The Washington Post has a story on a debate between Christine O'Donnell and Christopher Coons at Widener Law School. There was controversy about Ms. O'Donnell's question, "where in the Constitution is separation of church and state." The story includes commentary from Widener Law Professor Erin Daly:
Erin Daly, a Widener professor who specializes in constitutional law, said, "She [O'Donnell] seemed genuinely surprised that the principle of separation of church and state derives from the First Amendment, and I think to many of us in the law school that was a surprise."
Ms. O'Donnell's campaign issued a clarification that "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."
I assume you report this without comment because it's so obvious that O'Donnell is a brainless moron and that her campaign's reponse is post-hoc rationalization?
During that same debate Chris Coons couldn't names the five freedoms guaranteed in the First Amendment. Coons was able to name the separation of church and state, but could not identify the others — the freedoms of speech, press, to assemble and petition.
The Senate seat they are going after is the one Joe Biden had, so I guess you really don't have to be that intelligent to run for it.
Judge for yourself. Here's the link to a video of the debate on the Widener Law website:
http://law.widener.edu/NewsandEvents/Articles/2010/de101910coonsodonnelldebate.aspx
The "Five Freedoms" is a catechism learned by folks looking to elevate form over substance; it tells you nothing about how to apply rights and prohibitions to real-world settings. It's kind of like saying the phrase "separation of church and state" doesn't appear in the Constitution while missing the point that the First Amendment prohibits the government from taking actions that, in effect, support and establish religion.
A good word to look up on this is 'dissemble.' Another good word is 'mendacity.'
Brian
"Brainless moron"? "ad hoc rationalization"?
C'mon Brian, try hard to offer something substantive to the discussion instead of simple defamation and detraction. Take a lesson from John's comment.
Jeff–seems like a post-hoc rationale to me; either that, or an extreme literalism in constitutional interpretation.