Nonsense. The nature of the nation was already changing in the first generation.
everynametaken Send a noteboard - 22/10/2010 12:35:26 AM
Sorry but it isn't the spirit of the clause. Nice legal word but it doesn't really fit here. The clause means what it says. This is only fuzzy because long after the people who wrote were dead some judges decided to make it mean something new.
The Supreme Court was already challenging law and interpreting the Constitution rather than taking every single words as absolute within twenty years of its ratification.
But wine was the great assassin of both tradition and propriety...
-Brandon Sanderson, The Way of Kings
-Brandon Sanderson, The Way of Kings
"Where in the Constitution is separation of church and state?"
- 20/10/2010 12:33:05 AM
987 Views
You don't want her?
- 20/10/2010 01:21:20 AM
544 Views
I have decided for the first time in my life to not vote this year.
- 20/10/2010 01:27:13 AM
414 Views
Now there's an answer 
- 20/10/2010 01:47:28 AM
509 Views
- 20/10/2010 01:47:28 AM
509 Views
And most of those posts are a guess at best.
- 20/10/2010 03:02:04 AM
389 Views
Local bonds/ballot initiatives? Want the only major road within 10 miles of your house tolled?
- 21/10/2010 01:50:41 PM
425 Views
Can you not spoil your ballot?
- 20/10/2010 10:19:54 AM
369 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
When you don't vote the bad guys win. That simple.
- 20/10/2010 01:53:23 PM
511 Views
The bad guys? That implies that there are some "good" guys somewhere in politics.
- 20/10/2010 05:43:06 PM
363 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
360 Views
Re: I have decided for the first time in my life to not vote this year.
- 20/10/2010 02:54:04 PM
498 Views
She is a buffoon of course. But what I am speechless about is...
- 20/10/2010 01:25:43 AM
483 Views
Re: She is a buffoon of course. But what I am speechless about is...
- 20/10/2010 01:35:48 AM
411 Views
i feel kinda bad for her
- 20/10/2010 03:31:03 AM
460 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
She's right.
- 20/10/2010 12:27:55 PM
507 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
387 Views
Re: Jesus Christ
- 20/10/2010 03:36:48 PM
356 Views
Re: Jesus Christ
- 20/10/2010 03:53:46 PM
361 Views
Re: Jesus Christ
- 20/10/2010 04:01:49 PM
444 Views
Because she knew her audience, she expected them to know better, not be deliberately obtuse.
- 21/10/2010 02:31:19 PM
403 Views
Re: Because she knew her audience, she expected them to know better, not be deliberately obtuse.
- 21/10/2010 02:40:23 PM
459 Views
If the subsequent rulings aren't Constitutional they don't matter.
- 21/10/2010 03:03:11 PM
397 Views
Re: If the subsequent rulings aren't Constitutional they don't matter.
- 21/10/2010 03:57:45 PM
450 Views
She focused on the First Amendments text, and ignored the rest as commentary.
- 21/10/2010 04:49:22 PM
469 Views
Ok.
- 21/10/2010 05:01:22 PM
361 Views
I certainly don't think she deserves the scorn being heaped on her this time.
- 21/10/2010 05:14:03 PM
397 Views
See Dreaded Anomaly's reply below.
- 21/10/2010 03:03:02 PM
425 Views
Done.
- 21/10/2010 04:50:52 PM
362 Views
The last statement is the only relevant one, and still a bit ambiguous.
- 20/10/2010 03:51:35 PM
391 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
161 Views
Separation of church and state is not in the Constitution, so she's right.
- 21/10/2010 03:41:27 PM
332 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
368 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
364 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
366 Views
Sorry, but the Treaty of Tripolis relevant section still seems like commentary.
- 21/10/2010 05:18:00 PM
352 Views
This is quickly becoming infuriating.
- 22/10/2010 01:41:18 AM
336 Views
No, it's part of the treaty.
- 22/10/2010 02:02:42 AM
379 Views
Take it up with the Supremacy Clause. 
*NM*
- 22/10/2010 02:12:11 AM
162 Views
*NM*
- 22/10/2010 02:12:11 AM
162 Views
So from 1797 we've been at "perpetual peace" with Libya?
- 22/10/2010 02:25:44 AM
334 Views
Fair enough as regards the treaty being broken.
- 22/10/2010 02:38:37 AM
360 Views
Seems to apply to the Tenth Amendment only, not the Constitution as a whole.
- 22/10/2010 02:56:27 AM
435 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
350 Views
Even if we take that at face value, a law can still be unconstitutional.
- 22/10/2010 03:19:07 AM
378 Views
it was a poor decision anyway since Amendments should be seen to modify the original
- 22/10/2010 02:11:22 PM
339 Views
no your mistake was misreading the clause
- 21/10/2010 05:48:52 PM
352 Views
Very difficult not to lose my temper here.
- 22/10/2010 01:39:21 AM
338 Views
Then you should argue it violate a treaty with a country that no longer exist
- 22/10/2010 02:03:32 PM
346 Views
She's so... bewildered!
- 20/10/2010 06:40:04 PM
361 Views
that is what I think when I read a lot of the responses here
- 20/10/2010 07:44:40 PM
342 Views
She was still confused when he clarified what he meant, is what's funny *NM*
- 20/10/2010 08:56:56 PM
151 Views
Because the logical conclusion is obvious.
- 21/10/2010 03:08:39 AM
350 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
348 Views
Nonsense. The nature of the nation was already changing in the first generation.
- 22/10/2010 12:35:26 AM
454 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
359 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
145 Views
For those who think O'Donnell is correct, even on a technicality:
- 20/10/2010 10:49:40 PM
409 Views
She reiterates her question about "separation of church and state" and he repeatedly dodges.
- 21/10/2010 03:19:56 PM
364 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
510 Views
Heh...reminds me of Obama claiming to have visited all fifty seven states.
- 22/10/2010 12:44:58 AM
477 Views
My favorite bit is how people are attacking the judicary because they disagree with rulings.
- 21/10/2010 05:12:01 PM
362 Views
so you believe we all should just accept what the courts say without question?
- 21/10/2010 05:54:42 PM
375 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
163 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
444 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
153 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
143 Views
Come, my brethren! All Hallows Eve approachs, and we have much to do!
- 22/10/2010 05:34:01 PM
345 Views