It was readily apparent from the reaction of the audience (laughter and hoots) that no one in attendance knew the correct answer. No one except Christine O’Donnell, that is.
Understand, this is Delaware. The same part of the country that gave us the political equivalent of Forrest Gump, Joe “Bite Me” Biden. Slow Joe. Plugs. The Sheriff. The Vice-President who oversaw the distribution of some $800B in Porkulus Funds to Democrat cronies, various left-wing activist groups, and non-existent “shovel-ready jobs.”
The “bearded Marxist” Coons cited the First Amendment in response to COD’s question. To which the incredulous COD replied, “You’re telling me the First Amendment does?”
Coons, thinking he had COD on the ropes, proclaimed this:
“I think you’ve just heard from my opponent in her asking ‘where is the separation of church and state’ show that she has a fundamental misunderstanding.”
“That’s in the First Amendment?” O’Donnell again asked.
“Yes,” Coons responded.
O’Donnell was later able to score some points of her own off the remark, revisiting the issue to ask Coons if he could identify the “five freedoms guaranteed in the First Amendment.”
Coons named the separation of church and state, but could not identify the others — the freedoms of speech, press, to assemble and petition — and asked that O’Donnell allow the moderators ask the questions.
“I guess he can’t,” O’Donnell said.
Now, these are simple points that any middle schooler would know, if civics were still taught in school. But a more important item is missed by the left in their gleeful excoriation of O’Donnell’s answer: Coons doesn’t know them.
Now, Delawareans can ask themselves an important question. Would they want to send as their duly elected representative to the Senate someone who doesn’t know the basics of our Constitution?
Which brings me to another article concerning our Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment over at Foxnews.com. I’ve touched on this before and you may want to reread that post (or read it, if you’re new here) so you’ll have a bit of background. In short, Arizona lawmakers want to clarify the Fourteenth Amendment to exclude automatic citizenship for children born to illegal immigrants, which it already does.
The Fox article quotes an alleged constitutional law professor at Arizona State University, Paul Bender, who states that if the lawmakers focus their argument on the "subject to jurisdiction" wording, they won't get very far because the founders only meant it to apply to the children of foreign diplomats born in the U.S.
Hmmm. Really, Mr. Bender? Let’s take a look at that section and see what it actually says, shall we?
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
Funny, I don’t see the word “diplomat” anywhere, do you? In fact, when I read the rest of that section, that word is curiously absent. So, how, Mr. Bender, if diplomats aren’t specifically excluded (or cited, for that matter) in the language of the law, do you know what the Founders meant? They used the case of a visiting dignitary as an example in case law, but that doesn’t begin to cover the entire meaning.
What is implied in the Constitution at all times, and is conveniently overlooked by those on the left who want it to mean whatever they say it means (The Living, Breathing, Constitution Clause) is that it’s meant to protect the rights of native-born American citizens first. Only when you become a naturalized citizen are you afforded the rights and protections that are guaranteed in it.
But I digress.
Our First Amendment specifically prohibits Congress from establishing a national religion like the Church of England. And it has been adhered to, hasn’t it? Has Congress created a Church of America?
So, that’s clearly what the Founders meant when they made it the very first right, right?
But they clearly didn’t reference illegal immigrants when they wrote the Fourteenth Amendment to say “…and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”? How can anyone who isn’t a naturalized citizen be subject to our law when they haven’t gone through the process of becoming a citizen?
Pardon my confusion, lefties. You logic escapes me.