Tea Party candidates are supposed to love the Constitution. Christine O’Donnell displayed a shocking ignorance of the First Amendment in a debate with opponent Chris Coons on Tuesday.
I’m not the world’s biggest political wonk. A few months ago a co-worker actually shocked me by asking me the question, “Do you know who wrote the Declaration of Independence?” I fudged some answer about how it was a collective effort. Nope. Thomas Jefferson wrote it over a weekend. Some of the other guys edited it once he was through.
I wouldn’t expect you to hold it against me that I didn’t know the answer. But, you know, I’m not running for Senate.
Yesterday D+T Andrew Belonsky wrote a piece on why Meghan McCain is wrong about Christine O’Donnell, in which he argued that the greatness of American democracy is that anyone can run for office—not just the elite. I think most of us would probably agree with that. But when those anyones show up at a debate and display a total pedestrian ignorance of Constitutional facts, they probably deserve to lose the election.
In a debate with Democratic Delaware candidate Chris Coons today, O’Donnell’s first amendment ignorance seemed to sink her foot deeper and deeper into her mouth. Reports CNN:
“The First Amendment does?” O’Donnell asked during the Tuesday morning debate. “Let me just clarify: You’re telling me that the separation of church and state is found in the First Amendment?”
Coons responded by quoting the relevant text: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”
“That’s in the First Amendment?” a still skeptical O’Donnell replied smiling, as laughter could be heard from the crowd.”
Writes Wonkette, “‘You actually audibly heard the crowd gasp,’ Widener University political scientist Wesley Leckrone said after the debate, adding that it raised questions about O’Donnell’s grasp of the Constitution.”
Are people being mean to Christine O’Donnell by gawking at her ignorance here? Maybe, but as we pointed out yesterday with Maureen Dowd’s ineffective “Mean Girls” column, mean in politics reads as a good thing. It weeds out those not qualified to hold office.
Christine O’Donnell is clearly familiar with the other provision of the First Amendment, the one that guarantees the right to free speech, making it so that anyone can say any damn thing they please—things such as “I would have become a Hari Krishna but I love meatballs,” or claiming witchcraft powers, or claiming her movement would be able to convince all unmarried people in the country to stop having sex.
The point stands: whether she knows its finer points or not, Christine O’Donnell can run for office saying whatever the hell she likes. Whether that should award her a Senate seat is another matter altogether.
October 19, 2010 at 7:25 pm, Joe Carter said:
O'Donnell is right. The “separation of church and state” is not in the Constitution. It was a matter of jurisprudence that was only developed in the past 60 years.
The fact that so many people don't see to understand that is stunning.
October 19, 2010 at 8:05 pm, Octavian said:
Looks like O'Donnell knows the Constitution better than you do. The Establishment Clause is in the First Amendment, not any “separation of church and state.”
October 19, 2010 at 8:38 pm, bradfregger said:
O'Donnell was clearly questioning Coons statement that the constitution stated a separation of church and state. He then backed away from that position and stated a part of the first amendment, which threw her off a bit. But, essentially, she was right!
There is no separation of church and state in the constitution. One of the freedoms guaranteed by the first amendment is that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”; which of course, it is doing by supporting the concept of no religion.
Not establishing an official religion for the U.S. nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof is dramatically different from stating that there will be a separation of church and state. This should have been obvious to that group of law students; and … to your readers as well.
Also, her opponent could not name the freedoms protected by the First Amendment. The mass media's bias is obvious.
Bottom line: The phrase, “separation of church and state” does not appear in the U.S. Constitution; any relationship to it is pure interpretation.
October 19, 2010 at 9:29 pm, BenGleck said:
Clearly, if O'Donnell had meant “the PHRASE 'separation of church and state',” she could and should have said that. But she never did, despite having had more than one chance to do so. Yet here come the biased rationalizers, reading her mind for us and just “knowing” what she meant after the fact.
As if they're not making up excuses. Right.
It's amazing how often the “why do you see the speck in your brother's eye, but not the log in your own eye” principle applies. As if there could be thousands of people working in the media who had decided to have the same bias and to collude, prior to ever meeting each other. Couldn't be the reader who has the bias, now could it.
October 20, 2010 at 2:41 am, Rev G. Trask, ret. said:
Folks, the 1st Amendment (and the other 9 as well) IS part of the Constitution.
October 20, 2010 at 4:56 am, jay said:
The phrase “wall of separation between Church & State” came from Thomas Jefferson in 1802, IN DISCUSSING HIS UNDERSTANDING of the 1st AMENDMENT.
If you want any more clarity on what the FOUNDING FATHERS themselves meant by the First Amendment Establishment clause, why not read TJ yourself, and research what it meant at the time?
Jefferson’s Letter to the Danbury Baptists
http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html
“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.”
James Madison is the primary drafter. HE INTRODUCED THE BILL OF RIGHTS for adoption.
His view of separation is clearly documented. Why not look to his views? The guy who wrote it?
He wrote, for ex.:
“I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the Civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions & doubts on unessential points. The tendency to a usurpation on one side or the other, or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them, will be best guarded agst by an entire abstinence of: the Govt from interference in any way whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order, & protecting each sect agst trespasses on its legal rights by others.”
http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/jasper.htm
October 21, 2010 at 6:16 pm, NPR Juan Williams Firing Sets Off Calls to Defund Public Radio | Death and Taxes said:
[...] just not a good look for the team, and undermines its credibility. This isn’t a first amendment issue—it’s a professionalism [...]
October 25, 2010 at 6:15 pm, Former Pres George HW Bush, Wife Fought Christine O’Donnell’s Campaign | Death and Taxes said:
[...] prize. That may very well have been their only political contribution to the midterm, but then Christine O’Donnell came along, and her primary rival, Mike Castle, needed some financial [...]
October 28, 2010 at 12:57 am, AOH said:
Alex- Could you be any more of a self parody? Without a tinge of embarrassment you admit you didn't know who wrote the declaration of independence? Most people who comment on politics would be, you know, a bit embarrassed by such an admission– particularly in an article lambasting someone who correctly is parsing the first amendment. Putting the cherry on your sundae of inanity, you declare:
“I wouldn’t expect you to hold it against me that I didn’t know the answer.”
Guess what Alex. We don't. Judging from your other half-baked, poorly argued, and downright insipid articles, we wouldn't hold it against you.
I as newly minted constitutional scholar, I'm sure you are full of fascinating insights into
1. Nancy Pelosi's assertion of “are you kidding?” when asked what article of the constitution gave her the power to pass obamacare. (that would be the constitution she swore to uphold).
2. Representative Peter Stark's assertion that “The federal government – yes – can do most anything in this country,” when asked for what limits there were on federal power.
3. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) said the “good and welfare clause” gives Congress the authority to require individuals to buy health insurance as mandated in the health care bill. Except there is no “good and welfare” clause.
4.Congressmen Jim McGovern who asserted that “The constitution is wrong”
Just a hint, but maybe if you could tear yourself away from The Daily Show some night, you may actually do some of the learning about the history of the founding of our country, and the founding fathers themselves. Just a thought, you know, before you embarrass yourself any more..
AOH
November 04, 2010 at 9:22 am, The Tea Party’s Thomas Jefferson Obsession Reveals Political Contradictions | Death and Taxes said:
[...] not surprising Paul and Christine O’Donnell look toward the Founding Fathers for rhetorical flourish: the Tea Party has made it its mission to [...]
December 08, 2010 at 1:16 pm, Christine O’Donnell’s PAC Feeds Into ‘Culture of Entitlement’ She Loathes | Death and Taxes said:
[...] Christine O’Donnell had a lackluster career before becoming a perennial Senate candidate—in addition to this year’s run, she made attempts in 2006 and 2008—and spent most her professional life working for conservative or self-created non-profits, none for very long or with much success: she spent three months at an anti-pornography group, then two at the Republican National Committee’s communication department and then another year as Concerned Women for America’s spokesperson. [...]
February 06, 2011 at 6:20 am, jaydee said:
Dumb A@#