Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Christine O' Donnell - ignorance of the US Constitution

Christine O' Donnell - ignorance of the US Constitution
Thread Tools
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 19, 2010, 03:02 PM
 
I love Christine O' Donnell. She is funny as hell. Provides me with my weekly entertainment.

I love that Constitution loving Tea Partiers know nothing about the US Constitution. Further proof that extreme right-wing conservatives know nothing about the constitution except for maybe the 2nd amendment.

Christine O' Donnell ask what the hell is the 14th, 16th, and 17th amendment since she doesn't carry the constitution with her.

She also doesn't know what the 1st amendment says.

Haha... everyone is laughing at her, yet she thinks everyone is laughing with her.

Where do they find these people? At the pretend tea party?


YouTube - Christine O'Donnell ignorant of the Constitution (go to 2:37)

Christine O'Donnell: "Where in the Constitution is the Separation of Church and State?" - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

First Read - O'Donnell's First Amendment confusion?

Christine O'Donnell Questions Separation Of Church & State (VIDEO)
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 19, 2010, 03:05 PM
 
Jesus, do you have O'Donnell and Angle on Google alerts or something? Let it go, man.

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 19, 2010, 03:08 PM
 
She gets more attention than she deserves, even with her ridiculous past.

News covering her is the equivalent of a network airing a reality show; It's cheap, it's easy and shows a lack of a quality alternative to offer.
     
hyteckit  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 19, 2010, 03:12 PM
 
Let it go? It's funny stuff.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 19, 2010, 03:14 PM
 
Angle I'll give you somewhat of a pass on because she might actually win that election, but making fun of O'Donnell is like making fun of any other fringe candidate.

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
hyteckit  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 19, 2010, 03:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey View Post
Angle I'll give you somewhat of a pass on because she might actually win that election, but making fun of O'Donnell is like making fun of any other fringe candidate.
Christine O'Donnell has been pure entertainment.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
finboy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Garden of Paradise Motel, Suite 3D
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 19, 2010, 03:21 PM
 
I have no love for Ms. O'Donnell - I think she's purely a poser. But her understanding of basic liberties, and probably the Constitution, is at least as good as some of the folks on The Left.

Look up "the Good & Plenty" clause if you don't believe me. It's in there, right?
     
ort888
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Your Anus
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 19, 2010, 03:23 PM
 

My sig is 1 pixel too big.
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 19, 2010, 03:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by finboy View Post
I have no love for Ms. O'Donnell - I think she's purely a poser. But her understanding of basic liberties, and probably the Constitution, is at least as good as some of the folks on The Left.

Look up "the Good & Plenty" clause if you don't believe me. It's in there, right?
I think there is a substantive difference between apparently missing the point of the First Amendment entirely and misremembering the common name of a particular clause in the Constitution:
Taxing and Spending Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
ort888
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Your Anus
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 19, 2010, 04:10 PM
 
It's human nature to look at the absolute worst aspect of anything and then take pleasure in imagining that it applies to something in it's entirety.

In this case Ms. O'donnel represents the lowest of low nitwit tea partiers, and we're having a field day pretending that everything she represents can be projected onto the entire tea party movement.

Both sides do this. It's just our turn. What's funny is that I'm pretty sure that most people don't even give a **** that she dabbled in witchcraft... they just keep drumming it repeatedly because we know that it has to annoy the conservative right so much. And we also know that if a democratic candidate had said that she dabbled in witchcraft, that the conservatives in this country would be flipping their lids. Hell, if the 3rd assistant clerk to the secretary of transportation under Obama had said it we would never hear the end of it. Glenn Beck's head would explode with glee.

My sig is 1 pixel too big.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2010, 01:06 AM
 
Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey View Post
I think there is a substantive difference between apparently missing the point of the First Amendment entirely....
Granted, I just heard a snippet of O'Donnell's answer, but I think that was her point (not that I think much of her, which is irrelevant to this debate). ""Separation of Church and State" is mentioned no where in the first amendment. It's not there. At All. Assuming that's her point, people who are making fun of her are showing their own ignorance.

"Separation of Church and State" is a concept that Jefferson shared in his letter to the Baptists of Danbury, which people who wish for Jefferson's philosophies in regards to "church and state" be implemented into the Constitution try to use interchangeably with what the Constitution actually says, and what the majority of our founding fathers actually intended. People often times forget that while he had a very big influence on the document in question, Jefferson was just one guy who had to have a lot of other people sign on.

When people start quoting Jefferson and substituting his OPINIONS for what's actually in the Constitution, they do it to try to sell the notion that the intent of the document is to ensure that there can be absolutely no religious belief expressed in government matters, no matter how non-denominational or faith specific it is.

This of course totally ignores all the ways that our founders (at the time of the signing) approved and participated in Government sponsorship of religious expression without giving favor to one denomination or faith over another. There's ample evidence that the founders wanted a wall keeping Government out of regulating faith, but no real desire to keep faith from influencing government. Remember, Danbury wanted assurances that the federal government wouldn't outlaw their minority (in Connecticut) religion and force a single church on them the way England did. The idea that Jefferson would be writing to these folks to assure them of that, AND that religious belief and expression would be outlawed from intermingling at all with government is insane. Most of America would never have signed on to that at the time of the signing.

So, you can chuckle at O'Donnell all you want, but at best, you guys are showing your ignorance (likely willful) of what the purpose of the religion clauses in the first amendment were intended for by the majority.

As always, the intellectual elite don't get to just decide to make up the rules, and history, when what the majority deicides doesn't coincide with their values. You can try, but smarter people will always be there to call you on it. You can have activist court after activist court make intellectually dishonest rulings in order to try to legislate a warped view on the majority, but there will always smarter people around to call BS when it happens.

I call BS. Sad.

""It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists but by Christians, not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ.""

JOHN JAY, FIRST CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT, President of the Continental Congress, co-writer of the Federalist Papers and a peer to the men signing the US Constitution
(Who clearly didn't interpret the Constitution as later SC Justices have)
( Last edited by stupendousman; Oct 20, 2010 at 01:25 AM. )
     
CreepDogg
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2010, 10:05 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Granted, I just heard a snippet of O'Donnell's answer, but I think that was her point (not that I think much of her, which is irrelevant to this debate). ""Separation of Church and State" is mentioned no where in the first amendment. It's not there. At All. Assuming that's her point, people who are making fun of her are showing their own ignorance.
I call BS. She had ample opportunity to explain what she meant, and didn't. That's why she came across as confused. She was in the midst of a debate. Say what you mean and mean what you say. The way she came across, she either was truly confused or just didn't believe her own BS enough to argue it. Either way, FAIL.

"Separation of Church and State" is a concept that Jefferson shared in his letter to the Baptists of Danbury, which people who wish for Jefferson's philosophies in regards to "church and state" be implemented into the Constitution try to use interchangeably with what the Constitution actually says, and what the majority of our founding fathers actually intended. People often times forget that while he had a very big influence on the document in question, Jefferson was just one guy who had to have a lot of other people sign on.

When people start quoting Jefferson and substituting his OPINIONS for what's actually in the Constitution, they do it to try to sell the notion that the intent of the document is to ensure that there can be absolutely no religious belief expressed in government matters, no matter how non-denominational or faith specific it is.

This of course totally ignores all the ways that our founders (at the time of the signing) approved and participated in Government sponsorship of religious expression without giving favor to one denomination or faith over another. There's ample evidence that the founders wanted a wall keeping Government out of regulating faith, but no real desire to keep faith from influencing government. Remember, Danbury wanted assurances that the federal government wouldn't outlaw their minority (in Connecticut) religion and force a single church on them the way England did. The idea that Jefferson would be writing to these folks to assure them of that, AND that religious belief and expression would be outlawed from intermingling at all with government is insane. Most of America would never have signed on to that at the time of the signing.
So then what you're saying is that, in order to get a majority people to actually sign on, separation of church and state was the necessary and proper interpretation of the First Amendment. And it remains so. Sounds about right to me.

It's really not that difficult a concept:

The US is not a Christian nation.
The US is not a Jewish nation.
The US is not a Muslim nation.
The US is not an atheist nation.
The US is not a nation of witches.

It's all of those. And none of those. The US is a nation of religious freedom. Period. Government has no more business favoring one religion over another (with legislation, funding, public school curriculum, etc.) than it has favoring one corporation over another. One would think that people who want government to stay the hell out of the way of things would understand that.

So, you can chuckle at O'Donnell all you want, but at best, you guys are showing your ignorance (likely willful) of what the purpose of the religion clauses in the first amendment were intended for by the majority.
I guess, then, you are too, seeing as, as Mr. Coons pointed out, separation of church and state has been the logical and practical manifestation of the language in the First Amendment essentially ever since its inception.

As always, the intellectual elite don't get to just decide to make up the rules, and history, when what the majority deicides doesn't coincide with their values. You can try, but smarter people will always be there to call you on it. You can have activist court after activist court make intellectually dishonest rulings in order to try to legislate a warped view on the majority, but there will always smarter people around to call BS when it happens.
And thankfully that's what happens when people try to legislate Christianity.

""It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists but by Christians, not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ.""

JOHN JAY, FIRST CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT, President of the Continental Congress, co-writer of the Federalist Papers and a peer to the men signing the US Constitution
(Who clearly didn't interpret the Constitution as later SC Justices have)
Thank goodness. Cooler heads prevailed, and we avoided the theocracy we'd have had as a result. We need only look at a few other theocracies around the world to see how that would have turned out.
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2010, 10:08 AM
 
The number of references that conservatives make to the Federalist Papers always crack me up. Talk about missing the point.

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
CreepDogg
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2010, 10:21 AM
 
Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey View Post
Let it go, man.
Hey, she's a major-party candidate for the US Senate. And lots of fun!

My only other observation here is that her candidacy is an indication of what the Tea Party is really about.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2010, 10:47 AM
 
Christine O'Donnell is pretty ditzy chick ... any way you slice it. Her nomination is what happens when large numbers of emotional people value the ability to spout ideological platitudes more than substance on policy. She's such a joke that to say more would seem like piling on. So I'll just leave it at that.

OAW
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2010, 10:59 AM
 
Originally Posted by CreepDogg View Post
I call BS. She had ample opportunity to explain what she meant, and didn't.
I agree, she wasn't communicating well, but I figured out what she was saying, apparently because I don't share the same confused assumptions that left leaners do (that the "seperation of church and state" that Jefferson talked about can actually be found in the Constitution).

In fact, her people have stated as much. I had a link to a press release I saw earlier in the morning from them, but can't find it right now.

That's why she came across as confused. She was in the midst of a debate. Say what you mean and mean what you say. The way she came across, she either was truly confused or just didn't believe her own BS enough to argue it. Either way, FAIL.
You don't have to be confused or not believe what you are saying to suffer from not communicating effectively. Sometimes, especially when people are nervous, they don't always say things the way they'd like, or they way they would in other circumstances.

So then what you're saying is that, in order to get a majority people to actually sign on, separation of church and state was the necessary and proper interpretation of the First Amendment. And it remains so. Sounds about right to me.
In order to get the majority to sign on, they did not include language which required Jefferson's "high wall" philosophy or an actual "separation of church and state." The language used is very precise, and not without reason.

It's really not that difficult a concept:

The US is not a Christian nation.
The US is not a Jewish nation.
The US is not a Muslim nation.
The US is not an atheist nation.
The US is not a nation of witches.
A majority of the founders would likely disagree with you. I can find quotes from a whole slew of them where they outline the importance of religion in governance. They didn't for instance choose to institute Jefferson's "high wall" philosphy, and instead included language which would seem only to limit the government's intrusion on religion, and not vice versa.

You can debate that since our founders DID make it clear that the government would not be allowed to establish an official state religion, that there is no requirement that citizen practice religion themselves or that the government is beholden to one religion of the other. It is hard though to suggest that a country built on the principle that our rights are endowed by a supreme being, isn't a RELIGIOUS nation. It just doesn't make sense. This would preclude an interpretation of the constitution as having a "high wall" which is normally referred to as "separation of church and state," which as a constitutional principle, is an invention based not on the document itself or even the wishes of the majority of the founders, but rather the desires of a few of the guys who signed the document.

guess, then, you are too, seeing as, as Mr. Coons pointed out, separation of church and state has been the logical and practical manifestation of the language in the First Amendment essentially ever since its inception.
I quoted John Jay for example (I can quote others). He was was pretty much involved at the inception and likely had a pretty good idea of what his peers meant by the language in question. Especially given the fact that G. Washington decided he was smart enough to be in charge of the Supremes at the beginning.

To deny that at the beginning of our country's history that there was vast intermingling of religion and government - to the limit of actually establishing an official religion or putting limits on individual faiths, is a reinvention of history. The idea that our founders didn't have that big of a problem back then, but would now is laughable.

I don't debate that there are some who believe that "separation of church and state" is the "logical and practical manifestation of the language". Though, there are folks who somehow find that the inventions created for "Roe V. Wade" and other creations made by the court out of whole cloth are both practical and logical, despite there never being an intent for those things to be reflected in the Constitution by our founders, and no additional amendments added to include them as was the means devised to do so.

Thank goodness. Cooler heads prevailed, and we avoided the theocracy we'd have had as a result. We need only look at a few other theocracies around the world to see how that would have turned out.
No one has requested a theocracy. Another false dichotomy. You can have a government which respects the right of the people to follow other faiths, while still recognizing our country's founding on judeo/christian religious principles and our rights being handed down by God.

You really don't have to "throw the baby out with the bath water" in this regard, unless you are just wanting to be antagonistic to religion because you have some irrational fear of the faith. The language offered by the founders was chosen as an attempt to avoid confusion on whether or not Government could control religion. As long as it did not do that, it could not violate the first amendment in regards to what the government can or can not do. This doesn't require a "high wall" where nothing can pass.

I know that this is all "up for debate," but given the facts, I think that the worse you can really fault O'Donnell for is some really bad communication skills when it comes to expressing this stuff. Like I suggested, overall, I'm not that impressed with her.
     
finboy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Garden of Paradise Motel, Suite 3D
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2010, 11:13 AM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Christine O'Donnell is pretty ditzy chick ... any way you slice it. Her nomination is what happens when large numbers of emotional people value the ability to spout ideological platitudes more than substance on policy. She's such a joke that to say more would seem like piling on. So I'll just leave it at that.

OAW
I agree that she isn't the ripest apple on the tree, but I'd argue that this is what happens when the other party (parties in this case) are just tool bags. Or empty sacks, however you want to see it.

Back to my scenario: What if she was David Duke? When it gets so bad that folks would elect that steaming POS... we got trouble in River City.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2010, 11:17 AM
 
Here are a bunch of other articles who point out just about the same things I have, and why despite O'Donnell deserving scorn for poor communication and delivery, the condescending attitudes shown in regard to her difference of opinion clearly speak more about those who are delivering them than about the candidate herself:

washingtonpost.com

Christine O'Donnell: 'Separation of Church and State' Not in Constitution, MSNBC Shocked, Angered | NewsBusters.org

neo-neocon � Blog Archive � Gotcha moment du jour: O’Donnell, separation of church and state, and the First Amendment

I'll chalk up all this derision as a result of O'Donnell's not making clear what she meant, instead of just assuming that the people deriding her have so little understanding of the issue that they don't realize (or won't recognize due to personal bias) that there is a reasonable, fact-based position that many take based on historical precedent, the actual language in question, and the stated desires of our founding fathers which goes contrary to the Jeffersonian philosophies in regards to the "establishment" clause.

Maybe giving people the benefit of the doubt is too generous on my part, but I'd rather err on that side than to make myself look as foolish as either side has in this regard.
     
CreepDogg
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2010, 11:30 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
I agree, she wasn't communicating well, but I figured out what she was saying, apparently because I don't share the same confused assumptions that left leaners do (that the "seperation of church and state" that Jefferson talked about can actually be found in the Constitution).
No. You inferred what she was saying to meet your views. Same as the others 'on the left' did.

In fact, her people have stated as much. I had a link to a press release I saw earlier in the morning from them, but can't find it right now.
I think that could just as easily be construed as backtracking.

You don't have to be confused or not believe what you are saying to suffer from not communicating effectively. Sometimes, especially when people are nervous, they don't always say things the way they'd like, or they way they would in other circumstances.
Absolutely. And sometimes, when someone is overly snarky and/or has a reputation of cluelessness, this bites them in the ass.

In order to get the majority to sign on, they did not include language which required Jefferson's "high wall" philosophy or an actual "separation of church and state." The language used is very precise, and not without reason.
So, in order to get people to sign on, promises of a particular manifestation of the language was necessary. But now you're saying it wasn't necessary? Which is it?


No one has requested a theocracy. Another false dichotomy. You can have a government which respects the right of the people to follow other faiths, while still recognizing our country's founding on judeo/christian religious principles and our rights being handed down by God.

You really don't have to "throw the baby out with the bath water" in this regard, unless you are just wanting to be antagonistic to religion because you have some irrational fear of the faith.
Yes, you kinda do. Either we're a nation that favors one religion over others, or we aren't. Simple as that. I think the First Amendment says we're the latter.
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2010, 11:35 AM
 
Originally Posted by CreepDogg View Post
Absolutely. And sometimes, when someone is overly snarky and/or has a reputation of cluelessness, this bites them in the ass.
Exactly. She was playing for a "gotcha" moment and got burned. The problem is, whatever you want to argue about the historical views of the line of separation between church and state, the "Jeffersonian" vision that stupendousman argues was not the common view at the founding is the common view today. So the real question for O'Donnell is, if the separation of church and state is not in the First Amendment, does that mean she wants to see the current interpretation rolled back? If so, how far? I don't think she is ready to answer these questions.

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
CreepDogg
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2010, 11:41 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Maybe giving people the benefit of the doubt is too generous on my part, but I'd rather err on that side than to make myself look as foolish as either side has in this regard.
That's great. I'd just say where there is no doubt, there is no benefit. If there's a case to be made, fine. She needs to make it. She didn't.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2010, 12:25 PM
 
Indeed the words "Separation of Church and State" are not found in the Constitution. You get no argument from me on that. However, the words "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" logically necessitates the separation of Church (and Mosque, and Temple, and etc.) and State as a matter of public policy. It is nonsensical to argue that this prohibits the government from intruding upon religion, but it doesn't prohibit religion from intruding upon government. For if religion was allowed to intrude upon government in the form of the passage of legislation, then by definition Congress would have made a law respecting an establishment of religion.

The bottom line here is that you have people that want to legislate their particular interpretation of Christianity. Or at a minimum impose their particular interpretation of Christianity over public resources (e.g. teaching Creationism in public schools). But these same individuals would have a conniption fit if Muslims tried to legislate Sharia law or teach the Qu'ran in public schools. And you simply can't abide by the Constitution and have it both ways.

OAW
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2010, 12:36 PM
 
In the process of governing our country, the Separation of Church and state makes sense. The Other BS is just that. No decorating for any religious day? No symbols around or near government buildings? No groups allowed to rent or use government buildings for church gatherings. The point is that the government would not endorse any religion. They were not going to allow tampering or input from religious leaders or zealots. This was continual problem in Europe.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2010, 12:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey View Post
The number of references that conservatives make to the Federalist Papers always crack me up. Talk about missing the point.
And you know this because you've read them?
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2010, 12:50 PM
 
And BadKosh swoops in for the intellectual kill.
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2010, 12:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
And you know this because you've read them?
Indeed I have. It amuses me because modern American conservatism has much more in common with the views that the Federalist Papers were arguing against, and that eventually were taken up by the disciples of Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, etc. Quoting John Jay's views on the religious character of the country is particularly ironic because the Federalist Papers argued against the very idea of the Bill of Rights in the first place. They lost that battle.

James Madison, as one of the Federalist Papers' authors, is the main link across this divide, but his political opinions changed radically (and several times, to boot) from his association with Alexander Hamilton in the late 1780s and his views later that Hamilton, John Adams, and George Washington were essentially monarchists who were betraying the ideals of the founding.

Referring to the Federalist Papers as a founding document misses the point completely. The lesson we should take from them is that the basic political arguments we have today about the role of government in society are fundamentally the same as the arguments at the time of the founding, and the reason we still have them today is that none of the founders agreed about any of them in the first place. Quote the Federalist Papers and you are just quoting one side of the story. They aren't any more or less relevant than other prominent views at the time.

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2010, 12:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
And BadKosh swoops in for the intellectual kill.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2010, 12:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
In the process of governing our country, the Separation of Church and state makes sense. The Other BS is just that. No decorating for any religious day? No symbols around or near government buildings? No groups allowed to rent or use government buildings for church gatherings. The point is that the government would not endorse any religion. They were not going to allow tampering or input from religious leaders or zealots. This was continual problem in Europe.
Agreed. It is BS to not allow a cross on top of City Hall during Christmas. But I will say this. If people will get their panties all in a bunch if a Menorah was on top of City Hall during Hanukkah, or a Star & Crescent were on top of City Hall during Ramadan, etc. .... then it's best not to allow anyone to do it. If a Christian group wants to meet on school property for Bible study, then an Islamic group has to be able to meet on school property for Qu'ran study. And if people can't get that simple concept through through their thick skulls then don't complain when religion is pushed out of the public sphere altogether.

OAW
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2010, 12:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey View Post
Referring to the Federalist Papers as a founding document misses the point completely. The lesson we should take from them is that the basic political arguments we have today about the role of government in society are fundamentally the same as the arguments at the time of the founding, and the reason we still have them today is that none of the founders agreed about any of them in the first place. Quote the Federalist Papers and you are just quoting one side of the story. They aren't any more or less relevant than other prominent views at the time.
QFT.

OAW
     
Macrobat
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Raleigh, NC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2010, 01:40 PM
 
Actually, Coons was in the wrong and O'Donnell was correct. He made the assertion that separation of church and state was in the Constitution - she challenged him. And was acting incredulous that he was so ignorant of his lack of Constitutional knowledge.

It's not.

What it says is that Congress cannot establish a state religion. And that is ALL it says.

Guess what, all of you calling HER ignorant ARE ignorant of what's in the Constitution.
"That Others May Live"
On the ISG: "The nation's capital hasn't seen such concentrated wisdom in one place since Paris Hilton dined alone at the Hooters on Connecticut Avenue." - John Podhoretz
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2010, 01:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by Macrobat View Post
Actually, Coons was in the wrong and O'Donnell was correct. He made the assertion that separation of church and state was in the Constitution - she challenged him. And was acting incredulous that he was so ignorant of his lack of Constitutional knowledge.

It's not.

What it says is that Congress cannot establish a state religion. And that is ALL it says.

Guess what, all of you calling HER ignorant ARE ignorant of what's in the Constitution.
No, it also says that Congress shall make no law "prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

I can't believe you are so ignorant of what's in the Constitution.

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
hyteckit  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2010, 01:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by Macrobat View Post
Actually, Coons was in the wrong and O'Donnell was correct. He made the assertion that separation of church and state was in the Constitution - she challenged him. And was acting incredulous that he was so ignorant of his lack of Constitutional knowledge.

It's not.

What it says is that Congress cannot establish a state religion. And that is ALL it says.

Guess what, all of you calling HER ignorant ARE ignorant of what's in the Constitution.
Haha...

The separation of church and state is well established.

'A Wall of Separation' (June 1998) - Library of Congress Information Bulletin

If you watched the video, you would've know Christine O'Donnell has no clue what the 1st amendment says, nor what the 14th and 16th amendment is about.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
hyteckit  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2010, 02:12 PM
 
Or you can be like the Tea Party GOP candidate who believes "the separation of Church and State" phrase comes from Hitler.

GOP candidate: Hitler invented separation of church and state | Raw Story
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Macrobat
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Raleigh, NC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2010, 02:50 PM
 
Hate to break it to yu, Hyteckit, but it is NOT in the Contitution.
Publishing others' OPINIONS such as the "Wall of Separation" which was Jefferson's PERSONAL opinion, does NOT make it appear magically in the Constitution.

Coons couldn't even enumerate the rights contained in the First Amendment - at all. Which YOU would know if you watched the debate instead of the deliberately edited video.

And Spacemonkey - get real.
"That Others May Live"
On the ISG: "The nation's capital hasn't seen such concentrated wisdom in one place since Paris Hilton dined alone at the Hooters on Connecticut Avenue." - John Podhoretz
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2010, 03:02 PM
 
So your argument against the Free Exercise Clause Wikipedia page is "get real"?
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2010, 03:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by Macrobat View Post
And Spacemonkey - get real.
Not sure what you mean. Prohibiting the establishment of a state religion is a distinct idea from prohibiting limitations on how religion is exercised. For example, if we said that the state religion is Christianity, it doesn't necessarily follow that we would prohibit synagogues from being built, just as establishing English as an official language would not necessarily prohibit retailers from displaying signs in Spanish.

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
hyteckit  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2010, 04:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by Macrobat View Post
Hate to break it to yu, Hyteckit, but it is NOT in the Contitution.
Publishing others' OPINIONS such as the "Wall of Separation" which was Jefferson's PERSONAL opinion, does NOT make it appear magically in the Constitution.

Coons couldn't even enumerate the rights contained in the First Amendment - at all. Which YOU would know if you watched the debate instead of the deliberately edited video.

And Spacemonkey - get real.
It is in the Constitution. Just not in the Tea Party Constitution.

Thomas Jefferson is the person responsible for making sure the Bill of Rights was in the Constitution by telling James Madison to amend the Constitution to include the Bill of Rights.

So I'm pretty sure Thomas Jefferson's opinion is vastly more important than your personal opinion or Christine O'Donnell's personal opinion.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2010, 04:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
It is in the Constitution. Just not in the Tea Party Constitution.

Thomas Jefferson is the person responsible for making sure the Bill of Rights was in the Constitution by telling James Madison to amend the Constitution to include the Bill of Rights.
No, not really. You are overstating his role. What is significant is that key Supreme Court cases in U.S. history have cited Jefferson's opinion about the "wall of separation" in applying the First Amendment.

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
hyteckit  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2010, 04:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey View Post
No, not really. You are overstating his role. What is significant is that key Supreme Court cases in U.S. history have cited Jefferson's opinion about the "wall of separation" in applying the First Amendment.
Not really. You are basically saying the Supreme Court values Jefferson's opinion as being important.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2010, 04:37 PM
 
Exactly right. But I wouldn't call him "the person responsible for making sure the Bill of Rights was in the Constitution."

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
hyteckit  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2010, 05:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey View Post
Exactly right. But I wouldn't call him "the person responsible for making sure the Bill of Rights was in the Constitution."
But that's what Thomas Jefferson did.

The original constitution didn't have the bill of rights. Thomas Jefferson wasn't happy about it and wrote to James Madison to include the bill of rights before he would sign it.

Introduction to the Bill of Rights
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2010, 05:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
But that's what Thomas Jefferson did.

The original constitution didn't have the bill of rights. Thomas Jefferson wasn't happy about it and wrote to James Madison to include the bill of rights before he would sign it.

Introduction to the Bill of Rights
Jefferson was never in a position to sign the Constitution because he was stationed in France. I don't remember if he thought he was going to be back in time or not. I suspect not, given that the draft of the Constitution was completed in September 1787 and he was writing in December.

Madison had already raised the idea of a Bill of Rights during the Constitutional Convention that summer. Jefferson was weighing in as a notable voice in response to letters from Madison during the Convention (keep in mind the delay in sending letters across the Atlantic), not establishing a precondition for his support. He understood he was a bit out of the loop. The actual debate over the idea of a Bill of Rights extended through 1788 as states were ratifying (or refusing to ratify) the Constitution. Hamilton's Federalist No. 84, opposing the idea of a Bill of Rights, was published in May 1788 and would have been read contemporaneously with Jefferson's letter, along with writings by other revolutionary figures like Patrick Henry, who strongly opposed the Constitution. Madison began the first draft of the Bill of Rights after the 1st Congress began session in 1789, basing it significantly on George Mason's Virginia Declaration of Rights. The Bill of Rights began to be ratified by the states in late 1789.

I lay out this timeline just to help demonstrate that the completion of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights was a piecemeal affair, with various people weighing in at different times to advocate for one thing or another. Jefferson was involved, but I wouldn't call him the prime mover.
( Last edited by SpaceMonkey; Oct 20, 2010 at 06:06 PM. )

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 21, 2010, 01:19 PM
 
Article the third [Amendment I]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 21, 2010, 01:21 PM
 
My Favorite:
Article the fourth [Amendment II][4]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


Notice the "the right of the people..." part? Doesn't say people in the militia, or ONLY a select few can have guns.

"shall not be infringed...." So as far as limits...Blow it out yer.....
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 21, 2010, 01:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
My Favorite:
Article the fourth [Amendment II][4]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


Notice the "the right of the people..." part? Doesn't say people in the militia, or ONLY a select few can have guns.

"shall not be infringed...." So as far as limits...Blow it out yer.....

So what would our founders say about private citizens owning nuclear weapons?
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 21, 2010, 01:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
So what would our founders say about private citizens owning nuclear weapons?
Thomas Jefferson: "Yippee ki-yay mother-f*cker"

How'd this thread jump onto talking about the right to bear arms? Oh, a random BadKosh text dump, never mind.

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 21, 2010, 01:34 PM
 
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
It's funny how this whole stupid thing came up because her opponent couldn't answer the question when asked what five fundamental freedoms this guarantees. Ironically, 'separation of church and state' specifically isn't one of them, as religious freedom and separation of church and state are separate issues. In fact, the biggest irony of all is that the clause , "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" actually enforces the issue where this is most brought up- that there should be no (federal) laws made against say, students praying to themselves in schools. And of course, if a state or locality wants this (the context where it occurs most often), there is absolutely no constitutional prohibition against it.
     
CreepDogg
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 21, 2010, 01:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
And of course, if a state or locality wants this (the context where it occurs most often), there is absolutely no constitutional prohibition against it.
Incorporation of the Bill of Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 21, 2010, 01:49 PM
 
Disclaimer: Ironic only if you ignore Incorporation, relevant judicial precedent, and the fact that its not the Free Exercise Clause that gets debated over with respect to prayer in schools, but the Establishment Clause.

Edit: CreepDogg beat me to (part of) it.

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 21, 2010, 02:40 PM
 
With regard to the last two posts by CreepDogg and SpaceMonkey .....





OAW
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:56 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,