Stupid Christine O'Donnell Doesn't Know That the Constitution Says Whatever Chris Coons Wants it to Say

Poor Christine O'Donnell. In a debate earlier this week, she made herself out to be an utter fool, not knowing that the Constitution contains whatever Chris Coons, her opponent in the Delaware Senate race, wants it to contain.

"Separation of Church and State" is in there. It's right there in the history books. Maybe someone should read a few of those books to her sometime. I'm sure Chris Coons owns some. Maybe he can lend them to her before the next debate. Also the right to regulate whatever Chris Coons wants to regulate, and to tax people for any reason Chris Coons can come up with. That's in his copy, too. It's called the "Commerce Clause". This witch sorely needs to buy a clue.

Unlike Christine O'Donnell, Chris Coons had absolutely no trouble knowing the most basic facts about what Chris Coons thinks the Constitution says. Just because he got a little tripped up and hasn't memorized every exact word or right contained in it doesn't mean he doesn't know what he thinks the Constitution means. And that's the difference. Christine O'Donnell is all about the so-called "words", and Chris Coons is all about the bigger picture. The much bigger picture. The picture created by Chris Coons.

Maybe if O'Donnell had prepared for the debate and taken the time to really understand Chris Coons' interpretation of the Constitution, rather than her own limited, xenophobic and literal reading of it, she wouldn't have come off looking so dumb. As it stands, Chris Coons outshined her thoroughly in reciting the Chris Coons Version of the Constitution. In fact, it wasn't even close.

Like all Tea Partiers, Christine doesn't even know the most basic fact about the Constitution, which is that it's first and foremost a living document. This means that the interpretations of the same exact words must change, as society changes. This is what the Founding Fathers intended, and this is what Chris Coons understands. For example, "shall not" might have meant "can not" at one time, but now it might mean "should not, but can". The disparity between what Christine O'Donnell said was in the Constitution and what Chris Coons thinks is in there was absolutely mindblowing. And sad for Tea Partiers everywhere.

But O'Donnell's most embarrassing flub came when she asked Coons what the five basic rights enumerated in the First Amendment were, and he didn't answer. That was probably the biggest possible showcase of her utter ignorance. Free advice for the next debate, honey: Next time you want to know what the five basic rights in the First Amendment are, you should probably Google it instead of wasting Chris Coons' valuable time.

The Mega Independent, true to our unbiased objective reporting, is not endorsing anyone in this race.