I'm less concerned about what she said than why she said it. *NM*
Avendesora Send a noteboard - 20/10/2010 01:32:38 PM
It IS a settled debate, but Jeffersons infamous (private) letter to a local Baptist church has itself long been a huge complaint from his conservative critics. It wasn't exactly approved by the House and Senate then signed by the President; it was Jeffersons private thoughts about an issue. The non-establishment clause is most definitely there, but that may have been precisely O'Donnells point, that non-establishment of religion is legitimate BECAUSE it's explicitly there, while separation of church and state is not because it isn't. Without being there or asking her I can't say.
So before everyone starts laughing and says, "she did it again!" let's see what she actually said instead of what they heard and we're being told she said.
*MySmiley*
I believe all news and research that supports my opinion, and dismiss the rest as conspiracy and lies.
I believe all news and research that supports my opinion, and dismiss the rest as conspiracy and lies.
"Where in the Constitution is separation of church and state?"
- 20/10/2010 12:33:05 AM
928 Views
You don't want her?
- 20/10/2010 01:21:20 AM
492 Views
I have decided for the first time in my life to not vote this year.
- 20/10/2010 01:27:13 AM
354 Views
Now there's an answer
- 20/10/2010 01:47:28 AM
456 Views
And most of those posts are a guess at best.
- 20/10/2010 03:02:04 AM
335 Views
Local bonds/ballot initiatives? Want the only major road within 10 miles of your house tolled?
- 21/10/2010 01:50:41 PM
362 Views
Can you not spoil your ballot?
- 20/10/2010 10:19:54 AM
319 Views
I don't think so but an intentional no vote is just as valid as voting IMHO. *NM*
- 21/10/2010 02:45:35 AM
147 Views
When you don't vote the bad guys win. That simple.
- 20/10/2010 01:53:23 PM
449 Views
The bad guys? That implies that there are some "good" guys somewhere in politics.
- 20/10/2010 05:43:06 PM
312 Views
I didn't say that, just that the bad guys automatically win if you don't vote.
- 20/10/2010 05:49:43 PM
315 Views
Re: I have decided for the first time in my life to not vote this year.
- 20/10/2010 02:54:04 PM
437 Views
She is a buffoon of course. But what I am speechless about is...
- 20/10/2010 01:25:43 AM
433 Views
Re: She is a buffoon of course. But what I am speechless about is...
- 20/10/2010 01:35:48 AM
365 Views
i feel kinda bad for her
- 20/10/2010 03:31:03 AM
389 Views
What is odd about this is that everyone is used to the 'separation' idea that they don't bother to
- 20/10/2010 06:44:48 AM
361 Views
Or, you know, the letters on the topic written by the people who drafted the Constitution *NM*
- 20/10/2010 07:04:47 AM
194 Views
She's right.
- 20/10/2010 12:27:55 PM
459 Views
I'm less concerned about what she said than why she said it. *NM*
- 20/10/2010 01:32:38 PM
242 Views
It is on youtube
- 20/10/2010 02:40:12 PM
358 Views
Jesus Christ
- 20/10/2010 03:03:30 PM
370 Views
Re: Jesus Christ
- 20/10/2010 03:32:02 PM
323 Views
Re: Jesus Christ
- 20/10/2010 03:36:48 PM
309 Views
Re: Jesus Christ
- 20/10/2010 03:53:46 PM
312 Views
Re: Jesus Christ
- 20/10/2010 04:01:49 PM
396 Views
Because she knew her audience, she expected them to know better, not be deliberately obtuse.
- 21/10/2010 02:31:19 PM
340 Views
Re: Because she knew her audience, she expected them to know better, not be deliberately obtuse.
- 21/10/2010 02:40:23 PM
415 Views
If the subsequent rulings aren't Constitutional they don't matter.
- 21/10/2010 03:03:11 PM
333 Views
Re: If the subsequent rulings aren't Constitutional they don't matter.
- 21/10/2010 03:57:45 PM
404 Views
She focused on the First Amendments text, and ignored the rest as commentary.
- 21/10/2010 04:49:22 PM
415 Views
Ok.
- 21/10/2010 05:01:22 PM
319 Views
I certainly don't think she deserves the scorn being heaped on her this time.
- 21/10/2010 05:14:03 PM
349 Views
See Dreaded Anomaly's reply below.
- 21/10/2010 03:03:02 PM
375 Views
Done.
- 21/10/2010 04:50:52 PM
312 Views
The last statement is the only relevant one, and still a bit ambiguous.
- 20/10/2010 03:51:35 PM
334 Views
I think it is clear that that argument is beyond her capabilities. It was not what she was saying. *NM*
- 21/10/2010 02:50:33 AM
127 Views
Separation of church and state is not in the Constitution, so she's right.
- 21/10/2010 03:41:27 PM
281 Views
I see we have replaced the PDS with ODS
- 20/10/2010 03:05:58 PM
318 Views
It only depends on just how finely one wants to split hairs.
- 20/10/2010 04:02:28 PM
309 Views
no it depends how far you want to stretch the Constitution to say things it doesn't say
- 20/10/2010 04:19:04 PM
312 Views
Treaty of Tripoli through the Establishment clause fairly explicitly affirms this. Sorry. *NM*
- 21/10/2010 03:56:09 AM
131 Views
OK which clause allows for amending the Constitution by treaty? I can't seem to find it *NM*
- 21/10/2010 02:59:01 PM
128 Views
Supremacy clause, not establishment clause. My mistake.
- 21/10/2010 05:07:18 PM
310 Views
Sorry, but the Treaty of Tripolis relevant section still seems like commentary.
- 21/10/2010 05:18:00 PM
285 Views
This is quickly becoming infuriating.
- 22/10/2010 01:41:18 AM
287 Views
No, it's part of the treaty.
- 22/10/2010 02:02:42 AM
316 Views
Take it up with the Supremacy Clause.
*NM*
- 22/10/2010 02:12:11 AM
139 Views
*NM*
- 22/10/2010 02:12:11 AM
139 Views
So from 1797 we've been at "perpetual peace" with Libya?
- 22/10/2010 02:25:44 AM
291 Views
Fair enough as regards the treaty being broken.
- 22/10/2010 02:38:37 AM
306 Views
Seems to apply to the Tenth Amendment only, not the Constitution as a whole.
- 22/10/2010 02:56:27 AM
369 Views
When a treaty is ratified by the senate, its provisions become federal law via a few processes.
- 22/10/2010 03:02:24 AM
293 Views
Even if we take that at face value, a law can still be unconstitutional.
- 22/10/2010 03:19:07 AM
333 Views
it was a poor decision anyway since Amendments should be seen to modify the original
- 22/10/2010 02:11:22 PM
284 Views
no your mistake was misreading the clause
- 21/10/2010 05:48:52 PM
297 Views
Very difficult not to lose my temper here.
- 22/10/2010 01:39:21 AM
291 Views
Then you should argue it violate a treaty with a country that no longer exist
- 22/10/2010 02:03:32 PM
294 Views
She's so... bewildered!
- 20/10/2010 06:40:04 PM
298 Views
that is what I think when I read a lot of the responses here
- 20/10/2010 07:44:40 PM
294 Views
She was still confused when he clarified what he meant, is what's funny *NM*
- 20/10/2010 08:56:56 PM
131 Views
Because the logical conclusion is obvious.
- 21/10/2010 03:08:39 AM
299 Views
I think it is logical that it means what is say not want some want it to say
- 21/10/2010 03:02:08 PM
292 Views
Nonsense. The nature of the nation was already changing in the first generation.
- 22/10/2010 12:35:26 AM
398 Views
I think it funny that so many people can't see that what she was actually saying was true
- 20/10/2010 09:23:23 PM
305 Views
I think it is funny that you think that she could argue that angle when she clearly can't. *NM*
- 21/10/2010 03:10:43 AM
119 Views
For those who think O'Donnell is correct, even on a technicality:
- 20/10/2010 10:49:40 PM
345 Views
She reiterates her question about "separation of church and state" and he repeatedly dodges.
- 21/10/2010 03:19:56 PM
318 Views
or she wasn't really paying attnetion to him and was still trying to argue her first point
- 21/10/2010 03:24:06 PM
444 Views
Heh...reminds me of Obama claiming to have visited all fifty seven states.
- 22/10/2010 12:44:58 AM
420 Views
My favorite bit is how people are attacking the judicary because they disagree with rulings.
- 21/10/2010 05:12:01 PM
311 Views
so you believe we all should just accept what the courts say without question?
- 21/10/2010 05:54:42 PM
320 Views
Given that it's you, Joel and Christine O'Donnell versus two centuries of jurisprudence? YES. *NM*
- 22/10/2010 01:49:01 AM
141 Views
Y'know, an alliance as unlikely as that one ought to give you cause for a second look.
- 22/10/2010 03:03:05 AM
397 Views
yes we are the only ones who don't think the courts can rewrtie the Constitution at will *NM*
- 22/10/2010 02:04:44 PM
130 Views
yes we are the only ones who don't think the courts can rewrtie the Constitution at will *NM*
- 22/10/2010 02:04:44 PM
127 Views
Come, my brethren! All Hallows Eve approachs, and we have much to do!
- 22/10/2010 05:34:01 PM
287 Views
