Active Users:648 Time:23/03/2026 04:55:15 AM
See Dreaded Anomaly's reply below. Camilla Send a noteboard - 21/10/2010 03:03:02 PM
Well, she seems to do well in front of cameras, but in front of law students?

Perhaps just when all she has to do is smile and repeat the lines she was taught earlier? She was caught out by why should be fairly basic knowledge even if the crowd aren't law students.

It would not be as noticeable if she were talking only to tea party activists, methinks. We would still be mocking her, but she would not have had the painful moment of misjudging her audience, which is the part that has me blushing on her behalf here.

Yes, separation of church and state is a settled matter; no, it is NOT in the Constitution. I assume by this point you've read the text at least once or twice and saw the non-establishment clause, and that's great; it means we can't have a state religion, and we can't tell people how to practice religion. It does not mean we can't have religion in government, per se; it means a religious basis is not, in itself, a legitimate legislative one. That's not to say laws against murder and rape are unacceptable because they also happen to appear in most religious texts, or even because the primary motivation of the men who passed that legislation was a moral and in most cases deeply religious one. The laws are good and valid in themselves, precisely due to their operation in a larger than religious sphere. How well they serve that role is the real test of the law, and the Constitutional test here is that it do so without promoting or favoring one or more religions over one or more others.

Part of the religious objection today is the impression the First Amendment is being used in various ways to actively marginalize religious thought, and when that includes the government it is itself a serious First Amendment violation. There's a feeling, to put it in British terms, that we'll soon have an "Anti-Test Act" whereby politicians will have to renounce all religious opinion or be declared unfit for office. "Jacobin" has always had a pejorative connotation in America, even with men like Jefferson and Madison; the closest thing we had to a Robespierre sympathizer like Fox was Thomas Paine, whom the French almost executed for his trouble (and supposedly had a deathbed conversion.)

Essentially, they're making fun of her for bringing up a valid argument they long ago won, but they're disingenuously pretending the point itself is invalid and ignorant when they know very well that it's not.
*MySmiley*
structured procrastinator
Reply to message
"Where in the Constitution is separation of church and state?" - 20/10/2010 12:33:05 AM 989 Views
You don't want her? - 20/10/2010 01:21:20 AM 546 Views
I have decided for the first time in my life to not vote this year. - 20/10/2010 01:27:13 AM 415 Views
Now there's an answer - 20/10/2010 01:47:28 AM 511 Views
Voting isn't the only way to contribute *NM* - 20/10/2010 02:42:10 AM 176 Views
And most of those posts are a guess at best. - 20/10/2010 03:02:04 AM 391 Views
Maybe you shouldn't be guessing then? - 20/10/2010 06:00:02 AM 384 Views
Issac has a point. - 20/10/2010 02:14:28 AM 391 Views
Can you not spoil your ballot? - 20/10/2010 10:19:54 AM 371 Views
Depends where you live. - 20/10/2010 01:50:30 PM 469 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 174 Views
The difference is when they look at statistics - 21/10/2010 10:49:48 AM 362 Views
Exactly. - 21/10/2010 02:02:46 PM 499 Views
When you don't vote the bad guys win. That simple. - 20/10/2010 01:53:23 PM 512 Views
An intentional NO vote is just as valid as voting. - 21/10/2010 02:46:58 AM 399 Views
Apart from the fact there's no record of it whatsoever, yes. - 21/10/2010 01:37:46 PM 383 Views
She is a buffoon of course. But what I am speechless about is... - 20/10/2010 01:25:43 AM 485 Views
Re: She is a buffoon of course. But what I am speechless about is... - 20/10/2010 01:35:48 AM 413 Views
Re: (meant to be under the main thread, but I can't move it) - 20/10/2010 02:42:23 AM 402 Views
It's a valid argument. - 21/10/2010 03:26:46 PM 368 Views
i feel kinda bad for her - 20/10/2010 03:31:03 AM 461 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 412 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 222 Views
Those aren't the Constitution though. - 20/10/2010 12:39:41 PM 406 Views
which show they considered it but did not include it *NM* - 20/10/2010 06:14:37 PM 173 Views
Yep, this. *NM* - 20/10/2010 07:40:19 PM 200 Views
Personally, I think that's splitting hairs. *NM* - 20/10/2010 09:20:28 PM 175 Views
a direct reading is splitting hairs? - 20/10/2010 09:25:14 PM 378 Views
That's what lawyers like the Founding Fathers do. - 21/10/2010 02:56:36 PM 378 Views
I actually felt bad for her - 20/10/2010 10:46:57 AM 388 Views
She's right. - 20/10/2010 12:27:55 PM 509 Views
I'm less concerned about what she said than why she said it. *NM* - 20/10/2010 01:32:38 PM 271 Views
It is on youtube - 20/10/2010 02:40:12 PM 425 Views
Jesus Christ - 20/10/2010 03:03:30 PM 435 Views
Re: Jesus Christ - 20/10/2010 03:32:02 PM 389 Views
Re: Jesus Christ - 20/10/2010 03:36:48 PM 357 Views
Re: Jesus Christ - 20/10/2010 03:53:46 PM 363 Views
Re: Jesus Christ - 20/10/2010 04:01:49 PM 446 Views
Re: Jesus Christ - 20/10/2010 05:12:28 PM 365 Views
Because she knew her audience, she expected them to know better, not be deliberately obtuse. - 21/10/2010 02:31:19 PM 405 Views
See Dreaded Anomaly's reply below. - 21/10/2010 03:03:02 PM 427 Views
Done. - 21/10/2010 04:50:52 PM 363 Views
Yet another reason you aren't a lawyer. *NM* - 21/10/2010 05:09:16 PM 136 Views
Because I don't accept arguments I consider unproven? - 21/10/2010 05:23:52 PM 411 Views
I see we have replaced the PDS with ODS - 20/10/2010 03:05:58 PM 361 Views
It only depends on just how finely one wants to split hairs. - 20/10/2010 04:02:28 PM 369 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 365 Views
No it does not show that. - 21/10/2010 02:58:32 AM 361 Views
It doesn't matter what some of them may have wanted - 21/10/2010 02:54:54 PM 338 Views
Treaty of Tripoli through the Establishment clause fairly explicitly affirms this. Sorry. *NM* - 21/10/2010 03:56:09 AM 161 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 149 Views
Supremacy clause, not establishment clause. My mistake. - 21/10/2010 05:07:18 PM 367 Views
Sorry, but the Treaty of Tripolis relevant section still seems like commentary. - 21/10/2010 05:18:00 PM 354 Views
This is quickly becoming infuriating. - 22/10/2010 01:41:18 AM 337 Views
No, it's part of the treaty. - 22/10/2010 02:02:42 AM 381 Views
no your mistake was misreading the clause - 21/10/2010 05:48:52 PM 353 Views
Very difficult not to lose my temper here. - 22/10/2010 01:39:21 AM 340 Views
Then you should argue it violate a treaty with a country that no longer exist - 22/10/2010 02:03:32 PM 347 Views
Noticed that, too, did you? - 22/10/2010 08:40:09 PM 469 Views
She's so... bewildered! - 20/10/2010 06:40:04 PM 363 Views
that is what I think when I read a lot of the responses here - 20/10/2010 07:44:40 PM 343 Views
Because the logical conclusion is obvious. - 21/10/2010 03:08:39 AM 352 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 350 Views
Nonsense. The nature of the nation was already changing in the first generation. - 22/10/2010 12:35:26 AM 455 Views
but it is an impulse that should be limited - 22/10/2010 06:05:10 PM 344 Views
For those who think O'Donnell is correct, even on a technicality: - 20/10/2010 10:49:40 PM 410 Views
exactly - 21/10/2010 03:26:00 AM 403 Views
She started out alright - 21/10/2010 02:32:01 PM 345 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 512 Views
Lol. Bush-League. - 21/10/2010 04:39:43 PM 323 Views
at leas thten the haters were hating someone who mattered *NM* - 21/10/2010 05:50:03 PM 163 Views

Reply to Message