Maybe the Tea Party should choose some better candidates...

[T.O.M.]

I like some of what the Tea Party stands for, but someone high up in their food chain really should question how Christine O'Donnel became their star candidate:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101019/ap_on_el_se/us_delaware_senate

Really?  The First Amendment restricts the establishment of religion?  It really does?   

Maybe all candidates should have to pass a basic civics course...

[richyoung]

I like some of what the Tea Party stands for, but someone high up in their food chain really should question how Christine O'Donnel became their star candidate:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101019/ap_on_el_se/us_delaware_senate

Really?  The First Amendment restricts the establishment of religion?  It really does?   

Maybe all candidates should have to pass a basic civics course...

Congress not establishing a religion has nothing to do with whether a local school district teaches creationism or intelligent design - as well as evolution.

[griz]

She is not saying that.  She is questioning if it is even in the constitution:

"Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?" O'Donnell asked him.

When Coons responded that the First Amendment bars Congress from making laws respecting the establishment of religion, O'Donnell asked: "You're telling me that's in the First Amendment?"

[T.O.M.]

And that's why she's not the best choice of candidate for an upstart party.  To be successful, tea Pary candidates need to be better than this...

[dogmush]

I've not been keeping up with Ms. O'Donnel's campaign, but that read to me like she was challenging including the "wall of separation" as part of the First Ammendment.

I'm rusty here, but didn't the whole idea of a "Wall of Seperation betwen Church and State" come from one of Jefferson's later writings? (notes).  By my reading the 1st Ammendment precludes establishing a state religion, and precludes telling folks they can't practice a particular religion.  That's it.  The whole idea that if someone in the government mentions God it's unconstitional came later.

Now, it's possible that she failed to communicate that well, or the news editing was less then flattering, or maybe she's just a moron.  Dunno.  But she's right the phrase "Seperation of church and state" isin't in the B.O.R.  Unless you read it in.

[HankB]

The phrase ". . . separation of church and state . . . " does not appear anywhere in the Constitution.

The 1st Amendment is very specific enjoining Congress from making laws that either establish religion, or prevent its free exercise.

Various courts have invented additional restrictions - allegedly based on the 1st Amendment - that simply aren't there in the plain text.

[sarcasm]It's still disheartening to see that someone who was a bearded Marxist is more of a Constitutional scholar than a former witch.[/sarcasm]

[RevDisk]

Now, it's possible that she failed to communicate that well, or the news editing was ess then flattering, or maybe she's just a moron.  Dunno.  But she's right the phrase "Seperation of church and state" isin't in the B.O.R.  Unless you read it in.

(scratches head)

Maybe I'm missing something.  But from what I understand when I read the Constitution, it's a list of what the government may do.  Anything not specifically included is not supposed to be in the fed's purview.  So...  Unless you can show me the clause in the Constitution that specifically authorizes church and state unification, it is not allowed at a federal level.  State or local, different story.

Or am I missing something that overrides the Constitution that magically grants the feds unlimited rights?  You know, besides politicians themselves.

[T.O.M.]

I'm looking to see if I can find a clip anywhere to see if the quote does the exchange justice, or if she expressed herself poorly.

[T.O.M.]

I just found the clip...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4Dtm91JybQ

Well, no need for us to debate this.  She's just that dumb. 

[lee n. field]

I like some of what the Tea Party stands for, but someone high up in their food chain really should question how Christine O'Donnel became their star candidate:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101019/ap_on_el_se/us_delaware_senate

Really?  The First Amendment restricts the establishment of religion?  It really does?   

Maybe all candidates should have to pass a basic civics course...

Puts her about par with folks that think there's 57 states in the Union, or that 300 million people lose their jobs each month (or whatever absurd figure the Speaker pulled out of the quantum vacuum).

[T.O.M.]

...or that they invented the Internet.   

Good point, Lee.  But I didn't vote for any of them, either.

I just think that if the Tea Party is going to be more than a flash in the pan, or a short segment in a history test book some day, they need candidates who are better than this. 

[dogmush]

I just found the clip...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4Dtm91JybQ

Well, no need for us to debate this.  She's just that dumb. 

Yeah, OK, she's just that dumb.

Rev, You're right, I agree with you that if it's not there, they aren't supposed to have the power.  I was imagining her trying some kind of "Gotcha" with Jefferson's quote.  From context, she's just an idiot.

[grampster]

You've misinterpreted her comment.  First of all she was responding to the idiot Coons who is saying that we need to live under what is claimed to be law today, doesn't matter to him whether those laws are constitutional or not, just that they are conventional wisdom as declared by the SCOTUS.  Some laws are haven't even come under court scrutiny.  Her comment was one of surprise that Coons believes the 1A says what it doesn't.  Did you see her grin after her comment.  She appears to me to be surprised that Coons said what he said, because he's wrong and doesn't know it.  He takes a typical leftist position.  She is incredulous that he could be so stupid.

There is nothing in the C or BofR specifically separating church and state.  It says no establishment of or prohibit the free exercise of religion.

The media is spinning what her reaction was to make her sound dumb, and you are falling for it.

[Perd Hapley]

I like some of what the Tea Party stands for, but someone high up in their food chain really should question how Christine O'Donnel became their star candidate:

Where is the Tea Party food chain, and when did the Tea Party start picking star candidates?

The Tea Party is a grass roots movement. I wish it were running the Republican Party, and deciding who runs for office, but it is not.

[longeyes]

We live in a time where we're being asked to choose, all too often, between candidates who don't understand the Constitution and those who don't respect it.

[ronnyreagan]

I was imagining her trying some kind of "Gotcha" with Jefferson's quote.

I still think that's what she was aiming for, she just did a really terrible job at it. However, shortly after that she admitted that she didn't know what the 14th and 16th Amendments are either. This was after she made a point about Coons failing to learn constitutional law at Yale. 

[TommyGunn]

...or that they invented the Internet.   

Good point, Lee.  But I didn't vote for any of them, either.

I just think that if the Tea Party is going to be more than a flash in the pan, or a short segment in a history test book some day, they need candidates who are better than this. 

Well, first, Ms. O'Donnel isn't a "tea party candidate," she's a republican.  There is no "tea party" per se, it's a political movement, not a party such as the Republican or Democrats.  She may have been endorsed by the tea party, but that's another matter.
The "separtation of church and state" comes from a letter Jefferson wrote to a church in Danbury, Connecticut circa 1805 or so, IIRC, and is not found (literally) in the Bill of Rights.  However, you will find some people claim it is "interpreted" to be there as a result of judicial decision.  While O'Donnel has closed the gap between her and Coons it seems unlikely she will win.  Delaware is a liberal state and it seems to me the good money is on Coons .... despite his .....background. 

[Perd Hapley]

We live in a time where we're being asked to choose, all too often, between candidates who don't understand the Constitution and those who don't respect it.

Or a reasonable, progressive, pro-liberty candidate who is not terribly well-polished, and a candidate who will gladly participate in the destruction of the greatest nation in the history of Earth.

[Monkeyleg]

The article is confusing because: a) O'Donnel is right that the phrase doesn't appear in the First Amendment and; b) the audience reaction as described leads me as the reader to believe that she doesn't believe the First Amendment prohibits a connection between church and state.

Either she articulated her point wrong, or the article interpreted her point wrong. I'd have to find the video.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

on the same note as the op
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2013196820_politics19.html?prmid=obinsource

[MechAg94]

on the same note as the op
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2013196820_politics19.html?prmid=obinsource

That is almost funny.  It really wasn't that bad of a statement.  IMO, it would be the same as if someone said I looked French.  I might not like it, but hardly anything to get in an uproar over.

[MechAg94]

Or a reasonable, progressive, pro-liberty candidate who is not terribly well-polished, and a candidate who will gladly participate in the destruction of the greatest nation in the history of Earth.

I think "well-polished" is a good description.  People want their Ivy League educated fast talking con man, but they want one that is honest and out for their interests.  If people really want a Congress that better reflects normal people, they need to remember that "normal people" are not perfect and don't always say the right thing or answer every question perfectly.  Of course, most all of our current politicians aren't perfect either, they just get more favorable media coverage. 

They also probably can't recite from memory the entire Constitution and all the Amendments.  I bet if you asked our current Congressmen to test on the Constitution you would find most of them lacking.  

[Scout26]

I'd say she's more then well suited to take Joe "Gaffe-o-Matic" Biden's seat.

She said the right (correct, accurate) thing, the wrong way.   That, to me, beats saying the wrong thing and meaning it.   

[MicroBalrog]

Or a reasonable, progressive, pro-liberty candidate who is not terribly well-polished, and a candidate who will gladly participate in the destruction of the greatest nation in the history of Earth.

What's 'pro-liberty' about O'Donnell? What's anti-liberty about O'Donnell?

What specific policies she endorse? ('I support 2nd Amendment' or 'I love families' are not policies).

[Perd Hapley]

I had in mind the "Tea Party" Republicans in general, but here you go.

http://christine2010.com/issues

Why do you keep asking that question? Your Google broke?