O’Donnell Clarifies First Amendment Remarks

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

gilliam

Guest
In an exclusive interview with Battle ’10, Republican senate candidate Christine O’Donnell talked about her remarks made earlier this morning that the words “separation of church and state” are not present in the Constitution.

“It seems the AP and others are twisting it out of context,” O’Donnell said. “What I was trying to prove is that my opponent does not know the First Amendment.”
“What our constitution prevents is … government establishing a religion, but it also says that it won’t prohibit free exercise thereof,” argued O’Donnell.

O’Donnell’s original comment was made to address a question asked in a debate this morning about whether local public schools could teach creationism. Talking to Battle ‘10, O’Donnell said that if the local school board approves, there was nothing unconstitutional about a public school teaching the intelligent design theory.

“He’s [Coons] saying the school board has no right do that, that the First Amendment prevents that,” she said. “My position was that’s not true. It gives them the freedom to teach that if that’s what local schools want.”

nationalreview.com/battle10/250293/exclusive-o-donnell-clarifies-first-amendment-remarks-katrina-trinko
 
gilliam said:
In an exclusive interview with Battle ’10, Republican senate candidate Christine O’Donnell talked about her remarks made earlier this morning that the words “separation of church and state” are not present in the Constitution.

“It seems the AP and others are twisting it out of context,” O’Donnell said. “What I was trying to prove is that my opponent does not know the First Amendment.”
“What our constitution prevents is … government establishing a religion, but it also says that it won’t prohibit free exercise thereof,” argued O’Donnell.

O’Donnell’s original comment was made to address a question asked in a debate this morning about whether local public schools could teach creationism. Talking to Battle ‘10, O’Donnell said that if the local school board approves, there was nothing unconstitutional about a public school teaching the intelligent design theory.

“He’s [Coons] saying the school board has no right do that, that the First Amendment prevents that,” she said. “My position was that’s not true. It gives them the freedom to teach that if that’s what local schools want.”

nationalreview.com/battle10/250293/exclusive-o-donnell-clarifies-first-amendment-remarks-katrina-trinko
Click to expand...
From a pure originalist point of view, she is absolutely correct.
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
From a pure originalist point of view, she is absolutely correct.
Click to expand...
She may be correct on the literal wording of the constitution but I think she may be off as to federal case law and constitutional history.

Why must she clarify at this point? Did someone claim she does not know the Constitution?

He or she must have been an elitist!
 
I just watched the video of this and I swear I could feel brain cells crying out in pain every time she said anything.

She didn’t know plain and simple and now that someone explained it to her after the fact she had to backstep and try to change what she said. No one took anything out of context about that. She also didn’t know what the 14th or 16th amendments were either which have been on the news just about every day lately.

I don’t claim to know every line in the constitution but damnit someone running for U.S. Senate should know this **** and not just make it up as they go along and should be able to go in and intelligently debate their opponent and not just come back with bullet points.
 
j1akey said:
I just watched the video of this and I swear I could feel brain cells crying out in pain every time she said anything.

She didn’t know plain and simple and now that someone explained it to her after the fact she had to backstep and try to change what she said. No one took anything out of context about that. She also didn’t know what the 14th or 16th amendments were either which have been on the news just about every day lately.

I don’t claim to know every line in the constitution but damnit someone running for U.S. Senate should know this **** and not just make it up as they go along and should be able to go in and intelligently debate their opponent and not just come back with bullet points.
Click to expand...
They should also know how to count to 4 without much problem, but Biden’s still VP.
 
I think this is a good recovery, but I am not sure it undoes what was actually said in the debate. She started out by saying that the Constitution does not mandate separation of Church and State. I disagee with that statement, and it is contrary to the current interpretation of the Constituion by the Supreme Court, but there are people that agree with her on that. The problem is that a few minutes later she asked her opponent again what in the first amendment he thought mandated seperation of church and state, and her opponent said it was the statement that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” and O’Donnell appeared to question that those words were in the Amendment (she said something like “are you saying you think that’s in the First Amendment”). That suggests she doesn’t know what the First Amendment says.

I am not saying O’Donnell doesn’t understand the First Amendment, lots of people come off badly in public debates or suffer from gaffes. She may well have meant that she disagrees with his interpretaion of the amendment, not the words he quoted. But given the general impression that she is not knowledgable and ill-prepared to be a Senator, this was a pretty bad gaffe.
 
She either didn’t know or wasn’t listening to what he said. My guess is the latter. But it certainly looks bad for her.
 
TMC said:
I think this is a good recovery, but I am not sure it undoes what was actually said in the debate. She started out by saying that the Constitution does not mandate separation of Church and State. I disagee with that statement, and it is contrary to the current interpretation of the Constituion by the Supreme Court, but there are people that agree with her on that. The problem is that a few minutes later she asked her opponent again what in the first amendment he thought mandated seperation of church and state, and her opponent said it was the statement that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” and O’Donnell appeared to question that those words were in the Amendment (she said something like “are you saying you think that’s in the First Amendment”). That suggests she doesn’t know what the First Amendment says.

I am not saying O’Donnell doesn’t understand the First Amendment, lots of people come off badly in public debates or suffer from gaffes. She may well have meant that she disagrees with his interpretaion of the amendment, not the words he quoted. But given the general impression that she is not knowledgable and ill-prepared to be a Senator, this was a pretty bad gaffe.
Click to expand...
She was trying to get him to show her where the words “separation of church and state” were in the Constitution. They are not there.
 
Like I said, I think she’s wrong on constitutional law.

"“That is a blatant violation of our Constitution,” Ms. O’Donnell said. “The Supreme Court has always said it is up to the local communities to decide their standards.”

That’s generally true–except when it comes to teaching religion-based nonscientific theories of human origin. In 1968, the high court struck down an Arkansas law prohibiting instruction in evolution. In 1987, the court invalidated a Louisiana statute requiring that “creation science,” an antecedent to intelligent design, be taught alongside evolution.

Ms. O’Donnell likened Mr. Coons’s position on evolution to those of “our so-called leaders in Washington” who have rejected the “indispensible principles of our founding.”

When Mr. Coons interjected that “one of those indispensible principles is the separation of church and state,” Ms. O’Donnell demanded, “Where in the Constitution is separation of church and state?”

The audience exploded in laughter.

The Bill of Rights begins with the command, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” but it doesn’t specifically use the words “separation of church and state.”

In 1802, however, President Thomas Jefferson used the metaphor to explain the framers’ purpose, and courts since have followed his guidance.

The moderator moved on, but Ms. O’Donnell later returned to this question, demanding of Mr. Coons, “So you’re telling me the phrase, ‘the separation of church and state,’ is found in the Constitution.”

Mr. Coons began reciting the Establishment Clause, as it is known, prompting Ms. O’Donnell to ask, “That’s in the First Amendment?”

blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/10/19/coons-odonnell-debate-the-constitution/?mod=google_news_blog
 
CMatt25 said:
O’Donnell asked. “Let me just clarify: You’re telling me that the separation of church and state is found in the First Amendment?”

“That’s in the First Amendment…?” O’Donnell responded.

newser.com/story/103285/odonnell-constitution-separates-church-state.html?utm_source=part&utm_medium=inbox&utm_campaign=newser
Click to expand...
You would think that someonew who is running on the “don’t tread on me” constitutional rights could at least have a basic knowledge of the constitution. The audience actually LOL’d her.
 
Beau_Ouiville said:
Like I said, I think she’s wrong on constitutional law.

"“That is a blatant violation of our Constitution,” Ms. O’Donnell said. “The Supreme Court has always said it is up to the local communities to decide their standards.”

That’s generally true–except when it comes to teaching religion-based nonscientific theories of human origin. In 1968, the high court struck down an Arkansas law prohibiting instruction in evolution. In 1987, the court invalidated a Louisiana statute requiring that “creation science,” an antecedent to intelligent design, be taught alongside evolution.

Ms. O’Donnell likened Mr. Coons’s position on evolution to those of “our so-called leaders in Washington” who have rejected the “indispensible principles of our founding.”

When Mr. Coons interjected that “one of those indispensible principles is the separation of church and state,” Ms. O’Donnell demanded, “Where in the Constitution is separation of church and state?”

The audience exploded in laughter.

The Bill of Rights begins with the command, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” but it doesn’t specifically use the words “separation of church and state.”

In 1802, however, President Thomas Jefferson used the metaphor to explain the framers’ purpose, and courts since have followed his guidance.

The moderator moved on, but Ms. O’Donnell later returned to this question, demanding of Mr. Coons, “So you’re telling me the phrase, ‘the separation of church and state,’ is found in the Constitution.”

Mr. Coons began reciting the Establishment Clause, as it is known, prompting Ms. O’Donnell to ask, “That’s in the First Amendmhttp://forums.catholic-questions.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=7180974ent?”

blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/10/19/coons-odonnell-debate-the-constitution/?mod=google_news_blog
Click to expand...
The Mythical “Wall of Separation”: How a Misused Metaphor Changed Church–State Law, Policy, and Discourse
 
A_Fortiori_33 said:
You would think that someonew who is running on the “don’t tread on me” constitutional rights could at least have a basic knowledge of the constitution. The audience actually LOL’d her.
Click to expand...
Hi 👋 A Fortiori, when I saw the replay on Ed Schultz’s show tonight I :rotfl: I’m still LOL as I type this. :yup:
 
The Separation of Church and State

…For example, in addition to his other statements previously noted, Jefferson also declared that the "power to prescribe any religious exercise. . . . must rest with the States" (emphasis added). Nevertheless, the federal courts ignore this succinct declaration and choose rather to misuse his separation phrase to strike down scores of State laws which encourage or facilitate public religious expressions. Such rulings against State laws are a direct violation of the words and intent of the very one from whom the courts claim to derive their policy.
 
TMC said:
and it is contrary to the current interpretation of the Constituion by the Supreme Court, but there are people that agree with her on that.
Click to expand...
There in lies the problem: the framers didn’t inted the Constitution to be interpreted, only the new laws brought before the court.
TMC said:
O’Donnell appeared to question that those words were in the Amendment (she said something like “are you saying you think that’s in the First Amendment”). That suggests she doesn’t know what the First Amendment says.
Click to expand...
It doesn’t suggest that at all. She was trying to get her opponent in a “Gotcha” moment by having him admit those words weren’t in the Constitution.
 
A_Fortiori_33 said:
You would think that someonew who is running on the “don’t tread on me” constitutional rights could at least have a basic knowledge of the constitution. The audience actually LOL’d her.
Click to expand...
CMatt25 said:
Hi 👋 A Fortiori, when I saw the replay on Ed Schultz’s show tonight I :rotfl: I’m still LOL as I type this. :yup:
Click to expand...
I’m “lol” b/c you two obviously have no clue what the framer’s had to say about the Constitution or you wouldn’t have written those ignorant posts.
 
CMatt25 said:
Hi 👋 A Fortiori, when I saw the replay on Ed Schultz’s show tonight I :rotfl: I’m still LOL as I type this. :yup:
Click to expand...
It was pretty comical. I caught it later. I guess fox didn’t cover it. Did you know that Shraon Angle is Asian. That’s a new one for me.
 
wabrams said:
I’m “lol” b/c you two obviously have no clue what the framer’s had to say about the Constitution or you wouldn’t have written those ignorant posts.
Click to expand...
Puhleassse. Brush up on the constitution. The framers were wild eyed liberals or we would still be an English colony.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top