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

[hazlnut]

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

Hint: It comes early in the Bill of Rights.

 

[Ajay]

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"

really? When does your friend NOT study the Constitution -- in his work or in his schooling?

I guess most everyone has assumed the discussion is about Constitutional law. It seems like I smell red herrings circling when I sniff the posts mentioning how law students and now practicing lawyers(?) don't read or study the Constitution.

I do not know how people here expect to be taken seriously when discussing a discussion on the first amendment, and then try to argue that no one actually reads the Constitution when debating or learning the law.

 

[Ajay]

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

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.

Original intent? The framers themselves, and especially Madison and Hamilton disagreed over what was intended. That is fact. There are arguments over whether it is the understanding or intents of the framers or the meanings and understandings of the intent that the ratifiers had, that supports an original intent argument. After all, most all statements about original intent are just arguments.

 

[disneydude]

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

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.

That's ridiculous. Anyone who has been to law school can tell you that this is absolute BS. True...there are many courses in law school that don't involve the Constitution, such as Torts, Property, Wills/Trusts, Corporate law, Commercial law. However, the core of law school and required courses involve at a minimum 1 year of Constitutional law and many student take additional courses in First Amendment, Criminal Procedure and other courses.

 

[Psychoclown]

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

As long as she isn't a Rino, they don't seem to care about anything else.

I think that really was a big part of her election. A lot of Republicans and former Republicans have grown tired of the RINOs. We had a Republican President who ran on "a humble foreign policy" and who rejected nation building, but went on to embark on the two biggest nation building adventures this country has ever seen. That same president who was supposedly a fiscal conservative oversaw the largest expansion of federal spending ever, which came from a Republican congress. Then we saw Bush try to push his solution to illegal immigration, which was basically amnesty part II. Bush was the biggest RINO ever. And McCain would've been Bush the Sequal if he had been elected.

O'Donnell is a bit of a loon and she'll probably lose. I'm 100% OK with that, if her nomination helps send a message to the GOP that they need to start acting like conservatives and not the Democrat-lite Party.

 

[Slartibartfast]

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

I think that really was a big part of her election. A lot of Republicans and former Republicans have grown tired of the RINOs. We had a Republican President who ran on "a humble foreign policy" and who rejected nation building, but went on to embark on the two biggest nation building adventures this country has ever seen. That same president who was supposedly a fiscal conservative oversaw the largest expansion of federal spending ever, which came from a Republican congress. Then we saw Bush try to push his solution to illegal immigration, which was basically amnesty part II. Bush was the biggest RINO ever. And McCain would've been Bush the Sequal if he had been elected.

O'Donnell is a bit of a loon and she'll probably lose. I'm 100% OK with that, if her nomination helps send a message to the GOP that they need to start acting like conservatives and not the Democrat-lite Party.

Thats what I figured the perspective was. One thing concerns me though. You got people like O'Donnell, Palin, Bauchmann, and Angle. All seem a few cards short of a deck, yet they will go for the conservative orthodoxy. Why does it seem to work out that they can't get normal, sane, and intelligent people elected who will do the same thing? Is my guess true in that there is a need to find someone who will not reconsider their opinions, no matter what the situation, and these are the only types of people who are like that?

 

[Ockham]

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

Original intent? The framers themselves, and especially Madison and Hamilton disagreed over what was intended. That is fact. There are arguments over whether it is the understanding or intents of the framers or the meanings and understandings of the intent that the ratifiers had, that supports an original intent argument. After all, most all statements about original intent are just arguments.

The framers were more than Madison and Hamilton. Another fact is that each state ratified the Constitution - the intent is clear except where those with an agenda to modify the language to their own ideology. The first amendment prevents the creation of a State run religion. Period. You didn't read the Rehnquist link I provided did you...

 

[Ockham]

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

That's ridiculous. Anyone who has been to law school can tell you that this is absolute BS.

Well, since "anyone" includes two friends I've had since highschool who went to Law school and passed the bar, you may need to internalize your search for the BS, because I think it's of your own making.

True...there are many courses in law school that don't involve the Constitution, such as Torts, Property, Wills/Trusts, Corporate law, Commercial law. However, the core of law school and required courses involve at a minimum 1 year of Constitutional law and many student take additional courses in First Amendment, Criminal Procedure and other courses.

And my point was and still is, Constitutional law does not utilize the Constitution but utilizes case law as a resource and research and I'm specifically disputing the claim made by Ajay that law students read the Constitution every day... which you well know also is BS. I called my one friend last night again and asked him to guestimate how many times he actually cracked open a copy of the Constitution in law school. After complaining how long ago that was, he said maybe twice and he could not recall an single clear occurrance. Of course, since then he's read the Constitution many times though his practice deals primarily with divorce and some criminal.

I'm sure we have a few practicing lawyers or legal students here on DP - why don't we ask them to weigh in? If you've got some empirical evidence that identifies required Constitution reading by law students in ANY college in the U.S. providing a legal degree, I'll certainly consider changing my tune.

 

[hazlnut]

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

Watching the far righties try to defend their idiot teatard candidate gets boring real fast.

Although, we've been hearing how 'capable' Sarah Palin is for 2 years now... Do they like defending these dopes?

 

[Coronado]

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

And my point was and still is, Constitutional law does not utilize the Constitution but utilizes case law as a resource and research and I'm specifically disputing the claim made by Ajay that law students read the Constitution every day... which you well know also is BS.

Con law courses are almost exclusively taught using cases. Actually most law school classes are that way, especially for first-year classes like Con Law. The cases generally cite the relevant portion of the Constitution early on in the opinion.

 

[Guy Incognito]

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

You didn't read the Rehnquist link I provided did you...

You know, you ought to the full text of the case you provided. Rehnquist was a fantastic writer but do remember it was a dissent, meaning its value as law is zero. I mean, he wasn't even joined by any of the other Justices, so it isn't even very persuasive as a dissent. It's really no different that your average post by Rev. Hellhound, it's just one cantankerous old man's opinion.

You should read the whole opinion of that case, and you'll see it's not so much a question of state "separation" from religion or even state "establishment" of religion, but establishment clause analysis is really about whether there was state endorsement of religion.

 

[disneydude]

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

Well, since "anyone" includes two friends I've had since highschool who went to Law school and passed the bar, you may need to internalize your search for the BS, because I think it's of your own making.


And my point was and still is, Constitutional law does not utilize the Constitution but utilizes case law as a resource and research and I'm specifically disputing the claim made by Ajay that law students read the Constitution every day... which you well know also is BS. I called my one friend last night again and asked him to guestimate how many times he actually cracked open a copy of the Constitution in law school. After complaining how long ago that was, he said maybe twice and he could not recall an single clear occurrance. Of course, since then he's read the Constitution many times though his practice deals primarily with divorce and some criminal.

I'm sure we have a few practicing lawyers or legal students here on DP - why don't we ask them to weigh in? If you've got some empirical evidence that identifies required Constitution reading by law students in ANY college in the U.S. providing a legal degree, I'll certainly consider changing my tune.

Case law is what makes up a large amount of the Constitutional jurisprudence in this country. In any event, when you are reading case law, you are also reading specific sections of the US Constitution. Sure, you are not sitting down and reading line by line the Constitution every day, but you ARE reading line by line specific sections of the Constitution every day. I guess its how you "phrased" the question to your two friends. But it is ridiculous to believe that law school students in Con Law 1 and Con law 2, both which are required courses in every legitimate law school in this country aren't reading the Constitution every day.

A good example would be asking a Biblical Scholar "Do you read the Bible everyday"? No....technically they do not read the entire Bible every day....but they probably read certain portions of it every day.

 

[Ajay]

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

The framers were more than Madison and Hamilton. Another fact is that each state ratified the Constitution - the intent is clear except where those with an agenda to modify the language to their own ideology. The first amendment prevents the creation of a State run religion. Period. You didn't read the Rehnquist link I provided did you...

Madison and Hamilton were two of the most central and persuasive characters in getting the new Constitution written and then ratified. Madison left behind some of the most copious notes. Hamilton and Madison of course wrote almost every single bit of the Federalist. Madison later went over to the other side from Hamilton over the direction of the Federal government and it's powers. Just this explanation alone should keep people from imagining they can simply read and the divine any sort of original intent.

The intent is NOT clear and you did not pay attention to what I shared earlier. The intent argument is usually framed with an argument over the intent of the framers or the ratifiers. Madison himself argued well that what the framers intended was not be be adored, that it was the intention and understandings of each state's ratifiers that intent was to be derived from.

If there were a link, I missed it. Happens. R., is an interesting guy, who I do not look to for arguments over the intent. It would be interesting to see what he says though.

 

[Ockham]

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

You know, you ought to the full text of the case you provided. Rehnquist was a fantastic writer but do remember it was a dissent, meaning its value as law is zero. I mean, he wasn't even joined by any of the other Justices, so it isn't even very persuasive as a dissent. It's really no different that your average post by Rev. Hellhound, it's just one cantankerous old man's opinion.

I never claimed his dissent had any legal value other than commenting on the case and it's implications. That said, you seem to want to throw out his dissent because you position it as having no meaning - and that's not the case. Views after judgements are not meant to waste time but to provide an alternate perspective because, court cases are overturned even after they're "settled law". If you'd like to read the full text, you should go to Google and look it up.

You should read the whole opinion of that case, and you'll see it's not so much a question of state "separation" from religion or even state "establishment" of religion, but establishment clause analysis is really about whether there was state endorsement of religion.

Actually have read the entire text before - and since Everson, unfortunately, establishment and separation are often times mixed together which is the exact point: they should not be mixed together as these items are two separate issues. One is in the Constitution (establishment) and one is based on Case law (separation).

 

[Ockham]

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

Madison and Hamilton were two of the most central and persuasive characters in getting the new Constitution written and then ratified. Madison left behind some of the most copious notes. Hamilton and Madison of course wrote almost every single bit of the Federalist. Madison later went over to the other side from Hamilton over the direction of the Federal government and it's powers. Just this explanation alone should keep people from imagining they can simply read and the divine any sort of original intent.

These were supporters of the Constitution - so which of the copious notes in the 85 letters sheds doubt on the language of the 1st amendment?

The intent is NOT clear and you did not pay attention to what I shared earlier.

I paid attention and then rejected your assertion. The language is clear, the meaning is clear. What is it that's confusing you exactly?

The intent argument is usually framed with an argument over the intent of the framers or the ratifiers. Madison himself argued well that what the framers intended was not be be adored, that it was the intention and understandings of each state's ratifiers that intent was to be derived from.

So then which state's ratifications intent identified the mystery of the 1st Amendment?

 

[Ajay]

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

These were supporters of the Constitution - so which of the copious notes in the 85 letters sheds doubt on the language of the 1st amendment?

I paid attention and then rejected your assertion. The language is clear, the meaning is clear. What is it that's confusing you exactly?

So then which state's ratifications intent identified the mystery of the 1st Amendment?

Using your logic it was the framers themselves (not the founders) who were confused, since they did not agree with each other and then eventually themselves. Yep, both Hamilton and Madison (among others) actually tooks sides they at one time argued against. Real life is not so easily divined for intentions.

 

[Ajay]

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

So then which state's ratifications intent identified the mystery of the 1st Amendment?

An amusing lesson for you: John Adams wrote the Massachusetts Constitution. In it's original state (it was later amended) it seemed to support religion being supported by taxes -- public funds. It is generally agreed that the MA Constitution was the model for the US one. So we have Adams as a sort of expert on the meanings and intent of the US Constitution. Yet we have Adams saying in a treaty that the US was NOT founded as a Christian nation.

What is so funny about that?

 

[Ockham]

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

Using your logic it was the framers themselves (not the founders) who were confused, since they did not agree with each other and then eventually themselves. Yep, both Hamilton and Madison (among others) actually tooks sides they at one time argued against. Real life is not so easily divined for intentions.

So let me ask again... which of the Federalist papers sheds doubt on the 1st amendment? Which state's ratifications identify the language was not clear?

You're the one bringing the Federalist papers into the subject ... so now show me where it's written....

 

[Ajay]

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

So let me ask again... which of the Federalist papers sheds doubt on the 1st amendment? Which state's ratifications identify the language was not clear?

You're the one bringing the Federalist papers into the subject ... so now show me where it's written....

I did not reference the Federalist as a source for an argument. I think you need to revisit the conversation.

 

[Ockham]

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

An amusing lesson for you: John Adams wrote the Massachusetts Constitution. In it's original state (it was later amended) it seemed to support religion being supported by taxes -- public funds.

Link / citation?

It is generally agreed that the MA Constitution was the model for the US one.

In its construction only, not in it's content.

So we have Adams as a sort of expert on the meanings and intent of the US Constitution. Yet we have Adams saying in a treaty

What treaty? Link or citation.

that the US was NOT founded as a Christian nation.

Was that before or after 1780's Mass. ratifacation of the State Constitution? And whether or not the US is or is not a Christian nation is irrelevant to the establishment clause. Whether or not the nation was or was not Christian the 1st Amendment prevents the creation of a State religion - note the 1st Amendement doesn't say "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of CHRISTIAN religion".

What is so funny about that?

Who's laughing?

 

[pbrauer]

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

What treaty? Link or citation.

This one: Treaty of Tripoli - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Ockham]

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

I did not reference the Federalist as a source for an argument. I think you need to revisit the conversation.

Here we go... :roll:

Madison and Hamilton were two of the most central:neutral: and persuasive characters in getting the new Constitution written and then ratified. Madison left behind some of the most copious notes. Hamilton and Madison of course wrote almost every single bit of the Federalist.

:yawn:

 

[Ockham]

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

This one: Treaty of Tripoli - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thank you.

From the link:

According to Frank Lambert, Professor of History at Purdue University, the assurances in Article 11 were "intended to allay the fears of the Muslim state by insisting that religion would not govern how the treaty was interpreted and enforced. John Adams and the Senate made clear that the pact was between two sovereign states, not between two religious powers."[19] Article 11 has also been cited by 21st-century church/state separatists as one of several documents — including the Federalist Papers and the Declaration of Independence — that demonstrated, according to author Brooke Allen, that the Founding Fathers "... were not religious men".[20]

So it sounds as though the original intent was to "allay the fears of a Muslim state" whereas the non-religious types are using it as proof the founders were not religious men. And it sounds as though Ajay is using it in the same way - in fact - it nails Ajay's position on the matter perfectly.

 

[The Giant Noodle]

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

This chick is Sarah Palin 2.0

 

[Jetboogieman]

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

This chick is Sarah Palin 2.0

Nah.

Difference is I wouldn't do Christine...