Have Gun, Will Travel. Sarah Palin a Good VP pick?

[rogwar]

Even if the pregnancy thing were true....so what?

[crockett]

"Separation of Church & State" is just a catchy phrase and it is not found in Constitution.

umm ok it's in the 1st amendment, if you want to be that picky.

[crockett]

Even if the pregnancy thing were true....so what?

If this is true there are two very different sides of the same coin. I would say if she wasn't so big on the Pro Life & no pre marriage sex stuff then it likely wouldn't be a big deal. However she is, so this could be a very big deal if it turns out to be true.

On one side you could say, it was her family's decision to do what they thought was best for their family in a private matter. This is a reasonable line of thinking.

On the flip side this women is running on family values, pro life, no sex before marriage and all the goody two shoes stuff. One could assume that having her daughter at the age of 16 get pregnant unmarried, might be bad for her political career. This would mean she could have hiding the fact that her family fell into the same trap she is running against and preaching to others about and hiding it for possible political gain. This line of thinking is also reasonable and would mean her credibility is blown in a Bill Clintonish style.

Both lines of thinking are reasonable IMO.

[Holden McGroin]

Both lines of thinking are reasonable IMO.

They are only reasonable if an unsubstantiated rumor is true.  The only 'proof' is that somebody typed it in a blog.  Hardly worth even mentioning let alone speculating about.

[Elfie]

umm ok it's in the 1st amendment, if you want to be that picky.

Really?

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.

[Elfie]

As a side note, this is a video about the Trooper Firing issue..Seems like she has contradicted her self even on video with this deal.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UojMnCgqVA

At this point in time it looks like a he said/she said deal.

[crockett]

Really?

Yes really.. that was the basis for separation of church and state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state

[Elfie]

From your own link.....

The phrase separation of church and state is generally traced to a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to the Danbury Baptists, in which he referred to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution as creating a "wall of separation" between church and state. The phrase was then quoted by the United States Supreme Court first in 1878, and then in a series of cases starting in 1947. This led to increased popular and political discussion of the concept.

Under the United States Constitution, the treatment of religion by the government is broken into two clauses: the establishment clause and the free exercise clause. While both are discussed in the context of the separation of church and state, it is more often discussed in regard to whether certain state actions would amount to an impermissible government establishment of religion.

Notice it doesn't say that separation of church and state is actually in the Constitution. Notice the part in bold, that is what the first part of the 1st Amendment is about, a government established religion such as the Church of England.

Unlike the 2nd Amendment, (where there are many private and public documents supporting an individual right) there is only the one document from Jefferson to support the Separation of Church and State interpretation. One document isn't enough imo.

[crockett]

From your own link.....

Notice it doesn't say that separation of church and state is actually in the Constitution. Notice the part in bold, that is what the first part of the 1st Amendment is about, a government established religion such as the Church of England.

Unlike the 2nd Amendment, (where there are many private and public documents supporting an individual right) there is only the one document from Jefferson to support the Separation of Church and State interpretation. One document isn't enough imo.

It's more than enough for me...I don't care if people want to praise jesus or buda or space aliens in a volcano. However they just need to keep it out of the govt. This country was founded on freedom of religion and the ability to practice the religion of your choice. It wasn't founded to have the popular religion of the day mixed into the govt. You can not have freedom of religion for all people if you decide one religious belief is better or more important than another one.

[Shuckins]

I call BS on the pregnancy "scandal."  The child has Down's Syndrome, which is a condition that is almost exclusively afflicted upon the chidren of women who give birth after they pass the age of 35.

You're really reaching on this one Crockett.

By the way, the citizens of the United States have always voted their religious convictions, or lack thereof, during the nation's elections.  The complaining about it, however, is almost solely confined to the last two decades.  People will vote their convictions, which are shaped by family influences, friends, education, and religious training.  Good luck trying to separate them from any of those.

Trying to get people to leave their religious beliefs behind when they go to the polls is like urinating into the wind;  it's just gonna come back on ya.

[Elfie]

One document does not establish intent by the founders. If there were multiple documents then I would agree with you.

The use of the Jefferson letter by the SC just might be the first time the SC legislated from the bench, although I'm sure Toad can and will correct me if I am wrong on that account. 

[Elfie]

The child has Down's Syndrome

Seriously?   

[Hap]

Obama's speech was full of generic democratic party sound bites.  Almost nothing new, that hadn't already been stated by Clinton, Gore, Kerry, and others:  "We're going to take our country back! 

Did you listen to the whole thing?

[Elfie]

I call BS on the pregnancy "scandal."  The child has Down's Syndrome, which is a condition that is almost exclusively afflicted upon the chidren of women who give birth after they pass the age of 35.

That isn't entirely accurate.....women over 35 are just more likely to have a baby with down syndrome.

http://www.marchofdimes.com/professionals/14332_1214.asp?gclid=CKWqk7PFtZUCFRs-awod5nruRA

Does the risk of Down syndrome increase with the mother's age? Yes. The risk of Down syndrome increases from about 1 in 1,250 at age 25, to 1 in 1,000 at age 30, 1 in 400 at age 35, 1 in 100 at age 40 and 1 in 30 at age 45 (6). Women over age 35 have been traditionally considered most likely to have a baby with Down syndrome. However, about 80 percent of babies with Down syndrome are born to women who are under age 35, as younger women have far more babies (2).

[Hap]

"Separation of Church & State" it's not just a catchy phrase it's part of our constitution.

Not the one that's in the National Archives.  Maybe there's another tucked in a drawer someplace.