Separation of Church and State: O'Donnell v. Coons

Coons is simply smarter than O'Donnell in the Delaware Senate race. He may even be a better person and though Democrat more conservative in important ways!

O'Donnell comes off as more of a thug, despite her gender, when the heat is on.

Nonetheless, though I prefer Coons in the Senate, I wish that O'Donnell had done a better job representing the issue of constitutional separation of Church and State, in their most recent debate.

Coons stood by separation of Church and State. And that is alright, in the broad sense. If there is a state-sponsored religion, it might not be mine! And that would upset me! Right?

O'Donnell, for her part, challenged the separation concept slightly. She asked, correctly, "Where in the Constitution is sepation of church and state?"

The word "separation" is not there, but the concept is: "Congress shall make no law respecting," among other things, "an establishment of religion." That's "separation" enough for me.

But when I say, "I favor separation because I would not want a government-sponsored religion," I don't mean, and no one should mean, that the concept should govern all of reality in a simple-minded fashion from banning state-sponsored churches to controlling syllables falling from the mouths of government employees doing their work to prohibiting paper clips bent into the shape of an Muslim moon on a Department of Agriculture desk.

The First Amendment, and the Fourteenth Amendment (which probably intended to extend the First Amendment prohibitions to the States), WERE UNDOUBTEDLY NOT INTENDED TO MAKE "POLITICAL CORRECTNESS" THE PERSON-DAMNING, PERSON-DOOMING LAW OF THE LAND.

George Washington SIGNED the Constitution. He PRESIDED OVER the Consitutional Convention. He was our FIRST PRESIDENT.

How did he interpret the First Amendment Establishment of Religion Clause?

In his First Inaugural Adrerss, after he was elected President under the Constitution, he spent almost ONE-THIRD of the time talking about GOD.

Proof: My word counter says that the address is 1,433 words in length. 423 words are in the paragraphs about God. 423/1433 = 29.51%. See http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres13.html.

Suppose a Congressional Page had walked up to Washington and whispered in his ear, "Sir, you are misinterpreting the document which you just signed. When you said, in that document, by your signature beneath those words, 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,' it means that all government officials may not even favorably speak of God while doing their work -- including you at this moment."

Which answer is George Washington most likely to have given?

(1) "Sir, you are mistaken. In fact, your words are so mistaken, I wonder if you are an insane man. Get off this podium, so that I can continue talking about that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, the benign Parent of the Human Race."

...or...

(2) "I'm sorry! I made a mistake!"

The Great Real Estate Question

Hypothetical: A smiling, very pretty little real estate agent shows a house to a newly-married couple. It is well-constructed. The major components -- roof, windows, furnace, air-conditioner -- are recently installed and ship-shape and so won't need replacing for decades. It is in a good neighborhood. The husband says, "Wow! What a deal! Why such a good price?"

"The widow who owned it had to move," the real estate agent explains. "She asked me not to invade her privacy too much by explaining more than that to persons interested in buying her home."

"Well, tell her that we'll take it!," the wife declares, smiling. "Where can we sign on the dotted line?"

A month-and-a-half later, closing occurs. An attorney appears for the widow, and signs for her under the authority of a Power of Attorney. 90% of the purchase price is mortgaged. The newlyweds are locked-in to 30 years of debt, but they are happy with their new home.

After they have moved-in, they hear knocking in the walls at night, they feel clouds of cold here and there in the house, they hear footsteps on the floors, and they are constantly awakened by tapping on their hips at night.

After a few weeks, a neighbor tells the disturbed couple, "Wow, we thought that this house could not possibly sell! And why do you both have such deep, dark circles under your eyes?"

"Why didn't you think that anyone would buy the house?," asks the wife.

"Oh, because of the double murder there last year! The wife murdered her unfaithful husband, and then she murdered her own son when he tried to stop her from murdering her husband! She was taken away in handcuffs by police, and is still awaiting trial! Ever since then, this place has been outrageously haunted! Even the police are afraid to go in! If you ask me, the market value of that house is about 2 cents!"

Shocked, the couple rush over to the real estate agent's office, and say, "You defrauded us! You know that we would never have bought this house had we known that there was a double murder, there! Who will ever buy it from us? And the murders left behind ghosts! We can't sleep there at night! The ghosts won't let us rest! It's terrifying, there!"

"So sue me!," answers the real estate agent. "I told you what I could! I called the seller a 'widow' and I said that she 'had to move.' She did, when they cuffed her! And then I resorted to the right of privacy. That should have been enough to tip you off! We have a duty to our clients, and this particular client insisted that the embarrassing accusations against her -- and they are ONLY 'accusations'; she's presumed innocent until proven guilty, right? -- be kept private! Do YOU have constitutional rights? Well, SHE DOES, TOO! And besides that, you don't REALLY believe in GHOSTS, do you?"

And the real estate agent drives to the bank and deposits her commission check, smiling.

Fraud?

Placing a Value on Things

One of my favorite law jokes concerns a fifth grade class where each of the kids has to get up and describe what a parent does for a living.

Little Sammie gets up and says, "My dad is a social worker who is the boss at a company which cares for mentally challenged people!"

Little Susie gets up and says, "My mommy is a stewardess for US Airways -- she flies to Europe and South America and other places!"

Little Johnnie, whose father is a trial lawyer, gets up and says, "My dad says that he is a piano player in a whorehouse!"

The federal government, several decades ago, was confronted with a special problem when buying-up private land in Idaho to establish the federally-owned Clearwater River National Forest there. Exercising eminent domain, federal appraisers would visit privately-held lands, private residences, and private businesses, and put a price on it which they believed comprised fair market value for the property, and then arrange to have it paid.

At a remote place called Maggie's Bend, Idaho, they discovered that Maggie's Bend was actually a whorehouse, a perfectly legal business in Idaho back then.

Federal appraisers were struck dumb. How to put a value on such a property and business? Sample the goods themselves? Hunt down reguilar customers and interview them?

In his wonderful book, "Strange Encounters: Adventures of a Renegade Naturalist," author Daniel B. Botkin reveals that appraisers and owner shook hands on the concept of counting the number of towels coming down from upstairs to be laundered each month, and assigning a dollar value to each towel.

The Case of the Teacher Guilty of Sin

Hypothetical is based on a real case:

Christian woman starts teaching 4th grade in a Christian school in early 2008.

She becomes engaged during the school year.

In January, 2009, she commits the sin of engaging in premarital sex with her future husband, and conceives a child by him.

They marry, as planned, in February, 2009.

In April, 2009, she goes to her principal, a woman, and announces her pregnancy, and requests 6 weeks unpaid maternity leave in the Fall.

During this discussion, the principal is told the probable due date, counts back, and says something like, "Wait -- did you conceive this child before marriage?"

"Yes," the teacher answers.

"You're fired, for immoral conduct," says the principal.

Then, the school notifies other teachers and parents of students that the fourth grade teacher was fired for engaging in the important sin of premarital sex.

The teacher sues the Christian school.

You are on the jury. Would find the school liable? If so, how much would you award as damages?

A Warning to Every Man

.


A client needed my help in criminal court. Her son had come at her with a butcher knife. She grabbed a steak knife from her place-setting and got lucky, bloodying his arm and deterring his attack.

But, the great rule of law enforcement and criminal court is, "Bleeders always win." Police, prosecutors and judges would deny that, but by-and-large it is simply true. If you are the one who bled, you are much more comfortably poised to succeed in court. The reasons why this is true are twofold: Laziness and embarrassment, the two great forces running the system. Police, prosecutors and judges see a bleeder and they think, "Hmmm, there is one who is obviously eligible to be labeled 'victim.'" Once they do that, the work ends. Once they do that, the press can't run an embarrassing article asking why the system sided with the non-bleeder.

Some criminals are aware of this, and so if arrest is inevitable they carefully bloody themselves with an injury before police arrive.

In any event, because my client, the true victim, got lucky in her effort to deter the attack, while she suffered no injury, she was arrested, while the son, the attacker, was interviewed as a victim.

So, my client was in a difficult position.

As I waited for the prosecutor to arrive for trial, I planned my discussion with the prosecutor in this tricky case. On the case list I saw that the prosecutor was a young lady I had not worked with for about three years. When she walked into the courtroom, I immediately saw that beautiful Dana suddenly had quite a substantial belly.

"DANA!," I exclaimed, putting out my hand, "HOW ARE YOU DOING?" And the next five words slipped-out of my mouth, before I could stop myself...

"WHAT IS YOUR DUE DATE?"

Dana's answer: "What due date?"


.