Active Users:601 Time:21/12/2025 07:28:20 PM
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules
no it depends how far you want to stretch the Constitution to say things it doesn't say random thoughts Send a noteboard - 20/10/2010 04:19:04 PM
It prohibits the government from establishing a church, thus the name, and it prohibits government from discriminating against a church. It says nothing about a wall between church and state. That isn’t splitting hairs, that is simple facts. The idea that anything to do with religion was banned from anything to do with the government was added later by the courts.

The founding fathers were not stupid men, if they had wanted a hard separation between church and state they would have said so. Jefferson’s writings that he wanted a separation of church and state show that is was considered but intentionally not included.
Reply to message
"Where in the Constitution is separation of church and state?" damookster - 20/10/2010 12:33:05 AM 960 Views
You don't want her? nossy - 20/10/2010 01:21:20 AM 522 Views
I have decided for the first time in my life to not vote this year. everynametaken - 20/10/2010 01:27:13 AM 381 Views
Now there's an answer Isaac - 20/10/2010 01:47:28 AM 485 Views
Voting isn't the only way to contribute *NM* Roland00 - 20/10/2010 02:42:10 AM 165 Views
And most of those posts are a guess at best. everynametaken - 20/10/2010 03:02:04 AM 361 Views
Maybe you shouldn't be guessing then? Isaac - 20/10/2010 06:00:02 AM 347 Views
Local bonds/ballot initiatives? Want the only major road within 10 miles of your house tolled? Joel - 21/10/2010 01:50:41 PM 400 Views
Issac has a point. Tashmere - 20/10/2010 02:14:28 AM 365 Views
Can you not spoil your ballot? Mark - 20/10/2010 10:19:54 AM 346 Views
Depends where you live. Joel - 20/10/2010 01:50:30 PM 435 Views
I don't think so but an intentional no vote is just as valid as voting IMHO. *NM* everynametaken - 21/10/2010 02:45:35 AM 164 Views
The difference is when they look at statistics snoopcester - 21/10/2010 10:49:48 AM 338 Views
Exactly. Joel - 21/10/2010 02:02:46 PM 472 Views
When you don't vote the bad guys win. That simple. Joel - 20/10/2010 01:53:23 PM 485 Views
The bad guys? That implies that there are some "good" guys somewhere in politics. Avendesora - 20/10/2010 05:43:06 PM 333 Views
I didn't say that, just that the bad guys automatically win if you don't vote. Joel - 20/10/2010 05:49:43 PM 339 Views
An intentional NO vote is just as valid as voting. everynametaken - 21/10/2010 02:46:58 AM 360 Views
Apart from the fact there's no record of it whatsoever, yes. Joel - 21/10/2010 01:37:46 PM 346 Views
Re: I have decided for the first time in my life to not vote this year. Camilla - 20/10/2010 02:54:04 PM 466 Views
She is a buffoon of course. But what I am speechless about is... everynametaken - 20/10/2010 01:25:43 AM 462 Views
Re: She is a buffoon of course. But what I am speechless about is... TaskmasterJack - 20/10/2010 01:35:48 AM 387 Views
Re: (meant to be under the main thread, but I can't move it) Gaps - 20/10/2010 02:42:23 AM 366 Views
It's a valid argument. Joel - 21/10/2010 03:26:46 PM 336 Views
i feel kinda bad for her Aisha - 20/10/2010 03:31:03 AM 424 Views
What is odd about this is that everyone is used to the 'separation' idea that they don't bother to MightyYT - 20/10/2010 06:44:48 AM 388 Views
Or, you know, the letters on the topic written by the people who drafted the Constitution *NM* Jragghen - 20/10/2010 07:04:47 AM 211 Views
Those aren't the Constitution though. Joel - 20/10/2010 12:39:41 PM 365 Views
which show they considered it but did not include it *NM* random thoughts - 20/10/2010 06:14:37 PM 157 Views
Yep, this. *NM* Zalis - 20/10/2010 07:40:19 PM 192 Views
Personally, I think that's splitting hairs. *NM* rebelaessedai - 20/10/2010 09:20:28 PM 164 Views
a direct reading is splitting hairs? random thoughts - 20/10/2010 09:25:14 PM 348 Views
That's what lawyers like the Founding Fathers do. Joel - 21/10/2010 02:56:36 PM 347 Views
I actually felt bad for her snoopcester - 20/10/2010 10:46:57 AM 366 Views
She's right. Joel - 20/10/2010 12:27:55 PM 484 Views
I'm less concerned about what she said than why she said it. *NM* Avendesora - 20/10/2010 01:32:38 PM 257 Views
It is on youtube snoopcester - 20/10/2010 02:40:12 PM 397 Views
Jesus Christ Camilla - 20/10/2010 03:03:30 PM 409 Views
Re: Jesus Christ snoopcester - 20/10/2010 03:32:02 PM 354 Views
Re: Jesus Christ Camilla - 20/10/2010 03:36:48 PM 327 Views
Re: Jesus Christ snoopcester - 20/10/2010 03:53:46 PM 338 Views
Re: Jesus Christ Camilla - 20/10/2010 04:01:49 PM 421 Views
Re: Jesus Christ snoopcester - 20/10/2010 05:12:28 PM 329 Views
Because she knew her audience, she expected them to know better, not be deliberately obtuse. Joel - 21/10/2010 02:31:19 PM 370 Views
Re: Because she knew her audience, she expected them to know better, not be deliberately obtuse. nossy - 21/10/2010 02:40:23 PM 441 Views
If the subsequent rulings aren't Constitutional they don't matter. Joel - 21/10/2010 03:03:11 PM 373 Views
Re: If the subsequent rulings aren't Constitutional they don't matter. nossy - 21/10/2010 03:57:45 PM 429 Views
She focused on the First Amendments text, and ignored the rest as commentary. Joel - 21/10/2010 04:49:22 PM 437 Views
Ok. nossy - 21/10/2010 05:01:22 PM 335 Views
I certainly don't think she deserves the scorn being heaped on her this time. Joel - 21/10/2010 05:14:03 PM 369 Views
See Dreaded Anomaly's reply below. Camilla - 21/10/2010 03:03:02 PM 399 Views
Done. Joel - 21/10/2010 04:50:52 PM 336 Views
Yet another reason you aren't a lawyer. *NM* Ghavrel - 21/10/2010 05:09:16 PM 127 Views
Because I don't accept arguments I consider unproven? Joel - 21/10/2010 05:23:52 PM 388 Views
The last statement is the only relevant one, and still a bit ambiguous. Joel - 20/10/2010 03:51:35 PM 364 Views
I think it is clear that that argument is beyond her capabilities. It was not what she was saying. *NM* everynametaken - 21/10/2010 02:50:33 AM 145 Views
Separation of church and state is not in the Constitution, so she's right. Joel - 21/10/2010 03:41:27 PM 309 Views
I see we have replaced the PDS with ODS random thoughts - 20/10/2010 03:05:58 PM 337 Views
It only depends on just how finely one wants to split hairs. Macharius - 20/10/2010 04:02:28 PM 341 Views
no it depends how far you want to stretch the Constitution to say things it doesn't say random thoughts - 20/10/2010 04:19:04 PM 337 Views
No it does not show that. everynametaken - 21/10/2010 02:58:32 AM 329 Views
It doesn't matter what some of them may have wanted random thoughts - 21/10/2010 02:54:54 PM 314 Views
Treaty of Tripoli through the Establishment clause fairly explicitly affirms this. Sorry. *NM* Ghavrel - 21/10/2010 03:56:09 AM 147 Views
OK which clause allows for amending the Constitution by treaty? I can't seem to find it *NM* random thoughts - 21/10/2010 02:59:01 PM 136 Views
Supremacy clause, not establishment clause. My mistake. Ghavrel - 21/10/2010 05:07:18 PM 337 Views
Sorry, but the Treaty of Tripolis relevant section still seems like commentary. Joel - 21/10/2010 05:18:00 PM 328 Views
This is quickly becoming infuriating. Ghavrel - 22/10/2010 01:41:18 AM 310 Views
No, it's part of the treaty. Joel - 22/10/2010 02:02:42 AM 349 Views
Take it up with the Supremacy Clause. *NM* Ghavrel - 22/10/2010 02:12:11 AM 155 Views
So from 1797 we've been at "perpetual peace" with Libya? Joel - 22/10/2010 02:25:44 AM 310 Views
Fair enough as regards the treaty being broken. Ghavrel - 22/10/2010 02:38:37 AM 334 Views
Seems to apply to the Tenth Amendment only, not the Constitution as a whole. Joel - 22/10/2010 02:56:27 AM 408 Views
When a treaty is ratified by the senate, its provisions become federal law via a few processes. Ghavrel - 22/10/2010 03:02:24 AM 323 Views
Even if we take that at face value, a law can still be unconstitutional. Joel - 22/10/2010 03:19:07 AM 356 Views
it was a poor decision anyway since Amendments should be seen to modify the original random thoughts - 22/10/2010 02:11:22 PM 309 Views
Well, they do, but they modify, they don't automatically negate. Joel - 22/10/2010 08:31:47 PM 315 Views
no your mistake was misreading the clause random thoughts - 21/10/2010 05:48:52 PM 321 Views
Very difficult not to lose my temper here. Ghavrel - 22/10/2010 01:39:21 AM 310 Views
Then you should argue it violate a treaty with a country that no longer exist random thoughts - 22/10/2010 02:03:32 PM 321 Views
Noticed that, too, did you? Joel - 22/10/2010 08:40:09 PM 442 Views
She's so... bewildered! beetnemesis - 20/10/2010 06:40:04 PM 331 Views
that is what I think when I read a lot of the responses here random thoughts - 20/10/2010 07:44:40 PM 318 Views
She was still confused when he clarified what he meant, is what's funny *NM* beetnemesis - 20/10/2010 08:56:56 PM 143 Views
Because the logical conclusion is obvious. everynametaken - 21/10/2010 03:08:39 AM 320 Views
I think it is logical that it means what is say not want some want it to say random thoughts - 21/10/2010 03:02:08 PM 319 Views
Nonsense. The nature of the nation was already changing in the first generation. everynametaken - 22/10/2010 12:35:26 AM 431 Views
but it is an impulse that should be limited random thoughts - 22/10/2010 06:05:10 PM 321 Views
I think it funny that so many people can't see that what she was actually saying was true random thoughts - 20/10/2010 09:23:23 PM 328 Views
I think it is funny that you think that she could argue that angle when she clearly can't. *NM* everynametaken - 21/10/2010 03:10:43 AM 136 Views
For those who think O'Donnell is correct, even on a technicality: Dreaded Anomaly - 20/10/2010 10:49:40 PM 379 Views
exactly damookster - 21/10/2010 03:26:00 AM 368 Views
She started out alright nossy - 21/10/2010 02:32:01 PM 319 Views
She reiterates her question about "separation of church and state" and he repeatedly dodges. Joel - 21/10/2010 03:19:56 PM 339 Views
or she wasn't really paying attnetion to him and was still trying to argue her first point random thoughts - 21/10/2010 03:24:06 PM 478 Views
Lol. Bush-League. LadyLorraine - 21/10/2010 04:39:43 PM 296 Views
at leas thten the haters were hating someone who mattered *NM* random thoughts - 21/10/2010 05:50:03 PM 155 Views
Heh...reminds me of Obama claiming to have visited all fifty seven states. MightyYT - 22/10/2010 12:44:58 AM 446 Views
My favorite bit is how people are attacking the judicary because they disagree with rulings. Ghavrel - 21/10/2010 05:12:01 PM 339 Views
so you believe we all should just accept what the courts say without question? random thoughts - 21/10/2010 05:54:42 PM 346 Views
Given that it's you, Joel and Christine O'Donnell versus two centuries of jurisprudence? YES. *NM* Ghavrel - 22/10/2010 01:49:01 AM 153 Views
Y'know, an alliance as unlikely as that one ought to give you cause for a second look. Joel - 22/10/2010 03:03:05 AM 421 Views
*double posts* Joel - 22/10/2010 08:44:07 PM 338 Views
yes we are the only ones who don't think the courts can rewrtie the Constitution at will *NM* random thoughts - 22/10/2010 02:04:44 PM 142 Views
yes we are the only ones who don't think the courts can rewrtie the Constitution at will *NM* random thoughts - 22/10/2010 02:04:44 PM 134 Views
Come, my brethren! All Hallows Eve approachs, and we have much to do! beetnemesis - 22/10/2010 05:34:01 PM 312 Views
...goddammit beetnemesis - 22/10/2010 05:35:37 PM 347 Views
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules

Reply to Message

Block Quote Paragraph Quote
Formatting
Smiley Codes