Active Users:187 Time:19/05/2024 09:46:19 PM
That's what lawyers like the Founding Fathers do. Joel Send a noteboard - 21/10/2010 02:56:36 PM
It all depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is, and the non-establishment clause is just that: Government can't create or favor a religion. That doesn't banish religion from the political marketplace of ideas, and if they'd intended it to do that they would have written the Constitution so it did. It's not like they didn't spend months arguing about the thing and THEN tack on no less than eleven amendments (they considered twelve, and the last was only passed about a decade ago).

What's infuriating here, and drives the INTELLIGENT Tea Party members as well as O'Donnell, is that the lawyers know all this and are pretending they don't. Coons and everyone else keeps mentioning Jeffersons letter to the Baptists like, well, like it came down from Mt. Sinai, and like some arcane bit of lawyer lore they're deigning to share (though EVERYONE but stupid people know already). It's not part of the Constitution, any more than the Treaty of Tripoli is (though that at least has the merit of being US law). The arguments ARE tired, but they're also well known, and pretending not to remember them or that the whole debate is insipid insults not only O'Donnell, but every person they (which includes Coons) expects to believe it.

In terms of the actual debate, I'd say she did pretty well, though she was very vague on the Fourteenth Amendment question and only (but strongly) IMPLIED support for the Sixteenth. In fact, to be honest, most of Coons arguments were essentially ad hominems, because he didn't bother supporting any of them or answering questions, he just lambasted her as stupid, and the separation of church and state debate is a fine example. She kept hammering him about whether it's in the First Amendment (which he and all of us know it's not) and he kept clumsily dodging back to the phrase itself so he could talk about Jeffersons shopping lists, doodles of Sally Hemmings and other private correspondence that's not US law, let alone in the Constitution. Yes, it's a "long settled" legal principle because people like to refer to the letter and the Treaty of Tripoli (neatly making both American conservatives AND liberals anti-religious) but O'Donnells whole point (and that of many like her) is that it's not in the Constitution, and consequently if it's in CONFLICT with the Constitution the latter has precedence. That's the whole basis of judicial review, why US laws can be challenged in court, and every time a verdict is appealed to the SCOTUS that's part of the basis. It doesn't matter if a dozen federal courts ruled one way if they violated the Constitution doing it.
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.

Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!

LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Reply to message
"Where in the Constitution is separation of church and state?" - 20/10/2010 12:33:05 AM 802 Views
You don't want her? - 20/10/2010 01:21:20 AM 360 Views
I have decided for the first time in my life to not vote this year. - 20/10/2010 01:27:13 AM 244 Views
Now there's an answer - 20/10/2010 01:47:28 AM 342 Views
Voting isn't the only way to contribute *NM* - 20/10/2010 02:42:10 AM 104 Views
And most of those posts are a guess at best. - 20/10/2010 03:02:04 AM 221 Views
Maybe you shouldn't be guessing then? - 20/10/2010 06:00:02 AM 209 Views
Issac has a point. - 20/10/2010 02:14:28 AM 222 Views
Can you not spoil your ballot? - 20/10/2010 10:19:54 AM 203 Views
Depends where you live. - 20/10/2010 01:50:30 PM 250 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 90 Views
The difference is when they look at statistics - 21/10/2010 10:49:48 AM 194 Views
Exactly. - 21/10/2010 02:02:46 PM 309 Views
When you don't vote the bad guys win. That simple. - 20/10/2010 01:53:23 PM 324 Views
An intentional NO vote is just as valid as voting. - 21/10/2010 02:46:58 AM 190 Views
Apart from the fact there's no record of it whatsoever, yes. - 21/10/2010 01:37:46 PM 205 Views
She is a buffoon of course. But what I am speechless about is... - 20/10/2010 01:25:43 AM 313 Views
Re: She is a buffoon of course. But what I am speechless about is... - 20/10/2010 01:35:48 AM 238 Views
Re: (meant to be under the main thread, but I can't move it) - 20/10/2010 02:42:23 AM 215 Views
It's a valid argument. - 21/10/2010 03:26:46 PM 192 Views
i feel kinda bad for her - 20/10/2010 03:31:03 AM 234 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 246 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 131 Views
Those aren't the Constitution though. - 20/10/2010 12:39:41 PM 233 Views
which show they considered it but did not include it *NM* - 20/10/2010 06:14:37 PM 96 Views
Yep, this. *NM* - 20/10/2010 07:40:19 PM 117 Views
Personally, I think that's splitting hairs. *NM* - 20/10/2010 09:20:28 PM 95 Views
a direct reading is splitting hairs? - 20/10/2010 09:25:14 PM 195 Views
That's what lawyers like the Founding Fathers do. - 21/10/2010 02:56:36 PM 191 Views
I actually felt bad for her - 20/10/2010 10:46:57 AM 212 Views
She's right. - 20/10/2010 12:27:55 PM 341 Views
I'm less concerned about what she said than why she said it. *NM* - 20/10/2010 01:32:38 PM 188 Views
It is on youtube - 20/10/2010 02:40:12 PM 239 Views
Jesus Christ - 20/10/2010 03:03:30 PM 244 Views
Re: Jesus Christ - 20/10/2010 03:32:02 PM 217 Views
Re: Jesus Christ - 20/10/2010 03:36:48 PM 191 Views
Re: Jesus Christ - 20/10/2010 03:53:46 PM 194 Views
Re: Jesus Christ - 20/10/2010 04:01:49 PM 281 Views
Re: Jesus Christ - 20/10/2010 05:12:28 PM 192 Views
Because she knew her audience, she expected them to know better, not be deliberately obtuse. - 21/10/2010 02:31:19 PM 219 Views
See Dreaded Anomaly's reply below. - 21/10/2010 03:03:02 PM 251 Views
Done. - 21/10/2010 04:50:52 PM 193 Views
Yet another reason you aren't a lawyer. *NM* - 21/10/2010 05:09:16 PM 77 Views
Because I don't accept arguments I consider unproven? - 21/10/2010 05:23:52 PM 250 Views
I see we have replaced the PDS with ODS - 20/10/2010 03:05:58 PM 192 Views
It only depends on just how finely one wants to split hairs. - 20/10/2010 04:02:28 PM 193 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 192 Views
No it does not show that. - 21/10/2010 02:58:32 AM 186 Views
It doesn't matter what some of them may have wanted - 21/10/2010 02:54:54 PM 169 Views
Treaty of Tripoli through the Establishment clause fairly explicitly affirms this. Sorry. *NM* - 21/10/2010 03:56:09 AM 81 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 78 Views
Supremacy clause, not establishment clause. My mistake. - 21/10/2010 05:07:18 PM 184 Views
Sorry, but the Treaty of Tripolis relevant section still seems like commentary. - 21/10/2010 05:18:00 PM 172 Views
This is quickly becoming infuriating. - 22/10/2010 01:41:18 AM 174 Views
No, it's part of the treaty. - 22/10/2010 02:02:42 AM 195 Views
no your mistake was misreading the clause - 21/10/2010 05:48:52 PM 174 Views
Very difficult not to lose my temper here. - 22/10/2010 01:39:21 AM 189 Views
Then you should argue it violate a treaty with a country that no longer exist - 22/10/2010 02:03:32 PM 173 Views
Noticed that, too, did you? - 22/10/2010 08:40:09 PM 283 Views
She's so... bewildered! - 20/10/2010 06:40:04 PM 183 Views
that is what I think when I read a lot of the responses here - 20/10/2010 07:44:40 PM 186 Views
Because the logical conclusion is obvious. - 21/10/2010 03:08:39 AM 180 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 175 Views
Nonsense. The nature of the nation was already changing in the first generation. - 22/10/2010 12:35:26 AM 273 Views
but it is an impulse that should be limited - 22/10/2010 06:05:10 PM 174 Views
For those who think O'Donnell is correct, even on a technicality: - 20/10/2010 10:49:40 PM 223 Views
exactly - 21/10/2010 03:26:00 AM 214 Views
She started out alright - 21/10/2010 02:32:01 PM 176 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 307 Views
Lol. Bush-League. - 21/10/2010 04:39:43 PM 166 Views
at leas thten the haters were hating someone who mattered *NM* - 21/10/2010 05:50:03 PM 83 Views

Reply to Message