See, clearly she’s displaying her incisive analysis of First Amendment law here, by pointing out that while the Constitution does bar Congress from making laws respecting the establishment of religion, it does not mandate an exclusion of religion from the public sphere, and that “separation of church and state” is a phrase that does not appear in the Constitution. She’s obviously well aware that the Constitution bars Congress from making laws respecting the establishment of religion.
I think it would be fantastic for the GOP to take back the Senate. I think the country needs this.
But if I were a Delaware resident, and the GOP and 49 seats and this was the last one on the line, I would vote for Coons. Even if I knew I somehow had the deciding vote, I would vote for Coons.
I find the howls of incredulous laughter from the audience to be quite encouraging. I also applaud the restraint of Mr Coons, because I think I would not have been able to take his high road when presented with such arrant ignorance and would have immediately begun channeling Dan Aykroyd’s usual response to Jane Curtin.
Is it your belief that all congressional candidates should be constitutional scholars?
There’s plenty of time to learn about all that once you’ve been elected. (And don’t laugh. There’s no way for a presidential candidate to know everything he’ll need to learn about the Constitution and other laws once he’s in office either, and his is clearly a much bigger and more important job.)
perhaps just those who stress that the constitution guides their judgement, like ms o’donnell. she has said that the consitution will guide her votes in senate, not her religion.
it now seems that she may not have read it. she not only had trouble with the first amendment but others as well.
if she wants to rely on the constitution perhaps she should carry a copy of it like mr. kucinich.
I personally believe that all congressional candidates should have at least the passing familiarity with the Constitution one would expect from a typical ninth-grader.
If that seems overly strict, well, the Turnip is a harsh mistress.
If someone were to tell you they were going to base their decision making according to, for example, Sun Tzu’s The Art of War, then when you asked them what that book said, they were unable to tell you, wouldn’t you find their decision making process a little suspect?
i don’t think that the turnip is a harsh mistress. just a correct and highly logical one.
ms o’donnell every time i see or hear her has only cemented the theory that she is a dabbler. she hasn’t found her niche or place in life yet and goes from thing to thing, idea to idea. she also seems to rely on what she is told and doesn’t seem to investigate things on her own.
I can understand not remembering if it was the 20th or 21st amendment which ended Prohibition. But not knowing which amendment is the separation of church and state? That’s inexcusable for someone claiming to be politically active.
I’d expect that they’d have a general idea of similar things they want to accomplish by using Sun Tzu’s The Art of War, but I wouldn’t expect that they’d know the book chapter and verse.
And I’d wager that a great many of our sitting politicians are effectually as ignorant of the Constitution overall as O’Donnell is, but becoming more well-versed in areas of it as is needed as they go along.
Still, I’ll admit that while I don’t necessarily think a would-be office holder should be exceptionally knowledgable about the Constitution and everything in it, I will admit that O’Donnell should have just accepted that the question was accurate as asked and responded accordingly.
Again, I’m not really a proponent of O’Donnell in particular, though I would like to see as many Republicans in office as possible if for no other reason than to keep Democrats from taking us further down roads I don’t think we ought to go. But do think that if she’s going to be condemned it should be for legitimate reasons, and I think that she’s sometimes held to unreasonable standards around here, standards that wouldn’t be raised either by the press or by Dopers if the candidate were a Democrat.
I was semi-joking above, but when I first saw the thread, I thought it was going to be O’Donnell saying (correctly) that “separation of church and state” is not a phrase from the Constitution. She would have then gone on to plausibly argue that the current line of decisions (Lemon and its progeny) are incorrectly decided, creating too much hostility between church and state. She would have pointed out that the Constitution merely commands that “Congress shall make no law…” and that extending this to forbidding prayer before a football game is a stretch.
So I had some sympathy all packed up and ready to go. And your post, above, plays into that same scenario… you, too, say “separation of church and state.” That’s common shorthand, but NOT what the Constitution says.
But then O’Donnell goes on to ruin that concept, because her opponent correctly quotes the Constitution as saying “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion…” And she responds to THIS by denying it’s in the Constitution.
Its worse than that. She didn’t even know there was an amendment dealing with the separation of church and state. Thats much worse than not knowing if it was the 1st or 2nd or whatever amendment.
It’s even worse than that. There has been a RW meme circulating for years now that the 1st Amendment does not separate church from state, or that the amendment is intended only to protect church from state and not the reverse, or something like that. See here. O’Donnell appears to have imbibed that meme without realizing that it refers to construction of an actual part of the Constitution.
You’ve shown a keen interest recently in protecting her from these hypothetical unfair attacks, without (so far to my knowledge) explaining why any of them is unfair, or why she is worthy of such chivalry.
Is it a crush? Come on, you can be honest. A little sweet on the ditzy chick? That I can understand.
I’d like to present to you this laurel, and hardy handshake. I agree with you about the point she was trying to make, but if she is that ignorant of the meaning of that argument and the text of the Constitution, she shouldn’t be in politics.