Amnesiac
October 19th, 2010, 11:15 PM
WILMINGTON, Del. – Republican Christine O'Donnell challenged her Democratic rival Tuesday to show where the Constitution requires separation of church and state, drawing swift criticism from her opponent, laughter from her law school audience and a quick defense from prominent conservatives.
"Where in the Constitution is separation of church and state?" O'Donnell asked while Democrat Chris Coons, an attorney, sat a few feet away.
Coons responded that O'Donnell's question "reveals her fundamental misunderstanding of what our Constitution is. ... The First Amendment establishes a separation."
She interrupted to say, "The First Amendment does? ... So you're telling me that the separation of church and state, the phrase 'separation of church and state,' is in the First Amendment?"
Her campaign issued a statement later saying O'Donnell "was not questioning the concept of separation of church and state as subsequently established by the courts. She simply made the point that the phrase appears nowhere in the Constitution."
Conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh made the same point in his radio program soon after the debate, saying, "There's nothing in the Constitution about separation of church and state." (HURR)
The controversy was the latest to befall O'Donnell in a race where she trails badly in the polls against Coons.
...
The subject of religion and the law came up during their debate at Widener University Law School as O'Donnell criticized Coons for saying that teaching creationism in public school would violate the Constitution.
Coons said private and parochial schools are free to teach creationism — O'Donnell used the term "intelligent design" — but that under the "indispensable principle" of separation of church and state "religious doctrine doesn't belong in our public schools."
He said the separation of church and state was one of a number of "settled pieces of constitutional law" worked out through years of legal development including Supreme Court decisions. He said a woman's right to abortion was another.
He noted again the First Amendment's ban on establishment of religion.
"That's in the First Amendment?" she said, smiling.
Click here for moar. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101019/ap_on_el_se/us_delaware_senate#mwpphu-container)
While, TECHNICALLY, she's right that the phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution, that doesn't mean it isn't a legal principle in modern American law. The Supreme Court, whose job is to interpret the Constitution and apply it to challenged laws, has established that separation of church and state does indeed exist in the United States, resulting from a fusion of both the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
Besides, the word "respecting" makes a huge difference in the reading of the First Amendment. "No law respecting an establishment of religion" and "no law establishing religion" are two very different things.
So to question the existence of separation of church and state as a doctrine in United States law, federal, state and local, is plain ignorance of Constitutional law as defined by the Founding Fathers, the Bill of Rights and the Supreme Court over the past 200 years of decisions.
"Where in the Constitution is separation of church and state?" O'Donnell asked while Democrat Chris Coons, an attorney, sat a few feet away.
Coons responded that O'Donnell's question "reveals her fundamental misunderstanding of what our Constitution is. ... The First Amendment establishes a separation."
She interrupted to say, "The First Amendment does? ... So you're telling me that the separation of church and state, the phrase 'separation of church and state,' is in the First Amendment?"
Her campaign issued a statement later saying O'Donnell "was not questioning the concept of separation of church and state as subsequently established by the courts. She simply made the point that the phrase appears nowhere in the Constitution."
Conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh made the same point in his radio program soon after the debate, saying, "There's nothing in the Constitution about separation of church and state." (HURR)
The controversy was the latest to befall O'Donnell in a race where she trails badly in the polls against Coons.
...
The subject of religion and the law came up during their debate at Widener University Law School as O'Donnell criticized Coons for saying that teaching creationism in public school would violate the Constitution.
Coons said private and parochial schools are free to teach creationism — O'Donnell used the term "intelligent design" — but that under the "indispensable principle" of separation of church and state "religious doctrine doesn't belong in our public schools."
He said the separation of church and state was one of a number of "settled pieces of constitutional law" worked out through years of legal development including Supreme Court decisions. He said a woman's right to abortion was another.
He noted again the First Amendment's ban on establishment of religion.
"That's in the First Amendment?" she said, smiling.
Click here for moar. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101019/ap_on_el_se/us_delaware_senate#mwpphu-container)
While, TECHNICALLY, she's right that the phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution, that doesn't mean it isn't a legal principle in modern American law. The Supreme Court, whose job is to interpret the Constitution and apply it to challenged laws, has established that separation of church and state does indeed exist in the United States, resulting from a fusion of both the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
Besides, the word "respecting" makes a huge difference in the reading of the First Amendment. "No law respecting an establishment of religion" and "no law establishing religion" are two very different things.
So to question the existence of separation of church and state as a doctrine in United States law, federal, state and local, is plain ignorance of Constitutional law as defined by the Founding Fathers, the Bill of Rights and the Supreme Court over the past 200 years of decisions.