Christine O'Donnell: "Where in the Constitution is the Separation of Church and State

[ReverendHellh0und]

Re: Christine O'Donnell: "Where in the Constitution is the Separation of Church and S

A gaffe and ignorance are two totally separate things. It's like the difference between a fat-fingering typpo and a misspelting.

so his not knowing that answer is somehow not ignorance?

 

[Ajay]

Re: Christine O'Donnell: "Where in the Constitution is the Separation of Church and S

so his not knowing that answer is somehow not ignorance?

Now, what gaffe are you speaking about?

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Re: Christine O'Donnell: "Where in the Constitution is the Separation of Church and S

Now, what gaffe are you speaking about?

This is only a two page thread. check the 1st page and get back to me.

 

[Ajay]

Re: Christine O'Donnell: "Where in the Constitution is the Separation of Church and S

This is only a two page thread. check the 1st page and get back to me.

not 2 pages on my end. LOL sorry, but your suppositions are too funny.

One fact, it is a 53 (now 5) post thread.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Re: Christine O'Donnell: "Where in the Constitution is the Separation of Church and S

not 2 pages on my end. LOL sorry, but your suppositions are too funny.

One fact, it is a 53 (now 5) post thread.

Post #15.


:failpail:

 

[Ajay]

Re: Christine O'Donnell: "Where in the Constitution is the Separation of Church and S

Coon gaffed right after her.

saying things does not make them so. If Coons gaffed in some way you must list the way(s).

 

[Mustachio]

Re: Christine O'Donnell: "Where in the Constitution is the Separation of Church and S

This is ridiculous. Nobody was stumped on anything. For Coons, there was no "gaffe." He didn't answer her question and he didn't have to. She could have asked him what his wife's favorite flavor of ice cream was and just because he didn't tell her didn't mean that he doesn't know.

And if you watch/listen to the debate, it's clear that neither of them are constitutional experts and the topic at hand of whether or not the candidates appeared to be ignorant of certain portions of the constitution takes away from the discussion about what they actually said.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Re: Christine O'Donnell: "Where in the Constitution is the Separation of Church and S

saying things does not make them so. If Coons gaffed in some way you must list the way(s).

POST #15


:failpail:

You are going to need a bigger bucket.

 

[Ajay]

Re: Christine O'Donnell: "Where in the Constitution is the Separation of Church and S

Who you calling a mouth foamer. The gaffe is right there for all to see and only one of you even has acknowledged it. Again, I am not a fan of O'donnell but the partisan hackery of the usual suspects seems even more rabid if at all possible.

A gaffe, a faux pas? where? What you list hardly meets teh standards for a gaffe. Not being able at the moment to recite the whole amendment word for word is not tantamount to a gaffe.

You must stick to text book definitions if you want to credibly argue a point.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Re: Christine O'Donnell: "Where in the Constitution is the Separation of Church and S

A gaffe, a faux pas? where? What you list hardly meets teh standards for a gaffe. Not being able at the moment to recite the whole amendment word for word is not tantamount to a gaffe.

You must stick to text book definitions if you want to credibly argue a point.

yeah, I'm done with this guy. :lamo

 

[Ajay]

Re: Christine O'Donnell: "Where in the Constitution is the Separation of Church and S

POST #15


:failpail:

You are going to need a bigger bucket.

your childish attempt with silly things like 'fail' to portray something is ridiculous. When I posted your post had not been seen. The time difference (one minute) could be seconds. My broswer may have been slow? You again try to portray things in ways that are not true because of false assumptions.

please try to be less juvenile and sophomoric? the whole 'fail' thing is cartoonish and serves as a mirror, not the attack you assume.

back on topic: there is no Gaffe on Coons' part.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Re: Christine O'Donnell: "Where in the Constitution is the Separation of Church and S

your childish attempt with silly things like 'fail' to portray something is ridiculous. When I posted your post had not been seen. The time difference (one minute) could be seconds. My broswer may have been slow? You again try to portray things in ways that are not true because of false assumptions.

please try to be less juvenile and sophomoric? the whole 'fail' thing is cartoonish and serves as a mirror, not the attack you assume.

This is the second time I posted the link. After you failed to find it on your own. :shrug:

back on topic: there is no Gaffe on Coons' part.

And here is where you demonstrate your hypocrisy. Like I said. I'm done with you. :lol:

 

[Ajay]

Re: Christine O'Donnell: "Where in the Constitution is the Separation of Church and S

This is the second time I posted the link. After you failed to find it on your own. :shrug:



And here is where you demonstrate your hypocrisy. Like I said. I'm done with you. :lol:

Spoken like an impish child.

ignore the definition of 'gaffe' and feign ignorance of the standards a cooment would have to meet to qualify as a gaffe.

Hypocrisy? yet another word you are ill equipped to use properly?

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Re: Christine O'Donnell: "Where in the Constitution is the Separation of Church and S

Like I stated earlier, they both seem like idiots to me. To pick one that is and one that isn't reeks of hyperpartisanism.

 

[Ajay]

Re: Christine O'Donnell: "Where in the Constitution is the Separation of Church and S

Like I stated earlier, they both seem like idiots to me. To pick one that is and one that isn't reeks of hyperpartisanism.

COD, is in a league of her own. One would seem to be deaf, dumb, blind and a recent recipient of electro-shock therapy to publicly compare COD and Coons in this way. That or engaging in deception and deceit.

 

[Ockham]

Re: Christine O'Donnell: "Where in the Constitution is the Separation of Church and S

The audience was made up of people who deal with the text every day. The assumption is that they and not COD knows what is in the 1st.

First, that's an assumption on your part and a bad one at that. Most legal students do not read the Constituion every day - they read and research case law. No where near the same thing.

You are reinterpreting her words.

I'm actually not reading her words at all, I'm reading Coons words --- he's incorrect.

On COD's part it may have started out as a silly gotcha type 'those words aren't in the Constitution' but it evolved where she got lost. She obviously was not prepared to debate facts outside of talking points and silly bumper sticker phrases.

And the same can be said of Coons since he tried and failed. Once the partisan nonsense is pulled out of this and your silly accusations about bumper sticker knowledge is ignored (easily done I might add), it comes down to the one question: Does the 1st Amendment include a separation of church and state? The answer is: No it does not.

Only one candidate knew that fact, and it wasn't Coons. Game over.

 

[Ajay]

Re: Christine O'Donnell: "Where in the Constitution is the Separation of Church and S

(1) First, that's an assumption on your part and a bad one at that. Most legal students do not read the Constituion every day - they read and research case law. No where near the same thing.

(2) I'm actually not reading her words at all, I'm reading Coons words --- he's incorrect.

(3) And the same can be said of Coons since he tried and failed. Once the partisan nonsense is pulled out of this and your silly accusations about bumper sticker knowledge is ignored (easily done I might add), it comes down to the one question: Does the 1st Amendment include a separation of church and state? The answer is: No it does not.

(4) Only one candidate knew that fact, and it wasn't Coons. Game over.

1. The assumption that legal students could and would more easily than a person like COD, be able to recite the 1st amendment, is a logical one. Stating legal students do not read the Constitution every day is an opinion/assumption too.

2. We were discussing "Her loss of words was due to her opponent Coons stating something was there that was not." and "You are reinterpreting her words." I asked you to "Read the transcript." and then posted:

O'Donnell: "You're telling me that separation of church and state is found in the first amendment?"

Coons: "Government shall make no establishment of religion."

O'Donnell: "That's in the first amendment?"

3. What exactly did Coons try and fail at? The 1st amendment most certainly does imply a separation of Church and State. The words are not used, but the framers were not ever in support for a State church. Early state constitutions did support spending tax dollars on churches. That is totally separate and by the time the Federal constitution was being drafted, many of the people of the states were willing to support state finances for churches.

All the separation of church and state means is that the state cannot establish a religion -- meaning a church, as in the Church of England.

Coons never said the 1st amendment contained the words COD was stuck on. Coons was talking about a principle. and there is where most Tea Party and other self-taught experts on the Constitution fall down.

---

We could argue about original intent if you cared to, but I think you would be lost. Discussing the "Meaning, Intention, Understanding..." - (Jack Rakove), that would go into arguing original intent, is obviously beyond the bumper sticker mindset you have engaged in so far. You could prove me wrong here, but the fastest horse to bet on is that you won't, because you can't.

 

[Ockham]

Re: Christine O'Donnell: "Where in the Constitution is the Separation of Church and S

1. The assumption that legal students could and would more easily than a person like COD, be able to recite the 1st amendment, is a logical one. Stating legal students do not read the Constitution every day is an opinion/assumption too.

You're claiming they read the Constitution every day. Please provide a citation or evidence.

According to my own experience having a few friends who have been through law school - their focus is on research, legal briefs and study -- that study is on case law, not the Constitution unless the class is specifically about the Constitution or Constitutional law. Even then, when it's about Constitutional Law - they're not reading the Constitution, their reading court briefs or past cases concerning Constitutional issues.

2. We were discussing "Her loss of words was due to her opponent Coons stating something was there that was not." and "You are reinterpreting her words." I asked you to "Read the transcript."

I thought I was clear - but perhaps I need to take it down a few notches and explain again.

I did not consider O'Donnell's words, I'm focusing on Coons claim that separation of church and state are included in the 1st Amendment. You posed a version of the debate transcript segment which is nicely shortened. How about we read the entire exchange shall we?

O'DONNELL: Where in the Constitution is separation of church and state?

COONS: It's in --

AUDIENCE: (laughter)

COONS: Excellent point. ...

AUDIENCE: (laughter)

COONS: Hold on. The First Amendment establishes the separation, the fact that the federal government shall not establish any religion?

Wrong. The 1st Amendment does NOT establish a separation - it prevents the Federal Government from creating a Theocracy or involving government in religion. The separation was not seen until 1947, Everson vs. Board of Education.


Now let's continue with the segment of the transcript your focusing on:

O'DONNELL: "You're telling me that separation of church and state is found in the first amendment?"

COONS: "Government shall make no establishment of religion."

Also wrong... the establishment of religion is NOT the same as a separation of church and state.

3. What exactly did Coons try and fail at? The 1st amendment most certainly does imply a separation of Church and State.

It does not identify the any separation but prevents the creation of ... (see my words above). Separation was not identified until 1947 and it was never added to the Constitution, but it's a matter of Case Law.

All the separation of church and state means is that the state cannot establish a religion -- meaning a church, as in the Church of England.

Partially correct - but separation of church and state does not mean the state cannot establish a religion - that was already covered in the 1st Amendment. In fact, Everson which is used as the law identifying a separation of church and state had nothing to do with the establishment clause. The suit was brought against the school board because of NJ law allowed reimbursement of funds for bussing public school children and applied it to Catholic school children. Go read it some time.

Coons never said the 1st amendment contained the words COD was stuck on.

Wrong.

COONS: Hold on. The First Amendment establishes the separation, the fact that the federal government shall not establish any religion

We could argue about original intent if you cared to, but I think you would be lost.

No need - all I have to do is keep quoting Coons who was clearly wrong.

You could prove me wrong here, but the fastest horse to bet on is that you won't, because you can't.

There are many smarter people than I am who already have proven you wrong.

For example, Rehnquist's view in Jaffree

Rehnquist's Dissent in Wallace v Jaffree (1985)


And let's also be clear --- because Everson has been in place since 1947 and is "settled law", so was Dread Scott until it took a Civil War to over turn it. There's no such thing as settled law.

 

[Ajay]

Re: Christine O'Donnell: "Where in the Constitution is the Separation of Church and S

what a waste.

 

[Ockham]

Re: Christine O'Donnell: "Where in the Constitution is the Separation of Church and S

what a waste.

Of time trying to educate you? Agreed.

 

[cpwill]

Re: Christine O'Donnell: "Where in the Constitution is the Separation of Church and S

She knew this thing... and the rest of the room didn't. :shrug:

tha's the scary bit; they were debating at a law school.

 

[cpwill]

Re: Christine O'Donnell: "Where in the Constitution is the Separation of Church and S

You're claiming they read the Constitution every day. Please provide a citation or evidence.

i was writing a brief on Marbury v Madison recently, and actually called a friend of mine who graduated from Law School about two years ago for some help with how Judicial Review has developed; his answer: "We don't really actually study the Constitution that much; there's no money in it"

 

[Ockham]

Re: Christine O'Donnell: "Where in the Constitution is the Separation of Church and S

i was writing a brief on Marbury v Madison recently, and actually called a friend of mine who graduated from Law School about two years ago for some help with how Judicial Review has developed; his answer: "We don't really actually study the Constitution that much; there's no money in it"

That's what I've understood as well.

 

[Ockham]

Re: Christine O'Donnell: "Where in the Constitution is the Separation of Church and S

tha's the scary bit; they were debating at a law school.

I can't really blame the students - they're following structure at the school. But many times I've heard that law stresses case law too much and original intent and the Constitution are left by the wayside. When that happens we forget over time, what the original intent was --- which is dangerous IMO.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Re: Christine O'Donnell: "Where in the Constitution is the Separation of Church and S

Moderator's Warning:

The personal attacks and baiting need to stop now. :kitty: