Christine O'Donnell: Constitutional Moron

[Jagger69]

This is unbelievable:



How scary is it that this nominee for the United States Senate doesn't even know what is contained in the first amendment of the US constitution??? Something any 7th grader should know??? And she wants to go to Washington to help guide the legislative future of this nation?? :eek:

Wow....folks, we're in some really deep shit if we start electing morons like this to Congress. It's bad enough with the educated idiots we have in there now! :shocked:

 

[Neutron66]

It makes me like Megan McCain all the more for calling this bimbo out.

 

[Spleen]

That's in the FIRST amendment?

The first?

Wait, you said the FIRST one... Right?


Jesus Christ, how fucking embarrassing.

 

[Supafly]

Oh my good God, this is so wrong.

Will she really be voted into power? Is there no stopping her?

 

[Friday on my mind]

She is a blithering idiot.The dems are so lucky they put her up as the pubs had a real chance in taking the seat if they had put someone halfway decent up.She is a gift to the dems.:elaugh:


No wonder she is down by more than 20 points in the polls,the people of Delaware are not that crazy to elect her.

 

[xfire]

That's the average mentality of the typical teabagger republican; no clue and no desire to get one.

 

[MrZiggles]

O'Donnell is correct. The Constitution does not mention separation of church and state. What the first amendment does say is that the government can not establish an official state religion, as England did.

 

[emceeemcee]

upholding the constitution upon gaining public office doesn't seem to be much of a requirement these days in the US, so does it really matter if a candidate is ignorant of it?

p.s burn the witch

 

[Neutron66]

The Constitution does not mention separation of church and state.

Yes and no. It doesn't use those specific words, no. We get the phrase from a letter written by Jefferson in which he explains that the purpose of the First Amendment is to provide for the seperation of church and state.

So while the words themselves aren't in the Constitution, the intent most surely is.

 

[Hot Mega]

O'Donnell is correct. The Constitution does not mention separation of church and state. What the first amendment does say is that the government can not establish an official state religion, as England did.

This argument has been made time and time again but how do you have what you say without the other??

In other words, assuming what you say is the case. How can you have a joining (opposite of separation) of the church and state without the g'ment establishing some official religion?

It's clear to me without hashing out the semantics of the text the intent was to keep church business from state business and vice-versa.

 

[xfire]

Idiots that espouse O'Donnell's views assume that Muslims, Buddhists, Pagans, Satanists, Atheists, etc. will never be in a position to bastardize the first amendment the way she and her cadre of morons wish to subvert the constitution. The First Amendment gurantees religious freedom for all citizens, not just fucking christfags.

 

[emceeemcee]

christfags.

:1orglaugh

 

[Friday on my mind]

Idiots that espouse O'Donnell's views assume that Muslims, Buddhists, Pagans, Satanists, Atheists, etc. will never be in a position to bastardize the first amendment the way she and her cadre of morons wish to subvert the constitution. The First Amendment gurantees religious freedom for all citizens, not just fucking christfags.

Right on,I have often said that as an atheist if we ever got to be the majority I would not just want for example the words "under god" removed from the pledge but for it to say "under no god" which would be shoving our POV down their throats just like they have done to us.

 

[LukeEl]

Beware her spectral powers are very strong this time of month!

 

[Straight Shooter]

I like how at the end she acts so smug, she looks at him like he's the idiot lol

 

[Jagger69]

O'Donnell is correct. The Constitution does not mention separation of church and state. What the first amendment does say is that the government can not establish an official state religion, as England did.

The concept of separation of church and state has already been interpreted by the SCOTUS to be a part of the first amendment on a number of occasions. Here are just a few decisions that establish this precedent:

http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/epperson.html

The First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion.

http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1962/1962_142

The required activities encroached on both the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment

In fact, here is the very decision that directly addresses Ms. O'Donnell's contention that public schools should be allowed to teach "intelligent design" aka creationism:

http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1986/1986_85_1513

Facts of the Case:

A Louisiana law entitled the "Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science in Public School Instruction Act" prohibited the teaching of the theory of evolution in the public schools unless that instruction was accompanied by the teaching of creation science, a Biblical belief that advanced forms of life appeared abruptly on Earth. Schools were not forced to teach creation science. However, if either topic was to be addressed, evolution or creation, teachers were obligated to discuss the other as well.

Question:

Did the Louisiana law, which mandated the teaching of "creation science" along with the theory of evolution, violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment?

Conclusion:

Yes. The Court held that the law violated the Constitution. Using the three-pronged test that the Court had developed in Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) to evaluate potential violations of the Establishment Clause, Justice Brennan argued that Louisiana's law failed on all three prongs of the test. First, it was not enacted to further a clear secular purpose. Second, the primary effect of the law was to advance the viewpoint that a "supernatural being created humankind," a doctrine central to the dogmas of certain religious denominations. Third, the law significantly entangled the interests of church and state by seeking "the symbolic and financial support of government to achieve a religious purpose."

Anyone with more than casual knowledge of constitutional law would be patently aware of these precedents. The fact that O'Donnell is completely oblivious to them graphically illustrates her lack of qualification to be a member of the U.S. Senate. Republican, democrat, tea-party....I don't give a fuck. Someone like her has no business representing a constituency. She is a total embarrassment. If she didn't represent such a serious threat to the basic tenets upon which this nation was founded, I'd actually feel sorry for her. I hope she is defeated in dramatic and resounding fashion.

 

[Ace Bandage]

That was a train wreck. Not only had she never heard the phrase "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," but she refuses to acknowledge that it can be found in the First Amendment. Yes, you dumbass, that is written in the Constitution. That would explain why everyone laughed when you questioned it.

What? Are you some damned moron?

 

[D-rock]

O'Donnell is correct. The Constitution does not mention separation of church and state. What the first amendment does say is that the government can not establish an official state religion, as England did.

It's impossible in reality to have freedom of religion without freedom from religion.

 

[titsrock]

If the Gov't can not establish a religion and can not promote one over another, that sorta sounds like separation of church and state to me.

Of course, Dubya started wiping that away when he allowed "faith based" organizations to compete for gov't money. That's another previous administration mistake which Obama needs to correct.

If people want Christianity to be more prevalent in Gov't and/or society, than I say, send in the IRS and let's tax ALL RELIGIONS :thumbsup:

We need to revenue.

 

[shayd]

O'Donnell is correct. The Constitution does not mention separation of church and state. What the first amendment does say is that the government can not establish an official state religion, as England did.

:surprise:

Uh,

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

Unless you're specifically looking for the phrase, "separation of church and state", it unequivocally does. Not only does the Amendment call for it, the Supreme Court has historically ruled this to be the case as well. I honestly had no idea who the fuck she was until yesterday morning, but now, suffice it to say, we can all conclude she's a fucking idiot. Not that it matters, she's running in a state where she's going to be absolutely slaughtered by her Democratic opponent.



More to point, I honestly spent about a half an hour crying laughing at this bimbo, then realized how sad it is that she's gotten to where she is.