hoyatables
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,603
|
Post by hoyatables on Oct 19, 2010 14:32:23 GMT -5
For the record, technically I would also dispute somewhat whether or not the First Amendment really constitutes a "separation of church and state" at all. At least not how people interpret the meaning of those five words today. But that's another discussion. You're right Boz -- I was just going to add to my post that there is a long and heady argument one can lay out about the First Amendment -- that the original intent was more nuanced, that full separation was never intended, etc etc. It's merely about restricting the establishment of one faith over others, or prohibiting others from practicing the faith of their choice. But that's clearly not what Ms. O'Donnell was suggesting. She was -- pretty clearly -- questioning the basic substance of the First Amendment. She did not lay out anything resembling an articulate critique. She flatly challenged a basic fact that many people know, and certainly any person running for office in the nation's highest legislative body should know.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Oct 19, 2010 14:40:01 GMT -5
No, I'm not defending her lack of knowledge. But I haven't heard a great clamor from the left that Congressman Frank LoBiondo is some kind of national embarrassment.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2010 14:54:25 GMT -5
I do, however, expect my Senator to have the same basic working knowledge that any high school graduate would have. Unfortunately, you may be giving many high school graduates too much credit here.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,459
|
Post by TC on Oct 19, 2010 15:01:57 GMT -5
No, I'm not defending her lack of knowledge. But I haven't heard a great clamor from the left that Congressman Frank LoBiondo is some kind of national embarrassment. Neither are great, but there's a giant difference between being ambush-quizzed and showing you don't understand a damn thing about your own talking points.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Oct 19, 2010 15:37:41 GMT -5
For the record, technically I would also dispute somewhat whether or not the First Amendment really constitutes a "separation of church and state" at all. At least not how people interpret the meaning of those five words today. But that's another discussion. You're right Boz -- I was just going to add to my post that there is a long and heady argument one can lay out about the First Amendment -- that the original intent was more nuanced, that full separation was never intended, etc etc. It's merely about restricting the establishment of one faith over others, or prohibiting others from practicing the faith of their choice. But that's clearly not what Ms. O'Donnell was suggesting. She was -- pretty clearly -- questioning the basic substance of the First Amendment. She did not lay out anything resembling an articulate critique. She flatly challenged a basic fact that many people know, and certainly any person running for office in the nation's highest legislative body should know. I admit - I tried and I had a hard time trying to come up with SCOTUS decisions I disagree with (excluding something obvious like Plessy or Roe).
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Oct 19, 2010 15:38:44 GMT -5
Some Supreme Court justices don't seem to know what's in the constitution.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Oct 19, 2010 15:45:33 GMT -5
You're right Boz -- I was just going to add to my post that there is a long and heady argument one can lay out about the First Amendment -- that the original intent was more nuanced, that full separation was never intended, etc etc. It's merely about restricting the establishment of one faith over others, or prohibiting others from practicing the faith of their choice. But that's clearly not what Ms. O'Donnell was suggesting. She was -- pretty clearly -- questioning the basic substance of the First Amendment. She did not lay out anything resembling an articulate critique. She flatly challenged a basic fact that many people know, and certainly any person running for office in the nation's highest legislative body should know. I admit - I tried and I had a hard time trying to come up with SCOTUS decisions I disagree with (excluding something obvious like Plessy or Roe). I agree, kc, but I guess the question then is - how hard could/should it be for someone just to throw out Roe or Plessy, assuming that you believe they were wrongly decided? That should be fairly reflexive, particularly for anyone on the political right in the case of Roe.
|
|
HoyaNyr320
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,233
|
Post by HoyaNyr320 on Oct 19, 2010 15:59:58 GMT -5
Some Supreme Court justices don't seem to know what's in the constitution. Haha... good one. Care to name which judges you believe don't know the Constitution and cite cases that show this? I'm obviously liberal and I would never claim that conservative judges like Scalia, Scalito (oops... Alito), Roberts, or even Justice Thomas don't know what is in the Constitution. Rather I disagree with their interpretation of it. See, e.g., Heller v. District of Columbia re: 2nd Amendment as an individual right.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Oct 19, 2010 16:18:14 GMT -5
No, I'm not defending her lack of knowledge. But I haven't heard a great clamor from the left that Congressman Frank LoBiondo is some kind of national embarrassment. Neither are great, but there's a giant difference between being ambush-quizzed and showing you don't understand a damn thing about your own talking points. There should be no circumstance under which a Congressman asked to know what Article I, Section 1 says -- or which rights are enumerated in the First Amendment -- should ever be considered an "ambush." It's not like it's just that he couldn't recite the text word for word. It was that he didn't know the answers at all.Besides, this wasn't someone running up to him on the street with a camera phone. It was a town hall meeting. Did he expect to get asked what his favorite flavor ice cream was? You'll notice, I am still not in any way defending Ms. O'Donnell's knowledge or performance (except possibly indirectly, given how low the bar has been set by current officeholders - but even that is not my intention).
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,777
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Oct 19, 2010 16:51:44 GMT -5
I'm obviously liberal and I would never claim that conservative judges like Scalia, Scalito (oops... Alito), Roberts, or even Justice Thomas don't know what is in the Constitution. Rather I disagree with their interpretation of it. See, e.g., Heller v. District of Columbia re: 2nd Amendment as an individual right. The Heller case was sound because the 2nd Amendment exists as a national right. Many liberals simply don't like the thought of gun ownership to begin with. But the Constitution doesn't lend itself to regional exceptions. If an administration had tried to forbid protests in the District for national security purposes, the Court would strike that down, too.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Oct 19, 2010 17:00:47 GMT -5
DFW - The 2nd Amendment was only recently incorporated to the states (McDonald if I remember correctly (last term)), and it was done by operation of pretty much the very thing that many conservatives absolutely disdain when it comes to more liberal decisions. Heller - a DC case - did not decide that, although it was teased in argument. Certainly this approach can be traced to Justices Brennan and Black, the former being a lightning rod in conservative circles. Perhaps one could ask why states should not be free to decide the scope of their own gun laws.
I agree ultimately with Heller and McDonald. Still, there are some genuine exceptions remaining in the Bill of Rights as to whether they bind the states.
|
|
hoyatables
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,603
|
Post by hoyatables on Oct 19, 2010 17:20:18 GMT -5
Neither are great, but there's a giant difference between being ambush-quizzed and showing you don't understand a damn thing about your own talking points. There should be no circumstance under which a Congressman asked to know what Article I, Section 1 says -- or which rights are enumerated in the First Amendment -- should ever be considered an "ambush." It's not like it's just that he couldn't recite the text word for word. It was that he didn't know the answers at all.Besides, this wasn't someone running up to him on the street with a camera phone. It was a town hall meeting. Did he expect to get asked what his favorite flavor ice cream was? You'll notice, I am still not in any way defending Ms. O'Donnell's knowledge or performance (except possibly indirectly, given how low the bar has been set by current officeholders - but even that is not my intention). I generally agree (and found the Youtube clip entertaining). In generally, I think you need to know Article I is about the legislature, Article II is about the executive, and Article III is about the courts. Beyond that I give you a free pass (I'm pretty sure Article IV is full faith and credit . . . right?). And certainly don't think you need to be able to recite it word for word. As a Congressman, however, its more important to know what's in Article I -- declare war, regulate commerce, etc etc.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Oct 19, 2010 17:57:49 GMT -5
And certainly don't think you need to be able to recite it word for word. Well, the Congressman's ignorance certainly does not mean that the guy quizzing him -- while quoting the Constitution verbatim -- is not a complete tool! (in case the do-rag wasn't a dead giveaway). The two are not mutually exclusive by any means. ;D
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Oct 19, 2010 17:58:25 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure the majority of Congressmen wouldn't be able to quote Article 1, Section 1 word for word ("All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.")
I'm actually not that concerned if my Congressman doesn't know that's Article 1, Section 1. If they don't know that legislative powers are vested in a Congress that consists of a Senate and a House, then I'd be worried, to say the least. But not knowing that the section stating it is Article 1, Section 1 is a forgivable sin in my book.
On the other hand, not being able to immediately rattle off the 5 freedoms in the 1st Amendment (religion, press, assembly, speech, petition) is absolutely unacceptable.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Oct 19, 2010 18:44:04 GMT -5
Everyone seems to be looking for lawyer responses, including the youtube. I can't identify what Article or Section of the Constitution identifes what right or other. But I know the Constitution gives us freedom of speech, freedom to bear arms, freedom to exercise the religion of our choice, that those things not specifically identified in the Constitution are reserved to the states or the people, etc. It's like asking me to identify the book, chapter or verse of the Bible. Not necessary to having a knowledge of the Bible.
As for what Justices of the Supreme Court do not know the Constitution I say any who do not adhere to the original intent of the drafters/signers, including the ability to amend the Constitution in the way identified in that document, rather than by judicial fiat or the legislature ignoring the Constitution.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Oct 19, 2010 18:59:58 GMT -5
What if you read a book that suggested the Bill of Rights was never intended to bind the states?
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Oct 19, 2010 19:15:40 GMT -5
What if you read a book that suggested the Bill of Rights was never intended to bind the states? All I know is Rent is Too Damn High. ;D
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,459
|
Post by TC on Oct 19, 2010 19:50:43 GMT -5
It was a town hall meeting. Did he expect to get asked what his favorite flavor ice cream was? No, I'd expect questions about legislation that affects the district, not The Bill of Rights for $800. I don't think not being able to answer is good, but it's not as bad as pushing a talking point about the first amendment that you don't understand.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Oct 20, 2010 8:36:50 GMT -5
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,459
|
Post by TC on Oct 20, 2010 10:00:07 GMT -5
I read this exchange as not allowing her to badger him in the debate.
|
|