That is sort of what I meant by asking if it was a “real” debate. Just as a publicity stunt? Bachmann’s best bet would be to treat it like a roast, and joke good-naturedly throughout. That might score her some points; “debating” a kid couldn’t possibly.
But you are correct. Bachmann couldn’t be seen as bullying the kid. I thought Hilary Clinton scored some points when she was running for the Senate because she was debating her opponent, a man, and he came up and sort of loomed over her. And that was seen, or at least spun, as bullying or intimidation.
Not that he would have won the election anyway, but HRC was in somewhat the same position as the kid would be against Bachmann. But her opponent had to debate Hilary - Bachmann can blow this kid off and not lose anything.
Of course that’s not when a Republican would fall apart. By the time the loaded questions come around, they’ve already long since fallen apart from things like “what newspapers do you read?”.
And granted that there’s no real win in this situation for Bachman if she takes the offer, it’s also hard to see how refusing it helps her. It probably does her least harm to just completely ignore it, but least harm is still harm.
I wasn’t talking about bullying although that is clearly an issue. My point is that there are areas where constitutional law may not line up with conservative* talking points. In these cases for political reasons Bachman will have to debate in a way that supports the views of her conservative constituency even if it hurts her case in the debate. For example, she can’t concede that there is separation between church and state because that will offend some conservative voters. The 16 year old doesn’t have to stick to a script and so can take what ever position she feels will most help her in the debate.
*this is not to say that liberal talking points would necessarily line up any better.
Can you give me a couple of examples of Bachmann saying things that represent factual ignorance on the Constitution – things that would be unambiguously wrong on a test, for instance?
What - the whole SDMB collectively held that view and not just a couple of the more vocal lefties? I saw a lot of people agreeing with you in that thread.
Back on topic, I vote that the whole thing is a publicity stunt for the student. I’m no fan of Bachmann or Palin and would frequently like them to shut up, but she should ignore this. If the student was in her district there might be a case for going, but New Jersey? Naah.
“Now ACORN has been named one of the national partners, which will be a recipient again of federal money,” Bachmann said. “And they will be in charge of going door-to-door and collecting data from the American public. This is very concerning because the motherload of all data information will be from the Census. And, of course, we think of the Census as just counting how many people live in your home. Unfortunately, the Census data has become very intricate, very personal (with) a lot of the questions that are asked.
“And I know for my family the only question that we will be answering is how many people are in our home. We won’t be answering any information beyond that, because the Constitution doesn’t require any information beyond that.”
Article I, Section 2, 3
“Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.2 The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.” [bolding mine]
The Constitution requires whatever Congress decides to implement.
“In such manner” refers to how Congress shall conduct the enumeration, and is not a license for Congress to ask additional questions beyond “how many people are there?”
There’s no barrier to Congress deciding to ask that, but the Constitution does not require it.
I’m sorry, but far from being unambiguously wrong, she’s precisely right. As to the census, the Constitutional command is limited to an enumeration every ten years. Additional question are not illegal, but the Constitution clearly does not require them.
Of interest to this discussion might be Scalia’s concurrence in Department of Commerce v. United States House of Representatives, 525 US 316 (1999), in which “statistical sampling” as a method for census counting was proposed under supposed Congressional authority but struck down by the Court.
What the hell is a constitution debate, anyway? They gonna argue pro and con on whether the document should exist? They going to argue whether a particular statute is constitutional? They gonna rehash Marbury v. Madison?
Bachmann isn’t so much stupid as she is a liar and a demagogue (and a religious nutcase). She is a lawyer, so if pushed to take a straight up fact test on the Constitution, I’m sure she could do at least as well asa 16 year old.
Palin, on the other hand, truly is ignorant, incurious and lacks the ability to comprehend complex ideas. I wouldn’t put money on her to beat a reasonably prepared 5th grader.
Ok, that makes sense. Thank for for the clarification. However, the very first census in 1790 required additional information beyond just the number of persons in each household. Making the argument against the added questions is solely politically motivated rather than inspired by the actions of the founders that Bachmann and her supporters supposedly idolize. Unfortunately, I guess that’s just expected.
