Christine O'Donnell is, apparently, an idiot

Remove all ads!

I'm betting it is too late

 

Not all the Framers at the Constitutinal Convention were lawyers, but they still managed. In fact, Madison never finished the Bar:

Since many of the Framers, who actually crafted the document, were NOT lawyers, your statement appears quite foolish. John Adams was a lawyer, as was Jefferson. But neither attended the Convention. Nevertheless, you should take some time to enlighten yourself regarding Jefferson's thoughts on religion and government. BTW, the Bill of Rights was added after the framing of the orginal document, at the insistance of Thomas J.

Nevertheless, it provided far more information on the subject than you have, despite all your self-proclaimed expertise on the topic. Of course, you just wanted to give us a good "lecture." So what? You could not even disporve Wiki. Try again.

I don't believe there is much chance of that.

 

Schooling does not automatically equate to competency. There are many members of SP who could tout a serious alphabet soup after their names, but none of them do. We have JD's, MBA's, CPA's (probably with MPA's), PhD's, MA's, MS's, and the occasional MD. There are posters here working toward graduate degrees and those that have been out of graduate school for over fifteen years. We have many posters working toward undergraduate degrees and many who are simply working their asses off to make ends meet. Yet the vast majority treat each other as equals.

That's why I keep coming back.

 

Watch the video, I think Chandos posted it, don't give her credit for looking proud over radio

 

Is that so?

​

The letter to the Danbury Baptists is not a constitutional document but it sheds light on how founding father Jefferson, then president, viewed the establishment clause, since it addresses the acute problems the Danbury Baptists were facing in their state - namely an established religion that discriminated against them. Here is Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists:

You will note that Jefferson quotes the 1st amendment verbatim (underlined), and provides the interpretation of it. Jefferson's letter is thus an important source for Founder's intent and the interpretation of the establishment clause in the 1st amendment. It is something that carries great weight.

 

Jefferson being president bears no weight on the matter. Presidents don't get to interpret the Constitution. Being the original author of the amendment in question, however, bears a great deal of weight. Thanks for bringing up that letter. I was unaware of it.

That being said, though, history has proven she's still electable. Happily, history has also proven her election wouldn't be the end of the world.

 

And everyone keep in mind that the chances of this woman actually winning the election are effectively nil. I don't want to write a thesis on polling and their accuracy (and sometimes lack thereof). Take a look at http://fivethirtyeight.com for that. Suffice it to say, that in every recent poll out there on this election, the margin by which she trails her Democratic oppoent greatly exceeds the number of undecided voters remaining in her state. That is to say that even if every undecided voter decides to vote for her, she'd still lose.

---------- Added 2 hours, 8 minutes and 35 seconds later... ----------

Here's a funny song about Ms. O'Donnel included with a biased article from Huffington. Just scroll down a bit below the title of the article, and the video is embedded. Linky.

 

@ Khemsa, B.A., M.A., J.D. magna cum laude, whoopdee-doo,

It seems to me (and forgive me, I'm nowhere near being a lawyer) that it's not so much that statement alone as it is it's conjunction with the fact that only moments earlier she was complaining about a court ruling against a school board that wanted to teach intelligent design, and at about the 7:00 mark of the video, we see this exchange:

Coons: The government shall make no establishment of religion.
O'Donnell: That's in the First Amendment?

As a candidate claiming to be a champion of constitutional principles, shouldn't one (at least!) know that the establishment clause exists and know what it says before one can even criticize its misinterpretation, let alone condescendingly dismiss an opponent as ignorant of it? Having at least read the thing strikes me as...ida know, kind of important, right?

 

You're welcome.

With elaborations from a founder that "religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God" and that there is a "wall of separation between Church & State" in mind, you may now better see why I regard the assertion of America being a 'Christian nation' with such disdain. Legally, there is no basis for that claim.

The assertion that America is a 'Christian Nation', coupled with the denial of the separation of church and state, essentially amounts to making a claim for a role of religion in government, which to the best of my understanding cannot be reconciled with the 1th amendment.

Roy Moore, the judge who put the ten commandments in front of the court house he happened to have been elected into, was expressing just that.

 

I agree that America is not a Christian nation. The founding fathers made damn sure of that in both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. People who claim otherwise either just don't know what they're talking about, or are actively trying to undermine our constitution.

I've argued before, and will again, though, that the Ten Commandments have a place in our criminal justice system. That place is as a reminder of where we came from and how we got here. I will also repeat that, alongside the Ten Commandments, I would like to see statues of Aristotle, copies of The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, and a few people from this site. All of these things informed crucial elements of our modern criminal justice system, and we should never forget how we got here.

 

I would only like to point out that of the Ten Commandments, by my count only two are actually criminal if you break them.

 

True, but about coveting thy neighbor's wife, last I checked, adultery wasn't illegal either.

 

... his neighbor's wife's ...?

 

I covet all your wives' asses.

 

You're right, my apologies.

I covet Christine O'Donnell's ass.

(you can't delete this, it's my birthday)

 

Now, isn't it good I am around? After all, adultery, in about half of the US states, still is a crime - for instance in Wisconsin, South Carolina, Wyoming, Michigan - or Minnestota. From the first article:

Riiiight.

Besides, happy birthday Death Rabbit; I join you in coveting.

PS: Funny ... Republican Minnesota Sec. of State candidate Severson just said that there is no such thing as separation of church and state. As I said, Christine O'Donnell is hardly alone in her views.