As election day draws near and the debate heats up, candidates are stirring controversy with their views on America’s fundamental document, the Constitution.
In a debate on Wednesday for the Delaware Senate race, Tea Party candidate Christine O’Donnell and Democratic candidate Chris Coons sparred over numerous issues, specifically over the interpretation of the Constitution and the First Amendment.
Following a heated discussion over whether or not the teaching of evolution or creationism (O’Donnell called it “Intelligent Design”) in public schools was constitutional, Coons said, “One of those indispensable principles [of the Constitution] is the separation of the church and state.”
“Where in the Constitution is the separation of the church and state?” O’Donnell asked her opponent, to the laughter of the audience. After Coons gave an impromptu Civics lesson on the First Amendment, O’Donnell continued, “So you’re telling me that the phrase ‘the separation of the church and state’ is found in the First Amendment?”
O’Donnell correctly pointed out that the First Amendment does not explicitly say that there is a separation of church and state. However, the true relationship between the government and religion has been established over time to mean no relationship at all, which is hard to achieve in a country where religion, particularly the Christian religion, is a major part of people’s lives. But the discussion also demonstrates the constitutionally illiteracy of major candidates in the upcoming elections.
As a candidate for the U.S. Senate who claims a graduate fellowship from the Claremont Institute in constitutional government, O’Donnell should have a comprehensive knowledge of the constitution. Indeed, she said, “the litmus test by which I cast my vote for every piece of legislation that comes across my desk is whether or not it is constitutional.”
Yet in response to a question about repealing the 14th, 16th, and17th amendments, O’Donnell stated her support of the 14th amendment, the amendment for free elections, and then said: “If you can, . . . remind me of what the other ones are.”
As O’Donnell told the press, the constitution is a litmus test, but not just for her.
On the side of the Democrats, Massachusetts Democratic incumbent congressman Jim McGovern shocked his audience when he said, “I think the constitution is wrong” during a debate last Wednesday while speaking about the Supreme Court’s decision regarding campaign funding in the case Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission.
McGovern later attempted to disown his remark by saying that “I’m sorry I blew your mind but I didn’t say that the Constitution was wrong. I said that the interpretation by my friend here was wrong.” That, however, was not what those watching the debate heard.
McGovern’s opponent Republican Marty Lamb called McGovern’s statement “appalling” and added that “the first thing a congressman does upon entering his office is to take an oath to defend the constitution against all enemies domestic and foreign.”
It seems that everyone would need a refresher on the Constitution and what it means for our country.
You have got to be kidding me. This is an awful post. First, O’Donnell did not ask if the phrase separation of church and state is in the first amendment- she scoffed at Coons’ correct citation of the establishment clause of the first amendment by saying that’s in the first amendment?
Secondly, the section about McGovern has nothing to do with his knowledge of the Constitution but a bad selection of words during a debate. When candidates get flustered, things can come out wrong and opponents use them to fuel the fire. Happens all the time. It has nothing to do with constitutional literacy but with speaking ability. Furthermore, it was an opinion, not a fact or citation about what’s actually in the document. He disagrees with the Citizens United ruling’s interpretation of the Constitution- that’s perfectly valid if he can actually say it right.
really poorly written post. find another political writer please and spare readers the necessary corrections.
This is a false equivalency. Christine O’Donnell displayed a lack of understanding that the establishment clause, through over a century of judicial precedent, has been interpreted to build a separation of church and state. Even if you believe in original intent, then the intent of the founders with the First Amendment was to establish a separation of church and state; the phrase was coined by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to a congregation in Danbury, CT attempting to explain the establishment clause.
McGovern pretty clearly misspoke and meant to say that he thinks the Supreme Court majority’s interpretation of the Constitution in the Citizens United case was wrong, rather than saying that the Constitution itself is wrong. Or, even assuming that he thinks the majority did correctly interpret the Constitution in the Citizens United case and meant what he said, that the Constitution is wrong to allow unlimited corporate spending in elections, it’s hardly controversial to think a particular part of the Constitution is wrong. Was it outrageous when people said the Constitution was wrong to outlaw alcohol after Prohibition was passed? Was it outrageous to say the Constitution was wrong in not allowing direct election of senators, paving the way for the 17th Amendment?
The point is, fundamentally misunderstanding the most important amendment to the Constitution and how it has been interpreted by the courts for over a century is completely different than disagreeing with a particular ruling or suggesting the Constitution is an imperfect living document that occasionally needs changes. This article falls into a journalistic fallacy of trying to present an equivalency wherein something ridiculous or outrageous said by a representative of one party is paired with something less ridiculous or outrageous from a representative of the other party in an attempt to show that both sides are equally extreme or wrong, and therefore the writer must be a centrist or “impartial.” Point is, this article isn’t very good.
[...] notably Paladino’s inflammatory remarks on gay marriage and O’Donnell’s witchcraft ad and her statement on the separation of church and state. Then again, Democrats had their share of misspoken words, [...]