Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
A commenter on my latest response to Chuck Norris' absurdity, Josh Darville, left a comment and I'm moving it up here to reply to it so it won't get lost. He writes:
What a load of crap you spew out, the only good point you make is about size coralated to representitives. However if you look at Calafornia, it going back to limited goverment, and limited control, it really should be more then one state. North and South, would be a start... try 5 or more.
This looks a lot like gibberish to me. Try 5 or more what? The point I made, which you ignore, is that Norris is actually invoking the Constitution to argue against proportional representation in the House of Representatives. That is profoundly silly to anyone who has actually read the constitution, but it is typical of the utter lack of intellect Chuck Norris typically displays. Limited government, by the way, has nothing to do with how many people there are in Congress; it has to do with the legal and constitutional limits on government's authority.
www.WallBuilders.com is a GREAT orginization which actually gets back to original intent of the constitution.
Wallbuilders is a remarkably silly organization founded and run by a ridiculous hack.
Example, I'll pay a Million dollars to someone that can find "seperation of church and state" in the constitution.
Wow, what a brilliant argument; I've never heard that one before (/sarcasm off). How about this: we'll pay you a million dollars to find "separation of powers" or "checks and balances" in the constitution. What's that, you say? They aren't in there? Of course they're not. But no sane person would deny that those concepts are in there because the founding fathers themselves used those phrases to describe various provisions of the constitution.
Guess what? They did the same thing with the religion clauses of the first amendment. Jefferson and, more importantly, Madison - who wrote the first amendment - used that phrase to describe the purpose of those clauses. There was much disagreement among the founders of what exactly that amendment required and what it did not. Washington and Adams, for example, believed that government should provide non-coercive rhetorical support for religion in general, while Jefferson and Madison believed government should stay out of the subject entirely. But Madison was even more strict a separationist than the ACLU is today (he argued that even having chaplains with the military was unconstitutional).
Even the clause that is being misused and abused was ment to keep the goverement from establishing one "denomination" was the word used in the first and second draft.
You have it precisely backwards. It's true that Congress rejected at least two initial wordings that would have prohibited only the establishment of a particular "sect" or "denomination" before voting for the wording that we have now. But this is an argument against your position, not for it. They rejected this very narrow language in favor of much broader language that, to quote James Madison - you know, the father of the constitution and the man who actually proposed the first amendment - "forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion." He said this in his Detached Memoranda while arguing against the constitutionality of Congressional chaplains and while encouraging Americans to reject even the slightest and most innocuous-looking attempts to wed religion and government because those seemingly minor encroachments become the excuse for further encroachments.
What about the FREE exersice clause!
Good question, what about it? I am as strongly in favor of the free exercise clause as I am the establishment clause.
Politics
Comments
I'll give a million dollars to anyone who can find the word "God" or "Christian Nation" in the Constitution.
Posted by: celcus | July 19, 2008 9:51 AM
I'll give one million dollars to anyone who can find Superman in the Constitution. You see? He's unconstitutional, why do you people aid and abed DC's blatant treason?!?
Posted by: Julian | July 19, 2008 10:05 AM
Celcus,
"I'll give a million dollars to anyone who can find the word "God" in the Constitution."
The constitution is dated "in the year of our Lord...."
We can ask a referee, but I think "our Lord" is close enough to God for me to win your money.
Email me, and I can tell you where to send the check!
Posted by: Chris Bell | July 19, 2008 10:28 AM
Celcus,
"I'll give a million dollars to anyone who can find the word "God" in the Constitution."
The constitution is dated "in the year of our Lord...."
We can ask a referee, but I think "our Lord" is close enough to God for me to win your money.
Email me, and I can tell you where to send the check!
Posted by: Chris Bell | July 19, 2008 10:29 AM
...Sorry. I got an error message after the first one.
Posted by: Chris Bell | July 19, 2008 10:34 AM
Superman may not be in the Constitution, but Batman is...
Also...
And...
And finally...
Posted by: Jokermage | July 19, 2008 10:36 AM
Separation of church and state? Hogwash and balderdash! Oklahoma County Commissioner and part-time messiah Brent Rinehart knows better. He's even put out a comic book that explains it all.
If there was such a thing as separation of church and state, how could
Jesus ChristBrent Rinehart possibly be in office? You people are obviously all Boy Scout-raping pedifiles!Posted by: Mike O'Risal | July 19, 2008 10:46 AM
Chris, I don't think that counts, since Celcus was asking for the specific word or phrase, which is what Mr. Darville was asking for regarding separation of church and state. For all we know, the framers could have meant Lord Sandys :P
Posted by: Jokermage | July 19, 2008 10:49 AM
I thought this was fairly clear: divide California into North and South, or better, five separate states. He seems to think it's desirable that all states be of approximately equal size so that no single state will represent too many people. Of course, there are any number of problems with that, the most obvious being that you'd have to redraw state lines every time the population balance shifted, but the actual statement wasn't unintelligible.
Posted by: Morgan | July 19, 2008 10:59 AM
It was unintelligible, Morgan, but you're good at parsing gibberish. You either spend time on the internets or you teach high school students.
Posted by: Jonathan | July 19, 2008 11:19 AM
So, let me get this straight, Josh thinks Chucky is right and California should have less representation... then argues it should be split into five states, giving it more.
"I have only one prayer, Lord, make my enemies foolish, and He has granted it."
- Voltaire
Posted by: Michael Suttkus, II | July 19, 2008 11:30 AM
Wasn't Voltaire an atheist?
Posted by: Brandon | July 19, 2008 11:36 AM
What I love is the spelling and capitalization...
"...the only good point you make is about size coralated to representitives. However if you look at Calafornia,..."
"..I'll pay a Million dollars.."
The unalloyed brilliance of the enemies of reason would be laughable if it were not so dangerous and they so numerous.
Posted by: MTiffany | July 19, 2008 11:40 AM
Wha...? Divide California into five states so it doesn't have as much clout in the House of Representatives. But then in the Senate there would be eight additional senators representing the former California. How does that give California less political power?
Posted by: Chayanov | July 19, 2008 12:00 PM
Posted by: WScott | July 19, 2008 12:08 PM
99 percent sure he was a deist. Just about every enlightenment philosopher stopped at deism.
Posted by: FishyFred | July 19, 2008 12:15 PM
Josh didn't make it very far in the spelling bee did he?
Posted by: soboco | July 19, 2008 12:32 PM
As I wrote yesterday. Separation of Church and State is used by people to rob this country of its Christian heritage. But Ed is correct on this point, Norris wants to do something the constitution doesn't allow.
Posted by: SteveP | July 19, 2008 12:36 PM
"99 percent sure he was a deist. Just about every enlightenment philosopher stopped at deism."
He was a deist - he criticized D'Holbach for his atheism, essentially saying that he had gone a step too far by claiming that there was no creator of any sort.
Posted by: Thomas M. | July 19, 2008 12:50 PM
As I recall, your arguments were soundly refuted in every particular. Why then do you come here to repeat the same misconceptions?
Posted by: DaveL | July 19, 2008 1:03 PM
The natural political entities in California are the Far North, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Great Valley, the Southwest (LA & San Diego) and the Southeast (Mojave, Imperial Valley). That'd produce two liberal to moderate states (SF, LA/SD) and three conservative ones, so the senate liberal/conservative ratio would we 4:6. But those liberal states would still get many more representatives than their much more sparsely populated conservative counterparts. If he thinks about it, perhaps Mr. Darville would prefer the enemy he knows.
Posted by: Karen | July 19, 2008 1:03 PM
Karen, you realize that your proposal is approximately like one proposed way back in the 19th century when a certain Powell (for whom lake Powell is named) proposed setting up state boundaries according to watersheds?
That said, I can think of some more serious reasons to divide California. It's been floated before, I remember in the early 90s it got a small amount of traction. But I can't imagine it getting enough to divide the state.
I think dividing a state requires an act of Congress in any case, no? i don't think it's happened since Maine divided from Massachusetts, right?
Posted by: Jesse | July 19, 2008 1:50 PM
Posted by: Taz | July 19, 2008 2:27 PM
Karen, are you sure the "Far North" would be all that conservative?
Posted by: Taz | July 19, 2008 2:29 PM
And you were just as wrong yesterday as you are today. Those who support Separation of Church and State are maintaining the political legacies of Madison and Jefferson.
Posted by: Wes | July 19, 2008 2:51 PM
Virginia separated from West Virginia. Of course, there was a civil war involved in that...
I seem to remember reading somewhere that Texas is the only state that can, of its own accord, divide itself into smaller states. I could be totally wrong about that, though.
Posted by: Wes | July 19, 2008 2:59 PM
I've noticed it's a very common tactic among authoritarian commenters/trolls. These types typically cannot and will not entertain the notion that they might be mistaken about anything.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | July 19, 2008 3:19 PM
SteveP, this is called piling on, and I'm sorry but I'm compelled to do so: "Separation of church and state are used..." First, no. The phrase is a classical summation of ideas embodied in the establishment clause of the Constitution, and it is this bedrock idea of non-establishment that is being used.
"...by people..." Which "people"? The Supreme Court people? Congress people?
"...to rob this country of its Christian Heritage." This is interesting. What do you think of Native American religions? Would you argue that the "christian heritage" wasn't used to rob the native Americans of their religious beliefs? And exactly how does one go about robbing history? Whatever this country was prior to the Constitution it was not, in any governmental way, a "Christian Nation". And I see no attempt to outlaw Christianity, or to rob anyone of their right to be a Christian. Indeed, the secular tradition of The United States of America, which the country became after the Constitution was written, is what I see being attacked. What I see, is the wish of some to be allowed, at the cost of historical reality, to redefine the Constitution using the ridiculous trope of victimhood. Please respond in some manner beyond parroting your statement.
Posted by: B8ovin | July 19, 2008 3:23 PM
Speaking of dividing states, I would sure like to split off Northern Virginia from the rest of the state. We are getting robbed by the miscreants in Richmond who represent the areas south of the Occoquan. Thus the State of Northern Virginia would include the cities of Alexandria, Falls Church, and Fairfax, together with Arlington, Fairfax and Loudoun Counties.
Posted by: SLC | July 19, 2008 5:31 PM
Wasn't Voltaire an atheist?
I don't think Voltaire liked atheists very much. I think Batman was an atheist though. Therefore, Voltaire didn't like Batman. Logic 101!
Posted by: 386sx | July 19, 2008 7:46 PM
As I wrote yesterday. Separation of Church and State is used by people to rob this country of its Christian heritage.
Just because something is a "heritage", that doesn't mean it is something not worthy of being "robbed", whatever "rob" and "heritage" are supposed to mean.
They "robbed" the heritage of slavery and voting rights too, you know. What about those heritages? You have to come up with a better reason than a "heritage".
Posted by: 386sx | July 19, 2008 8:06 PM
Separation of Church and State is used by people to rob this country of its Christian heritage.
The only way this makes any real sense would be if you think that Jesus gave America to the freakin Colubmus or to the Pilgrims or something like that. That's the only way your use of the word "heritage" makes any sense.
If that's what you mean by heritage, then it's no wonder that you won't listen to the smackdowns which have been handed out previously, because even if the founders and the bleepin Constitution themselves don't agree with you, Jesus still gave America to the bleepin whatever no matter what anybody says.
Posted by: 386sx | July 19, 2008 8:19 PM
As I wrote yesterday. Separation of Church and State is used by people to rob this country of its Christian heritage. But Ed is correct on this point, Norris wants to do something the constitution doesn't allow.
Dude, you can still be a Christian if you want to be one!! No worries.
Anyway, now that I actually read your whole comment, I realize that you are being far more reasonable than what I had thought. At least we know you won't be listening to Chuck Norris anymore. Thank you very much.
Chuck Norris gets his information from places like wallbuilders, by the way. Put two and two together now. Thanks.
Posted by: 386sx | July 19, 2008 8:42 PM
From The Conservative Voice:
http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/29584.html
These morons keep using that argument like it's a good one. The smarter conservatives and believers (not an oxymoron, but a rare creature these days) know it's not a good argument. Maybe Answers in Genesis will add to their arguments morons shouldn't use on a Church State Separation page? We can only hope...
Posted by: FastLane | July 19, 2008 9:28 PM
@ FastLane - The smarter conservatives and believers (not an oxymoron, but a rare creature these days)
Welcome to
The Big Circus Tent Of GOP Inclusiveness
which has made The Republican Party:
The Party Of Nothing For Everybody.
Posted by: a knight | July 19, 2008 10:03 PM
Chuck Norris and "God" all in one sentence is a little too much for me. The bigest sinners are the biggest Jesus Christ Hippocrites! Him and "Holy Mackeral" - what is it with Chuck Norris, find something to do with your life instead of constanly badgering everybody about you being the biggest critic against the U.S.A., and "God". Did Chuck & Chick attend the Bush wedding, I hope that the two of you learned how to get dressed. I bet you know how to get un-dressed fast enough when you want a romp in the back seat of a car or any place else that the mood stricks you! Get a "Life" for God's sake, F**k chick for once, who the hell would want her for a wife? leaves Husband because he has M.S. - better not get sick "Chuckie"!
Posted by: Carl | July 19, 2008 10:52 PM
If this were my blog, which I'm glad it isn't, I would have been tempted to delete the comment from the wingnut gallery that inspired this post, or else ignore it. I must admit that it has inspired an entertaining set of comments, however.
Posted by: JimV | July 20, 2008 9:26 AM
When dividing California, instead of going North/South, think vertically. That is, divide the state into 3, Coastal, Central, and Eastern. This would more accurately reflect the overall attitudes than north/south. It would put the Mountain folk in one 'State', the Farmers in another, and the Hippies in the third...
Posted by: Blaidd Drwg | July 20, 2008 10:07 AM
California's districts are gerrymandered as much as any other states. It is not like there are no Republicans from California in the House. Central California, Orange County, and parts of San Diego are quite conservative and have conservative representation. There has been some shift in Orange County, but it is still quite conservative. Even LA county has some strong conservative areas. For those of you who remember the Rodney King trial, there was a reason why the cops wanted it held in Simi Valley.
Some time ago, Northern California (San Francisco and points north) had a non-binding ballot question asking them if they would want to be a separate state. The answer was an overwhelming 'yes' north of San Francisco, but San Francisco itself said no, which was a shock to me, because I thought they would do anything to distance themselves from Los Angeles.
Posted by: Ted H. | July 20, 2008 8:02 PM
Jesse: dividing an state would require, at the very least, the explicit written consent of the affected state, before Congress could even consider ratifying a Constitution for any new state to be created by such a partition.
Posted by: Raging Bee | July 20, 2008 11:08 PM
Wes, according to snopes, the resolution annexing Texas did indeed allow for the division of Texas. It's not clear if secession and re-admission negated that right.
As for California, the State of Jefferson, which was an attempt by counties in northern California and southern Oregon to secede and form a new state. It was a pretty serious proposal, but Pearl Harbor happened and the idea was dropped.
Posted by: OriGuy | July 21, 2008 1:23 AM
OriGuy: I was just paraphrasing the US Constitution, which supercedes any such resolution. If US authorities had tried to partition Texas, AFTER admitting it as ONE state, then the Texas government could have refused to allow it. (Also, I'd say yes, Texas' secession and readmission did indeed invalidate the resolution, if it were valid at all.)
Posted by: Raging Bee | July 21, 2008 10:53 AM
Yes! Yes! The guy got one thing right anyway: Divide up CA into five or more states!
Northern Coastal should run from Santa Cruz northward to the Oregon border. Make two or three states out of that strip if needed: SF Bay Area, Central Northern Coast up about half-way, and Northern North Coast up the rest of the way, including Mendocino & Humboldt Counties (which will immediately elect progressive libertarians to any available positions). Divide up the rest any way you like.
One thing that will happen is, you'll get immediate cooperation and trade between key regions due to water distribution issues. Another, hopefully the Northern half of the state will get a couple of nuclear reactors (build them slightly inland, and with tertiary loops for desalination; it will be worthwhile to pump seawater to inland storage for this purpose, which can be done with pipelines). And we won't even attempt to make Kern County recognize equal marriage, so long as they don't attempt to make us (up north) not-recognize it.
Posted by: g347 | July 22, 2008 8:59 AM
I'd like to see my house split off as a separate state. I could go outside and borrow California's public services. Then, I could go back to my regular job as Senator of the Great State of Troublesome Frogland. Giving my wife and me two extra seats in the Senate and one in the House would completely remove our evil liberal influence on California politics and make Chuck Norris happy. It's a huge win!
Posted by: Troublesome Frog | July 22, 2008 1:03 PM
California should secede from the nation and form its own country with Washington, Oregon, Colorado, Utah, Nevada, and Arizona. If you're wondering about the last four states; think Colorado River water.
Nevada would agree without a 2nd thought. Utah could be brought in with instate religious exceptions, along with an agreement to allow free expatriation from their state. At that point, Arizona would probably fall, and then Colorado would naturally come onboard.
The economy could easily be self-sustaining, given the present levels of Federal taxation, which do not make it back into many of these states, and the combined economies. Plus, think of the potential tariffs which could be applied to all imported goods entering into a Pacific Port of Call, destined for what was left of the USA.
Rate of Federal_Expenditures/Federal_Taxation
Source: Tax Foundation March, 2006
Washington- $0.88
Oregon- - - - $0.97
California - - $0.79
Nevada- - - - $0.73
Utah - - - - - $1.14
Arizona- - - -$1.30
Colorado- - -$0.79
The "left-coast" of America, indeed.
Posted by: a knight | July 22, 2008 4:11 PM
You dorks! The matter of creating new states is in the fucking Constitution.
I can't believe how many people here and elsewhere are alsways saying, "Try reading the Constitution," or some such. C'mon guys!
Article 4, Section 3
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
Jeez.
Posted by: bullet | July 22, 2008 4:43 PM
You wrote an article for me. I love you, you're great.
www.WallBuilders.com - I love these guys too.
go to you tube and look up rick green, or david barton.
My heroes.
Posted by: Josh Darville | September 11, 2008 4:11 PM
Poor little Josh, all his heroes are known liars. How pathetic do you have to be to declare a fraud like Barton your hero?
Posted by: phantomreader42 | September 11, 2008 5:01 PM