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.
But it takes a scholar to study the Constitution and come up with:
[paraphrased]
'...that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you,...'
True, true because that only applies to the Bill of Rights so it would indeed take a Constitutional scholar to come up with that before unheard of view of the Constitution.
But it takes a scholar to study the Constitution and come up with:
[paraphrased]
'...that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you,...'
Wait what constitution is that? The US constitution is mostly about what the government CAN do with the assumption that they cannot go beyond that scope.
The privileges and immunities clause of the 14th amendment along with the due process clause, which is actually much more important, expanded the bill of rights to the governments of individual states as well as the federal government more, or less.
She asks him to name the freedoms in the 1st amendment around 2:50, and he declines to, stating he wishes to have the panel ask the questions, instead of getting into a tit-for-tat with her over who knows the Constitution better.
She responds "I guess he can't."
She does not then name them.
And in her closing statement, she again brings up Coons' "failure" to know the 1st amendment, and she does not then name them herself.
So where is this separation? The only thing it says is that the federal government shall not establish a religion.
The first amendment says congress cannot respect an establishment of religion, which includes not establishing a religion but is much broader than that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kyt
I want to ask, what does "separation of church and state" mean to you?
To me, it means that the government will not make any laws promoting religion.
Good point. Maybe O'Donnell and her minions in this thread should define "separation of church and state" before saying that the first amendment doesn't grant it.
O'Donnell questions separation of church, state - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101019/ap_on_el_se/us_delaware_senate - broken link)
Wheee! This just gets funnier and funnier... Thank you, Delaware Tea Party voters, for providing us with such quality entertainment!
I'm cool with Obama's folks being voted out and opposing ideas being voted in, but next time...can we at least pick some half-way intelligent people? Is that too much to ask?
After watching it, I was wondering if maybe she did that on purpose to look no too smart. the Republicans are onto this "don't be smart, act dumb" kick which makes them seem like they're "one of the guys that they can have a beer with". George W Bush anyone? If you notice, Coons answered like a brainy know-it-all and may not have seemed as likable to the voting base. Just a thought.
The funnest part of reading this thread is how ignorante most people are to whats in the Constitution and whats not.
Most people have never even read one...sad.
Hate to say it again but O'donnell was 100% correct......read the Constitution people.
But I think even more laughable was the fools in the audience who were giggling at O'Donnell when she was questioning Coons(the real fool and Marxis) about whats in the Constitution.
People, know the difference of whats in the Const. and what some judge "interprets" the meaning of the Const.....2 different things.
The Supreme Court has become the most power entity in this country.....Thats scary!
The funnest part of reading this thread is how ignorante most people are to whats in the Constitution and whats not.
Most people have never even read one...sad.
Hate to say it again but O'donnell was 100% correct......read the Constitution people.
But I think even more laughable was the fools in the audience who were giggling at O'Donnell when she was questioning Coons(the real fool and Marxis) about whats in the Constitution.
People, know the difference of whats in the Const. and what some judge "interprets" the meaning of the Const.....2 different things.
The Supreme Court has become the most power entity in this country.....Thats scary!
Take another look at article 3 sections 2 and 1. If a case of law, or equity arises under the constitution, then in regards to that, case the constitution means what the supreme court says it means. There is no "2 different things" about it.
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.
