CBS: 'Strange Claims From Tea Party Candidates' Help Dems
On Wednesday's CBS Early Show, co-host Harry Smith noted how President Obama was on the campaign trail "in hopes of avoiding a Democratic washout," but added, "he may be getting some help from Republicans....unintentional help." Congressional correspondent Nancy Cordes exclaimed: "...we've been seeing a spate of strange claims from tea party candidates in recent weeks."
As supposed evidence of those "strange claims," Cordes pointed to Delaware Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell accurately noting that the phrase "separation of church and state" appears nowhere in the Constitution. Cordes remarked that O'Donnell's comment "actually drew gasps from her audience yesterday," and later concluded: "O'Donnell – who calls herself a strict constitutionalist – appeared unaware of one of the Constitution's most basic tenets."
Cordes went on to claim that "some candidates who rode to Republican nominations on tea party energy are now sounding more moderate." She cited as evidence Florida Senate candidate Marco Rubio not calling for the dismantling of Social Security: "Rubio pledged to protect Social Security benefits, including his own mothers."
At the end of the report, Cordes did give the O'Donnell campaign's response to the church and state issue: "[they] released a statement late yesterday saying that she does understand the Constitution but was simply making the point that the actual words 'separation of church and state' don't appear in the First Amendment." Smith correctly added: "That, of course, came from Thomas Jefferson some years later."
Smith turned to Republican strategist Dan Bartlett and Democratic strategist Jamal Simmons to discuss the midterm election. Smith first asked Bartlett: "From the mainstream Republican standpoint, are the tea party candidates an asset or a liability?" After Bartlett defended the influence of the movement, Smith turned to Simmons and asked the same question: "...if you're a mainstream Democrat, so to speak, would you rather run against a mainstream Republican or a tea party candidate?" Smith never asked Simmons if President Obama was an asset or a liability.
Simmons used the opportunity to proclaim: "I think you'd rather run against a tea party candidate. We can see the places where the tea party has hurt the Republicans. It's yet to be seen whether or not having these tea party candidates is going to help the Republicans yet, because we don't know what will happen if they would have had a regular, normal establishment conservative on the ballot." Smith's follow up question to Simmons: "Do you think time is on the Democrats' side?"
On Tuesday's CBS Evening News, Simmons provided this "political analysis" of the election: "Rich Iott in Ohio who dresses as an S.S. Nazi for the weekend, you know, these candidates are making Democrats look pretty good in comparison.”
Here is a full transcript of the October 20 segment:
7:00AM ET TEASE:
MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: The pressure's on. With less than two weeks until election day, President Obama launches a five-state campaign tour to support struggling Democrats while one tea party candidate raises eyebrows during a key debate.
CHRISTINE O'DONNELL: You're telling me that the separation of church and state is found in the First Amendment?
RODRIGUEZ: We'll hear from both sides as the race to the midterms heats up.
7:05AM ET SEGMENT:
HARRY SMITH: Now to politics, the crucial midterm elections less than two weeks away and President Obama heads to Portland, Oregon today. Beginning another campaign blitz in hopes of avoiding a Democratic washout. But, he may be getting some help from Republicans. CBS News congressional correspondent Nancy Cordes is in Washington with the story. I guess that's unintentional help.
NANCY CORDES: That's right, Harry. We've – you could call it inexperience or you could call it quirkiness but we've been seeing a spate of strange claims from tea party candidates in recent weeks, the latest comment comes from Delaware Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell, who actually drew gasps from her audience yesterday.
[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Countdown to Midterms; Obama Hits Trail As Candidates Come Under Fire]
CHRISTINE O'DONNELL: Where in the Constitution is 'separation of church and state'?
[LAUGHTER]
CHRIS COONS: No, an excellent point.
MODERATOR: Hold on, hold on, please.
CORDES: Christine O'Donnell and her opponent Chris Coons were debating the teaching of creationism when O'Donnell – who calls herself a strict constitutionalist – appeared unaware of one of the Constitution's most basic tenets.
O'DONNELL: You're telling me that the 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?
CORDES: With election day approaching, some candidates who rode to Republican nominations on tea party energy are now sounding more moderate. In Florida's Senate debate Tuesday night, front-runner Marco Rubio pledged to protect Social Security benefits, including his own mothers.
MARCO RUBIO: Social Security is the sole source of income that she has, she depends on it. I would never support any changes to Social Security that would adversely impact her or people in her demographic.
CORDES: In last night's Illinois Senate debate, where the race for President Obama's former seat is essentially tied, both candidates were in attack mode. Republican Mark Kirk questioning his opponent's business background.
MARK KIRK: Betting his bank's future on risky real estate loans. Brokered hot-money deposits. And loans to well-known convicted felons and mobsters.
CORDES: Democrat Alexi Giannoulias challenged Kirk's embellished accounts of his military service.
ALEXI GIANNOULIAS: Why, with this record, would you not tell the truth? Why would you make all this stuff up? Congressman it's a simple question, were you shot at or not?
CORDES: Back in Delaware, Christine O'Donnell's campaign released a statement late yesterday saying that she does understand the Constitution but was simply making the point that the actual words 'separation of church and state' don't appear in the First Amendment. Harry.
SMITH: Alright, thanks very much, Nancy Cordes. That, of course, came from Thomas Jefferson some years later. Let's talk about this, this morning now with two CBS political analysts. In Washington Jamal Simmons, a Democratic strategist, and in Austin, Texas, Dan Bartlett, a Republican strategist. Good morning, guys.
DAN BARTLETT: Hey, Harry.
JAMAL SIMMONS: Good morning, Harry.
SMITH: This is where it really gets interesting, two weeks to go. People start to say interesting things, lots of money pouring in, negative ads all over the place. Dan, let me start with you. From the mainstream Republican standpoint, are the tea party candidates an asset or a liability?
[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Countdown to Midterms; Will Gaffes Hurt Candidates?]
DAN BARTLETT: I still think – regardless of the comments by Christine O'Donnell, whether it be other slip-ups by some of these young candidates, particularly in these Senate races, Harry, where the pressure is really on, where the profiles of the candidates really come under intense scrutiny – I still think that net-net, the tea party movement, the activism, the intensity will help, particularly in the House of Representatives. It will be difference in why they – I believe Republicans will take over the House. You're right, though, these gaffes, these candidates that don't have as much experience will probably be a good part of the reason why Republicans will probably come up just a little bit short in the Senate, with Republicans not getting over the finish line in Delaware, as you – as you stated.
SMITH: Sure. Jamal, now if you're a mainstream Democrat, so to speak, would you rather run against a mainstream Republican or a tea party candidate?
SIMMONS: Well, Harry, I think I am a mainstream Democrat.
SMITH: So, fire away.
SIMMONS: Alright, so I think you'd rather run against a tea party candidate. We can see the places where the tea party has hurt the Republicans. It's yet to be seen whether or not having these tea party candidates is going to help the Republicans yet, because we don't know what will happen if they would have had a regular, normal establishment conservative on the ballot. So I think we'll all see whether or not all those tea party folks show up on election day. And right now, we do know Democrats are doing a pretty good effort at getting their voters out, even in these early vote states.
SMITH: Okay, because that's my question. We have less than two weeks left. Time is on whose side, do you think time is on the Democrats' side?
SIMMONS: Oh, I think time is, because here's the thing, in a lot of these states now you now have – it's early voting, so people have already started casting their ballots. You know, whether it's Nevada or Iowa, some of these states. And what you're starting to see, in Iowa, the case this morning, Iowa, they had 150,000 Democratic ballots that are already out. And 128,000, I think, Republican – 105,000 Republican ballots. So, you're starting to see a little uptick of Democratic turnout kind of taking over, so-
BARTLETT: Well, Harry, Harry, Harry-
SMITH: Okay, go ahead, Dan.
BARTLETT: I mean, bottom line is actions speak louder than words. The President of the United States is in Oregon, he's out there campaigning in California. These are hardcore Democratic states. They're on big-time defense. They wish they had more time in order to cover more of these – not only of these defensive states but actually try to pick up a seat and that's where the challenge is, Democrats are playing defense. You made notice the fact of the debate last night in Illinois, it is getting nasty but the fact that the President's own seat, his own seat when he was in the Senate is that closely contested demonstrates that Republicans are on offense this cycle, Democrats on defense.
SMITH: Alright. We've got 13 days to go. Thank you, gentlemen, do appreciate it. Jamal Simmons and Dan Bartlett.
SIMMONS: Thank you.
- Kyle Drennen's blog
- Login to post comments
















Comments
O'Donnell is correct....
Submitted by notinstl on Wed, 10/20/2010 - 1:49pm.
...but the lame media assumes everyone is stupid.
She is technically correct,
Submitted by killa37 on Wed, 10/20/2010 - 2:00pm.
She is technically correct, since the First Ammendment covers both sides of the subject matter.....but, of course, the State-Run Pravda only wants to play the idea that she is a complete idiot for what she said. Let's not forget that the audience was a bunch of college-aged law students, or something similiar.........so allready there is a conflict of reality and ignorace!!!
Remember, Slick Willie AND Boy Blunder are both 'Constitutional Scholars'........whatever the hell that means!!
She IS correct. And it's a
Submitted by Van Halen on Wed, 10/20/2010 - 4:07pm.
She IS correct. And it's a damned shame that a whole room of people couldn't figure that out.
Deliberate
Submitted by libBuster on Wed, 10/20/2010 - 2:02pm.
Perhaps it is not mere ignorance on the part of the media, but very deliberate.
You can't blame the media
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Wed, 10/20/2010 - 2:26pm.
You can't blame the media entirely. O'Donnell has a past full of dumb statements. I'll leave the witch comment alone, but her dismissing evolution as a myth, and refusing to justify, or even explain her views of mythology only shows her immaturity.
If 'dumb statements' are some
Submitted by killa37 on Wed, 10/20/2010 - 2:56pm.
If 'dumb statements' are some kind of criteria for ANYTHING, then we can get rid of about 90% of the media AND the politicians, as far as I can tell...............
And evolution and mythology are not 'exact' science, whereas the wording of the First Ammendment is pretty cut and dried.
The State-Run Media is, as usual, intent on making ANYONE look bad that doesn't fit their agenda...........
Wait...are we...living in
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Wed, 10/20/2010 - 3:21pm.
Wait...are we...living in North Korea? What state run media are you talking about?
I stand confused.
Yeah, dumb. Like almost half of all Americans.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Wed, 10/20/2010 - 3:28pm.
You know, all those immature "mythology" believers.
The mythology of evolution,
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Wed, 10/20/2010 - 3:41pm.
The mythology of evolution, not religion. Focus.
Are you among the throngs who believe man is only 10,000 years old?
Dumb Statements/Biden
Submitted by Jerry Mack on Wed, 10/20/2010 - 3:03pm.
Yes she has made some dumb statements. But if making dumb statements is a disqualifier, Joe Biden should be removed or resign today.
Do these people "Harry Smith"
Submitted by Semus on Wed, 10/20/2010 - 1:54pm.
Do these people "Harry Smith" and "Nancy Cordes" and all the others ever get a bad taste in their mouths, maybe a little like crap, I was just wondeing.
Only when their heads are up
Submitted by Beukeboom on Wed, 10/20/2010 - 2:02pm.
Only when their heads are up each others'.....
Coons she is correct, so you
Submitted by jkwtrading on Wed, 10/20/2010 - 1:56pm.
Coons she is correct, so you show me where the term does exist...
it is not there in the Constitution and never has been there..except in your own mental state of ignorance.
the liberals have a basic flaw, they just do not read sentences and words in the form they actually exist.
Where in the Constitution
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 10/20/2010 - 2:15pm.
Where in the Constitution does it specifically say you can carry your Glock into the grocery store...or a church....or courthouse?
Sure, O'Donnell is technically correct (whoop-de-damn-do)...it's just that her comprehension and interpretation of the Establishment Clause is that of a ten-year old.
The Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is, and not the adolescent confabulations of O'Donnell.
Jer
Here you go Jer
Submitted by libBuster on Wed, 10/20/2010 - 2:28pm.
It's just reading comprehenson Jer.
allanf...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 10/20/2010 - 2:46pm.
So, I assume a six-year old--being a "person"--can't legally have his second amendment "right" to carry a pistol into class "infringed". Heck, while we're at it, let's figure out some way to arm embryos and fetuses since they too are "people".
The point is that the meaning and application of constitutional clauses is dependent upon judicial interpretation. This grand "gotcha" moment about the absence of "wall of separation" language is absurd and irrelevant.
Jer
What About the People and the Legislature
Submitted by libBuster on Wed, 10/20/2010 - 3:22pm.
You seem to forget about the role of the people and the legislature.
Federal restrictions on firearms are fairly new, the first laws being adopted in the 20th century.
As for "separation of church and state" to the extent it is a constitutional doctrine (not text) it is a very recent one.
Jer...
Submitted by Phryj1 on Wed, 10/20/2010 - 2:32pm.
So you're saying the actual text of the Constitution doesn't matter, only the Supreme Court's interpretation? That would mean that the Supreme Court is effectively the arbitrator of government power instead of the Constitution itself. The Constitution is meaningless if it's at the mercy of activist justices who would twist it's meaning to advance their political agenda.
Progressives seem to be completely averse to facts and logic. Apparently, reality has a conservative bias.
How do you define activist
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Wed, 10/20/2010 - 2:51pm.
How do you define activist judges? I get the feeling it's anyone whose views don't coincide with yours.
My feelings about the Constitution is that it's absolutely perfect, until someone decides otherwise. It's only been necessary for the Constitution to be updated 27 times to date, but I expect this perfect document to require future updates as well.
It's also perfect until an unelected, appointed-for-life federal
Submitted by lsudolemite on Wed, 10/20/2010 - 2:59pm.
judge wakes up one day and decides that they suddenly discovered some brand-new tenet of the Constitution that never existed until they experienced this catharsis, so that they can justify declaring some legislation unconstitutional.
Speaking of which, wasn't the timing of the DADT ruling just incredibly coincidental? It's just amazing luck that a law that's been on the books since the 90s, challenged by a suit that's been in the courts for years, suddenly got declared unconstitutional just in time to rev up Obama's gay voting bloc for the midterms. Just an amazing coincidence!
I must've missed that
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Wed, 10/20/2010 - 3:18pm.
I must've missed that story.
But to complete your thought from your first paragraph, remember that ultimately the US Supreme Court decides what is and what isn't constitutional. While the federal judge may make a decision with which you disagree, it'll almost always end up in the US SC.
The federal judiciary and Supreme Court were intended to be
Submitted by lsudolemite on Wed, 10/20/2010 - 4:59pm.
impartial entities, independent of party and politics. Which was the intent of lifetime appointments, the thought being that a jurist won't be influenced by the party in power and won't worry about having a job the day after an election. All of which presumes that said judges truly render impartial decisions and politics never enters the equation. That is all moot now that Supreme Court nominations and Senate confirmations have turned into just another political appointment and a three-ring circus, respectively. We can thank your namesake for that development with Robert Bork. And if the SC were such an impartial institution, why does everybody wring their hands over the composition of liberals vs conservatives? Ideology shouldn't enter into a dispassionate "interpretation" of the Constitution, yet it assuredly does. And when sitting justices start talking about looking to foreign law to assist in their rulings, a LOT of red flags should go up.ADK
Submitted by Phryj1 on Wed, 10/20/2010 - 3:17pm.
I would define an activist judge as any one who would reinterpret the Constitution in a way that advances a political agenda, regardless of what that agenda is. I don't want hard-liners from any side twisting the Constitution to suit their needs.
Unfortunately, the Constitution is vulnerable to creative interpretation, and the only way to fix that would be to have a team of legal experts re-word the Constitution in such a way as to make it impossible for anyone to lawyer their way around Constitutional limits. That would be...impractical.
Progressives seem to be completely averse to facts and logic. Apparently, reality has a conservative bias.
You're not suggesting a
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Wed, 10/20/2010 - 3:19pm.
You're not suggesting a rewriting of the Constitution, are you?
No.
Submitted by Phryj1 on Wed, 10/20/2010 - 3:51pm.
And I would certainly hope it wouldn't be necessary, but as long as there are elected officials who would try to circumvent the Constitution by staffing the SCOTUS with justices who share their views, there's a risk of losing rights and liberties that are supposed to be guaranteed by the Constitution, and Congress and/or the President being able to seize more power unchecked.
Progressives seem to be completely averse to facts and logic. Apparently, reality has a conservative bias.
So then the only logical
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Wed, 10/20/2010 - 3:58pm.
So then the only logical solution would be for the public to elect SC justices, because as long as US presidents continue to nominate judges who share their views, the cycle will always carry onward.
Or at the very least...
Submitted by Phryj1 on Wed, 10/20/2010 - 4:22pm.
...the public would be given a vote to either confirm or remove justices as part of the appointment process.
Progressives seem to be completely averse to facts and logic. Apparently, reality has a conservative bias.
A lifetime appointment to
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Wed, 10/20/2010 - 4:43pm.
A lifetime appointment to anything is ludicrous.
Not necessarily
Submitted by Boudin on Wed, 10/20/2010 - 8:59pm.
They have unlimited time on the bench, so they hopefully will not be politicized. If you disagree with some of the Justices now, what do you think they would be like if they were "running" for an appointment.
The real problem is, some of the past and present do/did not adhere to the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. I know Jer and other are trying to convince folks that they are complicated documents, and have various meanings. But they arnt, and they dont. The Federalist papers and other information is readily available to help the thick understand what the founders intentions were!
The Amendment process is how you change it. The Justices are there to uphold the rule of law, and defend the Constitution, not give their opinions of them
You've got it all figured out, huh Boudin?
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 2:05am.
In that case, let's establish the ability to read English as the sole criterion for appointment to the Supreme Court. May as well put a few thick-headed eighth-grade dropouts on the bench.
Jer
difference
Submitted by Agnostic on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 7:45pm.
Sometimes I wonder what the difference would be. <not as much sarcasm as I would like in that statement>
I think that's the point Phryj1
Submitted by exLib on Wed, 10/20/2010 - 2:55pm.
As has been said before, if you can't get the people to vote on something you just get the courts to do it.
If the meaning of every word
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 10/20/2010 - 3:14pm.
If the meaning of every word in the Constitution were so crystal clear and its effect upon and application to every issue and circumstance at all times so readily apparent, then a Supreme Court would be an utterly useless entity, and we would only require an Executive branch to enforce the document's mandated result.
Jer
True.
Submitted by Phryj1 on Wed, 10/20/2010 - 4:15pm.
Actually, it would probably be impractical, if not outright impossible, to word the Constitution in a way that could not be misconstrued or misapplied in any way. The vague wording in the Constitution may be unavoidable, and in order to function, the SCOTUS would need a certian amount of flexibility in determining how the Constitution applies in each case. That said, as long as there are ideologically tilted justices, there's always the risk of the justices coloring their interpretation of the Constitution with their own political views.
Progressives seem to be completely averse to facts and logic. Apparently, reality has a conservative bias.
O'Donnell may not be a Constitutional expert . . .
Submitted by Galvanic on Wed, 10/20/2010 - 2:34pm.
. . . but she has a point. There is an assumption that the words Separation of Church and State are in the Constitution, when that language does indeed not appear.
We have the legacy of Supreme Court rulings and opinions which shaped the interpretation of the Establishment clause, yet even now, there are exceptions.
So, despite the history of First Amendment rulings, the interpretation still appears a bit fuzzy.
If the MSM would put the language of the First Amendment on the screen as they replay the audio of O'Donnell's statement, most folk would agree that she is correct.
Ah that wacky "living Constitution" again!
Submitted by lsudolemite on Wed, 10/20/2010 - 2:52pm.
I really wish I had gone to law school so I could "interpret" that the sun rises in the west, the sky is green, and something that is clearly stated doesn't mean what it says it does.
Jer - Your "The Constitution
Submitted by Free Stinker on Wed, 10/20/2010 - 3:33pm.
Jer - Your "The Constitution is what the Supreme Court Says It Is" idea is all wrong. For starters, that attitude puts you in a position to have to defend the Dredd Scott decission, Plessy v. Fergussen, and a bunch of other notorious decissions that SCOTUS made and were later reversed./// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
Free Stinker...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 10/20/2010 - 5:16pm.
Theoretically, you are correct. As a matter of practice, I am. You may emphatically disagree with a SCOTUS decision and believe it based on a profound misapprehension or misapplication of relevant Constitutional provisions, but unless and until overruled it is binding precedent and must be followed.
Of course there are also decisions correctly rendered in accordance with the Constitution as it existed prior to subsequent amendment.
But neither you nor I are required to defend decisions with which we disagree. We are only required to comply with them.
Jer
Uh huh.
Submitted by Free Stinker on Wed, 10/20/2010 - 5:29pm.
Uh huh./// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
oh so they
Submitted by spepper on Wed, 10/20/2010 - 1:59pm.
Oh, so CBS and the rest of the lock-step media are attempting to redefine what Tea Party candidates are doing when they quote the US Constitution, as "strange claims"? OK, Harry et al, be our guest-- open up your pocket Constitution and read it aloud, live on camera-- and give us that pregnant pause afterwards, when you discover what the candidates are saying is EXACTLY what you are reading! "Oh......um......they are right......never mind......and now, for something completely different!"
You actually THINK that any
Submitted by killa37 on Wed, 10/20/2010 - 2:03pm.
You actually THINK that any of these dopes HAS a pocket Constitution?? Not unless it is the 'new, improved, living, breathing, fluid' Constitution...........which is the one being reshaped every day by the libs and the courts.............
Well it's easy to see...
Submitted by c5then on Wed, 10/20/2010 - 2:01pm.
That the "gasps" from the audience were from people who have never read the Constitution themselves, but have relied on CBS to tell them what it says.
Madison and Jefferson and Franklin built a Republic - Roberts killed it!
Cordes went on to claim that
Submitted by exLib on Wed, 10/20/2010 - 2:52pm.
Cordes went on to claim that "some candidates who rode to Republican nominations on tea party energy are now sounding more moderate." She cited as evidence Florida Senate candidate Marco Rubio not calling for the dismantling of Social Security: "Rubio pledged to protect Social Security benefits, including his own mothers."---
Wow, so the media is now taking the DNC talking points as "The Truth" and forcing Tea Party candidates to "distance themselves" from attack ads?
The New First Amendment
Submitted by exLib on Wed, 10/20/2010 - 2:55pm.
Congress shall make no law.
Only judges can "Make Law"
Distractions
Submitted by Jerry Mack on Wed, 10/20/2010 - 3:21pm.
The media has designated O'Donnell as the sure Tea Party loser. It all began with Bill Maher's 20 year old witch story. From there her every word and movement have been analyzed.
I personaly do not care about all this witchcraft and who knows exactly what the constitution says. 80% of voters have no clue as to what it says. What I care about is who has the best plan for getting the economy started again. Bad economy means less money for schools, military, public safety and less money paid into social security. And of course more government dependence.
I'm not a witch...
Submitted by upcountrywater on Wed, 10/20/2010 - 4:36pm.
A great youtube video...
You Didn't Build That.
Jefferson was right
Submitted by Agnostic on Wed, 10/20/2010 - 7:46pm.
Okay, you may not care what an agnostic atheist has to say about the first amendment and freedom of religion on a conservative site but fwiw:
The pertinent phrase in the first amendment to this discussion is, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….”
First, Congress is not the entire government but since the founding fathers did not seem to anticipate the degree to which law would be created from the judicial branch (though an argument could be made that Adams understood this very well but kept quiet) and that the executive branch would wield power through regulatory entities; the exclusion of the Executive and Judicial branches may have been a purely idealistic adherence to the establishment of the Congress as the only body to make federal laws.
Second, unfortunately for President Obama, the Constitution is written in negative terms and relegates all power to the states except those explicitly stated in the Constitution. Therefore, when the statement, “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion” is read there is no opening to interpret what the government can do – such as limiting expressions of religion or even restricting religious acts or symbols on public property is so allowed by the governed.
Third, why does no one talk about the second half of the statement and what the intention of that phrase means? To read, “…or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”, should make everyone question the constitutionality of the actions of the court when they prohibit religious actions, statements, icons and recognition in public places when they don’t interfere with the workings of any public institution.
As far as whether creationism or evolution should be taught, why isn’t it a choice? One is religion which would fall under the legitimate studies of social sciences and the other is scientific theory that more conforms to the natural sciences. There is of course overlap but with the great amount of subject matter students should be confronted with I believe it would be very easy to avoid the overlap without neglecting a proper education. Besides it may be more important that a student learn the capability to learn for themselves than the individual concepts they are taught in school.
Conclusion: Separation of church and state does not exist in the Constitution except as a limitation on what the Congress can do to affect the creation/preference of a religion by the enactment of federal laws and as a prohibition against Congress taking any legal action that restricts the free exercise of religion. This is why Jefferson was right in that there is a protection for the people to worship in any manner their community saw fit without interference from the government. The “wall” was used as a form of communication that while in a letter is fine would never have been used in a legal governing document. The Constitution was a debated document that represented the greatest ideas and compromises of the founding fathers and the people they represented. It was meant to be scrutinized and studied – a letter is a personal, even if formal, document not expected to fall under such scrutiny or examination and is therefore is not bound by the necessity of exactness. I can not think of a more accurate analogy than a wall but somehow I think a smarter person might make something passable out of a two way mirror or permeable membranes – too much for me.
It is the job of the SCOTUS to decide how the Constitution is to be applied to law however the lack of SCOTUS impeachments or attempts lends evidence that the other two branches neglect their job in making sure the courts do their job.
Also, notice it doesn’t allow for Congress to limit one religion because another religion is not equally represented!
They can never seem to grasp
Submitted by Thoreau on Wed, 10/20/2010 - 8:19pm.
They can never seem to grasp the truth of it can they.
To quote a comic book hero,
Rorschach: None of you seem to understand. I'm not locked in here with you. You're locked in here with *ME*!
November is Coming. All Communists(Democrats). All Socialists(RINO's). ALL GONE.