Chris Coons can’t name the five freedoms in the First Amendment
That’s right. Delaware Democratic Senate candidate Chris Coons can’t name the five freedoms in the First Amendment.
But all you’ll hear from the MSM today is that Christine O’Donnell — correctly — questioned Coons’ claim that the phrase “the separation of church and state” appears in the First Amendment.
Coons’ ignorance doesn’t fit the O’Donnell bashers’ narrative. So they’ll pretend this didn’t happen:
Read:
Delaware GOP Senate nominee Christine O’Donnell questioned on Tuesday whether the Constitution provides for the separation of church and state.
The comment came during a debate on WDEL radio with Democratic opponent Chris Coons, who argued that local schools should teach science rather than religion, at which point O’Donnell jumped in. “Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?” she asked.
The audience at Widener Law School was taken aback, with shouts of “whoa” and laughter coming from the crowd.
Coons then pointed to the First Amendment, which states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
“You’re telling me the First Amendment does?” O’Donnell interrupted to ask.
Following the next question, Coons revisited the remark — likely thinking he had caught O’Donnell in a flub — saying, “I think you’ve just heard from my opponent in her asking ‘where is the separation of church and state’ show that she has a fundamental misunderstanding.”
“That’s in the First Amendment?” O’Donnell again asked.
“Yes,” Coons responded.
O’Donnell was later able to score some points of her own off the remark, revisiting the issue to ask Coons if he could identify the “five freedoms guaranteed in the First Amendment.”
Coons named the separation of church and state, but could not identify the others — the freedoms of speech, press, to assemble and petition — and asked that O’Donnell allow the moderators ask the questions.
“I guess he can’t,” O’Donnell said.
Yep, when he got caught with his own intellectual pants down, Coons runs to the moderators for cover.
Listen to the whole radio debate at WDEL here.
It’s obvious from O’Donnell’s very specific challenge to Coons during the debate that she knows perfectly well about the establishment and free exercise of religion clauses in the First Amendment.
It’s obvious that Coons is not only unfamiliar with the rest of the First Amendment, but also that he is wholly unfamiliar with where the phrase “separation of church and state” originated.
And it’s obvious from the warped, gleeful spin on this exchange just how in the tank for Democrats the “objective” press — protected by our precious, poorly understood, and frquently squandered First Amendment — really is.
***
Ramesh Ponnuru at NRO also agrees: “Some bloggers and tv commentators have seized on remarks by Christine O’Donnell to suggest that she is unaware that the First Amendment prohibits the establishment of religion. I don’t think that’s right. What she denies is that the First Amendment requires ‘the separation of church and state.’”
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Subscribe to the Michelle Malkin newsletter
February 22, 2012 12:44 PM by Michelle Malkin
33 CommentsSurprise: UK’s Version of ‘Buffett Rule’ Failing to Bring in Expected Revenue
February 22, 2012 11:05 AM by Doug Powers
53 Comments
The high priests of eco-destruction
February 22, 2012 07:50 AM by Michelle Malkin
124 Comments
Gallup: Unemployment Climbing Back to 9% for February
February 21, 2012 02:56 PM by Doug Powers
70 Comments
Overnight Open Thread: Dems Try to Manufacture New Voting Bloc
February 20, 2012 10:24 PM by Doug Powers
55 CommentsDisability Claims Up As Unemployment Benefits Run Out
February 19, 2012 11:16 PM by Doug Powers
70 Comments
It Wouldn’t Be Saturday Morning Without Another Friday Night Solyndra Document Dump to Sift Through
February 18, 2012 09:52 AM by Doug Powers
41 Comments
Categories: Politics
Sister Toldjah
» Quote of the Day: “There is no male equivalent for abortion”Hot Air
» Open thread: The last debateRedstate
» Obama the Tax Cutter? Think AgainHot Air
» Poll: Romney on the rise in Arizona?
Separation of Church and State is in the same section as the Right to Privacy. It’s in between the section that says the government can take your property from you and give it to someone who’ll pay more in taxes and the one that says the government can force you to buy a product.
Hey, when the Constitution doesn’t matter, who care what the amendments say. If DE elects this clown….. I’m tired of suffering the consequences of the choices made by dumb voters.
When the lame stream media was hyping about Obama’s intellect (as they did with Kerry’s and Gore’s), I was never impressed. They criticized Sarah Palin’s perceived lack of intelligence, but I always felt from the beginning that if Obama and Palin ever competed against each other in a game of Jeopardy, Palin would clean his clock. My guess is that O’Donnell would do the same to Coons.
American citizens have been told for years, by the aclu and others, that there is a separation of state and church. The kids learn it in school, you hear it on the news, and courts rule there is a separation. The only religion that seems not to be held to this is the rop type. They can do as they jolly well please with the help of our dc bunch and the wh. I hope to goodness Christine wins over this worm coons!
L
WaPo link:
“Republican Senate nominee Christine O’Donnell of Delaware on Tuesday questioned whether the U.S. Constitution calls for a separation of church and state, appearing to disagree or not know that the First Amendment bars the government from establishing religion.”
And this dimwit Post reporter appears to disagree or (far more likely) not know that “separation of church and state” is not the same thing as barring the government from establishing religion.
She just killed herself. Though she is 100% correct Separation of Church and State is NOT in the constitution and is some idiotic interpretation from the left. She didn’t defend herself to well by asking a question back to Coons instead of explaining the First Amendment that Congress shall make NO law in repsect to r…eligion. Sorry she left herself wide open on this.
It’s never surprised me that liberals think that the Constitution guarantees the separation of church and state. They can’t interpret any other amendments, so there’s no reason to think that they would understand the first. I’ve also considered that they actually understand the Amendments, but ignore them because they conflict with their socialist ideology.
If liberals were capable of understanding English, we wouldn’t have McCain-Feingold and the Town of New London, CT never would have been able to steal private property for a condo development.
Delaware is very liberal, so it won’t be a surprise for a Marxist to win there. It’s too bad though that the rest of us have to suffer.
“Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?” she asked.
she left herself wide open is right.. and she tried to claw back and it didn’t work. she unfortunately threatens the entire Nov. 2 festivities. Sorry to be wet blankety…
With his intellect, those must be fishnet pants.
The audience has heard the phrase “separation of church and state” so often from the MSM, they think it’s actually in the Constitution.
Apparently you haven’t ready the First Amendment either.
This very point is widely misunderstood by the Christian Right too. Whereas the left cites separation as a way to expunge all references to religion out of the public square so as to “protect” society from religion, the CR argue that since our country was founded by Christians on Judea- Christian principles, Church and State CAN be intertwined. Both positions are wrong!
Government being a necessary evil in our basis founding philosophy, government was deemed to be a threat to religion, not the other way around. That is why the power of the federal government was limited to those specific powers assigned to it in the Constitution. Our founders did not want the specific and limited powers assigned to government to be confused by religious issues such as when governments answer to the Pope or when the King/Queen is also the head of the Church of England.
Religion is good and belongs in the sphere of society, not government. Government is improved when virtuous men whose virtue was honed by religion serve honorably.
Go back to 2008 when the Huckabites and Paulistas were engaging in anti-Semitic and anti-Catholic attacks in these threads and during their rallies. Let’s not kid ourselves into believing that the separation issue is understood by conservatives any better than by leftists.
He may not know the US Constitution, but I bet Coons knows chapter and verse of the Communist Manifesto.
If that view were correct, congressional sessions wouldn’t begin with a prayer, and “In God We Trust” wouldn’t be on the currency.
The phrase ‘separation of church and state’ as I understand it came from the judicial branch of government. I think it was mostly an anti-Catholic sentiment in that the judge wrote that there needed to be an insurmountable wall of separation between Church and state. Ironically there are no Protestants on the Supreme Court now. But the judge’s concern was that a court or law was determined by the Catholic Church rather than the laws of the land.
that’s how I’ve always understood that phrase.
But they never talk about this part of the first amendment:
Understand that in a government by, for, and of the people, then the government will be made up of free people with protected rights. You can not keep an elected official from praying to Jesus specifically or it is unconstitutional because you are ‘prohibiting the free exercise thereof’. It doesn’t matter that he is a public and elected official. You can not keep the man from practicing his religion anywhere. . . guaranteed by the first amendment.
We’re fighting to keep the Christian flag flying at a Veterans Memorial down here in King (named for Christ – “The King”). Christians expect to win this one. You have never seen so many Christian flags flying in one town ever before. The flag sellers have flat run out of Christian flags there.
txvet2: your comment makes no sense. I said exactly the opposite of what you are claiming. Please make the effort to understand what I say before automatically contesting my points. Yeesh.
So this isn’t a quote from your post?
txvet2: Do you understand the freedom of speech? Did you miss my first point about how leftists are wrong in arguing to expunge all references of religion out of public square? Do you read English?
Hmmm.
I didn’t miss it. The government isn’t “the public square”. Your inability to coherently articulate your opinions in no war reflects upon my ability to comprehend what you’ve actually written.
“in no way”. Fingerfehler.
Please scroll right back up and click the link Michelle provides on where the phrase originated.
I actually looked up the town name. I always assumed it was King for Christ because there’s churches everywhere down here, but on wikipedia, it says the town is named for a family with the ‘King’ name. sorry for the misinformation, but they are fighting the ACLU there over the Christian flag.
In any event, she was exactly correct, he’s an idiot, and in Delaware they vote for idiots – like Biden.
The 1st Amendment says 2 DISTINCLY DIFFERENT THINGS vis a vis RELIGION.
1) That Congress shall make NO LAW.
CONGRESS!!! Shall make no law with respect to the ESTABLISHMENT. ESTABLISHMENT of Religion.
It says CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW ESTABLISHING RELIGION. Not to difficult to understand.
2)It also prohibits Congress from restricting the practice of Religion. The “free excercise thereof”.
Liberals are ignorant of the 1st amendment. They hear only what they want to hear.
This episode will matter to the extent that the voters of Delaware understand and value the difference between the Constitution and letters from presidents. Sad to say but not everyone has read the Constitution but assume that they know what it says anyway, so those predisposed one way or the other will be reinforced.
Bottom line: Ms. O’Donnell’s mission was to relieve us all of Mr. Castle, and in that mission she succeeded brilliantly. I’d rather go into 2012 with a solid corps that can maintain a filibuster and minimize damage until then, when the Dems are defending lots of seats, than have someone like Castle running a committee.
Pasadena Phil.
Please stop sniffing glue.
You just posted the following tripe.
“”the CR argue that since our country was founded by Christians on Judea- Christian principles, Church and State CAN be intertwined. “”
That is such utter nonsense that I think you may actually be HIGH right now.
Tom B. EXACTLY. Like O’Donnell of NOT, she knows EXACTLY what she is saying.
Coons does not.
that is clear.
Good job Michelle. Rush is mentioning your article on his show now.
L
yeah, it shows why Jefferson used it. . . but it doesn’t talk about the reason the Supreme Court Justice used it later. I’m pretty sure it was to make sure that no church was making laws (ie. sharia).
This is why I don’t think sharia is constitutional among our free nation. No need to sign a pledge against it.
txvet2: twisting what other people say in order to win arguments is not discussing in good faith.
Mr. Coons(The Bearded Marxist)was asked about five freedoms in the First Amendment. Hell, that’s like asking Dracula the difference in taste between regular and Elephant Garlic.
Please give Mr. Coons a pass. Karl Marx never wrote about these so why would Coons know?
Since I don’t live in DE, I’d be curious to know what people in that state think about that exchange between O’Donnell, who’s showing she’s no pushover, and Coons, a liberal empty suit.
What Constitution?
The one that says Barry Soetoro can’t be President?
It’s history folks…. don’t uphold it and you forfeit it.
It now says any anchor baby with allegience to Mexico can be President.
Along with “from each according to his means, to each according to his needs.”
I don’t need to twist what you say, Phil, I just quote you. In point of fact, the concept we’re talking about is very easy to understand and somewhat difficult to articulate. And one way to clarify the issue is to debate it. Don’t take it personally.
As AlohaGuy quoted earlier, intertwining between church and state was common in the early days of the Republic. The Constitution restricts it only from the aspect of government, not from the aspect of religion – several of the founding fathers were ministers (as I’m sure you’re well aware), and prayer and religious symbolism were rampant in government.
Freedom of religion is different than freedom from religion. The argument by the ACLU that we Have to be a nonreligious society is exactly what our founders were seeking to protect us from. I submit that the Judiciary is a branch of our government, and that it’s judges are establishing the religion of atheism. I recognize the founding fathers were speaking specifically of Henry the eigth establishing the Church of England so he could do what he wanted. But I submit that our Judicial branch is systematically establishing the church of global warming and Darwinism and mandating abandonment of all religions.
I had thought the MSM was starting to play things straight over the last few weeks – Schieffer etc. It’s obvious I was wrong. Although I guess you can’t blame them when even law school students present at the debate snickered and fell into the “separation” trap too. But then maybe they were just being disingenuous when they clearly knew what O’Donnell was doing with Coons.
Excuse me? Sniffing glue? Are you five years old?
Chris Coons neither knows, nor understands, the First Amendment.
You won’t find the words “separation”, “church”, or “state” in the 1st Amendment to our United States Constitution.
But you will find them in Article 124 of the 1936 Constitution of the U.S.S.R. (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics):
It should come as no surprise that Coons, the Marxist, believes in a constitutional separation of church and state.
Phil. Do you actually live in Pasadena? I visied my sister’s family when they were there in 1992-3. I loved it. I can see why people are so fond of the area.
Visited…
Which is why it is important to elect people to the Senate who won’t rubberstamp Obama’s judicial appointments.
Coons was bad enough. The scary thing is that a bunch of law students don’t know the First Amendment.
I think Coons believes he is a shoe-in to be elected if he can just do his best Chevy Chase debate impression. All we’re missing is the water hose sweat bath.
The same congress that passed the 1st amendment on September 25th, 1789 was the same Congress that asked President George Washington to issue the Thanksgiving Proclamation that was delivered a mere eight days later on October 3rd, 1789.
More in my post here:
The Bill of Rights was written, passed, and ratified to PROTECT OUR GOD-GIVEN RIGHTS.
Today, “progressives” turn the first amendment upside-down to take our God-given rights away!
The U.S. Government hasn’t burned Korans, but it has confiscated and burned Bibles!
Just to be precise.
For the first few decades of our national existence, several states had official state religions.
When I read an article in the newspaper or on the web, I always check to see if it’s coming from the AP. If so, I know it is jaded and probably missing a lot of factual information. This was the case with the Coons/O’Donnell exchange.
No mention of the five freedoms the 1st amendment affords and Coons inability to name them.
I think back to Charlie Gibson asking a “gotcha” question of Sarah Palin about the Bush Doctrine. I so wish we could ask Charlie about the Obama doctrine and his thoughts on it (them???).
Sorry, no ….
ThackerAgency said:
The phrase ‘separation of church and state’ as I understand it came from the judicial
Actually, the judicial branch lifted it from the Jefferson letter to the Danbury Baptists. They then “codified” it into U.S. law.
You know, intrepret a “living”, breathing, constitution to suit their new cultural enlightenments. The libs feel the constitution didn’t have enough libs on the committee and have decided to add their expertise to the foundational work of the founding fathers. Aren’t we lucky?
And while we’re at it…
LBJ’s Unconstitutional Amendment
You’re right, but we were discussing the federal goverment and constitution at the time.
Today, a person saying that is called a “right-wing-nut” / “Teabagger” / etc.
Sixty years ago, it was a Democratic President saying that.
All the way from that then to now where some judges decided that the word ‘Congress’ actually means ‘school house’ and the word ‘law’ actually means ‘prayer’ without even the slightest peep from the WIMPS in our legislative branch who were delighted to see an activist Supreme Court acting on their behalf so that they could avoid the wrath of the citizenry for altering our Constitution to mean something it never did.
Good for O’Donnell. She makes a lot of sense if you give her time to say what she means, and you actually listen. My hope is that the people in Delaware start listening to her, and not the lame stream media or the Republican establishment who prefer the old mean-spirited, liberal Castle.
Good news here, as our local paper is recommending the two republicans for governor and senator in Oregon. I am hoping we get a wave strong enough to overtake Oregon, where the Dems have turned the state into California lite.
I found this on Hot Air.
church and state mentions in the northwest ordiance of July 1787
ITookTheRedPill said:
Sixty years ago, it was a Democratic President saying that.
Thanks, that one’s a worth a bookmark!
This point may have already been made, and forgive me if so. But it bears repeating I suppose that the “separation of church and state” was employed (borrowed) by Jefferson, as a protection of the church FROM the state, not vice versa.
Michelle:
You may be interested to know that the Associated press has edited it story on this Coons-O’Donnell debate (at 5:12 p.m. today) to scrub it of any reference to Coons saying that the First Amendment “establishes the separation (of church and state),” which, of course, is what O’Donnell challenged him on. He was wrong in both the language — and the intent — of the First Amendment, and the media decides to spin it as O’Donnell was wrong. BUT, the AP story doesn’t support that narrative, so they rewrote it this afternoon to spin it Coons’ way. Pretty stunning — rewriting a debate story 15 hours after it happened!
Here’s the original:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39740538/ns/politics-decision_2010/
Here’s the edited version. Look at how they rewrite what happened to falsely make it appear that O’Donnell doesn’t know the First Amendment.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/19/AR2010101902501.html
What liberal media, right?
On October 19th, 2010 at 3:42 pm, allrsn said:
Yes, article 14 section 3 begins with:
1) Religion, morality, and knowledge were and are necessary to good government.
2) From the start, schools were intended to teach religion, morality, and knowledge.
I have archived the two links you provided…
http://www.webcitation.org/5tbd1PYsC
and
http://www.webcitation.org/5tbd3HVGj
The first amendment limits what laws Congress can make.
The first amendment does not limit what any U.S. citizen or group of citizens can say, write, display, or do.
The notion that the first amendment limits what we can say or do on government property is absurd.
Individuals praying in school is protected, not prohibited, by the 1st amendment.
Starting each session of Congress with a prayer (as has been done from the very begining) is protected, not prohibited, by the 1st amendment.
The lame, drive-by media are as slanted in this reporting as they are on the reporting of lawmakers in 14 states putting together laws to stop the anchor baby explosion.
For years prior to 1982, anchor babies were not allowed to stay as citizens. In 1982, that senile idiot Brennan slipped a footnote into a SCOTUS opinion which has been used by the left since to claim anchor babies born here are automatically US citizens.
Freedom of the press to these nitwits, and any other Constitutional right will be bent and twisted to whatever suits the leftist purpose.
The separation of church and state myth really took off as a liberal slogan after KKK member and associate justice Hugo Black wrote an opinion using that phrase. Being a protestant, he didn’t want any catholics in gov’t because that might mean influence from Rome. So, when justice Black wrote “separation of church and state” what he meant was “separation of Rome from the U.S. gov’t.”
Now, every liberal fascist spews that myth as though it were undeniable fact.
With many AP articles on the web, if you leave the original open in your browser, then cut and paste the URL into another window and refresh it periodically then compare the two, you will see where the refreshed article changes throughout the day…as the various quotes from the left or Democrats come in or are clarified.
All without any indication that the article has been updated or changed.
AP has been blogging the news long before blog was ever a word.
In another thread, at 4:34 pm, Virginia Patriot said:
Praise God!
The war ended there, even though it was not officially ended until the treaty in 1783 which began with these words:
Only Christianity teaches a Trinitarian view of God. If our founders truly believed in a complete separation of church and state, they would not have begun this treaty that way.
Memo to self: if your’re ever in a legal jam, avoid hiring a graduate of Widener Law School.
Most of them have been taught revisionist history their entire lives.
Many law schools even make their students read The Godless Constitution, even though the authors
Our U.S. Constitution deferred to the states on matters regarding religion. And, as others have noted, several of the original states had a state religion.
And each and every one of the 50 state Constitutions, as originally written, mention God.
From WallBuilders:
This is why Christine O’Donnell is going to win: she asks quesitons that Coons keeps trapping himself in. Coons kept arrogantly repeating the line that “separation of Church and State” is in the First Amendment to the Constitution, and O’Donnell kept asking him if he was sure. Separation of Church and State does not appear in the First Amendment to the Constitution. What appears there is the prohibition of Congress to Establish a State Church, and the denial of the government to curtail public worship. What is entirely amazing is that the Mainstream Media goes right along with Coons (surprise surprise), Yahoo! News declarign that O’Donnell had some things to learn about the Constitution when, in fact, anyone believing that the Constitution’s first 10 amendments make no wall of separation between chruch and state, especially seeing how liberals like to define it.
As far as her not knowing off hand the 14th, 16th, and 17th Amendments? Who else in that room without the Constitution in hand could recite them or at least understand their general ideas? Certainly not the buffoons who were filming the debate, and most certainly not Coons.
The MSM will be on her and call her stupid, tarring her and featherign her much as they did Quayle 20 years ago, and Sarah Palin in more recent days, but the fact of the matter is, O’Donnell pinned them all, most glaringly Chris Coons….
If the founders wanted a separation of religion from our government, then why did they recommend and consent to this:
But I’ll bet he can quote verbatim from Mao’s Little Red Book, Or Stinky’s little
blewblue book…I doubt Coons has ever read the Constitution. Ms. O’Donnell seems not as dumb as the MSM protrays her.
Actually, the words “building a wall of separation between Church & State” came from Thomas Jefferson in 1802 written to the Danbury Baptist Association since they were concerned about state churches. These words are never found in the constitution, the bill of rights, nor the declaration of independance. Separation of church and state is a one way wall, the state make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; never does the constitution restrict the church from any type of political activity. This idea has been taught as fact, when it is fiction.
From Michelle’s post above:
Bring it on!
Let’s educate the public on what the first amendment does, and does not, say.
You won’t find the words “separation”, “church”, or “state” anywhere in the first amendment.
People have been lied to by “progressives” for far too long. It’s time for them to learn the truth.
Especially in my community, you would be appalled by how much a rubber document the Constitution is “regarded”. You’d be even more appalled asking even college seniors to name those first five amendments. That’s why this issue is going slide off Coons’ back.
James Greenidge
Queens NY