Press "Enter" to skip to content

Countdown w/ Cenk: God, O’Donnell & The Constitution


We learned today that candidate for U.S. Senate, a candidate who would swear to support and
defend the Constitution of the United States if she won, does not know the first thing about the First Amendment to the Bill of Rights. In our fifth story: Republican Tea Party candidate
Christine O’Donnell of Delaware literally did not know the first
thing in the First Amendment. It is, of course, the fundamental principle
on which this nation was founded. That principle, as you’ll see, that she
actually disputed is even in the Constitution. For the record, before we go on, the relevant words, themselves. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” It seems pretty clear. On that basis, Democratic candidate
Chris Coons opposes the teaching of creationism which U.S. courts have found to be a religious doctrine in public schools. Why? Because taking taxpayer dollars to
fund teaching of religious doctrine would be the government teaching and establishing a religion. And government cannot do that. But in the debate today, O’Donnell’s
first claim that evolution is just a theory. By the way, gravity’s explained in
science by the gravitational theory. If you think gravity is just a theory, you’re welcome to try that out and
see how it works for you. O’Donnell then revealed her ignorance about the
Constitution, cracking up the audience of law professors and students as you‘ll hear for yourselves.
Our public schools should be teaching broadly accepted scientific fact. Not religious doctrine. Well, you just proved how
little you know. The reason we‘re in the mess we‘re in is because our so-called leaders in Washington no longer view the indispensable principles of our founding as truly that, indispensable.
We‘re supposed to have limited government, low taxation— One of those indispensable principles is the
separation of church and state. OK. With that, very good dialogue. We appreciate that. Let‘s move
on so we can get through all the panelists and cover a number of areas. from “The News Journal,” please, if you could
ask the next question, please. Where in the Constitution is separation of church and state? It‘s in—excellent point. Hold on. Hold on, please. That was embarrassing. The moderater moved on.
But Coons went back to it as part of a broader debate about the Constitution, including O’Donnell‘s support of Griswold v. Connecticut.
While she rejects Roe v. Wade, which is made possible if not inevitable actually by Griswold. Despite the laughter she got earlier, O’Donnell kept at it. In my view, it is important to know whether you have on my
side a candidate who believes and supports those things and on the other side a candidate
who‘s both unfamiliar with—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. That‘s in the First Amendment? My favorite part
is how smug she looks. That was awesome. Anyway, joining us tonight is Jamie Raskin,
professor of constitutional law at American University, as well as state senator of Maryland. Thanks for your time tonight. My pleasure. Happy to be with you. Yes, great to
have you here. Chris Coons understated things, didn’t he? The First Amendment does not prohibit
Congress from establishing religion, does not merely separate church and state.
It says Congress shall not even make any law respecting an establishment of religion. What‘s the difference there? Well, that‘s right. No part of a government can
make any law respecting an establishment of religion and also the First Amendment guarantees the free exercise
of every individual to choose his or her own religion without the state imposing another religious choice upon them. So, you know, I guess, you know, the Republican
candidate is right in this very narrow sense that the First Amendment doesn’t explicitly say that there‘s a wall of separation between
church and state. That was a phrase that Thomas Jefferson first used in his famous letter to the Danbury Baptist. But what the conservatives want to say basically
is anything that the government does with respect to religion is OK as long as they don‘t literally establish a church. So, that would mean it‘s OK to tax the taxpayers to give money to support particular religious dominations
or religious activities or prayer in the schools, the kinds of things that they want to push. And so, they’ve been attacking Thomas Jefferson
and James Madison and the founders of the Constitution who really did believe in a radical separation of church and state.
That was the whole meaning of the First Amendment and really the most revolutionary thing
about the American Constitution. What would Thomas Jefferson know
about the Constitution, anyway? And by the way, she went further.
She said, establishment of that we cannot establish religion in
the First Amendment, come on. So, she got it completely and utterly wrong. But let’s go further here to the core of this here. How revolutionary an idea was that at the time
when the Founding Fathers said we shall not have a state religion? Well, and look, the glory of the American Constitution, you know, beyond the separation of powers which
it appeared before in other places or due process, which it appeared before in other places was the radical break from centuries
of fusion of church and state in Europe. And this history of Holy Wars,
the Catholics fighting the Protestants, the Crusades, the Inquisition, witchcraft trials, the rack and the screws and torture of people because of their religious views. The American Enlightenment
revolutionaries wanted to break from that violent history of religious conflict which they were fleeing in Europe, and so wrote into the First Amendment these incredible principles that there will be no establishment of religion here and every person would be guaranteed
a liberty of conscience to make his or her own choices to worship how he or she pleases or not at all,
as many of the founders indeed chose not to do. Many of them were, you know, described as heretics and deists and infidels,
and Thomas Jefferson was, you know, considered a radical and Jacobin because of his skepticism towards organized religion. And in the truth, the Constitution
doesn‘t mention the word God. Article VI says there should be no religious test for public office. And our founders wanted to create a society that was safe for religion and
for people to practice religion freely But that meant no religion could
come to dominate government and oppress everybody else. Jamie, real quick. I mean, this is not a matter
of dispute, is it? I mean, every once in a while you‘ll see these conservatives say, oh, you know,
some of the Founding Fathers really believed in God and hence, we must be right. I mean, is this something that‘s disputed in law, in legal circles? Or is it
something that‘s absolutely clear, these guys, the Founding Fathers clearly said in the Constitution and meant we shall not establish a religion and that there should be a separation of church and state? I mean, if you ask me, it‘s perfectly clear.
Now, you know, I got to say, Justice Thomas, for example, takes a very pinched view of the Establishment
Clause where he basically says not only does it mean only that you can‘t establish
a religion the way that the Anglican Church is established.
You know, we have a Church of England. But only Congress cannot establish the church.
There are those who take the position—and I think
Justice Thomas is still one of them who believe that it‘s OK for states
to establish their own churches. That is the mainstream view.
That‘s not the pervasive view. But, you know, the Republican nominee
in Delaware does speak for a right wing position which is that the whole wall of separation understanding
of the Constitution, which goes back to the Founders, is something that‘s been imposed by Thomas Jefferson and Madison and by other radical Jacobins. Right. So, you know,
they‘re basically still fighting a civil conflict that goes back to the beginning of the American republic and they‘re contesting what the values of the
country are. But what‘s made us a great country, if you think about us versus, you know, the people that we‘re dealing
with in the Islamic world, is that we don‘t believe in theocracy. We don‘t
believe in an imposition of a religion where everybody‘s got to follow
what the state is saying. At least we brought some people together.
Conservative right wingers here maybe agree with the conservative government of Saudi Arabia. There‘s some positive out of this. Well, there‘s a lot of theocracy on
the march all around the world. Oh, unfortunately, there is. Jamie Raskin,
professor of constitutional law at American University thank you so much for your time tonight. Pleasure‘s mine. Now, let‘s turn to MSNBC political analyst Howard Fineman,
senior political editor for “Huffington Post” as well. Good evening, Howard. Hi, Cenk. All right. Look, even O‘Donnell has already
been written off politically, Howard, do her views speak poorly of the people who elected her,
namely the Tea Party voters Yes. It probably doesn‘t help the Tea Party at all.
I mean, I suppose you could argue that by having Christine O’Donnell around and speaking
the way she did today makes Sharon Angle look like Doris Kearns Goodwin or something. But it—you know, that‘s the only way she
might be useful as a point of contrast. And what‘s really killing here, what‘s damning here is that the Tea Party is run in the
name of rights and freedom. And all of those rights and freedoms are
enshrined in the very amendments that she seems totally ignorant of. So that‘s really
the crushing contrast here. that’s really the big question contrast here Well, you know, they always seem to say that
they care so much about the Constitution. But other than the Second Amendment and this bizarre theory on the Tenth Amendment, I never really honestly saw them give a damn.
I mean, when Bush was running over the Fourth Amendment, when we still have warrantless wiretaps,
I‘ve never seen them protest that. Have they—have you seen them protest anything
outside of those or care about anything those two amendments? No, not really, except that the whole sort of
the mood music, the theme music, if you will, of the Tea Party is: don‘t tread on me. And don‘t trample on my rights. And that‘s a big part of what the
Bill of Rights is all about, and they were enshrined and made applicable
to all the states and to all citizens by the post-Civil War amendments.
And you know, they are some of the amendments that they‘re also questioning right now, because the 14th Amendment basically says that everyone here who‘s born here, naturalized here,
is a citizen of the United States and their rights cannot be abridged
by any of the states. And yet, the sort of local orientation
of the Tea Party, you heard Christine O’Donnell talk about local
option what the local people want to do. You know, that‘s—that‘s something that is protected by the fourteenth amendment Yes. I love that argument.
I love the Constitution and I‘d like to repeal the 14th Amendment Yes. It doesn‘t make much sense to me. But, Howard
The Civil War was—that was sort of what the Civil War was about. Yes, I think we had a war over that. That‘s right. So, now, real quick, though, let‘s pick a
religion, because if we‘re going to establish a religion, and there‘s to separation
of church and state, we got to pick one, right?
Is it going to be Episcopalian? Southern Baptist? Mormon maybe,
backed Harry Reid, Mitt Romney I think there‘s an answer to this question, Cenk.
It‘s the Aqua Buddha religion of Rand Paul when he was in college I think we‘re all going to—
It‘s not a bad answer. I hadn‘t thought of that. Well, we‘re all going to have to be worshipping
Aqua Buddha after the Tea Party takes charge. Right. Because I presume they‘re not going with Islam.
That‘s probably out. But— Probably out. But Aqua Buddha, keep your eye
on that one. OK, I will. OK. All right. Howard Fineman, senior editor for the
“Huffington Post”—thanks for joining us.

100 Comments

  1. VolatileReaction
    VolatileReaction October 22, 2010

    @dzy82 Actually, there is a theory of gravity. It encompasses the laws of gravity. I can't imagine who thumbed you up, since supporters of evolution generally know the difference between a scientific theory and a scientific law. One will never become the other, they both serve two separate purposes. The dictionary is your friend.

  2. rainydaze1212
    rainydaze1212 October 22, 2010

    @upabittoolate I know. I just find it so hard to not argue with them just a little bit because there is SO much out there that can prove them wrong. I know they won't listen to it, or believe it, or accept it, or understand it…but it's just so blasphemous when I hear them saying things about evolution and they clearly know nothing about the subject (which is the source of the problem).

  3. Ryan Shaw
    Ryan Shaw October 22, 2010

    Gravity is actually a scientific Law, somthing we test every second of every day! Secondly, Christine O'Donnell is fucking sexy why can't she be my neighbor?

  4. MrRedthief
    MrRedthief October 22, 2010

    @maxpower7g Are you nuts! I.D. is religion in disguise. There is nothing scientific about it. They just keep making things up to fit what they want.

  5. 66605
    66605 October 22, 2010

    @Zander73
    Why does privacy include abortion? Why not wife beating? That often happens in the bedroom while abortion happens in clinics. One can be in favor of privacy and against abortion at the same time. Why are judges deciding this issue (against the public will) when it is clearly a matter the Constitution leaves for the people and their legislatures?

  6. 66605
    66605 October 22, 2010

    @Zander73
    Judges arrogating legislative power to themselves is hardly the "democratic process"! It actually subverts the whole process. If judges impose their own political views on the people rather than the law they show contempt for the people and the law. They should be impeached. They are not above the law.

  7. Pelonetillo
    Pelonetillo October 22, 2010

    privacy includes everything, wife beating is too. many husbands are never arrested for beating their wives. so long as it remains private, that is, hidden from public view, it goes unregulated. the constitution trumps public will in government.

  8. PrUnEJuIcEtHeThIrD
    PrUnEJuIcEtHeThIrD October 22, 2010

    This woman had incredibly big and also STUPID balls to challenge her opponent on an issue she doesn't know shit about. Rolled the dice and lost. That's what happens when you're an ignorant bitch.

  9. SteelandSouls15
    SteelandSouls15 October 22, 2010

    @Pelonetillo well, i will mostly likely catch hellfire for saying this but evolution is also in itself a religion. Think about it, it is an explanation for creation, there is no proof that humans evolved from microorganisms or chimps at that such as there is no proof of a higher beings existence, and the god (for lack of a better term) is science itself because it is an explanation of the world and people like all other religion. In my opinion that's not much different or better at that.

  10. Mo Khaled
    Mo Khaled October 22, 2010

    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…"
    What do conservatives you think this line means?

    Congress is about MAKING laws, Congress REPRESENTS the STATE, it is OBVIOUS that line means that there should be NO relation of STATE and RELIGION.

    The CLEAR separation of church and state is CLEARLY implied. If you don't get this obviously don't want to or you are a dumbass.

  11. 66605
    66605 October 22, 2010

    @tannersanta
    The Congress spoken of was that of the federal government not the state governments. Many states at the time of the ratification of the Constitution had established religions. There was nothing unconstitutional about that. Legislating in matters of religion was left to state governments.

  12. Mo Khaled
    Mo Khaled October 22, 2010

    I Repeat.

    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…"

    What do conservatives you think this line means?

    Congress is about MAKING laws. Congress REPRESENTS the STATE, it is so OBVIOUS that line means that there should be NO relation of STATE and RELIGION.

    The CLEAR separation of church and state is CLEARLY implied. If you don't get this is because you obviously don't want to get it or you are a dumbass.

  13. 66605
    66605 October 22, 2010

    @tannersanta
    Repeat it all day if you want. It doesn't change anything. The "Congress" that the Constitution speaks of is that of the Federal government not the state government. Please get an educatiuon.

  14. 66605
    66605 October 22, 2010

    @Zander73
    Laws against prostitution tell women what they can do with their bodies "in private". Besides, with abortion more than just one persons body is involved.
    You seem to think judges can do no wrong once in office. What about judges who ignore the law and impose their own will instead? What about incompetent judges? Shouldn't they be removed? Legislatures have the power to remove judges. I think they should use that power more often.

  15. Mo Khaled
    Mo Khaled October 22, 2010

    @66605 Supremacy clause says; Federal laws trumps state laws.

    Specially when regarding the 1st amendment that clearly states, 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.
    Stop living in denial teabagger.

  16. Pelonetillo
    Pelonetillo October 22, 2010

    –right. nothing was unconstitutional about that, that is, until the constitution was amendment with: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." and since the first amendment protects every us citizen from religious meddling, states cannot abridge this per the 14th.

  17. 66605
    66605 October 23, 2010

    @tannersanta
    The Supremacy clause refers only to those powers delegated to the federal government by the states. The states did not give the federal government the power to legislate in matters of religion. This was left to the states to decide. The 14th Amend. had nothing to do with religion, it is modern judges who have stretched its meaning beyond what was intended by the framers. Separation of Church and State is judge made law not Constitution based law.

  18. joshie92
    joshie92 October 23, 2010

    "You've just proved how little you know." How ironic. Also she should have said "proven".

  19. jackster1990
    jackster1990 October 23, 2010

    @rylraven13 ?

  20. 66605
    66605 October 23, 2010

    @Zander73
    You seem to think that laws which have been on the books since the Constitution was ratified, laws enacted by the very framers of the Constitution themselves, are now unconstitutional because some modern judge reads his own political ideology into the law? If this is the case then we do not really have a Constitution. We have judges making up the law at will. This, then, is an oligarchy instead of a democratic republic. The American people have never consented to this.

  21. Joxman2k
    Joxman2k October 23, 2010

    I thought the First Amendment was "Though shalt not be stupid!"

    ­čśŤ

  22. Jerry Khachoyan
    Jerry Khachoyan October 23, 2010

    Is it me or is anyone else turned on by these dumb republican/tea party women? 1st Sarah Palin and now O'donnell….Damn keep em coming

  23. Pelonetillo
    Pelonetillo October 23, 2010

    uh, the 14th has to do with civil rights, and free exercise of religion is a civil right. scotus enforces the constitutions logical conclusions, if the constitution says states cant abridge civil rights, and free exercise is a civil right, then that settles it. if you want to have a state church, get a time machine or move to iran. this is the usa, in the year, 2010.

  24. Pelonetillo
    Pelonetillo October 23, 2010

    prostitution and everything else hidden from public view is protected by privacy rights–correct. police cant arbitrarily break into someones home to see if theyre up to no good, they have to catch them without violating right to privacy.

  25. Pelonetillo
    Pelonetillo October 23, 2010

    uh, slavery was constitutional per the framers. constitution has since been amended–get over it. the judges arent reading their own ideologies into law, they are reading the law and enforcing it. just so happens the text of the constitution has been updated over time. the 14th amendment was not the first time this happened, hence it being the 14th amendment.

  26. rammer561
    rammer561 October 23, 2010

    Our gov. now has the right to lock up anyone they deem a terrorist threat and all their rights are taken away.Dont even try and say they would not abuse that right. Thats like saying the gov. had nuthing to do with the events of 9/11.

  27. rammer561
    rammer561 October 23, 2010

    I agree that Christine O'Connell does not seem to understand the the 1st amendment. I ask you why are you bothering arguing the constitution when Bush with all members of congress have esentialy said the constitution is a worthless piece of paper by passing the Patriot Act????… If our rights of habeus corpus are deemed null and void by our legislaters that means that the rest is worthless since they can lock us up and throw away the key for anything including trying to defend our rights

  28. rammer561
    rammer561 October 23, 2010

    "The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government – lest it come to dominate our lives and interests."
    Patrick Henry

  29. Pelonetillo
    Pelonetillo October 23, 2010

    already did: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." 14th also says, "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." so it does also allow for black voting rights.

  30. 66605
    66605 October 23, 2010

    @Pelonetillo
    You do not know what "privileges or immunities" are in the context of the 14th Amend. It had nothing to do with religion. BTW it was the 15 Amendment which took away race discrimination in voting. So it did exist after the 14th. Please get an education.
    Also, did you know that one of the biggest supporters of separation of church and state was the Ku Klux Klan? It was southern Justice (Hugo Black, a Klan member) who helped influence the Court.How do you like the company you're in?

  31. Pelonetillo
    Pelonetillo October 23, 2010

    the context is civil rights. pretty broad. and the 14th can stand alone on ensuring equality among citizens, as well as to define citizenship. but thats going off topic. i dont care what the kkk supports. lol, youre resorting to guilt by flimsy association.

  32. 66605
    66605 October 23, 2010

    @Pelonetillo
    No, the 14th Amend. did not grant the equality modern judges have given it. That is my point. Most law is judge made law not Constitution based law. If you are happy with judges making law that's fine but don't complain when the will of the people is ignored and we are stuck with a government we did not consent to.

  33. theDarkAlleyPress
    theDarkAlleyPress October 23, 2010

    @PigskinJunkies will you jump off a bridge when that moron loses? She doesn't even know the first goddam amendment of the Constitution. The AMERICAN Constitution.

  34. theDarkAlleyPress
    theDarkAlleyPress October 23, 2010

    Dude, really? Really? Is this who the people are rallying behind? Satanic Alters? Mice with brains? Doesn't know the first amendment? If she wins (which I am pretty certain she will because I am a pessimist) this way of thinking will spread like a cancer across America, and these morons will sell us to the corporations, the Catholic church and to under the radar racism. Where is America going?

  35. Pelonetillo
    Pelonetillo October 23, 2010

    it did–it explicitly says, "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." about what states cant do.

  36. Dascorpio36
    Dascorpio36 October 23, 2010

    American voters must really be pissed at the democrats to turn to the Tea Party as a viable alternative.

  37. 66605
    66605 October 23, 2010

    @Zander73
    I think you are too stupid to have a rational discussion with. My opinion of the Court is no different that members who sit on the Court right now. They have recently over turned bad law ( campaign finance law) which was permitted by previous courts. Some members of the court frequently criticize other members for reading their own political views into the law. If you are not aware of this you are really out of touch. Why pretend judges are so pure and principled?

  38. upabittoolate
    upabittoolate October 23, 2010

    @rainydaze1212 Just yesterday I read an editor's note in a science baput about a scientist that argued against the existence of atoms simply because we couldn't (at that time) see them. I was even more stunned to find out that Einstein was a follower of this guy's work. The editor went on to say that it's really a trivial pursuit to try to prove fact to a stupid person. The best bet it to challenge them to read a book or 2. THAT is intellectual integrity at it's finest.

  39. MasterAdam100
    MasterAdam100 October 24, 2010

    I finally understand what Peter meant on that episode of Family Guy, "Christians don't believe in gravity."

  40. Rusty Shackleford
    Rusty Shackleford October 24, 2010

    @SteelandSouls15

    I'm not going to go through the hundreds of ways you don't know what you're talking about (look up Volvox for an example of a transition between single and multicellular, human fused chromosome number 2, CCR-5 delta mutation, etc), and I'll just say this: if evolution is a religion then why does the overwhelming scientific consensus not just accept it, but use it to make accurate predictions in their fieldwork? A conspiracy? Or because its supported by all the evidence?

  41. Sylinic
    Sylinic October 24, 2010

    Cenk is a fucking beast

  42. 66605
    66605 October 25, 2010

    @Zander73
    Well, numb nuts, I'll explain this to you for the 5th time. Judges have no business making the law, their job is to interpret it and apply it. When judges ignore the law and imposes their own will on the people they should be removed from office. Congress has the power to do this. I'm simply suggesting they do it to protect the Constitution and the laws they enact. Impeachment is illegal? Since when? Please get an education.

  43. Drake Magnum
    Drake Magnum October 25, 2010

    go get em Cenk!

  44. windycloud23
    windycloud23 October 25, 2010

    Tea Baggers: Rather than letting smart people screw me I'd take my change with stupid but sincere people any day.
    Tea Baggers: You need to be just like me to represent me.
    Tea Baggers: What we hate the most is being called racists, and what we hate second most is black people.
    Tea Baggers: I want my God's Country back.
    Tea Baggers: I love a Tea Party rally but keep it out of my hunting season

  45. rjbonacolta
    rjbonacolta October 25, 2010

    @66605 They can only impeach the Justices for like an insane felony. The Justice would either have to accept a bribe in public, or murder someone.

  46. rjbonacolta
    rjbonacolta October 25, 2010

    I look at O'Donnell and wonder who could possibly vote for this Taliban-thinking bitch. Seriously, someone who supports her, explain it to me I need to know.

  47. Drake Santiago
    Drake Santiago October 25, 2010

    The irony is the Tea Party, who are the ones who endorsed Christine O'Donnell, are said to be strict Constitutionalists, and yet they elevate a woman to possibly be a Senator, who doesn't have the slightest clue about what the Constitution actually says! This is classic far right stupidity. The Bible and the Constitution are so much alike, in that those who express the loudest support for a fundamentalist interpretation of either the Bible or the Constitution tend to know the LEAST about them!

  48. 66605
    66605 October 25, 2010

    @rjbonacolta
    Just as judges make up the law at will Congress could impeach these judges for any reason they please. I would love to see it! Judges have been the spoiled brats of our political system for too long, abusing their authority, ignoring the plain text of the Constitution, the intent of the framers of amendments and other federal law, etc. They answer to no one and behave like they're above the law. I'm surprised any one defends them.

  49. rjbonacolta
    rjbonacolta October 25, 2010

    @66605 Actually no, see in the constitution which you seem to kinda care about even if you haven't read it, it specifies the sort of things judges can be impeached for, so right wing or left wing or centrist extremists don't simply impeach a judge for say, asserting a right to privacy or freedom to express one's religious views. Sadly the concept of a strong court seems lost on you. Oh well.

  50. 66605
    66605 October 25, 2010

    @Zander73
    You are probably not aware that judges do not study the Constitution. They study what other judges have said about the Constitution i.e. they build on bad precedent and flawed thinking. The idea that the Supreme Court is the final authority on the law is something the Court made up! Show where it is in the Constitution. The Founders gave us a federal government with limited powers. The SC today thinks it has the right oversee all matters of law federal or state. What limits?

  51. 66605
    66605 October 25, 2010

    @rjbonacolta
    I do care for the Constitution as it was framed and intended. Thanks to unscrupulous judges we have a counterfeit constitution that leaves judges in control of legislating in all matters state and federal. This is not what our Founders left us with. It is not what the People consented to. Get it?

  52. 66605
    66605 October 26, 2010

    @Zander73
    I don't see where it says it is the final authority on ALL matters of law. This would include state law. Matters under the Constitution are federal issues. Besides, the Supreme Court is just that, the highest court. Its decisions would bind lower courts not other co-equal branches of the government. Where is the SC put above the legislative or executive branch? Do you know what was meant by cases in law and equity?

  53. Goodgoyim Takethepill
    Goodgoyim Takethepill October 26, 2010

    @66605

    our constitution is one of the greatest things ever created. the republicans just want to destroy it by destroying the first amendment which is the most important amendment.

  54. Davis Green
    Davis Green October 26, 2010

    Just showed how little O┬┤Donnell knows.. How bright the Tea Party is !!

  55. Michael J Caboose
    Michael J Caboose October 26, 2010

    O'Donnel and the Tea Party are probably the best thing to happen to the USA in the last century.

    Lets face it – America is farked – and it needs to completely collapse before it can rebuild.

    I cant think of anyone better to bring about a total collapse than O'Donnel, Palin etc

  56. Jon
    Jon October 27, 2010

    9:00 Cenk
    No one has copyrighted the Tea Party just like no one has copyrighted the anti war movement on Iraq. That's a poor argument saying where was the tea party during Bush's spying? ( It happened in 2007 during Ron Paul's campaign)
    Well, where was the anti war movement when Clinton illegally bombed Sudan to make himself look like a president rather than a sex maniac?

  57. Afarro
    Afarro October 27, 2010

    O'donnell told a witch: I am not a witch; I'm like you.

  58. upplsuckimcool16
    upplsuckimcool16 October 27, 2010

    A lot of people write "you nailed" as response to a lot of my comments….. however when youn said it this time I was looking for something intuitive i might have written but i find this this HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Still though it WAS funny…..

    Must have been why she stopped having sex she thought the guy liked her and that's why he was smiling HAHAHA

  59. PhatCrayonz
    PhatCrayonz October 27, 2010

    Freedom of religion and freedom FROM religion. Do not put God in the laws of freedom. I am a Christian. I go to church every week yet we cannot put religion and church together. As they put it. What religion would it be?

  60. celt67
    celt67 October 28, 2010

    She makes Sarah Palin look intelligent.

  61. TaffyAlpha
    TaffyAlpha October 29, 2010

    The Constitution does not state anywhere "Seperation of Mosque, and State!"

  62. mindstain75
    mindstain75 October 29, 2010

    @TaffyAlpha zomg loophole

  63. mindstain75
    mindstain75 October 29, 2010

    can't you just see her blaming someone for not pointing out that this was covered in the first amendment? extremely hilarious.

  64. Jordan Bisasky
    Jordan Bisasky October 30, 2010

    Congrats for hosting!

  65. Rusty Shackleford
    Rusty Shackleford October 30, 2010

    @mikepiazza

    And what does the free exercise clause state that conflicts with religions passing religious legislation being unconstitutional? You're arguing for a series of words, not the meaning behind them because it inconveniences your world view. Any law which specifically benefits members of a single faith is a law respecting an establishment of religion. Hence, Lemon test. The only people arguing against this have a clear and present religious bias.

  66. captmoroni
    captmoroni November 3, 2010

    "Establishment of religion" is just that: an establishment of religion. The Founders knew an "establishment of religion" b/c they dealt with the Church of England.

    If you were not a member of the Church of England, you were barred from several types of jobs automatically. And whether you were a member or not, you paid taxes for the support of the Church.

    The phrases "Wall Of Separation" and "Separation Of Church And State" are not in the Constitution, let alone the First Amendment.

  67. Don Tanner
    Don Tanner November 4, 2010

    Remember that the anti-guns Neo-Fascist say the " , " in the second amendment means citizens should not own guns in the second amendment. This fat head was just told him she was correct and turk didn't hear a thing. I love the far left.

  68. Nicolas V
    Nicolas V November 4, 2010

    @shmuk87 you don't know anything about turkey, unlike your hick redneck views have led you to believe not all middle eastern countries are full of american hating terrorist, in fact turkey is actually one of our best allies in the middle east and until recently the only middle eastern ally of isreal

  69. docj09
    docj09 November 5, 2010

    it's so funny that like 90% of the people in the US have religious beliefs…yet 90% percent of comments on youtube videos about religions come from so called "atheists"…if you're such an atheist then quit celebrating our holidays and go into work on those holidays too

  70. Dabipster
    Dabipster November 6, 2010

    @docj09

    How about xtians stop celebrating our pagan holidays?

    Easter was stolen from the pagan celebration of the spring, a celebration of new life, evidenced by EGGS being laid, and animals of fertility like BUNNIES.

    Winter Solstice and Saturnalia were mid-late December. Holidays that xtians stole or co-opted to celebrate their "savior's birth" 4 months later than it actually was.

    How about a TRUE xtian holiday repenting thievery and opportunism, where you GIVE BACK what was stolen?

  71. fbi10
    fbi10 November 9, 2010

    apparently it's not clear enough for you, cenk….you got it completely wrong and i suggest you go back and learn the history of the 1st amendment…

  72. King Achy Braky
    King Achy Braky November 12, 2010

    @docj09 GREAT IDEA!! What am I supposed to do?????

    Sit in my car and look at a closed business???

    EVERYONE ELSE IS AT HOME, YOU……..well, you know

  73. King Achy Braky
    King Achy Braky November 12, 2010

    @babourakis1 Turkey is good!! Almost TG again, all the turkey I can eat!!

  74. Elems187
    Elems187 November 13, 2010

    @Sylinic i think they might giv Cenk his own show soon, seeing as he has been "working" for MSNBC for quite a while.

  75. tgrigsby7
    tgrigsby7 November 16, 2010

    Cenk rocks. I think it's fantastic that he got to fill in. Good luck to him!

    As for O'Donnell, I'm so relieved she crashed and burned during this debate. Hilarious!

  76. eviltube1111
    eviltube1111 November 20, 2010

    O'Donnel: "Wow, you just revealed how little you know"

    Nice arrogance you dumb bitch. Why anyone would vote for someone who knows so LITTLE and speaks down to people is beyond me.

  77. eviltube1111
    eviltube1111 November 20, 2010

    @mikepiazza you sound butthurt. sorry you weren't there to write the constitution

  78. SimpleStuff31
    SimpleStuff31 December 14, 2010

    @hypoguess fuuuck you

  79. SimpleStuff31
    SimpleStuff31 December 14, 2010

    i like how cenk rips on her for messing up the first amendment when liberals like him want to infringe on the 1st amendment all the time…hypocrasy

  80. bohemianwriter1
    bohemianwriter1 December 15, 2010

    @hypoguess
    Couldn't have said it better myself mate…

  81. ALPHAandOMEGA44
    ALPHAandOMEGA44 January 1, 2011

    The state is NOT God.

  82. Chad Alexander Bowman
    Chad Alexander Bowman January 7, 2011

    @hypoguess Genius statement. Bravo.

  83. theonlyironman
    theonlyironman January 7, 2011

    ah I love it, o donnell actually thinks the audience are laughing with her
    fuckin dumbass

  84. theonlyironman
    theonlyironman January 7, 2011

    @SimpleStuff31
    did you just watch the video?
    how did you miss the point of that?
    simple stuff indeed

  85. Mark Chapman
    Mark Chapman January 10, 2011

    time for the Cenk Show

  86. horbergaren
    horbergaren January 15, 2011

    O'Donnel is finally going to jail! <3<3<3<3 :D:D:D

  87. Unclesamslair
    Unclesamslair February 15, 2011

    at about 0:20 it sounded like he was going to say "did not fucking know" but then corrected himself

  88. MrNobody47710
    MrNobody47710 May 16, 2011

    So let me get this straight. The US is an example of a country avoiding religious rule, which is full of bullshit, yet the conservatives of this country are trying bring in religious rule?

    Why does our brand of conservatism have to suck? There are better brands of it out there. Why do we have the "Judeo-Christian Bullshit Party of Bad Science and Reasoning" brand of conservatism?

    One of the first countries to avoid religious bullshit shouldn't deal with this sort of thing…

  89. MrNobody47710
    MrNobody47710 May 16, 2011

    (part 2) In the second sentence, I was saying that religious rule is full of bullshit. Sorry if I was unclear.

  90. Alex Townsend
    Alex Townsend October 17, 2011

    @Sylinic My mother liked him and I do too. I look forward to seeing Young Turks come to Current TV very soon. Hopefully sometime before the year is up or at the start of 2012.

  91. Alex Townsend
    Alex Townsend October 17, 2011

    @RealTime88 I said liked she doesn't watch news as much as I do.

  92. Sylinic
    Sylinic October 17, 2011

    @RealTime88 Hehe, very true, my friend.

  93. jesushatesyoutoo
    jesushatesyoutoo June 4, 2012

    Tell these religious nuts that Israel, "the Jewish State" is ruled by a SECULAR government representing Jews, Muslims, Christians and other religions. Freedom of Religion is in their declaration of independence. Now, that said, there are Christian Palestinians. It is not a Religious conflict as much as a cultural national identity conflict.

  94. Carlos Segui
    Carlos Segui June 9, 2012

    she got told lololololol. what a imbecile is O Donnell's

  95. Dennis Kautz
    Dennis Kautz June 13, 2012

    I am no Creationist by any means and I do believe that we evolve, however, Darwinian Evolution is a theory with about as much proof as Creationism. We are indoctrinated in our schools that the only ones that contest Darwinian Evolution are the Creationists, which is not true. It is also a useful tool of the establishment to label all who oppose this theory as loony fundamentalists.

  96. GavinLockard
    GavinLockard June 25, 2012

    Have you ever heard of DNA evidence?

  97. Dennis Kautz
    Dennis Kautz June 26, 2012

    I'm sorry to tell you that DNA "evidence" cannot prove the Darwinian evolution model. Darwinians believe that so called "junk" DNA are useless just because they can't find a function. This is estimated at 95% of our total genome. Many dozens of organs in the 19th Century were considered vestigial because scientists of the time didn't know their function. There is so much stigma attached to not believing the Darwinian model for evolution. There are better models other than Darwins or the Bible's.

  98. Joseph Stafford
    Joseph Stafford August 4, 2012

    Hey douche bag, separation of church and state is NOT in the constitution. O'Connell is correct. And yes it says government shall not create a law based on religion, however everyone is free to practice their religion. TYT needs to read the constitution.

  99. theonlyironman
    theonlyironman August 6, 2012

    firstly, douchebag is one word. secondly, the US supreme court functions to interpret the constitution and deem what is and isnt constitutional, and since 1802 the first amendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" is interpreted to mean the institutions of religion are not observed when it comes passing laws. no one is debating an inidviduals right to practice religion, sounds like you need to read the constitution.

  100. Arthur E. Waite
    Arthur E. Waite January 5, 2013

    i would still fuck her..

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *