Is the Constitution Still Taught and Respected? (Congress, legal, suspect)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm submitting this thread as an indirect response to an idea voiced in another forum; I've contacted that poster via Direct Message, and encouraged him to respond here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lonerandsad
First and Second Amendment should be repealed; let the majority decide through real democracy.
I came of age during the rebellious 1960's, in a modest-sized (pop 25000) community with a mixture of agriculture and heavy industry, It had done its part during the Second World War by producing tanks, and was reportedly on an a list of potential targets circulated by the Nazi hierarchy. It was still largely separated into "old Protestant" and "white ethnic" communities -- the two didn't always see eye-to-eye, but recent military service had dispelled a lot of that, and the rest would soon die out. By that time, the town was down to only two black families -- because about a dozen more had left for better prospects, mostly around Chicago, the Mecca for ambitious African-Americans at that time.
In the seventh grade, I sat through a history class which devoted several weeks to the basics of the U. S. Constitution; it wasn't hard to see that most of the class was bored to death, but a few of us, raised in more politically-astute families, paid attention.
And two years later, there was a course in Civics, later to be renamed Citizenship. Both were taught by veterans who had grown up on "the other (non-WASP) side of the foundry", and one of them had gone to Penn State via the GI Bill, where he played some football and, with his teammates, made a little history off the field by declining a segregated hotel in favor of a military barracks -- out of respect for the three Nittany Lions of African extraction.
But the day I want to call attention to is Tuesday, November 26, 1963 -- the day after America buried an assassinated President. On that day, our instructor delivered a generalized talk on the price sometimes paid for living in an open society.
Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure got the most emphasis, but attention was also devoted to the point that, had the assassination occurred in the half-dozen-plus states which had no death penalty at the time, the assassin could not have been executed, because no Federal law protecting the President was in effect, and even more important was the fact that the law could not be changed after the fact (ex post facto) as specifically prohibited by the Constitution for the protection of all dissenters. (Article I, Sections 9 and 10)
I would be very interested in learning whether Mr. Lonerandsad encountered the concept of ex post facto during his secondary education, or whether he is familiar with it at all. That lack of principle within our deteriorating public school system is a root cause of many of the threats to a set of values which are under increasing levels of attack by the so-called "progressive" mentality.
Last edited by 2nd trick op; 10-23-2015 at 07:20 PM..
The focus of learning today is to teach kids what to think, not how to think. The administration regards the Constitution as a nuisance, and tries their best to ignore it.
Interesting thread you created and I'm glad you used my quote and used it for debate. U.S. Constitution is taught in history classes but maybe not as much as it was once decades ago. Just because it is very meaning and praised by you does not mean it must be by everyone. America was the first country with a Constitution, and the first country that came up with the idea of separation of church and state. This is something very interesting and impressive thing the founding father's came up with and wrote. However, I'm still not fan of it for various reasons.
It isn't even respected by the three branches of our federal government. If there's something they disagree with in the Constitution then there is a process to amend the constitution. It isn't easy and it was meant to be difficult to help prevent tyranny. Through governmental agency regulations, the Feds have a way around the constitution. These agencies make "regulations" that are enforceable by the legal system (police, courts, jail). It's easier to make a regulation than to pass a law through Congress. Presidential Order is another work around. President Lincoln set a very unconstitutional standard during the US Civil War and its only gotten worse. The HS Supreme Court is suppose to make decisions based upon US laws and the US Constitution. Some have cited foreign laws as basis for their decision. In the case that brought about "separation of church and state", the court justices referred to someone's personal letters as justification for the ruling instead of the actual words in the amendment. There are thing about the constitution that should be changed, but it should be changed through the amendment process, not through agency regulations, executive order, nor judicial decision.
Based on the apparent ignorance so many Americans illustrate when speaking or posting regarding the Constitution, I suspect that most students in high school (and lower grades) do not learn about the Constitution.
That said, I know that my son took a class in Government in high school. However, it was an AP class and I do not know whether all students took a similar class.
Anyway, I am often astounded by the ignorance illustrated so often wrt our Constitution and the history behind its drafting and ratification.
I lived in California when I was in junior high in the 1970s, and at that time all eighth-graders had to pass what was called the "Constitution test" or they could not go on to high school. (I think they got at least three tries.)
We spent most of two terms (several months) going over the Constitution in detail. I found it absolutely fascinating, especially our study of the Bill of Rights and other amendments, and I ended up getting the highest grade ever at my school (Forbes Junior High, Edwards AFB) on the test (99.75% -- I lost a quarter-point for misspelling Warren Burger's name -- I had a classmate whose last name was "Berger" and I thought Warren Burger's name was spelled that way too). IIRC, the test was in 3 parts covered over 3 days in our social studies class -- it was very comprehensive.
I then took a civics course as an elective my senior year in high school, and it was mostly a repeat of what I had already learned in my study of the Constitution in junior high, except we also got to apply Constitutional issues to current events. It was a really fun class.
I have no idea if California still has this requirement for middle-school students. Alas, I doubt it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
