GOP Rep. Boebert: ‘I’m tired of this separation of church and state junk’

Boebert doesn't need "all republicans"

All she needed was 163.832 in Colorado who don't give a crap that she's 'nuts" and oh, sooooooooo stupid.


Colorado · District 3 99% reporting

Lauren Boebert
Republican Party
50.1%
163,832 votes

Adam Frisch
Democratic Party
49.9%
163,278 votes

 

If you said it was constitutional show me in the Constitution.

 

Thomas Jefferson alluded to the first amendment in a letter and stated it created a wall between the Church and State.

I find it odd that our founding father's who wanted freedom of religion never took orders from the Church, which is what Boebert wants to do.

 

Hopefully Boejunk will be certified as a dangerous crazy loser and Frisch is the winner.



Frisch concedes despite pending recount | Western Colorado
https://www.gjsentinel.com › news › frisch-concedes-desp...

8 days ago — Now that all the ballots are in, and despite an expected recount of those votes, Democrat Adam Frisch conceded the race for the 3rd ...


EXPLAINER: How a Boebert-Frisch House recount would work
https://apnews.com › article › boebert-frisch-house-colo...

Nov 18, 2022 — DENVER (AP) — Colorado's election recount rules could help determine the extent of Republicans' slim majority in the lower chamber of ...


Lauren Boebert declares victory, Adam Frisch concedes
https://www.denverpost.com › 2022/11/18 › lauren-boe...

Nov 18, 2022 — Unofficially, the race is over. Officially, a few things have to happen before incumbent U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert is certified as the winner ...

 

Show me separation of church and state in the Constitution.

 

Boebert's the absolutely disgusting one and stupid enough after all her hateful rhetoric targeting the GLBTQ community to send her condolences.
She lacks all self-awareness and throws the victim card..lol

'Rep. Lauren Boebert says 'blame game' needs to end after critics point to her anti-LGBTQ comments following Club Q shooting'

"Per the outlet, the congresswoman continued: "It has to come to an end, this blame game. You know, I think the left is pissed that I won my election, and so they're trying to find something to go after me about. I expressed my concern for the families, for the victims, and the way that they came after me is absolutely disgusting."


cont:
https://www.insider.com/lauren-boebert-says-shes-been-blamed-for-club-q-shooting-2022-11

 

Reading the constitution involves interpretation. Jefferson who was one of the key contributors explained what is meant by the 1st amendment.

 

Okay explain to me how you extrapolate is separation of church and state.

It should be easy right?

 

Thomas Jefferson one of the most influential contributors to the US Constitution said that's what the 1st amendment means.

In addition, it doesn't make sense to say the 1st amendment applies only to establishing a national religion because taking direct orders from the church is in effect establishing a theocracy.

 

this isn't what I asked.

Not really the topic.

I want you to explain to me where it is in the Constitution. If it's subtextual I can understand that.

I don't disagree that Jefferson like the principal I just want to know where it is in the Constitution. And I'm not interested in what would happen if the first amendment wasn't there I want you to show me in the words how you extrapolate that there is a separation of church and state.

I'm not arguing with you I want to know how you do it so I can use this to explain to people that tell me that it's not there.

 

The constitution leaves room for interpretation. Unless we need to get rid of SCOTUS who's entity ob is to interpret the constitution.

Jefferson words are relevant because his explanation provides insight into the intention of the 1st amendment. Given that he was a pivotal contributor to our bills of rights, I don't think we should brush off the intent of the 1st amendemnt.

 

No no no. I want you to show me in the Constitution.

Explain how you extrapolate this meaning from the Constitution if you don't know how that's fine you just say that.

Forget about Jefferson forget about the supreme Court focus on the Constitution show me.

 

Forget about Jefferson? He is literally telling us how to interpret the constitution.

Not everything in the constitution is explicit. For instance, no where in the constitution does it say the federal government can control the legalization of drugs within a state, but the feds still enact laws don't they?

 

If you take direct orders from the church, the government is effectively a theocracy which violates the 1st amendment.

 

yes. It's claimed to be in the Constitution. Jeffersons literally telling us how to interpret isn't in the Constitution

I'm okay with it not being explicit. I can follow implicit.

Just explain thats all I'm asking for.

 

What baby killers?

 

If the government is directed by the church, it is essentially functioning as a theocracy. Is a theocracy legal?

If an author tells you what a paragraph in a book means, that's what it means.

Jefferson isn't some scholar 100 years later giving his interpretation of the meaning of the 1st amendment.

 

This is not what I asked for. You need to start with constitutional wording.

The statement is separation of church and state isn't in the Constitution. The way to prove that statement wrong is showing that it is.

I don't care at all about the if this than that business. And what Jefferson said outside of the condition isn't in the Constitution.

So please show me. Why can't you? Is it because the statement is correct?

 

That's because there is more than one way to say separation of church and state.

 

I know I accepted that 15 posts ago.

Show me that's what I've been asking over and over and over again.

 

She should be burned at the stake. She's a heretic.

 

See the establishment clause and Jefferson's letter. Again, Jefferson was a major contibutor to the constitution and his interpretation of the meaning of the establishment clause shouldn't be taken lightly. I will take Jefferson's interpretation (basically an author of the constitution) over Boebert every day of the week and twice on sunday.

 

Still not anything close to what I asked. If you don't know just say you don't know.

I don't care what you would take over whatever.

I asked you to show me. Can you or can you not?

 

The author of the constitution is essentially telling you what it means? Why are you in denial?

There is also this:

"no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States,"

Hence, the founding fathers did not want to intermingle church and government. Would a Christian take direct orders from a Muslim or Jewish Church? If not, it seems then taking direct orders would be a requirement of taking office and thus violate the constitution.

But you are allowed to take Boebert's word for it. That's what makes this country great.