking idiot!!!!!!!!!L
JD (c8c1d2) — 10/25/2010 @ 3:07 pmThe point follows from the earlier thread on that nitwit De Fazio, the left have in effect a Brezhnev
ian cormac (6709ab) — 10/25/2010 @ 3:13 pmdoctrine when it comes to legal decisions, when they insist on stare decisis on us, but they are free to conjure up new rights out of ‘penumbras of emanations’ and certain international principles
O’Donnell: “Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?”
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”
That’s the first amendment.
Thomas Jefferson 1802
It won’t pass moderation, and that’s because you don’t care about arguments. You’re circling the wagons.
an eisenhower republican (3c6a88) — 10/25/2010 @ 3:18 pmIt’s sad and worse, bad for the country.
“ZOMFG she stated something that is true she is a freaking idiot!!!!!!!!!L”
It’s like she doesn’t understand what the word “principle” meant when Coons used it.
imdw (14df54) — 10/25/2010 @ 3:22 pmhttp://www.quotedb.com/quotes/4035
ian cormac (6709ab) — 10/25/2010 @ 3:22 pmHow many years after the fact was that quote.? Did TJ write the 1st Amendment? I love it when leftist blow in, claim to be moderated when their places are the epitome of epistemically closure and insularity. They oiss on your leg and look you in the eye and swear it is raining.
JD (c8c1d2) — 10/25/2010 @ 3:27 pmWho doesn’t care about arguments? We love your canards.
JD (c8c1d2) — 10/25/2010 @ 3:27 pmWho knew the Constitution contained the Letter to the Danbury Baptists?
Seriously people…
While I don’t believe that Christine O’Donnell was the best choice in the election, the dismissal of her statement is purely ideological.
Please try reading Professor Philip Hamburger’s book Separation of Church and State before (Harvard University Press) before dismissing her statement so lightly. She may not be familiar with Hamburger’s argument in any but an informal manner, but his argument challenges the “accepted wisdom” regarding the Constitution and separation of Church and State. Yes, she tried to give a bumper sticker version of an argument, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t an argument to be made.
Professor Dreisbach of American University wrote of Hamburger’s book, “This richly documented and cogently argued book challenges conventional interpretations of separation of church and state as a constitutional standard in American history and promises to reshape the debate on the constitutional and prudential relations between religion and American public life.”
Christian (2852e9) — 10/25/2010 @ 4:08 pmThe 1st amendment simply means there will be no state church such as the Church of England or prohibiting the practice of religion. It’s a prohibition on government with respects to religion not a prohibition on religion influencing government.
TJ later commentary while useful does not alter the meaning of the amendment as written.
cubanbob (409ac2) — 10/25/2010 @ 4:20 pmQ : what’s dumber than laughing at O’Donnell For stating the truth?
A : crissyhooten and William the racist midget hill jack plagiarizing skin flute player yelverton.
JD (c8c1d2) — 10/25/2010 @ 4:26 pmIt’s always amused me that people, who are generally pretty religious, could have democracy and a “no connection of any kind” secular state.
The ideas are in conflict, and we have to decide where to draw the line. Thomas Jefferson and Christine O’Donnell draw it one way. Coons and actual marxists draw it another way. Osama and Al Gore would have their faiths define government, too.
Just a lot of lines drawn in various ways. Personally, I’d draw the line closer to Coons than Jefferson, but at least I’m not lying and pretend they are the same idea.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/25/2010 @ 4:29 pmI mean shouldn’t the Federalist papers count more in
ian cormac (6709ab) — 10/25/2010 @ 4:31 pmthe final analysis then letters issued a dozen or two after the fact
Chris
> Clearly it has been interpreted that way repeatedly
Repeatedly, but not consistently. Sometimes they follow it, and others, they ignore it. It is pretty clear that there is no wall of separation of church and state, more like a principle of neutrality, which is very much not the same thing.
Aaron Worthing (f97997) — 10/25/2010 @ 4:42 pm“How many years after the fact was that quote.? Did TJ write the 1st Amendment?”
Writing it wouldn’t really matter — it wasn’t that it was written that made it take effect, but that it was ratified.
But I do like the revolt at listening to the founders for advice on constitutional interpretation.
Really all it stands for what Coons said it stands for — that the principle of separation of church and state are found in the constitution, instantiated in the establishment clause. 1-week courses on right wing constitutional bullet points notwithstanding.
imdw (150cd7) — 10/25/2010 @ 5:03 pmI’d rather be taxed than sent to a concentration camp for not believing in Creationism (or for masturbating). O’Donnell is a flake. The Tea Party’s mistake.
She’s a female Pat Buchanan and basically she should be frightening to any rational person.
nk (db4a41) — 10/25/2010 @ 5:30 pmSo, nk, are you saying she’s an anti-Semite?
AD-RtR/OS! (61e7e4) — 10/25/2010 @ 5:41 pmJust what characteristics of PB does she mimic?
nk, I don’t like O’donnell very much, mainly for ethics issues, but ‘sent to a concentration camp’ does not reflect her views, even in metaphor.
She doesn’t want to push creationism education. Her position is that a US Senator should not have control over what a local school is teaching. Coons believes schools should teach evolution (as I believe), but I don’t think that’s any of a US Senator’s business.
You also note O’Donnell’s masturbation stance… what bearing does that have on anything? She’s not going to push that on anyone… and I’m not sure she even still espouses that view.
She only frightens people who are relying on misconceptions or worry about her ethics.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/25/2010 @ 5:50 pmYeah, yeah, “living document”, we know. The irrelevancy of the wording is how Obama and Biden get to be “professors” of the document.
malclave (1db6c5) — 10/25/2010 @ 5:51 pmOkay, from time to time, I am prone to hyperbole. But nk has me beat by a mile.
JD (c8c1d2) — 10/25/2010 @ 5:57 pm“Yeah, yeah, “living document”, we know. The irrelevancy of the wording is how Obama and Biden get to be “professors” of the document.”
It’s not like either of them actually taught classes on the thing.
imdw (7b0243) — 10/25/2010 @ 6:02 pmI suspect JD is simply relying on accounts of O’Donnell’s views that aren’t accurate. If he knew that she was adamantly and repeatedly opposed to forcing her view on others, he probably wouldn’t have made that sort of argument.
Some of her statements are odd. Her Maher appearances do look pretty flaky. But she’s got a degree in drama and I wonder if she was simply ‘smart’ about boosting her profile. Either way, her debate performances are not possible if she’s stupid, and her actual position is the opposite of pushing her views on those who don’t agree.
That’s actually Coons’s view. He has quite a record overstepping the boundaries of his office, too.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/25/2010 @ 6:09 pmLOL, I meant I suspect nk, not JD, is relying on those accounts which are wrong. I’ve read them too.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/25/2010 @ 6:10 pmI would offer that one thing dumber is to go the TeeVee in a commercial and start the ad by proclaiming that you are NOT a witch. You like fruit? How about ‘dem apples?
Vinnie From Indy (996c34) — 10/25/2010 @ 6:16 pmVinnie, I think that ad worked wonders for her. When uninformed people bash O’donnell, they usually reference it. I think the alternative was much worse for Christine.
There is no good way to answer the problems she faced, other than to pick the lamest one and get it to overshadow the whole election.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/25/2010 @ 6:22 pmPeople that use bad Matt Damon lines are prolly dummerer too.
JD (c8c1d2) — 10/25/2010 @ 6:23 pm@ nk,
I’d rather be taxed than sent to a concentration camp for not believing in Creationism (or for masturbating). O’Donnell is a flake. The Tea Party’s mistake.
What difference does it matter if she’s against masturbation – she’s not attempting to impose that view on you or anyone else. It’s a personal position (no pun intended), not a political one. And she has disavowed her comment on the subject,
She specifically disavowed her 1996 anti-masturbation stance, saying “I was a pundit. I was very passionate in my 20s and wanted to share my beliefs.”[108]
Her views on Creationism are also personal views. I don’t read anywhere where she is seeking to impose any form of Christian faith on the masses.
My point is, dislike her for valid reasons that might impact the public at large – perhaps her questionable character and lack of integrity. That I could understand as that characteristic (or lack thereof) might indeed influence how she votes and what she does when in office.
But whether she believes God created life, or whether she believes it’s wrong to masturbate seems so utterly irrelevant to the situation. Mostly it makes for cheap shots and snarky punchlines.
Dana (8ba2fb) — 10/25/2010 @ 6:31 pm“Her views on Creationism are also personal views. I don’t read anywhere where she is seeking to impose any form of Christian faith on the masses. ”
She’s just seeking to have it be allowed to be imposed. Why do you think brings up school intelligent design nonsense?
imdw (47a9bf) — 10/25/2010 @ 6:53 pmDana – I believe somebody like Obama would send his tire pressure police to your home to fine you for maintaining inadequate tire pressure. I do not believe someone like Christine O’Donnell would send the masturbation police to your house to check to see if you were indulging in self-gratification. That’s where the disconnect is with these lefty’s like nishi and others is who are super scared of Christians and their religious beliefs for delusional reasons.
daleyrocks (940075) — 10/25/2010 @ 7:41 pmnk
Indeed, o’Donnell has said she didn’t want the federal government to impose on any local school district her view of creationism.
Aaron Worthing (f97997) — 10/25/2010 @ 7:51 pmCareful, JD. People who talk about fruits and apples tend to use the cowardly stunt of getting their buddies together to ambush and beat to a pulp others who are minding their own business.
Oh, and I agree with the girl in the Jimmy Choos and daley. And I disagree with the one who sounded like a rabid dog with his venomous snark.
John Hitchcock (9e8ad9) — 10/25/2010 @ 7:59 pmDid I miss where she has ever once advocated having the government do anything at all about people rubbing one out?
JD (c8c1d2) — 10/25/2010 @ 8:00 pmI understand why nk would come to some very negative conclusions (again, I disagree with those).
It’s real hard to overcome a bad first impression. O’Donnell has made a career of bad first impressions. That weaselly radio interview, that Maher stuff… it’s not really fair to rely on any of that to fear O’Donnell wants to impose her views on us (the way Coons does). But unfair is the reality.
So insofar as nk says it was a mistake for the Tea Party to latch onto her, I think he has a point. Although the Tea Party is out of anyone’s control.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/25/2010 @ 8:14 pmBasing an opinion on her now based on her role on Maher’s show back then is bullpuckey. There are plenty of reasons to dislike her without coming up with bad ones.
JD (c8c1d2) — 10/25/2010 @ 8:18 pmAaron, do you think evolution is a myth?
W (9df40f) — 10/25/2010 @ 8:30 pmW
nope. Do you think our crushing debt is a myth?
I mean as JD has said a number of times, or something close to this, with all the serious issues right now, we are talking about masterbation and creationism.
Aaron Worthing (f97997) — 10/25/2010 @ 8:42 pmYelverton – Is it a myth that you are a midget and a goat buggerer?
daleyrocks (940075) — 10/25/2010 @ 8:43 pmMy problem with the Tea Party candidates is that there seems to be a common thread of mockability that I feel compelled to defend while resenting being put in the position of defending in the first place.
I’m not sure if that speaks to a lack of competent people willing to enter the fray of politics (which perhaps by default evidences their soundness of mind), or if the enthusiasm at the thoughts of voting out so many career pols is so overwhelming clouded sounder judgment and discernment.
No matter, I do know whatever is going on in the pants and heart of a young, single candidate like O’Donnell really means nothing compared to how they view fixes for the economy, job creation, and breaking union strangleholds.
Dana (8ba2fb) — 10/25/2010 @ 8:49 pmWilliam Yelvertonis dummerer than anything O’Donnell has ever said or done, or will ever say or do.
JD (c8c1d2) — 10/25/2010 @ 8:55 pmThis Oct 19 WSJ item made it pretty clear that, in her exchange with Coons, O’Donnell showed her ignorance not only of the contents of the First Amendment, but of several others as well. As she noted, senators are not required to memorize the Constitution, but I suspect most voters across the spectrum expect candidates to have a better grasp of its contents than O’Donnell has evinced.
Angeleno (c1bd6e) — 10/25/2010 @ 9:03 pmMany of the reasons people decide how to vote are not very reasonable (IE: President Barack Obama).
But I understand it.
Dana expresses my views well on this race. I’m more interested in Joe Miller’s recent stumbles (that I honestly don’t understand… but I don’t understand Alaska).
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/25/2010 @ 9:04 pmI’m not sure if that speaks to a lack of competent people willing to enter the fray of politics (which perhaps by default evidences their soundness of mind), or if the enthusiasm at the thoughts of voting out so many career pols is so overwhelming clouded sounder judgment and discernment.
I’d propose a third alternative.
No establishment/career politician would make the statements that O’Donnell and others are making. Therefore, in making such statements, she is proving that she is not a career politician, and therefore Tea Party types like her.
Of course, in O’Donnell’s case, this would mean ignoring the parts of her background (the punditry gig, the prior campaign for Senate, etc.) that suggest she is a career politician.
kishnevi (fb9343) — 10/25/2010 @ 9:06 pmI alluded to this earlier in another thread, but this discussion has made me realize something that I really had not thought of earlier.
For a significant part of American history, the people we elected were us. By that, I mean, people who pursued a political career, mainly because they weren’t all that great at their chosen professions, but they understood their constituents and participated in democracy according to the will of the voters.
The founding fathers certainly were a gentry, but they understood that a gentry cannot rule for any expanse of time. They knew inherently, by their experience, that governance needed a robust interplay of ideas and notions.
Now, we have a gentry devoid of any notion other than self-preservation and the imposition of rule according to their short-minded devotion to outdated and bankrupt ideas that did not work decades ago, to the detriment of everyone they tried to help.
So, now we have an electorate beholden to the chosen few who manage to work through political machines specifically designed to disenfranchise candidates who don’t meet the norms and society of the current, elite gentry.
By the way, I meant that applies to both Republicans and Democrats.
Professor Reynolds calls them the credentialed. I call them not me, not my neighbors, not the people who work, not the people who care about the future, not the parents of a of child dying of cancer, not the non-com in Afghanistan. They are not me and I am sick of them.
Vote.
Ag80 (743fd1) — 10/25/2010 @ 9:07 pmI’m more interested in Joe Miller’s recent stumbles (that I honestly don’t understand… but I don’t understand Alaska).
I would at least like a candidate to understand that the US is not a Middle European Communist nation concerned with stopping emigration to other couples–that they built their wall, and killed people, for the sake of keeping them in, not keeping them out.
That’s the main stumble I’ve heard about. The business of the blogger being handcuffed sounds like the sort of thing for which a reasonable explanation exists, if people will actually listen to it.
kishnevi (fb9343) — 10/25/2010 @ 9:11 pmOther countries, not other couples.
kishnevi (fb9343) — 10/25/2010 @ 9:12 pmAngeleno, I don’t think that’s fair.
In fact, I think that link of yours misquotes O’donnell or simply dowdified the quote. She was asking specifically about the phrase’s location, though the article implies she was not aware of the location of the more general topic.
O’donnell’s point was that the separation phrase is not the exact language, and we should rely on the actual language. The reason for this is simple: the separation language from the danbury letter didn’t mean what your link and Coons are pretending it meant. It’s too slippery. That’s why it’s not the first amendment and it’s why O’Donnell was correct.
It’s also clear a lot of the other examples of ‘what’s in the constitution’, according to the WSJ, are court rulings rather than actual amendments (aside from the income tax amendment). In fact, why did the WSJ mention that one?
Oh, I see, the WSJ then notes O’donnell favors lower taxes. And then mentions ‘some conservatives’ want to end birthright citizenship.
Your link is an unserious analysis of what O’Donnell actually argued, relying on something other than the actual constitution to prove O’Donnell wrong, because the actual constitution proves her right. It also pretends conflicts that aren’t there, since O’donnell isn’t claiming the 14th or the 16th amendment say something they don’t, or that we should violate them.
Your link sucks.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/25/2010 @ 9:12 pmComment by Angeleno — 10/25/2010 @ 9:03 pm
Except, if you listen to the full tape, or read a complete transcript, you’ll find that her statements were accurate, and the audience and her opponent were the ones who did not understand what was in The Constitution.
AD-RtR/OS! (61e7e4) — 10/25/2010 @ 9:13 pmAs to “Washington Wire”, wasn’t that the sinicure that was occupied by Mr. Judy Woodruff, who was far from a “conservative”?
—the news side of the WSJ is not all that conservative, and you can find almost as much creeping socialism in their news-columns as at the WaPo and NYT.
Angeleno – The WSJ blog you linked gives an incomplete picture of debate regarding the First Amendment exchanges, including Coons’ stumbles around it. There are plenty of articles taking the opposite view that O’Donnell actually schooled Coons on the matter and there is a post up on this blog showing how WAPO stealth revised one of its stories to reflect that view rather than the WSJ view.
daleyrocks (940075) — 10/25/2010 @ 9:14 pmIt’s very simple, Dustin, the main paper, the Daily News, makes the times (on either coast)seem honest, the fellow who was cuffed, is part of basically a leftwing scandal sheet, only local talk radio has anything close to a balance, Maybe Lisa’s latest stunt, mentioned on an earlier thread, has some significance. It does not avail you to be a decorated Army Vet, with a Yale Law degree, when you are up against these hacks. He took on the localGOP machine, that’s the sum total of the ethics complaint, So he’s catching flak for things, his opponent Murkowski, actually did,back in 2002 (vote for a state income tax)
ian cormac (6709ab) — 10/25/2010 @ 9:15 pmYeah, she’s a career politician. And you’re right, she succeeds partly because it’s easy to pretend she’s not one.
I’m out of the loop (been busy) and must have simply not heard about this. If Miller is opposed to emigration, that’s extreme and wrong.
My understanding (again, limited) was that he was simply pointing to a historical fact. We’re a greater nation that East Germany, and we could control our border much better than we do. Without the odious policies of the communists, I assumed he meant.
It’s a tough problem and there are no easy answers to it.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/25/2010 @ 9:17 pmAngelno spits out that same tired talking point, days late.
JD (c8c1d2) — 10/25/2010 @ 9:18 pmYes, few politicians, seem to mind gagging the nation’s industrial capacity through Cap n trade, who in Coons case, as with Gore, he seems to actually profit from. The forgotten lesson that was taught to us, on 9/11, about abandoning Afghanistan is another detail that many seem unwilling to remember.
ian cormac (6709ab) — 10/25/2010 @ 9:20 pmI think Miller’s position re immigration is that first of all, the fence needs to be built to stop (as much as possible) the flood of illegals coming across the Southern Border; which, if memory serves me, is the position the Congress of the United States took in voting for a fence in the first place.
AD-RtR/OS! (61e7e4) — 10/25/2010 @ 9:21 pmA country that cannot control its own borders is no longer sovereign!
What I think the WSJ link shows pretty clearly is that O’Donnell was unaware that the First Amendment includes the Establishment clause and that she was also unaware of the contents of a number of other amendments that have been the focus of Tea Party attention recently. She tries to deflect this with her joke about senators not having to memorize the Constitution, but ends up reinforcing the impression that she simply didn’t know.
Creeping socialism in the WSJ? Hmm. Shouldn’t someone alert Rupert?
Angeleno (c1bd6e) — 10/25/2010 @ 9:24 pmIt’s tiresome that this kind of thing never becomes the default position.
We decide to go in a direction, and some pretend it’s still an open question. Border control is a settled issue, and the government is obliged to enforce the laws and control the border.
I’d prefer wider gates and taller walls. And the way immigration’s politics are played, I can’t do any give and take. Anything I’m given will be ignored instantly, and everything that’s taken will be overtaken.
This is bad for almost everyone. Including Mexicans who want to be Americans.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/25/2010 @ 9:26 pmShe knew specifically what was and wasn’t there. It’s unrealistic to pretend she got that correct, perfectly, on accident.
You have ignored my criticism of this link of yours. Why? You say the link shows she’s ignorant of the 16th amendment? How? The 14th? How?
It names a lot of amendments and does not show how O’donnell got them wrong. Including the 1st, but going on down the line.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/25/2010 @ 9:29 pmI think your comments pretty clearly show that you could not care less about the truth, Angeleno.
JD (c8c1d2) — 10/25/2010 @ 9:31 pm“Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?” O’Donnell asked him.
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?”
Right here: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”
200 years of legal precedent out the window, on her say so, and yours. You’re taking the idea of a “living” Constitution farther than anyone had ever thought possible.
an eisenhower republican (3c6a88) — 10/25/2010 @ 9:31 pmYes the Journal’s news pages are as full of cant as the NY Times or the Post, their polling unit is fairly unreliable, and still they only offer bad news for Obama, I’ve been a long time reader of their Op Ed pages
ian cormac (6709ab) — 10/25/2010 @ 9:32 pmInstapundit is reporting that a key aide to Harry Reid has filed false documents with INS/DHS/and others, including perjuring herself in interviews, regarding a sham marriage she entered into with a foreign national who is a “person of interest” in a terrorism investigation; an Hispanic aide, BTW.
AD-RtR/OS! (61e7e4) — 10/25/2010 @ 9:33 pmWould this be considered a two-fer?
How so, JD?
Angeleno (c1bd6e) — 10/25/2010 @ 9:33 pmComment by an eisenhower republican — 10/25/2010 @ 9:31 pm
You’re quoting from an abridged transcript.
AD-RtR/OS! (61e7e4) — 10/25/2010 @ 9:34 pmFor the better part of 150 years or so, till Everson, hers was the traditional view of the First Amendment, then the compounded the error, by letting
ian cormac (6709ab) — 10/25/2010 @ 9:36 pmthe likes of Brennan on the Court, who allowed for the atrocious Engele v .Vitale decision, (sometimes even when you win an election, you lose)
Hey, did you know it’s only like 120 years of legal precedent?
Separation of Church and state was not a legal principle in the United States for about a century. You just got the issue wrong. O’donnell got it right. That concept is slippery and easily mis-stated. After all, Thomas Jefferson thought every student should be taught the bible, in public school.
the Establishment clause merely states we don’t have a state religion, as Jefferson meant, and as O’donnell believes. You’re wrong, she’s right, and ‘I’m a concerned conservative’ posing is extremely uncreative.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/25/2010 @ 9:36 pmOK, Ian beat me.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/25/2010 @ 9:37 pmRead the transcript and the many many many posts and links just at this blog about how your view and that of your link is a bastardized version of the truth. If you are cool with that,fine.
AD – mob republican could not care less about that. Much like Angeloneo and Yelverrton, it will make it’s point regardless of the truth.
JD (c8c1d2) — 10/25/2010 @ 9:37 pmYou’re right, and it’s a bit surprising how some folks don’t realize it. The WSJ is a great paper to read, partly because you do get plenty of lefty POVs in the editorials, whereas the news coverage is pretty reliable. I don’t mind knowing what the left is thinking, but it shouldn’t color the entire paper, a la NYT and LAT and the Statesman (here in Austin).
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/25/2010 @ 9:40 pmI’ve watched the video, JD. The WSJ account I’ve linked to presents it fairly.
Angeleno (c1bd6e) — 10/25/2010 @ 9:43 pmIt seems like it’s “I’m a little teapot” posting under that moniker, it’s not arcane enough to be wheeler’s cat
ian cormac (6709ab) — 10/25/2010 @ 9:44 pmeisenhower
This very blog showed how the AP rewrote the part you are quoting entirely without issuing a correction.
You have been duped.
Aaron Worthing (f97997) — 10/25/2010 @ 9:46 pmeisenhower
read here: https://patterico.com/2010/10/24/wapoap-caught-revising-the-o%E2%80%99donnell-story-without-issuing-a-correction/
Aaron Worthing (f97997) — 10/25/2010 @ 9:46 pmSeparation of Church and State is an interesting legal principle to follow, and it has been a clarion call for Democrats for a very long time.
It was also a main tenet of the KKK, and Hugo Black, a Klansman, is the man who imposed Separation of Church and State on our federal laws. It’s legitimate for O’Donnell to stand opposed to that, and it’s dishonest for people to point to the KKK’s actions as proof the text of the constitution doesn’t matter.
All these people pretending the Establishment Clause is identical to ‘Separation of Church and State of any kind‘ should ask themselves why this extra language is even needed. We all know why… because that interpretation goes a lot further.
Now, I don’t want the federal government having any say over my local schools. I also hope my local schools teach evolution and only teach the bible the way they teach other historically important religions (not as scientific truth so much as history). I don’t see why O’Donnell’s views should bother me. I think Coons’s are a much greater threat to my ideals.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/25/2010 @ 9:47 pmAngelino, you are ignoring the criticism of your view by simply insisting you’re right. That’s not persuasive.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/25/2010 @ 9:48 pmThen you are an incurious git, Angeleno. Or really simple. Or just dishonest. Take your pick.
JD (c8c1d2) — 10/25/2010 @ 9:49 pmFacts are such an inconvenient truth.
AD-RtR/OS! (61e7e4) — 10/25/2010 @ 9:49 pmAngeleno and Ike don’t realize their talking points have already been debunked and are stale.
daleyrocks (940075) — 10/25/2010 @ 9:51 pmNone are so blind as those that refuse to see.
JD (c8c1d2) — 10/25/2010 @ 9:51 pmWith all of the actual problems in the country, most that the current Admin has either created or exacerbated, the likes of Angeleno and the Moby want to lie about O’Donnell’s knowledge of the 1st Amendment.
JD (c8c1d2) — 10/25/2010 @ 9:57 pmDustin, I’ve pointed to O’Donnell’s own words. There’s not much more I can do.
JD, I am neither incurious, nor simple nor dishonest. However, since name-calling appears to be your sole talent, I wouldn’t want to interfere with your pleasure. Please suit yourself.
Angeleno (1e6113) — 10/25/2010 @ 10:01 pmYou have ignored my point on the words you say you pointed to. Why? Why just ignore this valid criticism, recognized as accurate for several days now? Oh, I see, because there’s not much more you can do.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/25/2010 @ 10:07 pmNo, you most certaily have not pointed to her exact words. You have pointed to a truncated version of the discussion, one in which takes her comment in isolation, divorced from the context. But that is cool with you. We get it. You just don’t quite get that this post, and the ones that preceded it, were written to mock people like you.
JD (c8c1d2) — 10/25/2010 @ 10:08 pmWhy is it that people who are being objectively dishonest object more strenuously to being called. Out on said dishonesty than they do to their dishonesty. It seems like to Angeleno, it is a worse sin to be rude, than being dishonest.
JD (c8c1d2) — 10/25/2010 @ 10:13 pmGoodnight, racists.
JD (c8c1d2) — 10/25/2010 @ 10:14 pmJD, that’s just typical posturing as elite.
Angelino took the time to reply several times, and every single time (after the first) refused to discuss the issue he brought up. I doubt he read the linked article, actually.
But he doesn’t need to because he’s better than you are. This country needs a better grade of trolling elites.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/25/2010 @ 10:17 pmDustin, I cited O’Donnell’s own words, which plainly disclose her lack of knowledge. You may wish to read them again.
Angeleno (1e6113) — 10/25/2010 @ 10:25 pmangeleno
You cite a blog that was factually wrong. why don’t you hunt down a transcript or a full video? i have watched the video. that account you cited is wrong.
Aaron Worthing (f97997) — 10/25/2010 @ 10:32 pm“You have ignored my criticism of this link of yours. Why? You say the link shows she’s ignorant of the 16th amendment? How? The 14th? How?”
Did you see the video of the debate? Someone asked if she wanted them repealed and she asked them to tell her what those amendments did.
imdw (25d965) — 10/26/2010 @ 4:59 amBut I do like the revolt at listening to the founders for advice on constitutional interpretation.
A “revolt”!
There’s no reason I can see to believe Jefferson was intending some constitutional interpretation at all in that statement. Within the context of the letter he seems to have been referring to the right of each person to his own beliefs. That would be the essence of “Congress shall make no law…”.
that the principle of separation of church and state are found in the constitution, instantiated in the establishment clause. 1-week courses on right wing constitutional bullet points notwithstanding.
Elevating a phrase in a letter into a constitutional interpretation, after first separating it from its original context, so that Christmas trees on the village square, some students voluntarily meeting after school when prayer may take place etc. are unconstitutional is the essence of left wing psychosis.
Gerald A (0843ed) — 10/26/2010 @ 6:33 amGerald
I think Jefferson was offering his interpretation, but since he didn’t write a word of the constitution, i don’t credit it very much. Further, his approach would require the government to positively discriminate against religion, if he meant his words literally.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 10/26/2010 @ 7:01 amNotice how iamadimwit is skulking around now that Patterico is away. Creepy little f@ck.
JD (c8c1d2) — 10/26/2010 @ 7:05 amWhat part of ‘Congress shall make no law’ did they miss, this goes for the Federal Communications Act,
ian cormac (6709ab) — 10/26/2010 @ 7:14 amas much as The Free Exercise Clause. They went wrong with Everson, doubled up with Engel
Aaron,
If he was offering a constitutional interpretation, then it seems that to be something that could be used to decide specific cases he would have to have expanded on exactly what he meant by his wall of separation. He presumably knew what he meant, but what libs are doing is taking a phrase which is by itself open to various interpretations and using it to mean whatever they want. In the context of the letter he was just referring to the right to one’s own beliefs.
You’re right that even if he meant exactly what liberals want it to mean, it doesn’t logically follow that that’s the plain meaning of the Establishment Clause, as though he was the final word on interpreting it. That’s a classic Argument From Authority fallacy.
Gerald A (0843ed) — 10/26/2010 @ 7:34 am“Elevating a phrase in a letter into a constitutional interpretation, after first separating it from its original context, so that Christmas trees on the village square, some students voluntarily meeting after school when prayer may take place etc.”
But that’s not the causal link. Christmas trees violating the establishement clause dont’ come from TJ’s letter. What we get from the letter is the principle. Just like we can say that the constitution protects “free expression” but those words are not in the 1st amendment.
“Notice how iamadimwit is skulking around now that Patterico is away. Creepy little f@ck.”
Wait whats’ the problem here? Didn’t they unban folks?
imdw (8bb588) — 10/26/2010 @ 8:26 amShe wasn’t correct. She was wrong. She was very wrong.
First, for her eyes to light up as Coons paraphrases the establishment clause, as she is delighted she can punch down on him by asking if he is saying the phrase itself is in the Constitution , using some lame sophists trick she heard on a bulletin board once that in defense of school prayer that struck her as brilliant.
(Note, that he never said that phrase was in the Constitution, so all her trouble is borrowed).
She is wrong because there are guards of separation of church and state in the constitution, (in the form of the establishment clause and free excercise clauses) at least according to Madison and his constitution drafting contemporaries.
It does not signify that the phrase is not “in” there, and her mistake is not seeing the forest for Madisons description of the tree. Separation of church as state are in there, as a matter of law, and that’s what signifies.
She wasn’t busting on Coons for a lapse of memory or recall;
the only reason she asked is because she thinks it is very important. She has an ill-formed belief that the absence of the phrase means the absence of SOCAS. She is unfriendly to the concept and wants to diminish it.
The reason (in context) of the debate is has to do with her o her notions of what the bible says, and wanting the government to play booster to that.
I’m horrified that actual conservatives who value our constitution and religious liberty are defending her in such a cheap, sophistical way.
If she has any sense of all she would have focused on overreach off what “separation” means and how this overreach has interfered with free excercise. But she has no sense, and nothing more than the most surface understanding of a very basic idea implemented in the formation of our nation.
If she does not adhere to the DE constitution, let alone the most singular preservative of liberty ever authored, the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, she is a fool.
She should not have been nominated, and I don’t want her representing a movement that needs to prosper, not if it means defending this kind of crap.
SarahW (af7312) — 10/26/2010 @ 8:51 amIt’s not in the constitution, it has been misread since Everson, furthermore Coons is exactly the type that would agree with Mark Lloyd, in banning
ian cormac (6709ab) — 10/26/2010 @ 9:03 ammedia, that interferes with the ‘wonderful Democratic revolution’ that Obama has been trying to bring about, where ‘electricity prices would naturally skyrocket’ and rest assured other taxeswill too, he did in New Sussex Cty,
“She is wrong because there are guards of separation of church and state in the constitution, (in the form of the establishment clause and free excercise clauses) at least according to Madison and his constitution drafting contemporaries. ”
I’d say the part about no religious test also instantiates the separation principle.
imdw (96a92b) — 10/26/2010 @ 9:22 amBut it doesn’t.
Quite simply, the ‘separation principle’ is a slippery one that has many different meanings. The Thomas Jefferson one permits bibles being taught in school. That’s just a fact. The KKK that Hugo Black imposed on the country arguably doesn’t.
People who wanted to expand power sought language that was vague, and found this letter, and now pretend its ‘instantiated’ by the actual language.
But it isn’t. The actual constitution should be relied on instead of these interpretations, and that’s why O’Donnell continues to be a more informed and accurate constitutional scholar than the imdws and Hugo Blacks of the world.
If it was already in the constitution, we wouldn’t need to have this debate. You could just ask O’Donnell if she thinks the establishment clause is in there (And so many times, she has noted her support of this clause, despite morons pretending she’s not aware of it).
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/26/2010 @ 10:17 amIt is fascinating to see our left illuminati devote so much time and effort to dissecting Christine O’Donnell as if she were representative of all the Republicans running for office this year. Fortunately she is not, but the left loves to feel itself superior to someone and has chosen Christine as its example this year, laughing up its collective sleeves while devoting comparatively less time to those races Republicans are favored to win or which are close.
daleyrocks (940075) — 10/26/2010 @ 10:42 am“Quite simply, the ‘separation principle’ is a slippery one that has many different meanings.”
Indeed. It’s a principle. We have a principle of “free expression.” That means many different things, not all of them exactly equal to what the 1st amendment protects. But we can still talk of having the principle of “free expression” in our constitution.
imdw (16090e) — 10/26/2010 @ 11:18 amI’m a conservative. To the bone, so don’t pull that cheap business.
(I’m no atheist, either.)
Is the word “Trinity” in the bible? I think the same of her interruption as I do of someone mentioning that word, and butting in to challenge whether her opponent believed it “was in there.”
Especially if she were a unitarian, trying to win an argument on how people she worships with should pray.
SarahW (af7312) — 10/26/2010 @ 12:26 pmThe principle of no separation is already in the constitution insofar as Jefferson intended it, but not as Coons did. It’s obvious you didn’t watch the debate. They were talking about barring public schools from teaching Intelligent Design, and that form of your principle is the KKK, Hugo Black, Democrat party one. It’s not in the constitution. It’s a local issue. O’donnell’s still right; you’re still wrong.
You want to switch what’s in the constitution for your ‘principle’ as Hugo Black did, in order to then reinterpret Jefferson’s views into something ridiculous and powerful. O’Donnell says no, and she wins the argument.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/26/2010 @ 12:30 pm“t’s obvious you didn’t watch the debate.”
Parts of it. Like this exchange, and her asking about the 14th amendment.
“They were talking about barring public schools from teaching Intelligent Design, and that form of your principle is the KKK, Hugo Black, Democrat party one”
I’m not seeing the connection between the KKK and Intelligent Design. But I do see that a judge ruled it was religious doctrine (and that the jerks who tried to impose it in their district lied about too!).
“You want to switch what’s in the constitution for your ‘principle’ as Hugo Black did, in order to then reinterpret Jefferson’s views into something ridiculous and powerful.”
No I’ve repeatedly said a principle doesn’t have to be exactly in the constitution — you can say we have free expression without that meaning the constitution has everything that could be understood as ‘free expression.’
imdw (47a9bf) — 10/26/2010 @ 12:35 pmToday’s CNN story on Christine.
Angeleno (193c25) — 10/26/2010 @ 12:39 pmAngeleno – Perfect example of double standard used against conservative candidates – lack of media vetting Obama as presidential candidate.
Q.E.D.
daleyrocks (940075) — 10/26/2010 @ 12:59 pmI’d say Anderson makes a good points about the lack of specifics behind O’Donnell’s claim and her own blithe use of sexist rhetoric against her political opponents. And the clips in which she proclaims her constitutional expertise are certainly amusing, particularly in light of what the recent debate with Coons revealed to be the state of her knowledge of the document.
Like it or not, she has become the country’s pre-eminent Tea Party personality, next to Sarah Palin. It will be interesting to see if that reverse coattail effect really happens in neighboring Pennsylvania.
Angeleno (193c25) — 10/26/2010 @ 1:52 pmAngeleno stfu and take your eugenicist friend SarahW with you back to the swamp you crawled out of.
DohBiden (984d23) — 3/11/2011 @ 9:36 am