Election 2010: Teabaggin' the Ds & Rs

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

That would be loopy. But -- according to Forbes, anyway -- that's not what she said.

Apparently Forbes didn't watch the video either.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Apparently Forbes didn't watch the video either.

I see that Rush Limbaugh has weighed on my side, so clearly my work here is done.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

When Jefferson died he asked that three of his accomplishments be noted on the grave obelisk -- "author of the Declaration of Independence, of the Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom," and father of the first non-religious college in North America. You and I might have gone with "Former U.S. President" "Governor of the Commonwealth" or "Noted Architect" or even "Prominent Sufferer of Jungle Fever," but no, he went with the religious freedom thing -- both because it was something for which he believed he was on the right side of history {cough, slavery, cough} and because it was a non-obvious proposition. But the fact that Virginia and Massachusetts and Maryland had their various state toleration acts doesn't mean the Founders were universally of the view that states couldn't have sanctioned religions -- it was a very typical sovereign power at the time, and the Founders were smart enough to know that there is a difference between a Good Idea and a Condition for Statehood and Membership in the Union.

I love these discussions, but it's a fool's errand to try to define what "the Founders" or "the Framers" thought about religion. They were quite two-faced about it all -- no different from today's politicians.

Agreed completely on the diversity of views, but the most important point historically is that the views expressed by many (not all) of the founders would have been radically anti-Church and anti-religion by today's standards. This is a period when American religion is relatively demure, organized, and on the side-lines, but when there is a sizable anti-clerical anti-establishment crowd that is in the ascendancy. The fact that the British lost the war and the establishment church was run from Canterbury, of course, had nothing to do with any of this.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

She is a fucking moron. My point was that "separation of church and state" isn't actually in the Constitution. That was her point, initially, and she was right.

No, that wasn't her point. That was the point her handlers wanted her to make -- that those words don't appear in the Constitution. But the point she was making was that Congress has gone far beyond what the Constitution allows, and what the Supreme Court has said the Constitution allows, to exert federal control over local governing bodies. This all was based on whether schools should be able to teach creationism if the local school board wants it.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

This is exactly right. Ty, look at this video at at 7:12, if you can get Salon.

If you look at the whole exchange, you see a woman woefully ignorant of the constitution. It is incredible.

did you think hillary really understood it all when she said we need to get rid of the electoral college?

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

did you think hillary really understood it all when she said we need to get rid of the electoral college?

At least she didn't have someone say "but that would require a constitutional amendment" and respond "no it wouldn't"--sometimes not so much a fool as to remove all doubt, that Hilary.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

I think I could argue, without looking at any cases or analysis, that the "separation of church and state" is very easily found in the sixteen words "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

I think the concept is in the Constitution when one looks at the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses together. And while reasonable minds can (and do) differ on the point, that woman has no idea how or why she made the statement that she did. And when confronted with the actual content of the text, she revealed herself unable to articulate her position or even know how on earth she got there.

Both sides of the aisle have talking points that they use at rallies and otherwise with their base. This is one of those. It takes a special kind of idiot to use one as a winning point in a candidate debate.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

did you think hillary really understood it all when she said we need to get rid of the electoral college?

218-2-185. O'Donnell is gaining on you.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Agreed completely on the diversity of views, but the most important point historically is that the views expressed by many (not all) of the founders would have been radically anti-Church and anti-religion by today's standards. This is a period when American religion is relatively demure, organized, and on the side-lines, but when there is a sizable anti-clerical anti-establishment crowd that is in the ascendancy. The fact that the British lost the war and the establishment church was run from Canterbury, of course, had nothing to do with any of this.

What the Founders said to each other in letters etc. was very different from what they said in public, when they would invoke the Almighty Creator and Providence and some such to bless their undertakings. Jefferson was no fool -- he spent a lot of his valuable time editing Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth but never allowed it to be published in his lifetime -- it was first published in 1895. But you'd better believe he said whatever it was you needed to say to get elected in 1769, 1775, 1779, 1783, 1797, and 1801.

So the religion acid test for elected officials was different then, and I continue to think that was because the evangelical contingent was politically irrelevant and the landed gentry had various amounts of religious zeal but that shouldn't get in the way of political discourse and civility, tut tut.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

What the Founders said to each other in letters etc. was very different from what they said in public, when they would invoke the Almighty Creator and Providence and some such to bless their undertakings. Jefferson was no fool -- he spent a lot of his valuable time editing Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth but never allowed it to be published in his lifetime -- it was first published in 1895. But you'd better believe he said whatever it was you needed to say to get elected in 1769, 1775, 1779, 1783, 1797, and 1801.

So the religion acid test for elected officials was different then, and I continue to think that was because the evangelical contingent was politically irrelevant and the landed gentry had various amounts of religious zeal but that shouldn't get in the way of political discourse and civility, tut tut.

When Original Intent types pull out their crystal balls in order to determine what the Founders actually thought particular provisions of the Constitution meant, do they look at the statements intended for consumption by the electorate, the letters between them, or something else?

Just wondering. I've never been a real Supreme Court buff, it's too high-falutin' for me.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

That would be loopy. But -- according to Forbes, anyway -- that's not what she said.

Oh, that is absolutely what she said.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

say she is "right," you still need to be right for the reasons you think make you right.

in the USDofC I was a union grievance advocate. Part of my job was challenging decisions where management decided an employee fucked up a legal determination.

We were challenging one, me making legal arguments to support the employee's decision, and the manager said, "I hate this process. It doesn't mean anything that Mr. Chinaski can cite in re cicero from 1930 to argue the employee made the correct determination, because the employee has never heard of that case, and it had no bearing on em's determination. we're trying to decide competence, not whether to revisit that determination."

the whole time I've been a lawyer I have never been so floored by an opponent's argument.

You should recycle this one more often.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Just wondering. I've never been a real Supreme Court buff, it's too high-falutin' for me

Me too, but:

When Original Intent types pull out their crystal balls in order to determine what the Founders actually thought particular provisions of the Constitution meant, do they look at the statements intended for consumption by the electorate, the letters between them, or something else?

I think they look at whatever source supports their pre-conceived notion. But I am extremely cynical about such things (and in particular about how humans actually make decisions).

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Adder

Oh, that is absolutely what she said.

You are displaying remarkable clarity today. I'm not sure if that's because you got laid over the weekend, or because you are channeling the heightened frustration from not getting laid yesterday.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

You should recycle this one more often.

I think everyone should do the same posts over and over so you don't seem so far out of touch with normal conversation and can reply w/o the whiff, p.s. My post was the perfect response to ty's barrage.

What u doing on the internet? I thought this was going to be "the week of adder."