Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
O'Donnell got her own licks in when she asked Coons about the five freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment. Coons could only name ONE!! That's right. Just ONE! But don't look for any MSM media outlets to tell you about Coons' even more grievous ignorance of the Constitution.
Actually, the constitution says nothing about the "separation" of church and state. It says the Congress "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. It does not say that Congress is forbidden to recognize religion, any religion, only that it cannot regulate any religion by law or establish a state religion. As far as I know, sessions of Congress, as well as many state legislatures, are opened with a prayer. And don't we still have chaplains in both the House and the Senate?
Meaning, the government could not establish a church, as in England with the King. Government had to stay out GOD's business, but nothing is even mentioned about GOD staying out of government's business.
Meaning the government could not restrict ones religion with regulation and laws, of free speech.
Up into the 1970's, GOD was in governments business. Prayer was common in all chambers of legislation Federal, State and local.
They still open the Supreme Court's term with a prayer. The 1st Amendment, like all other amendments in The Bill of Rights, was meant to limit what the central (aka Federal) government could legitimately impose on the several States. Nothing in the 1st Amendment establishes a 'wall of separation.' That was the result of a case before the Supreme Court.
She's right. To anyone here...can you tell me where it says that church and state must be separate?
9 of the original 13 states had official state religions. They didn't think there should be a separation...they just didn't want the feds telling them how to do it.
Exactly!! Also coons couldn't name 5 of our amendment right!! The sad thing is the law students laughed as if she was wrong.
Did the 14th Ammendment nullify any official state religion at the time it was passed?
I don't believe so. I think most state constitutions had establishment clauses by the 1820s.
Here is the synopsis of the history of the Incorporation Doctrine from wikipedia. As always, Wiki is hardly authoritative, but I believe this is correct.
__________________________________________________ _______________
The genesis of incorporation has been traced back to either Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad v. City of Chicago (1897) in which the Supreme Court appeared to require some form of just compensation for property appropriated by state or local authorities (although there was a state statute on the books that provided the same guarantee) or, more commonly, to Gitlow v. New York (1925), in which the Court expressly held that States were bound to observe First Amendment free speech protections. Since that time, the Court has steadily incorporated most of the significant provisions of the Bill of Rights.[1]
Provisions that the Supreme Court either has refused to incorporate, or whose possible incorporation has not yet been addressed include the Fifth Amendment right to an indictment by a grand jury, and the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial in civil lawsuits.
Exactly!! Also coons couldn't name 5 of our amendment right!! The sad thing is the law students laughed as if she was wrong.
Actually, he didn't name the five rights in the 1st Amendment. Because it wasn't a questioned posed by the moderators. I don't know why people are saying he "couldn't" name them. I mean EVERYBODY knows those five rights, don't they?
This debate reminds me of an interview I saw on Fox news between Ted Olsen (conservative laywer - founder of the Federalist Society, worked in the Bush and Reagan administrations) and Chris Wallace about gay marriage.
Olsen argued that denying the legal rights of marriage to homosexuals is unconstitutional. Wallace then asked: "Where is the right to same sex marriage in the Constitution". Olsen responded: "Where is the right to interracial marriage in the Constitution."
My question to the crowd screaming about how there is no church/state separation in the constitution is:
How specific does the language of the Constitution have to be?
Since the constitution does not say: "States shall not make any laws preventing those of different races from marrying", does that mean that any law banning interracial marriage is in fact constitutional?
If Edwards v. Aguillard was some liberal re-writing of the Constitution making up things that aren't there, then wasn't Loving v. Virginia (the case that struck down bans on interracial marriage) also some liberal re-writing of the Constitution making up things that aren't there?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
