How Christine O'Donnell Should Have Answered the Supreme Court Question

Doesn't matter 90 minutes or less or more...O'Donnell, just like Palin, knows nothing. A person who is well educated in polictical science and government and who is running for Senate, SHOULD know what they feel about the issues dealing with politics and government. Why would anyone want someone like O'Donnell in the Senate? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_O'Donnell

@drsoar who writes: "It is not unconstitutional for a STATE to establish a State religion." It most certainly is. The Constitution states very clearly that states cannot pass laws that violates federal law. Any law adopted by a state declaring an official religion would be deemed unconstitutional.

The meaning of the 1st Amendment regarding the role of religion in these United States is that the Federal government can neither impose upon nor impede a citizen's practice or non-practice of religion. Consider the 1st amendment religion clause along these lines: Only congress makes federal law. The first Amendment removes all jurisdiction of Congress and thereby of all other branches and derivative institutions of the federal government, such as federal courts and federally funded schools, over religious exercises. No federal entity may infringe, control, inhibit or subvert any person's exercise of religion. It is not unconstitutional for a STATE to establish a State religion - - there were several in existence at the time of constitutional ratification, the First Amendment prohibiting the dis-establishment of those State religions]. Our laws place no limits on the public expression of religious beliefs. The idea of “separation of church and state” is based on the first amendment to our Constitution. Our government “ . . . shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion nor prohibit the free exercise thereof.” The “establishment of” religion means either an established entity or the act of creating an entity. No level of our government, federal, state, city, precinct, public school or any public officer can regulate an established religion nor infringe its free exercise. The “separation of church and state” is a separation protecting the inalienable right of each of us to worship and to do so freely, openly, and publicly. Public display of religious ideas in public arenas is not the making of law and is legitimate social expression. No person in these United States is required to engage in religion but no person who is upset by the religious displays of others has any grounds upon which to curtail such observances - - most certainly not on the basis of the First Amendment! The Constitution of the United States describes the functions granted by the People to the federal part of the governing apparatus of the United States [Federal, State and Local agencies]. The U. S. Congress is the ONLY law-making body for federal law. The first amendment to the Constitution prohibits the congress from making any law “ . . . respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The sole purpose of this section of the first amendment is to protect the individual right to practice a religion. The correct meaning of the phrase “The separation of Church and State” [appearing no-where in the Constitution] is that the state is not allowed to infringe on the individual in this respect! Thus, no part of the federal government (including judges of federal courts) nor any derivative agent such as federally-funded educational institutions, have any jurisdiction over the exercise of religion - - there is no authorization for any such private or state entity to infringe, control, subvert, restrict or in any way inhibit the FREE* exercise of religion at any place or at any time! “FREE:” Uncoerced, chosen, unfettered, voluntary, unrestrained, unbounded, independent, autonomous, sovereign.

You miss the point. O'Donnell and these other Tea party nut jobs are constantly criticizing "activist courts." If that's such a big issue, you think she would know at least one decision she could point to she disagrees with. The inability to come up with an answer also exposes her inexperience and incompetence. Finally, if she doesn't disagree with any of these recent extreme decisions this current Court is spewing out, that would suggest she agrees with them. For example, Citizens United that has literally put our Country and our laws up for sale to anyone in the world who has the means to buy and election or legislation.

The media reporters (I hesitate to call them journalists) respect articulate, well educated people, like themselves. They respect people whose values are on the left, like themselves. They do not like anyone who expresses views which counter their narrative on any issue. The left wants the public to believe that the Constitution is anti-religious. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. The sole reason for the First Amendment was that these former British subjects did not want America to replicate the Church of England. The did not want government to ESTABLISH a state sanctioned religion. That is the sole reason for the First Amendment. I hasten to add that leftist federal judges since appointed to the bench by democrat presidents in the last 50 years have tried to INTERPRET the Constitution as being anti-religious, hence the public's confusion. Christine O'Donnell is a poor messenger, but her message is correct. Once again, "the smarest guys in the room" are wrong.

She did well? Interruption after interruption,,,she certainly should of lost points over that.

Please define "real American". I am a Veteran, vote in all elections, married with kids, worked all my adult life, support equal rights and all religions even though I am an athiest. So according to Palin and her step daughter O'Donnell that makes me a "fake American"? This person is like most tea bagger candidates, a fraud. She lied about her education, has been recorded numerous times making statements that should make anyone with a half a brain cringe. She is an embarrasment to the political process.

Some are criticizing the way the contestants for public office are being questioned , to me its quite embarrassing to have individual's who aspire to become Public Servants who don't even know our History or recent event's such as Supreme Court rulings . call me old fashion if you will .

What's behind asking a candidate to answer pop quizzes? Gibson did it to Palin and now they're are doing it to O'Connell. Are they are trying to make them look ignorant? BO could be asked questions that he doesn't know -- economic ones for example. On the other hand, O'Connell may not have wanted to pick a SC decision for critism so as not to have herself categorized and then pilloried by the Left or some group. That Takings rulings really stuck. And I think even progressives agree on that.

Matt Lewis & the News? - I hope Huey sues.