O'Donnell questions separation of church, state

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

First show us the quote where someone said the constitution contains the words separation of church and state, brainless one.

You mistook his meaning.

HE's jjust laying the foundation.

Let us start with thethings upon which we can agree.

The phrase "Separation of Church and State" does not, in those words, appear anywhere in the Constitution.

To the extent that people believe that the phrase is somehow properly a part of Constitutional analysis, therefore, the notion cannot be founded upon the literal text.

And by your caustic reply to TPS's post, it appears you accept the premise. The precise phrase itself does not appear in the Constitution. Excellent.

Isn't it nice to agree.

Now, time to move on to the NEXT point on the subject.

mmmkay....

like i said

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

Jefferson's words were a kind of catchy shorthand way of describing the two very simple things that the FIRST AMENDMENT did spell out.

It really doesn't matter what Jefferson's words were, because there is no evidence whatsoever that the hundreds of men who participated in the making of the Constitution believed it would be interpreted according to a letter to be written a decade latter by Thomas Jefferson.

It is well established that the men who made the Constitution probably took for granted that it would be interpreted by applying the well established common law rules of construction.

No official or required state religion

There are no words in the establishment clause that could be interpreted - according to the rules of interpretation - to mean "official" or "required" or "state."

no state impediment to the free exercise of anybody's particular religious beliefs.

There are no words in the free exercise clause that could be interpreted - according to the rules of interpretation - to mean "state" or "impediment" or "anybody's" or "particular" or "beliefs."

You need to stay within the confines of the words the lawmakers used to express their will.

 

[The T]

Jefferson's words were a kind of catchy shorthand way of describing the two very simple things that the FIRST AMENDMENT did spell out. (1) No official or required state religion and (2) no state impediment to the free exercise of anybody's particular religious beliefs.

It really doesn't matter what Jefferson's words were, because the men who made the Constitution didn't do so with the belief that it would be interpreted according to a letter to be written a decade latter.

However they expected it to be enforced and not ignored as the left has so aptly done.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Quick question........

If you don't believe in a separation of church and state, exactly WHICH church should the state be joined to?

And why?

 

[Gadawg73]

At the debate O'Donnell started off with this Lonestar in her opening comments:
"I am the candidate that opposes recent Supreme Court decisions from radical judges as I am the family values candidate".
And guess what Lonestar? In the question segment this was the first question to her:
"Please name which recent Supreme Court case you oppose, on what grounds and what was the ruling of the court that you oppose?".
And guess what Lonestar? Her answer was "Well, I can not come up with any specific ones. Can you help me with that and give me one and I will give my opinion".
And you support this fraud? You,a military man should know better.
It gets better. She then went to speak at a law school and they asked her if she knew what was in the 6th, 8th and 14th Amendments to the US Constitution.
And she had NO answer to it. She turned red and was understandably shaken and upset.
Only a fool would vote for her.
Most Ameiricans pick and choose very carefully before they vote. You act like a classic liberal Lonestar. You have no clue as to what these politicians KNOW. You base your entire opinion on IDEOLOGY only.

If you can find anywhere in this thread where I at anytime said I supported O'Donnell, then you may have a point.

OK, I read over all of your posts and I incorrectly assumed you did from one.
You are correct.
Lonestar 7 Dawg 0. fumble recovery for a TD.

 

[The T]

Quick question........

If you don't believe in a separation of church and state, exactly WHICH church should the state be joined to?

And why?

NONE. It's called Liberty. Why people leave tyranical States to worship as they please...and in public no less.

*Imagine That* ?

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

I see no ambiguity.

In 1788 - 1791, the words "law", "respecting", "establishment" and "religion" are all ambiguous.

 

[Big Fitz]

O'Donnell questions separation of church, state - Politics - Decision 2010 - msnbc.com

"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?"

Her comments, in a debate aired on radio station WDEL, generated a buzz in the audience.

I thought these Tea Party candidates were all about Constitutionalism? WTF???

Please, show me the words, "Separation of Church and State" in the first Amendment. There is the establishment clause, Free Exercise clause, the Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Press, Freedom of Assembly.

I don't see any separation of anything in there, but maybe my reading comprehension isn't working anymore.

Oh... try Federalist #40 which STILL doesn't exclude religion from government.

What's sick is that the people laughing at O'Donnell, are fucking law students who don't know this.

They shouldn't pass the fucking bar if they don't know that. O'Donnell's obviously smart enough to not only know that there is no 'separation of church and state' in the manner Coots means (removal from the public), and make an entire class of law students look like complete morons.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

The far left has embarked on a massive propaganda campaign to socialize the masses into believing that Religion should be anathema in politics.

You lie, dude. No one on the far left has ever said that religion should be anathema in politics. It is only wing nuts like you who spew that sort of crap.

That's not my quote.

 

[del]

Yeah well same challenge I've given to all my prey.

When you dumbasses can find the EXACT WORDS "SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE" in the Constitution, I'll not only leave this forum, I'll become a life long Democrat and ONLY vote liberal.

Then on top of that, I'll walk to the Center of the Oval on THE Ohio State Campus and sing "I'm a Little Tea Pot" at the strike of noon.

Hell, I'll go to the 50 yard line at half time of the Ohio State v. Michigan Game and sing the Michigan Fight Song, if you can find those EXACT words!

Until then "implied meaning" is just liberal for "the Constitution says what WE say it says!"

(And yes, I've actually had a liberals dumb enough to take me up on that bet. Morons, the lot of 'em!)

These are the same idiots who think abortion is in the Constitution because Roe v. Wade says so, BUT think Bush v. Gore or Citizens United proves a run away court system.

The USSC is only the last word on the Constitution when liberals LIKE the decision, NOT when they don't!

no one cares what you do, and no one thinks that you *think* in the generally accepted sense of the term.

carry on

 

[Liability]

I see no ambiguity.

In 1788 - 1791, the words "law", "respecting", "establishment" and "religion" are all ambiguous.

Nonsense.

 

[drsmith1072]

Factually she is correct. No where in the first amendment does it say the Separation of Church and State!!! NO WHERE in the constitution does it say this.

The concept of the Separation of Church and State came from Case Law based on the preceived legislative intent of the first amendment! Reynolds v US Case, during the middle 1800s establish the WELL ACCEPTED concept of the Separation of Church and State.

While she was factually correct, her tactic was beyond a doubt stupid and I have no doubt that she is far from a constitutional scholar. Not knowing one recent Supreme Court case she disagrees with is outrageous! Nice prep work moron.

She should have stated, "Coon, while the concept, which I support, of the Separation of Church and State, came about via case law interpretation of the Establish Clause of the First Amendment, it is NOT stated in the First Amendment. If you or ANYONE can show me specifically in the first amendment or the CONSTITUTION for that matter, where it says stated SPECIFICALLY word for word Separation of Church and State, then I will drop out of the race! Will you take the same pledge that its in the constitution?"

Remember case law can change! Separate but equal came about after the 13th and 14th amendment in Plesy v. Ferguson. It was the law of the land for over a half century. Case law interpretations of the constitution can change!

Note: I am not saying Separation of Church and State will ever change and I would cry if it ever got changed, but O'Donnell is factually correct.

O'Donnell questions separation of church, state - Politics - Decision 2010 - msnbc.com



I thought these Tea Party candidates were all about Constitutionalism? WTF???

No she's not.

This whole "exact words" argument is a little silly.

Exactly, when coon quoted the 1st amendment she responded, "that's in the first amendment?" showing that she had no clue as to what is actually in the 1st amendment.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meGy9J_kIJI&feature=related[/ame]

 

[teapartysamurai]

stupid jesus freaks are everywhere
anti education pagans

Yeah, "education" is telling people something is in the Constitution that isn't there!

 

[teapartysamurai]

When you dumbasses can find the EXACT WORDS "SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE" in the Constitution, I'll not only leave this forum, I'll become a life long Democrat and ONLY vote liberal.

First show us the quote where someone said the constitution contains the words separation of church and state, brainless one.

Who's brainless. That'w what this stupid thread is about. That O'Donnel supposedly doesn't "know" that separation of church and state is in the Constitution.

Problem is, SHE'S RIGHT, IT ISN'T THERE!

The idiots are the law students who laughed at O'Donnel when she said, "you are telling me that's in the Constitution."

It isn't!

 

[Big Fitz]

I see no ambiguity.

In 1788 - 1791, the words "law", "respecting", "establishment" and "religion" are all ambiguous.

Wow... you are a lunatic.

 

[Queen]

When you dumbasses can find the EXACT WORDS "SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE" in the Constitution, I'll not only leave this forum, I'll become a life long Democrat and ONLY vote liberal.

First show us the quote where someone said the constitution contains the words separation of church and state, brainless one.

Who's brainless. That'w what this stupid thread is about. That O'Donnel supposedly doesn't "know" that separation of church and state is in the Constitution.

Problem is, SHE'S RIGHT, IT ISN'T THERE!

The idiots are the law students who laughed at O'Donnel when she said, "you are telling me that's in the Constitution."

It isn't!

God you conservatives are stupid. The words in the 1st amendment MEAN there is a wall of separation between religion and our government.

Jesus H Roosevelt Christ.

 

[teapartysamurai]

When you dumbasses can find the EXACT WORDS "SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE" in the Constitution, I'll not only leave this forum, I'll become a life long Democrat and ONLY vote liberal.

First show us the quote where someone said the constitution contains the words separation of church and state, brainless one.

You mistook his meaning.

HE's just laying the foundation.

Let us start with the things upon which we can agree.

The phrase "Separation of Church and State" does not, in those words, appear anywhere in the Constitution.

To the extent that people believe that the phrase is somehow properly a part of Constitutional analysis, therefore, the notion cannot be founded upon the literal text.

And by your caustic reply to TPS's post, it appears you accept the premise. The precise phrase itself does not appear in the Constitution. Excellent.

Isn't it nice to agree.

Now, time to move on to the NEXT point on the subject.

Liability I'm a she.

But that's the point. There are idiot liberals who claim "Separation of church and State" is in the Constitution.

You want a stupid lib who claims it's there?

See the Civil Liberties Union!

 

[teapartysamurai]

Jefferson's words were a kind of catchy shorthand way of describing the two very simple things that the FIRST AMENDMENT did spell out. (1) No official or required state religion and (2) no state impediment to the free exercise of anybody's particular religious beliefs.

It really doesn't matter what Jefferson's words were, because the men who made the Constitution didn't do so with the belief that it would be interpreted according to a letter to be written a decade latter.

Plus Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence. He did NOT write the Constitution.

 

[teapartysamurai]

Jefferson's words were a kind of catchy shorthand way of describing the two very simple things that the FIRST AMENDMENT did spell out.

It really doesn't matter what Jefferson's words were, because there is no evidence whatsoever that the hundreds of men who participated in the making of the Constitution believed it would be interpreted according to a letter to be written a decade latter by Thomas Jefferson.

It is well established that the men who made the Constitution probably took for granted that it would be interpreted by applying the well established common law rules of construction.

No official or required state religion

There are no words in the establishment clause that could be interpreted - according to the rules of interpretation - to mean "official" or "required" or "state."

no state impediment to the free exercise of anybody's particular religious beliefs.

There are no words in the free exercise clause that could be interpreted - according to the rules of interpretation - to mean "state" or "impediment" or "anybody's" or "particular" or "beliefs."

You need to stay within the confines of the words the lawmakers used to express their will.

Then within those confines O'Donnel was right and Coons was wrong.,

 

[drsmith1072]

When you dumbasses can find the EXACT WORDS "SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE" in the Constitution, I'll not only leave this forum, I'll become a life long Democrat and ONLY vote liberal.

First show us the quote where someone said the constitution contains the words separation of church and state, brainless one.

Who's brainless. That'w what this stupid thread is about. That O'Donnel supposedly doesn't "know" that separation of church and state is in the Constitution.

Problem is, SHE'S RIGHT, IT ISN'T THERE!

The idiots are the law students who laughed at O'Donnel when she said, "you are telling me that's in the Constitution."

It isn't!

Anyone trying to defend o'donnell is brainless. The CURRENT spin of her campaign and her defenders is that she was referring to the exact phrase "separation of church and state" but as I showed earlier coons quoted the 1st amendment and o'donnell asked, "That's in the 1st amendment?". The attempt at damage control as her defenders try to spin and argue that the exact phrase is what she was referring to doesn't match what was actually said in the debate.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meGy9J_kIJI&feature=related[/ame]