The Right Scoop
Thomas Jefferson used the Bible as a text book for the public schools when he was school superintendent in Wash DC.
BTW, Libs - the 1st Amendment and the others are in the Bill of Rights. Do your homework instead of listening to the same old bulls**t from the left - it makes you look as stupid and ignorant as them.
So, Mr. Levin, since the phrase "separation of powers" occurs nowhere in the express language of the Constitution, does that mean, in your view, that the Constitution does not mandate such a separation of powers?
Hint: Constitutional exegesis is not the same as a word-matching puzzle for second-graders.
The question is whether what YOU mean by "separation of church and state" was the intent of the Founders. What leftists in general or organizations like the ACLU in particular mean by these words is a secularist society where anything connected to government is scrubbed of any religious reference.
Anyone who really believes this was the intent of the Founders has been indoctrinated with revisionist history and has not read the original sources for himself. Clearly, the men who envisioned our republic did not intend to relegate religion to the status of private hobby. These were men who were steeped in the legal tradition elucidated by William Blackstone. Go read him. His Commentaries are free on the Gutenberg Project. Then tell me these men were closet secularists.
I think most educated people who have read the original sources realize, if secretly, that the Founders were not secularists and would not have approved of the ACLU's vision. However, they have been carefully taught that that truth cannot be fixed, uniform and universal--so the Founders' truth was just their "narrative," which is outmoded and no longer applicable today. Relativists and postmodernists don't care a whit about original intent. Any talk about "what the Founders believed" on their part is a foil to mask their deeper motivations to tinker with society at their own whim, to shake off the limits imposed on raw power by the Constitution. Original intent is just a historical oddity. The words of the law of our land can be revised at will, and anything can be inserted via penumbras and subtexts at their whim--even when it directly contradicts the other portions of the Constitution. In other words, meaning does not matter because no transcendent truth is accessible through language. Thus, it all comes down to power, to the simple contest between vying, warring classes.
When a leftist talks of whether this or that is Constitutional, it's usually just window dressing to cover for a raw exercise of power. Might makes right. Words are merely tools to be manipulated and redefined at will in order to win. (Viz., "Choice," which *always* applies ONLY in one direction. Educational choice? Nope. Minority choosing to leave the progressive reservation? Nope. And so on.)
How I long for honest leftists. Obama himself once was honest (probably inadvertantly) about his view of the Constitution. I'll have to find that link.
The fact is, Levin is absolutely correct, and so is O'Donnell. History is on their side. The secularist vision of a government free of any religious contact was clearly NOT the intent of the Founders (read their speeches!), and has nothing to do with the establishment clause, which they included to guarantee the FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION, guaranteed toleration, in *every* realm of public and private life.
What "Congress shall make no law" has to do with the Ten Commandments posted in a county courthouse, or the curriculum chosen by a local school board, or a Christmas creche decorating a public building, I have yet to hear "separation of church and state" parrots explain adequately. Which was, of course, O'Donnell's *main point.* And as is always the case, instead of answering that point with an honest response, of course the leftists devolve into their usual name-calling: "stupid," etc.
@ Just a mom. Thank you for your response. I for one, appreciate your candor. I'm hoping you or someone could answer a question for me. Doesn't the Constitution intend a separation between "State and Church" as opposed to "Church and State." My doctorate is in a completely unrelated field, but the implications are significantly different, no?
The question is whether what YOU mean by "separation of church and state" was the intent of the Founders. What leftists in general or organizations like the ACLU in particular mean by these words is a secularist society where anything connected to government is scrubbed of any religious reference.
Anyone who really believes this was the intent of the Founders has been indoctrinated with revisionist history and has not read the original sources for himself. Clearly, the men who envisioned our republic did not intend to relegate religion to the status of private hobby. These were men who were steeped in the legal tradition elucidated by William Blackstone. Go read him. His Commentaries are free on the Gutenberg Project. Then tell me these men were closet secularists.
I think most educated people who have read the original sources realize, if secretly, that the Founders were not secularists and would not have approved of the ACLU's vision. However, they have been carefully taught that that truth cannot be fixed, uniform and universal--so the Founders' truth was just their "narrative," which is outmoded and no longer applicable today. Relativists and postmodernists don't care a whit about original intent. Any talk about "what the Founders believed" on their part is a foil to mask their deeper motivations to tinker with society at their own whim, to shake off the limits imposed on raw power by the Constitution. Original intent is just a historical oddity. The words of the law of our land can be revised at will, and anything can be inserted via penumbras and subtexts at their whim--even when it directly contradicts the other portions of the Constitution. In other words, meaning does not matter because no transcendent truth is accessible through language. Thus, it all comes down to power, to the simple contest between vying, warring classes.
When a leftist talks of whether this or that is Constitutional, it's usually just window dressing to cover for a raw exercise of power. Might makes right. Words are merely tools to be manipulated and redefined at will in order to win. (Viz., "Choice," which *always* applies ONLY in one direction. Educational choice? Nope. Minority choosing to leave the progressive reservation? Nope. And so on.)
How I long for honest leftists. Obama himself once was honest (probably inadvertantly) about his view of the Constitution. I'll have to find that link.
The fact is, Levin is absolutely correct, and so is O'Donnell. History is on their side. The secularist vision of a government free of any religious contact was clearly NOT the intent of the Founders (read their speeches!), and has nothing to do with the establishment clause, which they included to guarantee the FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION, guaranteed toleration, in *every* realm of public and private life.
What "Congress shall make no law" has to do with the Ten Commandments posted in a county courthouse, or the curriculum chosen by a local school board, or a Christmas creche decorating a public building, I have yet to hear "separation of church and state" parrots explain adequately. Which was, of course, O'Donnell's *main point.* And as is always the case, instead of answering that point with an honest response, of course the leftists devolve into their usual name-calling: "stupid," etc.
again dmk - from bryceg69 - Treaty of Tripoli Article 11. Jefferson Letter to the Dansbury Baptist. All done by those who wrote/and or ratified the Constitution.
Get a clue. The line is drawn in the sand. Hoohah.
Levin is a constitutional lawyer and served on Reagan's cabinet. I would bet my next paycheck he knows more about than you and most Libs in this country. Coons is a moron.
BTW, I am a combat veteran, served in 2 wars to give you the right to be a Communist.But beware - there's over 20 million NRA members, millions of ex-law enforcement, and millions of ex-military - priceless. You people are in for a very rude awakening if you think the Marxists,Communists,Socialists are going to run this country into the ground, and you can take that to the bank.
Love it!
For anyone interested in the topic read Ten Tortured Words: How the Founding Fathers Tried to Protect Religion in America . . . and What's Happened Since by Stephen Mansfield it really goes in depth as to how screwed up things are these days
Don17k
think again... who overrules the SCOTUS?
The People through the Congress... thanks for coming out...
Not exactly, but you're close. For the people, it would have to be through two-thirds of each chamber of Congress, plus three fourths of the state legislatures.
The only alternative is to get a later SCOTUS to reverse the decision of the prior one, the way Brown v Board reversed Plessey v Ferguson.
But that wasn't the question anyway. It was, who are the arbiters of the Bill of Rights. And the SCOTUS are the final arbiters in all things Constitutional.
Congress can maintain laws that the Court finds unconstitutional? Guess I haven't taken that class yet
The SCOTUS is not supposed to rule ON the Bill of Rights... They are only supposed to apply the Constiution and Bill AS WRITTEN...
Where does it say in the Constitution that the SCOTUS can opine on the Constitution or BoR at all?
you fell for the trick question... LOL
You changed the question... (was that the "trick" part?) which was who are the arbiters OF the BOR, not ON it. "OF" includes, "Matters pertaining to".
The Marshall Court declared the Court to be the supreme arbiter of the Constitution and made several important rulings which gave shape and substance to the constitutional balance of power between the federal government and the states.In Martin v. Hunter's Lessee,the Court ruled that it had the power to correct interpretations of the federal Constitution made by state supreme courts.Both Marbury and Martin confirmed that the Court was entrusted with maintaining the consistent and orderly development of federal law.
Seems that John Marshall had a different view.So who shold be the "final arbiter" ? Jesus? Moses? Dr.Pepper?
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF. There are two parts to the religion segment
wow, now that you have nothing to go on, your going to make fun of my service and demean my ability to speak 2 languages. you guys are so predictable, when you got nothing to go with, you smear and demean your opponent. you guys crack me up. it seems that you are offended that i made light of your "accomplishments" when most of the accomplishments you listed off weren't really yours. congratulations mr.dmk! you learned japanese! and work a gruelly 20 hours a week and teach 12 hours a week to write your dissertation. i'm bursting at the seems with sympathy towards you.
i'm not here to argue self-worth since you obviously have no standards by which to judge. for crying out loud you listed off the service of your grandpa and father? what did YOU do? keep typing away buddy, your just further proving the points i listed earlier.
thats great, but i really don't think your grandfather and/or your father really contribute to your self-worth. and as far as playing above all, give me a break, i used to be a flaming lib and had that undeserved sense of accomplishment and worth that you probably have right now. i relinquished that and i AM currently serving my country. putting my butt on the line everyday. i could care less about your ambitions with japanese culture or your dissertations thereof. guess what? im a chinese immigrant who moved over here with my family and having appreciated the opportunities afforded to me, I decided to give back to my country (BTW i mean The United States). i can speak chinese but that doesn't give me a sense of self-worth. self-worth comes from sacrifice in something that is greater than yourself.
i really don't know why your listing off what your family and friends qualifications and experience is, i never asked for that nor yours. it seems liberals always like to play the "i'm your kinda guy" card just before they start spewing bullcrap. frankly, i could care less about what your experiences entail. im pretty sure you could care less about mine. but thats not what why i posted. i you took a good guess, it's about politics, and frankly, common sense.
Christine O'Donnell is not stupid. She's just a loon. She may be qualified to do Glenn Beck's job, but write laws and evaluate policy and distinguish fact from nonsense is way beyond her (and quite a few Republicant legislators).
Yes, we live in a world of education as a basic requirement for qualification. Obama has a law degree from the top university in the nation and taught Constitutional law at one of the top (albeit more conservative) universities in the country.
But I recall your objection to education having anything to do with intelligence, so I assume it has little use as any job qualification either.
Christine O'Donnell is not stupid. She's just a loon. She may be qualified to do Glenn Beck's job, but write laws and evaluate policy and distinguish fact from nonsense is way beyond her (and quite a few Republicant legislators).
Yes, we live in a world of education as a basic requirement for qualification. Obama has a law degree from the top university in the nation and taught Constitutional law at one of the top (albeit more conservative) universities in the country.
But I recall your objection to education having anything to do with intelligence, so I assume it has little use as any job qualification either.
i like your argument in the fact that even though indecency is practiced on your side in the form of name-calling, character assassinations, stereotypes, racism, sexism, homophobia, islamophobia, and profanities, our side is barred from using just a "little" of your jackassery to turn it around on you. you talk about slinging mud, but i would like to argue that unless your a very pacifist and patient person, you would probably wouldn't turn the other cheek. but i digress, its not like we're the ones saying Bush is a nazi, a n-word hater, hitler, white trash, country trash, southern trash. yes, i forgot it was your side, but somehow calling B.O. a jackass is deplorable and unforgivable. your double standards are so obvious that it would literally take a "jackass" to not realize it. but then again, aren't all libs jackasses? aren't you a little tired of the fact that mud-slinging done by your side always seems to eclipse what our side entails? i mean really, "f*ck bush!" and portraying him as a nazi on t-shirts is fine in all aspects but you glorify mao, stalin, and che? it doesn't matter anymore to you idiots because the substance of the words coming out of your mouths might as well just have spewed from your ass. everything your failure in chief is spewing is pure drivel. so why should you get offended when we attack what you say? wait wait wait, its because it only matters when it benefits YOU. i get it now, thanks for clearing it for me you jackasses.
here is whats funny about all you little trolls. none of us waste our time and energy to post useless arguments on your safe haven websites simply because arguing with a lib is like talking to a stone. but it seems all you unemployed, college educated, high intelligent types have all the time in the world to peruse our discussions and even spend hours listening to our candidates and talk-show hosts. the underlying message is this, for jackasses like you idiots who have all the time in the world to pick straw-man arguments, the rest of us actually contribute to society. lets be fair here, if your agenda actually succeeds to the fullest extent of your imagination, eventually no one will need to contribute to society, so i guess my argument was correct all along, you idiots really just want something for nothing.
Oh no, one of the people who thinks they are smarter than everyone else is posting here. Sigh...
"There really isn't an argument. This is all about "proving" that Christine O'Donnell is stupid. That's what it's always about when it comes to a conservative, and especially when it comes to a conservative woman."
Then maybe a good way to avoid such accusations is to stop nominating/electing stupid people.
When you say conservative women the two prime examples of late are Christine O'Donnell and Sarah Palin one of whom has both of whom have campaigned on lowering taxes yet one had no idea as to the contents of the 16th amendment and the other had to write the word on her hand so she didn't forget what she was talking about.
Really it's not as if they're being unfairly victimised. If either of them worked in the private sector they would never get away with being so woefully underprepared.
I figured she'd be well read on Griswold v Connceticut,seeing how it allowed women to obtain and use contraceptives and birth control without fear of arrest or being fined by the state.But I'm sure once she reads up on it she would want that Court ruling overruled.Why would you want a government that allows women to contorl their lives and make their own choices?
You can watch the whole video here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miwSljJAzqg&feature=player_embedded
I'm not a liberal actually I just worry when a grown woman who believes the earth is less than ten thousand years old and was created in seven days is this close to holding elected office.
It shows she lacks the capacity for critical thinking and no matter what you say the "separation of church and state" is a fundamental part of the first amendment as interpreted by the supreme court.
Then again considering we're talking about the same woman who was unable to name a single recent supreme court judgement only last week it would be a bit much to expect of her wouldn't it?
So do you think Harry Reid would be able to answer questions about the constitution? Or most of the people who are already senators? Please...don't kid your self.
Well, maybe one question. But I think that may be one more than Christine or Sharon could.
I saw clips of the Angle-Reid debate. I didn't watch it all, since it isn't my state. But didn't Angle say that Reid gets to vote on a salary increase every year? If Reid had known much about it, he might have answered that the 27th Amendment states that there must be an intervening election, so it wouldn't be every year... the most frequent would be every other year.
Maybe they could, maybe they couldn't but that's irrelevant to my point. If they turned up to a debate so woefully underprepared I would expect them to get the same heat that Christine O'Donnell has been getting.
I wouldn't be crying and trying to claim media bias when it's clear to anybody who's lips don't move when they read that she cocked up.
People in government should be aware of if not the finer details then at least the main points of the constitution in order to do their job.
The first amendment issue is secondary to me in this case I'm more concerned about her ignorance of the 16th. She has focused so much of her campaign rhetoric on taxes so the fact that she was unaware of the amendment covering federal income tax is unforgivable. It shows that she's basically been parroting tea party mantra with zero understanding of the issues on which she is campaigning.
The fact that so many people are happy to be represented by somebody who routinely demonstrates such ignorance is a sad indictment on that portion of the american electorate.
Mark Levin is a little weasel with an obvious agenda. If Christine O'Donnel has a clear grasp on the constitution why did she have no idea what was contained in the 16th amendment? For a Tea Party member who constantly bangs on about taxes you'd think she'd a at least have a handle on that one no?
Chris Coons makes it clear that he's referring to the separation of church and state as interpreted from the first amendment by the supreme court on numerous occasions since 1947. If you listen to what he actually says it's clear that he refers to the interpretation of the first amendment and no the exact wording.
Either way what I find to be most concerning is that this idiot of a woman still wont give up on trying to force her extremist religious agenda on the school system. Coon is exactly right in saying that so called "intelligent design" is nothing more than glorified creationism and has no place in a proper science class.
Evolution is a fact in as much as it is possible to define the term in scientific terms. There is masses and masses of hard evidence to support the theory as opposed to no evidence whatsoever for creationism.
I think Americans need to be genuinely worried that somebody so obviously clueless, not only on the constitution but on high school biology was allowed to get within a mile of a senate nomination.
Whatever happened to hiring the best qualified person for the job?
Oh and Mark Levin might want to actually research the background on the "Bearded Marxist" thing because he's making himself sound like an idiot.
what are you basing your evidence on for evolution... the ocean iguana which is still an iguana... adaptation occurs... i haven't seen any evidence of tranformation of one species to another...
as for creationism and intelligent design... what are the chances of an earth coming to rest after a big bang in the narrow strip of sustainable life zone, acquiring a satellite that is not only the right size, but exactly the right distance away from that earth, to create a heavenly spectacle as the eclipse is... no mere chance... intelligent design... i will give you the earth resting in the ring of life from the sun, but the other two, not a chance without a creator's hand...
You seem to be making a distinction between "not establishing religion" and "separation of church and state", so, if the government shall not establish religion then the government is separating itself from the church which is where religion is practiced. So, getting picky about not reading the language "separation of church and state" does not negate that separation is based on "not establishing religion." I do not get the argument.
1. The point of this monologue was Separation of Church and state, which is what everyone is crying 'stupid' over, even though they are wrong.
2. It's a radio broadcast and he doesn't have time to play all the portions of the debate that you want to hear...just what he wants to talk about. Thus he edits the clip to the relevant portions of the debate.
3. Given all of this I'll give you the fact that it's fair to point out she didn't recall what the 14th and 16th amendments were off the top of her head, but she gave a great answer either way.
4. How in the heck you call Mark Levin a mean-spirited little toad because he didn't include everything you wanted to hear in his monologue about SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE just shows how ignorant you are or how biased you are. You pick.
I hope that clears up your misunderstanding.
I think the 1st amendment isn't particularly clear what it means regarding religion. What each of us interprets it to mean, depends very much on what each of us wants it to mean. The pious will bend it in one direction, the rest will twist it the other way.
I'm not sure we can even go by the Founders' actions, as they appeared willing to dispense with the Bill of Rights when it suited them, and stretch the various clauses at will. There's little ambiguity regarding freedom of speech... and yet they still passed the Alien and Sedition Acts, one of which directly and unequivocally violated that freedom. It could be argued that the 10th amendment should have prevented the Fugitive Slave Act from applying in states that didn't want any living person within their borders to be no more than someone's property, while the 4th should have stopped anyone from intruding on private property in search of escaped slaves to return them. The legal problem being that the slave catchers also grabbed free blacks and hauled them to slave states to sell into slavery, that they violated the 4jth amendment looking for the slaves, and a fugitive should have also had rights under the 6th and 7th amendments.
Coons only knew one of the five freedoms protected by the first amendment. He should have know all of them. 20% is an F in anyone's book.
Treaty of Tripoli Article 11. Jefferson Letter to the Dansbury Baptist. All done by those who wrote/and or ratified the Constitution.
Pre-Communism and ignorant of the true nature of Islam...
If only the founders knew what we know now....
"In the seventh century of the Christian era, a wandering Arab of the lineage of Hagar [i.e., Muhammad], the Egyptian, [.....] Adopting from the new Revelation of Jesus, the faith and hope of immortal life, and of future retribution, he humbled it to the dust by adapting all the rewards and sanctions of his religion to the gratification of the sexual passion. He poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind. THE ESSENCE OF HIS DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST.- TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE.... Between these two religions, thus contrasted in their characters, a war of twelve hundred years has already raged. The war is yet flagrant ... While the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet shall furnish motives to human action, there can never be peace upon earth, and good will towards men." --John Adams
Who knows? I'm not arrogant enough to presume to know what the Founders would or wouldn't do.But I'm sure they would've done whatever they had to defend the Constitution.
Who in America is allowing sharia law to be usurp American law in this country? I've been to Iraq twice,Unlce Sam was nice to me like that,and no where in America is anything close to what it is in the Middle East.And don't throw around words like traitor lightly,there's a reason treason is the only crime mentioned in the Constitution.
Mickey,
What do you think the founders would have done had they known traitorous Americans would invite islam to America to set up Shariah Law in colonies of muslim concentration?
What would the Founders do if they knew what we know now?
It's not JUST a religion...
"In the seventh century of the Christian era, a wandering Arab of the lineage of Hagar [i.e., Muhammad], the Egyptian, [.....] Adopting from the new Revelation of Jesus, the faith and hope of immortal life, and of future retribution, he humbled it to the dust by adapting all the rewards and sanctions of his religion to the gratification of the sexual passion. He poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind. THE ESSENCE OF HIS DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST.- TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE.... Between these two religions, thus contrasted in their characters, a war of twelve hundred years has already raged. The war is yet flagrant ... While the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet shall furnish motives to human action, there can never be peace upon earth, and good will towards men." --John Adams
Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.