Christine O'Donnell and Constitutional Interpretation

You might know Christine O'Donnell as the Republican nominee for Senate in Delaware. She is running against Chris Coons.

Recently, she challenged Coons to ask her where the specific statement "separation of church and state" appeared in the Constitution. Then, in an interview, she thought she got the "upper hand" on Coons by getting him to duck a question about naming the five power guaranteed in the first amendment. She concluded that he did not know what those five powers are (speech, petition, religion, assembly and press).

She felt it was necessary to clarify what the first amendment said about freedom of religion (establishment clause): "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." She is right. There is no language that explicitly states that there should be a "separation of church and state."

But, the constitution does not explicitly state:

• Corporations should have first amendment rights (Citizens United Case)
  
• The right to parenthood counseling should not be infringed upon (Griswald v Connecticut)
  
• Schools should be desegregated (Brown v Board)
  
• Interracial marriage cannot be outlawed(Loving v Virginia)
  
• Consenting adults cannot be prosecuted for sexual activity within their own home (Lawrence v Texas)
  
• A bridge company has the right to charter a toll road in the spirit of competition even if it violates a contract (Charles River Bridge Case)
  
• Native American tribes are their own sovereign nation (Cherokee Nation v Georgia)
  
• Bakers have the right to an 8-hr work day (Lochner v New York)
  

Well...you get the idea.

The Constitution does not explicitly state that there is a separation of church and state. But, upon a simple interpretation, one can obviously see the meaning of the Establishment Clause. It clearly states that "Congress shall make no law." This means that in the arena of "free exercise" of religion, the state (government) has no jurisdiction. Any attempt at such would be overreaching. Therefore there is a SEPARATION of the state from the sphere or jurisdiction of religion. It also gives individuals the right to freely exercise their religion without impairment.

This is where O'Donnell is so unbelievably wrong about her constitutional leanings. The power of the constitution is in its constantly evolving interpretation. This is why the case Marbury v. Madison was so important. It gave the right to the Supreme Court to interpret the constitutionality of laws, or Judicial Review. All of the examples I mentioned above were ruled on by the Supreme Court, and in each case they extended or rejected a ruling based on the interpretation of rights inherent in the Constitution.

Here is a quote from my favorite Supreme Court Justice, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., that sums it up pretty well:

"law, wherein, as in a magic mirror, we see reflected, not only our own lives, but the lives of all men that have been"