The Wayback Machine - https://web.archive.org/web/20101020232259/http://www.cbsnews.com:80/8301-503544_162-20020015-503544.html
close
Political Hotsheet
October 19, 2010 10:07 AM

Christine O'Donnell: "Where in the Constitution is the Separation of Church and State?"

Republican Senate Candidate Christine O'Donnell today challenged her Democratic opponent Chris Coons on his statement that the Constitution disallowed the integration of religion into the federal government, asking, "Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?"

The exchange, which prompted laughs from the studio audience, came during a debate this morning at Delaware's Widener School of Law, which was aired by WDEL radio.

In a discussion over the whether or not public schools should be allowed to integrate religion-based ideas into science curricula, O'Donnell argued that local school districts should have the choice to teach intelligent design if they choose.

When asked point blank by Coons if she believed in evolution, however, O'Donnell reiterated that her personal beliefs were not germane.  "What I think about the theory of evolution is irrelevant," she emphasized, adding later that the school of thought was "not a fact but a theory."

Coons said that creationism, which he considers "a religious doctrine," should not be taught in public schools due to the Constitution's First Amendment.  He argued that it explicitly enumerates the separation of church and state.

"The First Amendment does?" O'Donnell asked. "Let me just clarify: You're telling me that the separation of church and state is found in the First Amendment?"

"Government shall make no establishment of religion," Coons responded, reciting from memory the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. (Coons was off slightly: The first amendment actually reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.")

"That's in the First Amendment...?" O'Donnell responded. 

Also during the debate, O'Donnell stumbled when asked whether or not she would repeal the 14th, 16th, or 17th Amendments if elected.

"The 17th Amendment I would not repeal," she said, before asking the questioner to define the 14th and 16th amendments, adding: "I'm sorry, I didn't bring my Constitution with me."

Christine O'Donnell Tries to Leave Past Behind in Debate
Christine O'Donnell's Video Mashup
Christine O'Donnell: My Views on Evolution are "Irrelevant"
Christine O'Donnell TV Ad: "I'm Not a Witch...I'm You"

The 16th Amendment allows Congress to raise taxes without apportioning them among the states or tying the taxation to Census results. The 14th Amendment grants citizenship to everyone born in the United States. The 17th Amendment established direct election by popular vote of two U.S. Senators to each state .

Earlier in the debate, O'Donnell accused Coons of constitutional ignorance, saying that "perhaps they didn't teach you Constitutional law at Yale Divinity School."

O'Donnell's campaign later defended her comments about the First Amendment in a statement, arguing that she "was not questioning the concept of separation of church and state as subsequently established by the courts."

"She simply made the point that the phrase appears nowhere in the Constitution," said O'Donnell's campaign manager, Matt Moran. "It was in fact Chris Coons who demonstrated his ignorance of our country's founding documents when he could not name the five freedoms contained in the First Amendment."


Lucy Madison
Lucy Madison is a political reporter for CBSNews.com. You can read more of her posts here. Follow Hotsheet on Facebook and Twitter.
Tags:
Christine O'Donnell ,
Chris Coons
Topics:
In The News ,
Campaign 2010 ,
Congress

Add a Comment See all 629 Comments
by bankersvox October 20, 2010 7:03 PM EDT
If the Constitution is a "living document" - as the Libs say-- then ANYTYHING goes. How do you know what it really means.
Reply to this comment
by bankersvox October 20, 2010 6:58 PM EDT
In the Senate chambers, on our money, it says, "IN GOD WE TRUST." so much for that argument....
Reply to this comment
by bankersvox October 20, 2010 6:57 PM EDT
The more nuanced the answer the more the Liberal Mass Media gets out of shape. She is correct. And anyone with a historical education knows this.REminds me of Ford questioning the freedom in Poland. To those who knew, he was correct. But that answer, like this one, was just a "dumb" mistake, filtered through the Jr. High lens of the media.
Reply to this comment
by NinthSt78 October 20, 2010 6:55 PM EDT
Here lately, guarding privacy against the urge to sneek a peek has become more of a problem with all the snoops around that like to hide in the computer as well as under the bed claiming it to be their official or unofficial duty. If a player yells foul when another player leans far to the side to sneek a peek at the other hand of cards, are we surprised?
Reply to this comment
by documemts October 20, 2010 6:50 PM EDT
We're getting an extended Holloween season here! It's scary!
Reply to this comment
by NinthSt78 October 20, 2010 6:30 PM EDT
Having both church and state sometimes becomes more manageable when kept in separate pockets as two separate timepieces for travel between time zones. The correct local time and the correct official time may be different when we refer to the standardized GMT. Many may feel there is a time and place for each of them and trying to put them in the same time and place might not be appropriate. Sometimes they both lose and are rejected when they try to get in the way of true love.
Reply to this comment
by ljmarine October 20, 2010 6:27 PM EDT
What everyone forgets is that this is another example of "dumbing down" a very important occupation. Why do we expect less of a senator or congressman than we do of our everyday working people. When people say they think Sarah Palin or Christine O'Donnell are just like them and think it's a compliment, I say then you are an idiot, too.
Reply to this comment
by independent520 October 20, 2010 6:52 PM EDT
Exactly! I competely agree. I don't want brain surgeons who don't really understand how to operate, teachers who can't teach, or CEOs who don't really understand business. Political leaders are suppose to be our best, our brightest ... not the average "us", but above us. Our leaders should inspire us, not dissappoint us. As technology has taught us, to have any chance at changing the system, a person needs to know the system. To change the future, one needs to know history.
by servorum October 20, 2010 6:05 PM EDT
I'm no fan of O'Donnell but I wonder if she was referring to the actual phrase "a wall of separation between Church and state" which is found in neither the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights. It comes from a letter Thomas Jefferson sent to the Danbury Baptists and as such reflects Jefferson's private opinion at the time. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------The First Amendment reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------I'm not trying to defend her here but only trying to provide some perspective. She should have known more about the Bill of Rights before she said what she said even if she was only referring to a specifically worded statement that is not found in the Constitution.
Reply to this comment
by independent520 October 20, 2010 6:37 PM EDT
If she would have answered the question with any semblence of how you just answered it, she would have been more than fine in her response. You summed up the issue perfectly, where she could not even get close. But, she wants to be a Senator. To be fair, I would also give her the benefit of doubt as well, if she hadn't muffed the other Bill of Rights questions. Since she didn't know what the 16th and 14th Ammendments were, and since IRS reform and immigration reform are such significant parts of the Tea Party movement, she appears to be an 'empty suit'. Niether of us (I assume) are politicians or running for office, so we might not be able to recite all 27 Ammendments. But, I can gaurantee that if either of use were running on a platform of (let's suppose) Prohibition, we would have not only studied the Consitution in it's entirety, but would know how to recite the 18th and 21st ammendments in our sleep. To me, it is as if she said "I want to be elected Accountant, but I can't really answer any questions about how Accounts Payable or Receivables work." She'd be laughed out of that interview, as she was with her response.
by babooph October 20, 2010 6:05 PM EDT
She always has a job offer at Fox news-there O Reilly would LOUDLY agree with her & the brainwashed listeners would glow with emotion...
Reply to this comment
by independent520 October 20, 2010 5:47 PM EDT
Another clear example of "Gotcha! Jornalism" when defined as being: "Simple, straight-forward questions that cannot be answered by inept politicians." For those defending her ignorance of the 1st Amendment as application or interpretation, consider how she answered the subsequent question on her position repealling the 14th, 16th and 17th Amendments. She could not even summarize what the 14th and 16th Amendments represent. The 16th Ammendment is the basis of income tax. Isn't income tax reform the underlying principle of the Tea Party that supports O'Donnell? If a candidate doesn't know the Consitution or Bill of Rights, how can that candidate have a position on interpreation or application of the Consitution? Worse yet, she was speaking at a Law school. If she can't even read or know the Consitution in preparation of a debate held at a Law school, and she stands for the Consitution, how is she going to be effective in serving the people? How could she possibly take the oath of office, that she will "... support and defend the Constitution of the United States" when she doesn't even know what the Consitution contains? These are simple questions and her responses were pathetic. If you defend her answers on the Bill of Rights, then maybe as her campaign add suggest, she is you.
Reply to this comment
by bankersvox October 20, 2010 7:00 PM EDT
Have you no shame ? In the US SENATE , there is "IN GOD WE TRUST." oBVIOUSLY AND CLEARLY, the founders wanted God in our lives, prayers, and guidance. Have you ever read about Washington?
See all 629 Comments

About Political Hotsheet

Stay up to the minute on the latest news and developments from Washington, from the White House to Congress and everything in-between with the best political reporters from CBS News and CBSNews.com. Follow us on Facebook.

E-Mail Political Hotsheet
Follow On Twitter

Add to your favorite news reader
google
yahoo
msn
The Economy Recovers from "Freefall"

Our daily Web show, Washington Unplugged, gives an insider's view of politics & those that make it happen.

More Washington Unplugged
HOTSHEET ON TWITTER
CBS News on Facebook