Some of you will recall that I am not the biggest booster of Christine O’Donnell. But the rapturous joy the snark-arazzi are taking in her First Amendment comments is awfully misplaced, as once again the Left has opted for sanctimony over parsimony.
Consider: O’Donnell has run not one but two groups that sought to lobby Congress to incorporate Christian values into policy formulation. Is it more likely that she does not know the text of the First Amendment — as the Left Blogosphere has unanimously concluded — or that she merely has a different view of its meaning?
I think it’s exceedingly clear that O’Donnell was gesturing toward the view that the Establishment Clause is uni-directional — that it limits the state’s meddling in the practice of religion and not vice versa – and that, per Ramesh, folks have been conflating the Establishment Clause with Thomas Jefferson’s Virginia forever and ever. And that is a view that smart people are allowed to have.
O’Donnell confirmed as much to Battle ‘10 today. But she is perceived by many as being uninformed or worse, and so they mistake nuance for ignorance. As if to prove my point, look at this gem from ridiculous person Markos Moulitsas, via Twitter:
Of course, a heap of lemmings piled on with their “ummms” and “uhhhs” and incredulity at Palin’s ignorance. One even asked “WTF happened in 1773?!”
The Boston Tea Party, that’s all.
So your argument is "She must know the content of the First Amendment because she ran two Christian lobbying groups?" Huh? Not persuasive in the least.
I've seen the video of the O'Donnell-Coons exchange and she was certainly not making a nuanced argument about "freedom from" vs. "freedom to"; rather, she was caught conspicuously flat-footed because she didn't know the textual content of the constitutional provision in question, then waited until the next day to adopt the only argument she could to camouflage her ignorance.
Had Christine O'Donnell EVER, prior to today, even mentioned the extra-constitutional character of the Jeffersonian "wall of separation," let alone differentiated it from the First Amendment text? No, because she was wholly oblivious of the later.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe dense defending the indefensible. It should be an ammendment or sumpin'.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseComments like those from Moulitsas and his leftist drones make we wonder if its ignorance or arrogance that causes them to make such blatant mistakes.
After two years of Tea Party bashing and claims that Tea Partiers know nothing about history or what the Boston Tea Party was about, shouldn't The Wise Ones doing the bashing know when the Tea Party happened?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOf course progressives are going to jump on any indication that a conservative, a social conservative no less, may have stumbled in a live debate. And, an obliging media are going to paint this situation in the most favorable light as they lean left.
However, the church-state controversy in the debate is best viewed as two people talking past one another.
It reminds me of Breyer-Scalia debate a few years back on C-SPAN. Breyer was all about the living, breathing Constitution with the necessary revisions from its original intent by the Founders. Scalia, of course, was countering that the Constitution in its original form is as relevant today as it was when originally written.
In its original form, the first amendment was written so as to prohibit government from interfering in religious expression, as was the case with the Church of England. In this vein, government was not to prohibit or involve itself in any manner when the peoples freedom to choose and practice their religion. Freedom of religion made it a right for people to express their religion irrespective of location (public or private).
The progressive Breyer crowd, Scalia argued, favors a cafeteria style Constitution where they can pick and choose how they want to revise the Constitution to their own liking. It is clear that Coons and other progressive like to revise the first amendment so as to now convey a separation of church and state, so that freedom of religion is not free at all when it is done on public property.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusemnmike,
You wrote: "It is clear that Coons and other progressive like to revise the first amendment so as to now convey a separation of church and state, so that freedom of religion is not free at all when it is done on public property."
That's all well and good, but that's not what O'Donnell was ridiculed for questioning.
Coons paraphrased, "Government shall make no establishment of religion," to which O'Donnell obliviously replied, "That's in the First Amendment?"
This isn't an issue of originalism vs. the Living Constitution, but a simple issue of textualism. The Constitution clearly says, "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion" and whatever one believes about the proper meaning or implications of that phrase, O'Donnell was amazingly ignorant of its very existence.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBut you're right about Moulitsas
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI really don't understand why anyone is getting defensive about O'Donnell. She's vying for the Biden seat. It's the kind of absurdity which I'd rather liken to Kos - a graduate of Northern Illinois University - ridiculing Palin for her stupidity. It's bad enough that Americans are subjected to a kind of preening elitism from Ivy League types, but the left's penchant for according gravitas to every mouth-breathing imbecile in their ranks who espouses the correct opinions makes them especially loathesome. Worse than their lack of self-awareness is how certain segments of the right play right into their hands by being so easily embarrassed.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou've convinced me that O'Donnell knows the text of the First Amendment. Now, what about the part where she didn't know what the fourteenth or sixteenth amendments were?
She actually said she had no idea what these amendments were and had to be prompted by the moderator. And you're ignoring that and defending the one thing she might have known?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGwen Ifill was one of the ones to tweet the Palin thing with an "ummmm" at the end of it. She is now getting hammered on twitter for being an arrogant, smug twit. she replied for everyone to 'stand down' that she was only quoting what Sarah said in her speech...even though she got the "quote" wrong.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"she merely has a different view of its meaning"
"Merely" is quite a loaded word here. One could hope that at the very least an elected official would understand the meaning of laws and the constitution. That relatively simple assumption is not something to be treated lightly or merely or however you spin it. As a rule citizens aren't allowed to merely have a different view of the meanings of laws and that excuse certainly wouldn't hold water in a court.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePublius, I'd wager that there is over 99% knowledge -- among people working with/for Christian lobbying groups -- of the sentence: "the words 'separation of church and state' are not in the Constitution." That's pretty much Axiom #1 for them. Axiom #2 is that the Constitution does not mention abortion. They might not know of Jefferson's role, or anything else, but those two points are etched on their brains. I think it's beyond any serious question that she was trying to make this point. And I say that as someone who thinks O'Donnell is profoundly dim and unqualified.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePublius
There seems to be considerable damning of Christine O'Donnell on this thread. The suggestions that she isn't smart enough and such. The implication is that somehow Coons is therefore smart enough? And, of course, those of you casting dispersions are the self-appointed arbiters?
I've reviewed the relevant aspects of the debate once again and find my original discussion very much on point.
The original intent of the first amendment, as it pertained to religion, was that the government should not impose itself on the peoples' right to freedom of religion expression. In the context of the debate, Coons infers that the first amendment allows the uninhibited teaching of evolution but disallows any mention much less discussion of creationism. He clearly attempts to promote his argument by stating "religious doctrine does not belong in our public schools." He goes on, "one of the indefensible principles is the separation of church and state."
Now, for all our arbiters of genius, it should be hard to conclude Coons has modified the first amendment to impose a separation of church and state.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThat's pretty funny about the Tea Party reaction. It's too bad the nature of the internet requires these things to be exposed immediately. It would have been interesting to see how many members of the self-appointed elite would have piled on in their zeal to validate their supposed superiority over Sarah Palin.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseO'Donnell could have been clearer as to the meaning of her question. On the other hand, what else could she possibly have been referring to? The law students' laughter at the question -- which she then re-asked -- implied she's wholly ignorant of the fact "religion" is dealt with in the First Amendment. I doubt she's that uninformed. She simply forgot a word:
"That [phrase]'s in the First Amendment?"
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI watched the entire sequence, and I came away certain that she didn't know that the First Amendment includes the Establishment clause. It was BOTH Coons' citation of the Establishment clause AND the "separation of church and state" that she reacted to, not just the latter. Coons even referenced the "separation" as having come from Supreme Court decision, and said that it was constitutional doctrine by virtue of SC decisions. I'd like to think that O'Donnell was making some sophisticated point about the separation of church and state not being the text of the Constitution, but she was not. About neither did she have a grasp.
As to the questioner (I don't think it was the moderator, but whatever) on the 14th, 16th, and 17th Amendments, that was the usual "show up the dumb Republican by asking about the Constitution by reference to numbers that I had to look up this morning, rather than names or descriptors, which I'd never do to a Democrat, who I have to help" gambit. His description of the fourteenth was ludicrous. And I wish he could name for me any Republican candidates who actually want to repeal any of these amendments. The 17th I wouldn't have known BY NUMBER, but by substance, yes. I doubt that Coons would have known any but the 14th---but such questions aren't for Democrats; they're for Republicans. Democrats get "Do you support the due process clauses in the 14th amendment?" and "Do you support popular election of Senators, as the Constitution mandates by amendment?" Republicans get "Do you, like other Republicans, want to repeal the 14th, 16th, and 17th Amendments?"
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseO'Donnell didn't even know what the 14th amendment was. thats kind of an important one considering it contains the equal protection clause. This is a woman that believes there are mice with fully functioning human brains. I think she has lost the benefit of the doubt.
The idea that she is acutely aware of complex issues regarding the 1st amendment is unlikely considering she doesn't even know what the 14th or 16th amendment are.
Further, the idea that the establishment clause is unidirectional seems odd to me. There is an establishment clause AND a free exercise clause. If the establishment clause means the government cannot interfere with the practice of religion, then what does the free exercise clause mean?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe thing I like best about Palin's "party like it's 1773" line is this: she didn't explain it to the crowd, she didn't go into what happened in 1773. She just assumed that the Tea Party crowd would GET it. That the Tea Party crowd would understand what she was talking about. She assumed good things about the intelligence and education of her audience, and SHE WAS RIGHT. The Tea Party crowd got it. It's just the liberal elites who missed it entirely.
What a contrast to our president, who assumes that the American people are too lazy, ignorant, racist, or stupid to understand that the policies he had rammed through Congress will actually be good for us.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@bobbytwotimes
Have you ever *read* the 14th Amendment? Those Reconstruction Amendments are monsters of amendments. 14th Amendment alone has 5 different sections, and to note how wide-ranging the topics it addresses are, did you know that 14th Amendment prohibits the federal government from default on its bonds?
I can rattle off about half of the all 27 Amendments from memory---and I won't be ashamed if I just simply can't remember the details of Reconstruction Amendments, beyond the fact that they were ratified after Civil War and, among *many*, *many* things, abolishes slavery.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse