That's all I could think the first time I saw it. Then I started studying it like the Zapruder film. After she says that, she thinks she won the debate. She's smiling like "gotcha!"

Then there's the derisive snort or growl or exhale she lets out at 5:53 when Coons points out her "fundamental misunderstanding" of the Constitution. It's not just that she's wrong, she's very angry that Coons doesn't admit that she's right.

yeah, dumbfounding isn't it? i think wow sums that up in a tea cup...

...so would lol

IT leaves you speechless! You just want to scream ....stupidity.....but CO'D does that herself and even louder!

I think you all need to go back and study what the First Amendment says about religion and the circumstances that it was written under. It has nothing to do with the separation of church and state...if it did then congress would not start every session with a prayer. It says that "The Government Shall Not Establish a Religion" The reference of the frame of mind is the Original Framers were told by England how they must worship....that is why they left England...remember to worship as they chose. The First Amendment says that the Federal Government may not tell US how we worship or whether we want to worship at all. It has Zero to do with Separation of Church and State.

What you are saying then is that you are ok with the US being a theocracy, because the Founding Fathers didn't disallow it in the Constitution? After all, if they can start each session of Congress with a prayer, it should be ok for the US to be run by biblical law, right? And of course, it could be a religion other than christianity...maybe run by sharia law? When the right argues there is no separation of church and state, they are implicitly saying that the US doesn't need to be a representative democracy, that a theocracy run under Bible law is not only possible, but perhap preferable in their opinion. Of course, it has to be a certain kind of christianity, not catholicism, or lutheran, or methodist, or anything other than fundamentalist baptist. Are you a supporter of dominionism?

The First Amendment says that the Federal Government may not tell US how we worship or whether we want to worship at all.

That means separation of church and state. If a public school, which receives public funding, teaches creationism then the government is effectively teaching people a religious belief.

The theory of evolution did not come about until after the Constitution was written. Even if there were no theory of evolution, teaching creationism in a publicly funded school would still be unconstitutional. If you want your kids to have a religious education, then send your kids to a private school.

The first amendment plain and simple prohibits the government from establishing a religion or prohibiting the people the free exercise thereof. Everything else is opinion, interpretation, or attempts of application.

What absent from this discussion is Mr. Coons unwillingness to answer what FREEDOMS the first amendment establishes. One hundred forty-five comments and counting on Ms. O'Donnell's correct assertion that the first amendment does not establish a separation but how many are worried that Coons doesn't know the freedom of press, freedom of assembly, etc.

@Kevin and @RobDon

"Believing that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State"

That's Thomas Jefferson's "opinion, interpretation, or attempt of application" from a letter to The Danbury Baptists in 1802 and considering that he is The Father of the Constitution, and you guys aren't, his "opinion" that is considered law.

Yes, and over 100 years of judicial rulings have supported the amendment's interpretation of one of separation of church and state. But even if it doesn't say exactly those words, it does say "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;". I believe Coons' point is that teaching religious doctrine in a government run public school is impeding on one's freedom of religion and amounting to state-sponsored religion. This is what the founding fathers so clearly did not want.

I didn't know the liberals liked to refer to writings of our founding fathers to back up what was meant in the Constitution. I'm willing to go there, are you?

I have lots of faith in the intention of our founding fathers (although far from perfect they did one heck of a job). Also, did you know that the House and Senate open up with prayer and that they both have Chaplains and that has been approved by the courts.

See, my dear friends, the first amendment limits the government and gives freedoms to the people.

So I guess the question is this: Are you willing to let the writings of our founding fathers be the litmus test for what was meant when the Constitution was written?

You say that you're willing to go by what they meant at the time, but I bet you still apply the second amendment to weaponry that didn't exist when they wrote the constitution.

The Father of the Constitution

StoopidGeekBoy, while you are right on the substance of your remarks, it's not correct to call Jefferson a 'father' of the Constitution. All throughout the time the Convention of 1787 was in session, Jefferson was serving as ambassador to France. So not only was he not at the convention that drafted the Constitution, he wasn't even in the country. You were thinking of the Declaration of Independence. Sorry.

I'm disappointed that Rachael didn't actually put up the quote from Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists, authentically available directly from the Library of Congress at http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html (thus eliminating any possibility of biased editing), clearly showing where the concept of separation of church and state comes from:

"... I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

The next statement in that letter gives the "wall" comment more context.

Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

In essence, acting out one's religious beliefs will not be against the law in any way. The letter from Danbury Baptist's president expressed concern that the Constitutional amendment granting religious freedom meant that the "state" was granting this right and if it were granted only by the "state" then the "state" could take it away.

Jefferson was saying this right was a natural right and thus the "state" could not nor should not interfere with the exercise of that right. It was restricting government not religion or people practicing their religion.

Here's another quote from Jefferson in another letter:

I consider the government of the U S. as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises.

Also, since we are looking at Jefferson, we probably need to look at other founding fathers' writing as well. Looking at all of them will give the best picture rather than just looking at one or two quotes. What do you think?

Zu Long

You say that you're willing to go by what they meant at the time, but I bet you still apply the second amendment to weaponry that didn't exist when they wrote the constitution.

That would be because the constitution does not say:

...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms (that have already been invented and not improvements or new models from current or future manufacturers), shall not be infringed.

Duh?

Exactly. You accept instantly that the definition of "Arms" as the framers meant it cannot reasonably be imposed on a modern reading of the constitution.

The framers also didn't write the constitution this way

Congress shall make no law respecting the establisment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof (but only as long as it is understood that Christianity is still the dominant religion of the country, and that its teachings are fundamental building blocks of any civilized society);

The constitution in the modern context must be interpreted as protecting ALL religious beliefs, not just the majority Christian belief. That means that making laws requiring teaching Christian doctrine in public schools or placing Christian symbolism on government buildings to show the supremacy of the Christian god's law over those of man are, in fact, unconstitutional as they are violating the rights of people who AREN'T Christian.

You accept instantly that the definition of "Arms" as the framers meant it cannot reasonably be imposed on a modern reading of the constitution.

You aren't saying that the framers meant today we can only have musket loaders, bayonents, and canons are you?

The constitution in the modern context must be interpreted as protecting ALL religious beliefs, not just the majority Christian belief.

Hey, I'm with you on this concept (except I'm not sure what you mean by "modern context," does that mean we have cooler stuff, now?). In
America you should be able to worship as you please and the government should not impede the exercising of your faith. I knew we could find some common ground!

"You can lead a Bagger to books, but you can't make one read."

"You can make a stupid comment, but still not address the issue."

I agree that the government is prohibited from interfering with the the people's free exercise of religion, certainly. That means that whatever mythology you choose to inflict upon your children at home or in your place of worship is up to you. Teaching creationist mythology in a public school, however, restrict the free exercise of religions that do not believe in that nonsense, as well as the free exercise of atheist belief systems.

If I were a public school teacher and tried to teach your kid - in science class - that Odin and his two brothers hewed the Earth from the body of a dead giant and set his gem-studded skull above it to create the stars, you would be unhappy about it. For many, many people in this nation the mythology of Genesis is no different at all.

There is a difference between the account in Genesis being taught in science class and the theory of intelligence design being taught.

But... but... Ms. O'Donnell participated in an eight-day program of "deep analysis of the constitution" taught through Claremont Institute's competitive Lincoln Fellowship program! If memory serves, she even received a certificate of completion! Surely the First Amendment was covered....

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/claremont-institute/

Yes, she certainly has moxie as do the other Tea Party candidate and the ladies who lead them. They're all obviously intelligent but woefully ignorant of the issues. BTW - Merriam-Webster defines ignorant as "lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified." Case closed.

O'Donnell knows the first amendment, that is why she was questioning Coons on the fact that the "phrase" the "separation of church and state" does NOT appear in the constitution anywhere!

She also asked Coons to name the five freedoms granted by the first amendment and Coons after trying realized he did not know so he passed control back to the moderator, but no one wants to talk about that.

The phrase is not in the first amendment, but the principle certainly is. Similarly, the second amendment protects your rights without containing the phrase "concealed carry."

You're plenty smart enough to realize that the "separation" language comes from Jefferson's comments on the first amendment. The Supreme Court cited his interpretation of the language in the first amendment and agreed with it. Your effort to dismiss the principle by asserting that it is not expressed in the exact language "separation of church and state" within the establishment clause is typical of the disingenuous and cynical arguments that have always been used by those who have sought to impose their own morality upon this nation as a whole.

yes.... and yet, CO'D lied on her credentials about where she went to university (I think an Ivy League U and either Cambridge or Oxford were listed). "Folksy" folks hate large vocabularies and "elitists", but then lie to look better (?!). She is stunningly stupid and ignorant.... our forefathers are rolling over in their graves!

And sadly, I agree. I'm afraid that the cultural values of general populace have sunk to the lowest common denominator rather than risen to the highest. A generation ago, education was not elitist, nor was speaking well or good manners. Nationalism reigns, if you don't fly the flag every day, you're not a patriot and the reign of the bully mentality popularized during the Bush years continues to flourish.

by being Republican!!!..look what is going on in Florida..with this Scott..and his company being fined 1.7 billion dollars..

But scarier than her apparent ignorance of the Constitution was the smirk on her face when she asked the question and got the answer. It was a gotcha look (at least to me) that suggested that she had asked the ultimate question (and assumed that she would get no answer) and then truly believed that the response she got wasn't correct. She's scary and really deserves her poor showing in the polls and, I hope, in the election.

A lot of these folks have fallen for the old argument that the exact phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution. They don't understand Constitutional law because they don't want to understand Constitutional law, and they don't *want to* because their lazy thinking satisfies their biases and facile convictions.

Years ago, I ran into someone much like O'Donnell. A group of us got together to play board games on weekends, and one guy was....well, much like O'Donnell. He'd be getting the crap beaten out of him in the game, and he'd be laughing and acting as if he was actually winning. We'd look at him as if he were insane, and our conclusion is that he simply didn't understand what was going on. O'Donnell is much the same, as only someone who is truly clueless about what is going on around them would read public amusement at their argument as a victory.

Anyone that knows anything about the Constitution understands that the phrase "separation of Church and state" is not found there. It originally appeared in a Thomas Jefferson speech, and has been taken out of context ever since... I wonder how many of you know the Constitution???

Gee, I'm looking at my pocket constitution here, and Amendment I, ratified in December of 1791 states that Congress shall make no law respecting the the establishment of religion.

So do you believe that the government is not prevented by the Constitution from establishing a state religion, or providing preferential treatment to a specific religion, or from abolishing a specific religion?

Yeah! What would Thomas Jefferson know about the intent of the Founding Fathers!

The phrase "separation of church and state" was coined by Jefferson in a speech to members of a church to reassure them that the government would stay out of their business. He meant it to be a reciprocal arrangement.

I know enough about the Constitution to know that the reason the Supreme Court exists is to be the final word on interpretation of what the document says. The fact it does not contain the phrase 'separation of church and state' does not mean the meaning isn't there. Certainly the Supreme Court feels that it is.

There are a long list of Supreme Court decisions that back the concept of 'separation of church and state'. Below is a link that lists the decisions. Until the decision are overturned or another amendment is ratified, we are left with separation of church and state being Constitutional.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/con18.htm

O'Donnell's comments were not about the Supreme Court decisions, it was about the phrasing in the Constitution, she said as much. The fact that many of you all can not understand that speaks more about your intellectual ability than it does about her knowledge of the Constitution.

No RobDon, maybe you should listen to the audio or video again. She does not say that the words or phrase are not there, she says it doesn't mean that.

Lucene...maybe you should watch The Rachel Maddow Show because in the clip shown last night not only did she say,

So, you're telling me that the separation of church and state, the phrase separation of church and state is found in the First Amendment?

...it even appeared in the captions at the bottom of the screen. But, thanks for making my point that most Liberals hear what they want to hear and think they have the right to tell you want you mean.

Lucene...Lucene...where are you?

Hell, she doesn't even qualify to become a CITIZEN!

FWIW, I'm pretty sure you have to be far more educated to be a grade school principal than to be a member of the US Congress.

Grade school principals are very educated and qualified. I would say that O'Donnell doesn't have the qualifications to be a 6th grade student except that to compare her to 6th graders may be demeaning to the students.

So far she is down 20 points in the polling and I hope she continues in this downward spiral and loses the election. I'll be damned if I want someone without basic intelligence being my Senator. If you are going to be a Senator or a member of Congress, you SHOULD KNOW the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. These tea baggers skew the facts to what they want them to be and expect people to be so stupid that they will believe it.

Every time I see some writer disparage a candidate as a "know-it-all" I just picture a stereotypical jock pointing and yelling NERD at the top of his lungs. The only reason to make knowledge sound like a weakness is if you or the people you support don't have any.

Mark D, you are SPOT-ON with your definition of moxie.

The bar is so low, you trip over it when you walk in.

NY Times' 538 Blog has O'Donnell down by 18 percent.

http://elections.nytimes.com/2010/forecasts/senate/delaware

Only 18%? That is it???

YES, this is great SNL material! I'm sure the writers are working hard and the cast members are preparing as we speak..............

Yes, I'm sure SNL will do something satirical on this. Sadly, that's their line of work - make fun of people and impugn them.

The country is 13.5 trilllion dollars in debt, unemployment is at 10%, we have massive problems...and all the left cares about is trying to get some 'gotcha' with which to demonize another human being.

Pretty sad, really....

Yes, fortunately for our nation, the GOP is able to think about solving our nation's problems and offer solutions...protecting businesses that outsource jobs to foreign shores, increasing Pentagon spending, cutting taxes for the rich, eliminating business taxes and putting them on the backs of the middle class, privatizing social security so their buddies on Wall Street can continue to reap record bonuses and still beg for handouts when their greed destroys the economy again....yep, thank heavens we have those clear-thinking repubs to save us!

The only thing that is sad is that there are people out there who actually see the GOP as a solution to the problems that they themselves created, and think that the solution is more of the same.

Pointing out that someone is not qualified for a position because they lack knowledge required for the position is not "demonization."

Separation of church and state is settled law. This isn't a "gotcha" anymore than, "Who was the first President?" is.

I'm beginning to think conservatives are playing dumb on purpose to make Democrats look like "know it all" "elitists" just because they know how to tie their shoe.

You may be on to something here.

I agree. For a couple of months now I've suspected that O'Donnell has been set up by the teabaggers to overtake Palin's "most stupid politician ever" title. No one can really be as ignorant as she appears.

But look at how many Palin supporters are out there! She endorsed O'Donnell. Holy crap when are people gonna wake up??

Oh, and she really IS as ignorant as she appears!

Sh*t, I learned it in PAROCHIAL school. Although, I think the new generation of small religious K-8's might now be teaching the winger version of US history.

Nothing and thats the problem.Thanks Mr. Republican you have secured the ill fated future of America.

MechTrek - don't lump all of the small religious k-8 schools together. I teach SCIENCE at one of those, and I do NOT teach creationism. The religion teacher covers Adam and Eve....I cover scientific fact & widely-accepted theories.

Well, technically they are. ID posits that God controls evolution, while creationism says (macro)evolution doesn't exist. But that's splitting hairs when both are batsh*t "theories".

"isn't even fit to hold up the stop sign at construction sites".

Good one! Thanks for the laugh!

It should be called "unintelligent design."