Wednesday, October 20, 2010
This is Gold
Wow, if she looked like Chris Coons, no one would have ever heard of Christine O'donnell. But, since she gives red state men boners and reminds them of the good ol days of bimbo house wives, we have people like her and Palin providing such great political comedy.
But I have to admit, I get where she is trying to go with this; it doesn't specifically say "The church and state are always separate" in the First Amendment. And in asking where this clause is found, I would tell her it was right next to the word "hand gun and machine gun" clause in the Second Amendment and the words "God" and "Christian" in any other part of the Constitution.
Not every issue in the modern world is addressed in the Constitution. Internet porn for instance is never mentioned in the Constitution and it is legal nor is the idea that Corporations are people and that they have the same rights, just not the same responsibilities as people even though all the people within that corporation already have their individual rights to contribute to and support any candidate of their choosing. So, I never read any where in the Constitution that says owners of corporations get to have their say twice as much as people who do not have a corporation but the activist judges in the Supreme Court have looked at the Constitution and interpreted it as such to where they believe these rights should apply to corporations just as many wiser Justices in the past have looked at the Constitution, studied it, studied the writings of the authors of the Constitution, studied what they were trying to get away from in Europe, and determined that their intentions, as stated in Thomas Jefferson's writings, were to create a country where the church and state remain separate. Not only that, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", is pretty clear that the United States cannot endorse a religion or religious beliefs and principals and further more, that no one can be judged on or by religious principles and in Article 6 of the Constitution they even drive this point home further by adding this clause: "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States" which essentially states that no religion has any authority over the federal government.
Ironically, her being a tea bagger and all, what is also in the Constitution is the 16th Amendment which gives Congress the power to levy an income tax. So not only do many Tea Baggers and conservatives want to get rid of taxes, they apparently want to scrap the entire Constitution as well. They want to rewrite, the 1st Amendment, the 16th Amendment, Article 6 and now even the 14th Amendment. So, why is it ok for them to actually want to change all these components of the Constitution but when someone says that perhaps the founding fathers didn't intend on 16 year olds being able to walk into a K-Mart and walk out with military style hand guns which can fire 1200 armor piercing bullets per minute and take it to school, they flip their shit and pretend they are staunch Constitutionalists and go on about the founding fathers, blah, blah, blah??
The next time some conservative Tea Bagger talks about being a Constitutionalist, give them a good ole fashioned cock punching.