Latest Column

Thanks for this profile. The more discussions of Glass-Stegal, the better, that’s what I always say.
-
One quibble– it’s more accurate to call Kudlow a party hack than to imply that he has some sort of philosophy of politics. Just as an example, here he is suggesting that we overthrow Venezuela, just after he got done advocating the same for Iraq. Not really a “that which governs least” kinda guy.

Just dreaming, but how much different would things be if our politicians were as unfettered as Kaufman is?

When checking out CSPAN2, there are a couple of senators I will stop and listen to if they are speaking. Kaufman is one of them. His passion and intelligence always comes through.

Joe,
.
A few hours after Christine O’Donnell, the Republican U.S. Senate candidate in Delaware, learned, to her surprise, in the midst of a debate, that the U.S. Constitution contains a provision that separates church and state…
.
Hmmm.
.
The actual Constitutional clause reads: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…You do realize that is a very narrow stipulation imposed on one branch of government, Congress, which really only limits the legislatively sanctioned elevation of any one religion over others, i.e. a state religion.
.
The idea of separation of church and state, not mentioned in the Constitution, is an exhaustive stipulation imposed on all branches of government that could be interpreted in all manner of vile ways, such as precluding a member of government from attending church at all.
.
How do you get from the former to the latter? Do you realize how absurd you sound mocking someone for pointing out that the latter is not found in the Constitution, but is rather a radical interpretation by some of the former? This term has been thrown around so loosely, so carelessly (or perhaps intentionally) that otherwise reasonable, intelligent persons such as yourself actually try to argue its existence in a document that clearly, unequivocally does not contain it. What’s wrong with you?

Hmm.. when Coons read the exact words of the 1st Amendment O’Donnell questioned their existence. Please, whatever your definition of the 1st Amendment is, can you admit O’Donnell is not exactly a Constitutional scholar, as she claims. She didn’t know the 10th, 14th and 17th Amendment.
She couldn’t name a current Dem Senator with whom she could work.
She somehow believes that if she wins she will automatically be assigned to committees of her choosing.
The list is endless.
But, not to worry, she will have a good future living off her campaign funds, as she has done the last 5 years, have nice paid speaking engagements with far right and evangelical groups and will be on Fox quite often.

Yes, yes Joe…Christine O’ Donnell is armored only with ignorance. She’s not worthy of being a human. Maybe you should cast her down to a lower life form. I’m sure that she has absolutely no redeeming qualities at all.
.
Please Joe, show us the phrase “separation of church and state” in the Constitution. Please.
.
Amendment I

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.
.
Don’t see that phrase there Joe.
.
It’s not there Joe. The idea of separation of church and state comes from judical interpretation of a Jefferson letter.
.
I hate to break this to you Joe, but that’s not the Constitution. Maybe you should go back to school.

lib,

See apr’s 4.1

Your attempt to defend O’Donnell is pathetic. Please explain why she is qualified to serve in the (latest of many) elective office to which she aspires.

Whatever my interpretation of the 1st Amendment is? Why, what’s yours?

I’m not defending O’Donnell, apr, she seems to be a bit of hack. But, Joe clearly stated that the First Amendment contains a “provision that separates church and state.” He is, without a doubt, dead-wrong.

She’s not an Anti American socialist.

Thanks for the reference to Glass-Steagall. The significance of its repeal simply cannot be overstated. In my view, it is the genesis of the mess that we find ourselves in today. Bringing back Glass-Steagall would require the humility to admit that its repeal was a mistake, a humility that does not exist in the current political climate. Not to mention having the courage to stand up to Wall Street’s influence. And let’s not forget, it was a Republican-led Congress and Democratic President that voted for the repeal. One should not wonder then why so many of us are mistrustful of Washington, and want to clean house. November 2 should be quite interesting.