Christine O'Donnell vs Chris Coons on the Constitution and Other Elections Thoughts

My first thought is the stupidity of much of the media, and the left in general on Constitutional matters. When Christine O’ Donnell challenged Chris Coons to show where the separation of state and Religion is located in the Constitution in a recent debate, much of the media reported this as another O’Donnell mishap. (Hint, there is no phrase in the first Amendment or any where in the Constitution that says separation of state and Religion.)

O’Donnell was right in her insertion that Constitution opposes the establishment of a National Church and it does not forbid the “free exercise of Religion.” Coons could not name the five freedoms in the first amendment as well, but the media reported Coons ignorance of the Constitution as a victory. For more details of this exchange review National Review Online October 19th to witness yet the stupidity of the media and Chris Coons. Bottom line, Senators must vote on Supreme Court Judges and it would be nice if a Senator knows something about the Constitution. Chris Coons doesn’t.

My second thought is to watch the battle over retention of state judges in Iowa. Three of the judges on the battle who wrote a decision legalizing same sex marriage are on the ballot and there is real doubt on whether they will survive. Could this foreshadow a larger battle over the Courts and could become an issue in the 2012 election?

My final thought is that while Republicans have not emphasized the role of the United States Senator in voting on Supreme Court nominees, this is an issue that is a winner. Do you want judges who want to restrict political free speech, will oppose gun rights, will dictate what the definition of family is by fiat, will demean private property rights and will treat the unborn as nothing more than cyst to be removed?

Comments

Make sure to check out the comments on Facebook.

The word god is also never mentioned in the constitution, so by your logic we must not be a christian nation.  I also can't find the words airplane or internet, so those must be unconstitutional as well.  It's not just that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." in the ammendment, but also the 200+ plus years of case law surrounding it.  If the framers of the constitution wantd a static unchanging document they were smart enough to not give us the ability to ammend it, since they didn't we can only assume that they wanted us to ammend it as needed.  Stop being a pedantic blow-hard and realize you're voting for the pig in lipstick not the hot hockey mom.
 

© 2015 TexasGOPVote  | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy