Christine O'Donnell Needed a Refresher Course on the First Amendment

[guywithashovel]

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=11916067


"Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?" O'Donnell asked, a statement that drew laughter from the audience. When Coons returned to the topic a few minutes later, he said her comment "reveals her fundamental misunderstanding of what our Constitution is."

"The First Amendment establishes the separation, the fact that the federal government shall not establish religion," Coons said.

"The First Amendment does?" O'Donnell interrupted. "You're telling me that the separation of church and state is found in the First Amendment?"

When Coons summarized the amendment as saying government shall make no law establishing religion, O'Donnell interrupted again: "That's in the First Amendment?"


Boy, the Tea Party sure does know how to pick 'em, doesn't it? :rolleyes:

[Ipecac Drano]

I thought all witches knew the First Amendment...
;)

[joe hx]

The phrase "separation of church and state" is not found in the first amendment:

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.

[crashhelmet]

The phrase "separation of church and state" is not found in the first amendment:

It doesn't contain the exact phrase, but it does establish the separation between them.

CH

[guywithashovel]

The phrase "separation of church and state" is not found in the first amendment:

We could probably sit and argue about this all day, but the concept does seem to be pretty strongly implied.

[Ipecac Drano]

It comes from various documents, other than and including the First Amendment.

Clicky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_State s)

[Jason]

She was trying to make a point the "sepeartion of church and state" is not a constitutional requirement. The phrase came about from Thomas Jefferson's and James Madison's letters on the subject of religion and the government.

If anything, Christine O'Donnell holds a literal interpretation of the Constitution.

[Ipecac Drano]

If anything, Christine O'Donnell holds a literal interpretation of the Constitution.
Gotta love those literalists. I wonder how many times she got wet when someone told her to jump in the lake.
:rolleyes:

[crashhelmet]

If anything, Christine O'Donnell holds a literal interpretation of the Constitution.

She does???

She's for instituting teacher led prayer and keeping the phrase "Under God" in the pledge. Those would be laws establishing Christianity in our school systems. Sounds like a misinterpretation of the 1st Amendment to me.

She's also heavily opposed to gun control, which is anything but a literal interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

CH

[Wingates_Hellsing]

She's most certainly not abiding by the first amendment, but I might add that the supreme court has decided that the 2nd amendment protects an individual right to bear arms, at least insofar as it does pertain to self defense. (which if you think about it kinda pushes past the issue of weapons owned for recreation.)

Therefore a literal interpretation of the 2nd amendment as decided by the supreme court would make any unreasonable gun control law unconstitutional. Opinion may differ on what unreasonable means exactly, but that's the state of affairs. Just a note.

Back OT, yeah, yet another person who just happens to "forget" that what they're doing is technically against the rules, or deluded to the point where they've fooled themselves. Either way, blegh :rolleyes:

[crashhelmet]

She's most certainly not abiding by the first amendment, but I might add that the supreme court has decided that the 2nd amendment protects an individual right to bear arms, at least insofar as it does pertain to self defense. (which if you think about it kinda pushes past the issue of weapons owned for recreation.)

Therefore a literal interpretation of the 2nd amendment as decided by the supreme court would make any unreasonable gun control law unconstitutional. Opinion may differ on what unreasonable means exactly, but that's the state of affairs. Just a note.

Back OT, yeah, yet another person who just happens to "forget" that what they're doing is technically against the rules, or deluded to the point where they've fooled themselves. Either way, blegh :rolleyes:

I've read through Columbia v Heller several times and their "logic" in interpreting it is a little far fetched, but I'll save that argument for a different thread.

CH

[kiwi]

Christine O'Donnell is an idiot. A terrifying, scary, idiot. Even she however can not scare me as much as Sharon Angle. She scares the shit out of me.

[KabeRinnaul]

I think she more needs her mouth taped shut on the grounds that she's a idiot. I wonder how many people only listen to her to see how absurd the next thing she says will be?

She's also heavily opposed to gun control, which is anything but a literal interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

Literal. (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_fE-F7VIvYfk/Sa_jW-KsVcI/AAAAAAAABGc/4lKQs3uDkGY/s400/family%2520guy%2520bear%2520arms.jpg)