The non-establishment clause is clearly and explicitly in the First Amendment, but Coons tries so hard to equate that with separation of church and state (which is famously NOWHERE in the Constitution) it's hard to be sure her final question about what's in the Constitution isn't still about that. Coons clearly and repeatedly tries to argue that a sense of separation of church and state is in the First Amendment, but that's not a given. Presidents routinely swear on Bibles, end the Oath of Office with "so help me God" and, in general, we tolerate and often encourage a high degree of religiousness in our elected officials; we simply don't dictate what it is and don't want them dictating it to us. Rightly or wrongly many, perhaps most, Americans value SOME religious conviction in political leaders, as much for the sake of shared perspectives as an indication of character. That's perfectly consistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, and many of those people are disturbed at the suggestion religious beliefs are some kind of BAR to office.

To be honest, I thought she generally did pretty well, except that she was vague and only implied support for making everyone born here a citizen, and income tax, with only her support for direct (rather than Legislature) Senate election explicit. She can hardly be blamed for expecting an audience of lawyers to be at least as aware of which parts of their pet policies are and aren't in the Constitution.