Did Christine O'Donnell pass High School Civics?

[Sociobiology]

The Constitution does not anywhere state that church and state must be separate.

Jefferson in his VA Constitution endeavored to impose a "wall of separation". but despite his centrality at the Constitutional Convention, this language was obviously NOT adopted there and so therefore it appears that something LESS is our national standard.

There is , instead, to be no laws effecting "establishment of religion". This means that no state may have an official church. State established churches had caused much harm in Europe and most Americans wanted to avoid repeating that mistake.

It does not mean in any way that the state may have nothing to do with religion, and I doubt the idea ever crossed the minds of the founders. This is despite the railings of Adams against the influence of "priests", since I reasonably suppose him to be attacking the Church of Rome.

So on a strictly literal and historical basis, we have a document which prohibits state-sponsored churches but leaves everything else up for grabs.

I do not then think this candidate is constitutionally illiterate. I was top in my class in Con Law at Northwestern U School of Law and am a former board member of the Albany NY ACLU.

I would not vote for her, but that's neither here nor there.

Although I don't doubt your unverifiable claims to personal authority, they don't make you any less in error -- as to the literal wording, meaning, intent, and history of the Establishment Clause. See, e.g., my earlier post.

even without the context joan is forgetting the second part about restricting the free exercise or religion thats the part that gets referenced when talking about the separation of church and state. because it means the government cannot show preference ofr or against any religion or lack there of. read the whole amendment next time.

that said I would love to give a pop quiz just on the amendments to every political candidate just to see how many know anything about it off the top of their head.

[Ashmoria]

the benefits far outweigh the potential damage.

How is legalizing dangerously addictive, harmful, socially deleterious drugs beneficial? You want everyone to be too high/stoned to work or for children to have more access to it with mainstream availability?

you have to think it through without being scared.

lets compare it for a moment to alcohol and the prohibition of alcohol.

when alcohol was made illegal in the US, all real control of alcohol was done away with--no legal drinking age, no legal sales hours, no quality controls (the govt would even put poison into denatured alcohol that would be illegally REnatured and kill people), no keeping kids away from it, no NOTHIN'

and no tax money from it.

as soon as alcohol was made legal again the rate of drinking DROPPED. the rate of alcohol related crime DROPPED and all the other problems associated with it were mitigated. alcohol was taxed and regulated. only certain stores could sell it and they had great incentives not to break the law by selling off hours, selling to children, or selling unregulated products. only those who were far outside the norm had to be investigated and prosecuted--freeing up police and court time.

currently illegal drugs are not harmless but by being unregulated you have problems with dose strength, purity, the ethics of the people involved in the business, their incentive to do right by their customers, and problems wth identifying problem users and those who sell to children. it creates and funds large criminal organizations that harm neighborhoods all over this country (and are practically destroying our neighbors to the south)

we also have a huge problem with putting small users in prison ruining their lives needlessly, clogging up police and court time, and costing us enormous sums to incarcerate harmless offenders.

making these drugs legal removes ALL these problems. yes it might add more users. but they will be more users using a safer product. ALL users will benefit from a regulated product. and i would suggest that anyone who isnt using drugs today who WOULD use drugs if they were legal are such law abiding citizens that they would NOT break the laws regarding not driving while high, using at the workplace, giving drugs to children, etc.

[Saiwania]

I'm done trying to reason with others in here about drugs. It's clear to me that some others just want to drastically break with the status quo and allow a dangerous level of permissiveness in society with regards to illegal drugs (among other things) because they either want the illegal drugs themselves, or because it's somehow "cool" to push for further drug proliferation and I should leave it at that. I've stated my stance and that is all I should need to do.

I shouldn't of brought up marijuana and subsequently get into an argument about illegal drugs when the thread is supposed to be about Christine O'Donnell. I excoriate anyone who is for legalizing any of the currently illegal drugs, just as much as I repudiate those that want pedophilia to be legalized or have a lessened punishment for. Views such as those expressed, are only part of an overall trend going on- for the loosening of morals in society.

The fact is, I don't think Christine O'Donnell or a partially tea party controlled congress will destroy the US anymore than a majority democratic congress would. (which historically has had closet Marxists, socialists, and radical progressives in it)

[Muravyets]

I'm done trying to reason with others in here about drugs. It's clear to me that some others just want to drastically break with the status quo and allow a dangerous level of permissiveness in society with regards to illegal drugs (among other things) because they either want the illegal drugs themselves, or because it's somehow "cool" to push for further drug proliferation and I should leave it at that. I've stated my stance and that is all I should need to do.

I shouldn't of brought up marijuana and subsequently get into an argument about illegal drugs when the thread is supposed to be about Christine O'Donnell. I excoriate anyone who is for legalizing any of the currently illegal drugs, just as much as I repudiate those that want pedophilia to be legalized or have a lessened punishment for. Views such as those expressed, are only part of an overall trend going on- for the loosening of morals in society.

The fact is, I don't think Christine O'Donnell or a partially tea party controlled congress will destroy the US anymore than a majority democratic congress would. (which historically has had closet Marxists, socialists, and radical progressives in it)

I see, so in your view, fact based arguments about relative harm are unreasonable. People who make fact-based arguments about the advisability of legalizing one drug out of all the drugs in the world are akin to child molesters, in your view. Everyone who can point to historical and current examples of the legalization of controlled substances actually DECREASING use are only lacking morals and trying to destroy society. And you declare unilaterally that the Democratic party is riddled with "closet Marxists, socialists and radical progressives," without giving us any examples to prove that is even true (let alone what such a thing as a "radical progressive" might be).

In other words, screw any and all facts, demonize those you disagree with in the worst and most slanderous ways possible, and end by tossing out yet more unsubstantiated fantasies. And you propose to assure us that the candidate you support is reasonable and safe for our nation.

Hehe, yeah, good job there.

[The Cat-Tribe]

One of the most authoritative sources of historical information about the Constitution is U.S. Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story's Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (3 vols. 1833). It has been cited copiously by SCOTUS for centuries -- particularly by conservative justices that believe in originalism.

Here is what Justice Story has to say re separation of Church and State in his comments on the last clause of Article VI of the U.S. Constitution. See Justice Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (5th Ed. 1833) vol. III, chapter XLIII, pp. 705-707 (emphasis added):

§ 1841. The remaining part of the clause declares, that "no religious test shall ever be required, as a qualification to any office or public trust, under the United States." This clause is not introduced merely for the purpose of satisfying the scruples of many respectable persons, who feel an invincible repugnance to any religious test, or affirmation. It had a higher object; to cut off for ever every pretence of any alliance between church and state in the national government. The framers of the constitution were fully sensible of the dangers from this source, marked out in the history of other ages and countries; and not wholly unknown to our own. They knew, that bigotry was unceasingly vigilant in its stratagems, to secure to itself an exclusive ascendancy over the human mind; and that intolerance was ever ready to arm itself with all the terrors of the civil power to exterminate those, who doubted its dogmas, or resisted its infallibility. The Catholic and the Protestant had alternately waged the most ferocious and unrelenting warfare on each other; and Protestantism itself, at the very moment, that it was proclaiming the right of private judgment, prescribed boundaries to that right, beyond which if any one dared to pass, he must seal his rashness with the blood of martyrdom.¹ The history of the parent country, too, could not fail to instruct them in the uses, and the abuses of religious tests. They there found the pains and penalties of non-conformity written in no equivocal language, and enforced with a stern and vindictive jealousy. One hardly knows, how to repress the sentiments of strong indignation, in reading the cool vindication of the laws of England on this subject, (now, happily, for the most part abolished by recent enactments,) by Mr. Justice Blackstone, a man, in many respects distinguished for habitual moderation, and a deep sense of justice.

"The second species," says he "of non-conformists, are those, who offend through a mistaken or perverse zeal. Such were esteemed by our laws, enacted since the time of the reformation, to be papists, and protestant dissenters; both of which were supposed to be equally schismatics in not communicating with the national church; with this difference, that the papists divided from it upon material, though erroneous, reasons; but many of the dissenters, upon matters of indifference, or, in other words, upon no reason at all. Yet certainly our ancestors were mistaken in their plans of compulsion and intolerance. The sin of schism, as such, is by no means the object of temporal coercion and punishment. If, through weakness of intellect, through misdirected piety, through perverseness and acerbity of temper, or, (which is often the case,) through a prospect of secular advantage in herding with a party, men quarrel with the ecclesiastical establishment, the civil magistrate has nothing to do with it; unless their tenets and practice are such, as threaten ruin or disturbance to the state. He is bound, indeed, to protect the established church; and, if this can be better effected, by admitting none but its genuine members to offices of trust and emolument, he is certainly at liberty so to do; the disposal of offices being matter of favour and discretion. But, this point being once secured, all persecution for diversity of opinions, however ridiculous or absurd they may be, is contrary to every principle of sound policy and civil freedom. The names and subordination of the clergy, the posture of devotion, the materials and colour of the minister's garment, the joining in a known, or an unknown form of prayer, and other matters of the same kind, must be left to the option of every man's private judgment."^[2]

...
------------------------------
1 See 4 Black. Comm. 44, 59, and ante; Vol. I, § 53.
[2] 4 Black. Comm. 52, 53.

Other quotes
Thomas Paine, Common Sense: "As to religion, I hold it to be the indispensable duty of all government to protect all conscientious professors thereof, and I know of no other business which government hath to do therewith."

John Adams, Letter to Benjamin Rush, June 12, 1812: "Nothing is more dreaded than the national government meddling with religion."

Treaty of Tripoli (Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary), signed on November 4, 1796 and ratified unanimously on June 7, 1797, Article 11: "As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen ..."

Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Samuel Miller, 1808: "I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. "

Thomas Jefferson, Reply to New London Methodists, 1809: "Our Constitution... has not left the religion of its citizens under the power of its public functionaries, were it possible that any of these should consider a conquest over the consciences of men either attainable or applicable to any desirable purpose."

James Madison, Journal excerpt, June 12, 1788: “There is not a shadow of right in the general government to intermeddle with religion. Its least interference with it, would be a most flagrant usurpation. I can appeal to my uniform conduct on this subject, that I have warmly supported religious freedom.”

President Andrew Jackson, Letter to the Synod of the Reformed Church of North America, June 12, 1832: "I could not do otherwise without transcending the limits prescribed by the Constitution for the President and without feeling that I might in some degree disturb the security which religion nowadays enjoys in this country in its complete separation from the political concerns of the General Government." (Statement declining to proclaim a national day of prayer and fasting.)

President John Tyler: "The United States has adventured upon a great and noble experiment . . . of total separation of Church and State. . . . The offices of the Government are open alike to all. No tithes are levied to support an established Hierarchy, nor is the fallible judgment of man set up as the sure and infallible creed of faith. . . . Such is the great experiment which we have tried, and . . . our system of free government would be imperfect without it."

James K. Polk, Diary entry, Oct. 14, 1846: “Thank God, under our Constitution there was no connection between Church and State.”

Millard Fillmore, Address during 1856 presidential election: “I am tolerant of all creeds. Yet if any sect suffered itself to be used for political objects I would meet it by political opposition. In my view church and state should be separate, not only in form, but fact. Religion and politics should not be mingled.”

Ulysses S. Grant, Speech to veterans of the Army of Tennessee, Sept. 30, 1875: “Encourage free schools, and resolve that not one dollar of money shall be appropriated to the support of any sectarian school. Resolve that neither the state nor nation shall support institutions of learning other than those sufficient to afford every child growing up in the land the opportunity of a good common school education, unmixed with sectarian, pagan, or atheistical dogmas. Leave the matter of religion to the family altar, the church, and the private schools, supported entirely by private contributions. Keep the church and state forever separate.”

President Rutherford B. Hayes: "We all agree that neither the Government nor political parties ought to interfere with religious sects. It is equally true that religious sects ought not to interfere with the Government or with political parties. We believe that the cause of good government and the cause of religion suffer by all such interference."

James A. Garfield, Letter accepting presidential nomination, July 12, 1880: “Whatever help the nation can justly afford should be generously given to aid the States in supporting common schools; but it would be unjust to our people and dangerous to our institutions to apply any portion of the revenues of the nation, or of the States, to the support of sectarian schools. The separation of the Church and the State in everything relating to taxation should be absolute.”

Theodore Roosevelt, Speech, Oct. 12, 1915: “I hold that in this country there must be complete severance of Church and State; that public moneys shall not be used for the purpose of advancing any particular creed; and therefore that the public schools shall be nonsectarian and no public moneys appropriated for sectarian schools.”

President Warren G. Harding: "There is no relationship here between Church and State. Religious liberty has its unalterable place, along with civil and human liberty, in the very foundation of the Republic. I hold it [religious intolerance] to be a menace to the very liberties which we boast and cherish."

Alfred E. Smith: "I believe in the absolute separation of church and state and in the strict enforcement of the Constitution that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

John F. Kennedy, Speech to Greater Houston Ministerial Association, Sept. 12, 1960: “I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president, should he be Catholic, how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference; and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him. I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish; where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source; where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials; and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.”

Lyndon B. Johnson, Interview with Baptist Standard, October 1964: “I believe in the American tradition of separation of church and state which is expressed in the First Amendment to the Constitution. By my office – and by personal conviction – I am sworn to uphold that tradition.”

Senator Sam Ervin Jr.: "I believe in a wall between church and state so high that no one can climb over it."

Jimmy Carter, Letter to Jack V. Harwell, August 11, 1977: “I believe in the separation of church and state and would not use my authority to violate this principle in any way.”

Senator Barry Goldwater: "Can any of us refute the wisdom of Madison and the other framers? Can anyone look at the carnage in Iran, the bloodshed in Northern Ireland or the bombs bursting in Lebanon and yet question the dangers of injecting religious issues into the affairs of state?"

Senator Barry Goldwater: "By maintaining the separation of church and state, the United States has avoided the intolerance which has so divided the rest of the world with religious wars. Throughout our two hundred plus years, public policy debate has focused on political and economic issues, on which there can be compromise. . . ."

Governor Lowell Weicker Jr.: "History makes the point time and time again: No greater mischief can be created than to merge the power of religion with the power of government."

Governor Jesse Ventura: "I believe in the separation of church and state. We all have our own religious beliefs. There are people out there who are atheists, who don't believe at all. . . . They are citizens of Minnesota, and I have to respect that." (Explaining his refusal to issue a proclamation calling for National Day of Prayer activities in Minnesota.)

Sources not otherwise specified include:
http://www.humanismbyjoe.com/church_&_state.htm
http://blog.au.org/2010/02/15/president ... s-liberty/

[Laerod]

Well, for one, all voters being informed would include the politicians. It's actually my counter to whenever someone bitches about learning things in school that won't help them fix a car or get a job. Being well informed is vital to being a good citizen.

I trust you are not thinking that I disagree with your premise?

Not really, no. Just clarifying because it's such a "radical" idea =I

[Deus Malum]

How is legalizing dangerously addictive, harmful, socially deleterious drugs beneficial? You want everyone to be too high/stoned to work or for children to have more access to it with mainstream availability?

you have to think it through without being scared.

lets compare it for a moment to alcohol and the prohibition of alcohol.

when alcohol was made illegal in the US, all real control of alcohol was done away with--no legal drinking age, no legal sales hours, no quality controls (the govt would even put poison into denatured alcohol that would be illegally REnatured and kill people), no keeping kids away from it, no NOTHIN'

and no tax money from it.

as soon as alcohol was made legal again the rate of drinking DROPPED. the rate of alcohol related crime DROPPED and all the other problems associated with it were mitigated. alcohol was taxed and regulated. only certain stores could sell it and they had great incentives not to break the law by selling off hours, selling to children, or selling unregulated products. only those who were far outside the norm had to be investigated and prosecuted--freeing up police and court time.

currently illegal drugs are not harmless but by being unregulated you have problems with dose strength, purity, the ethics of the people involved in the business, their incentive to do right by their customers, and problems wth identifying problem users and those who sell to children. it creates and funds large criminal organizations that harm neighborhoods all over this country (and are practically destroying our neighbors to the south)

we also have a huge problem with putting small users in prison ruining their lives needlessly, clogging up police and court time, and costing us enormous sums to incarcerate harmless offenders.

making these drugs legal removes ALL these problems. yes it might add more users. but they will be more users using a safer product. ALL users will benefit from a regulated product. and i would suggest that anyone who isnt using drugs today who WOULD use drugs if they were legal are such law abiding citizens that they would NOT break the laws regarding not driving while high, using at the workplace, giving drugs to children, etc.

To be fair, this does finally shed some light on why he supports that candidate. Neither of them spend much time in reality.

[Grave_n_idle]

I'm done trying to reason with others in here about drugs. It's clear to me that some others just want to drastically break with the status quo and allow a dangerous level of permissiveness in society with regards to illegal drugs (among other things) because they either want the illegal drugs themselves, or because it's somehow "cool" to push for further drug proliferation and I should leave it at that. I've stated my stance and that is all I should need to do.

Letting blacks and women vote was 'dangerously permissive' at one point. Hell, placing power in the hands of anyone but a monarch was dangerously permissive at one point.

Stating your stance is not all you need to do if you want anyone to CARE about the things you think should be cared about. On the other hand, if you just want to sit quietly and grumble about the world going to hell, then sure - just state your stance, and let people who actually care about making arguments make the arguments.

Your choice. *shrugs*

[The Black Forrest]

I'm done trying to reason with others in here about drugs. It's clear to me that some others just want to drastically break with the status quo and allow a dangerous level of permissiveness in society with regards to illegal drugs (among other things) because they either want the illegal drugs themselves, or because it's somehow "cool" to push for further drug proliferation and I should leave it at that. I've stated my stance and that is all I should need to do.

I shouldn't of brought up marijuana and subsequently get into an argument about illegal drugs when the thread is supposed to be about Christine O'Donnell. I excoriate anyone who is for legalizing any of the currently illegal drugs, just as much as I repudiate those that want pedophilia to be legalized or have a lessened punishment for. Views such as those expressed, are only part of an overall trend going on- for the loosening of morals in society.

The fact is, I don't think Christine O'Donnell or a partially tea party controlled congress will destroy the US anymore than a majority democratic congress would. (which historically has had closet Marxists, socialists, and radical progressives in it)

Part of you problem is the gross over simplification of drug addiction and addictive personalities. I have know many people to experiment. I have know a guy who has smoked pot since the 60s. They have not moved on the meth or heroin. They are fully functioning contributing members of society.

You are not going to eliminate drug use. Since we gained the ability to record events, you will find that people have been smoking or ingesting substances since that time and long after you are dead, they will still be doing it.

Legalization will not greatly increase use. There will be such claims. However, I would argue the increased use are simply people openly using versus secretly using.

I would like to see it legalized for many reasons. In Humbolt county they have a problem of increasing soil and water contamination due to propane. The growers were forced underground by increased surveillance efforts. They quickly learned they could grow all year round with propane generators. Unfortunately, it leaches into the soil and makes it to the water ways. Then there is the wasted resources hunting for the growers rather then having law enforcement busy itself with regular crime efforts.

Then there are the taxes to be gained. Regulations on what should be used in pot and a great reduction of police budgets for having to look for pot growers and users.

[Bluth Corporation]

the benefits far outweigh the potential damage.

How is legalizing dangerously addictive, harmful, socially deleterious drugs beneficial?

How is whether it's "beneficial" even a relevant issue? People have the right to do it, beneficial or not, and the government needs to stop violating that right.

[Saiwania]

Back to Christine O'Donnell. Yes, I admit taking all other facts into consideration, she is no match for Chris Coons. Her campaign has been a royal screw up with the "I'm not a witch" stunt just like McCain's 2008 presidential run and the only way she's winning is if most of the Delaware democrats and independents don't bother to vote but the TEA party manages to get all of their voters out. Her chances are as good as done. Despite having such a controversial past, she could have done much better by dismissing it and realigning her platform to that of a RINO (Scott Brown style).

I only support her for pragmatic and self centered reasons and not on her actual merits. All that matters to me is that O'Donnell would vote for repeal of Obamacare while conversely, Coons would vote no for getting rid of the healthcare law being a liberal. On all of the other key issues I'll admit as much, Christine O'Donnell is not fit to represent a blue state like Delaware. Her constituents have different beliefs than her and she would not be on par to represent them. I acknowledge that she is toast and that this race is a lost cause for the GOP.