Do You Know What the Constitution Really Says?

Townhall.com ^ | September 14, 2011 | Rebecca Hagelin

[Kaslin]

When it comes to the U.S. Constitution, there’s good news and bad news. (And then some really good news!)

Good news first: As the political debates have sharpened over the past few years—since the rise of the Tea Party movement—more and more Americans are interested in the Constitution.  While academics and some limited political circles have always discussed the Constitution and its meaning, it’s striking to see so many ordinary Americans having these conversations—and embracing the ideals of our Founding Fathers and the Constitution itself.

Now the bad news: while interest in the Constitution is growing, few Americans actually know much about what it says. And that has serious downsides. It means that many Americans don’t really understand the rights the Constitution protects or the powers it grants.

For example, in 2009, Oklahoma tested its high school students on their knowledge of civics—including basic ideas about the U.S. Constitution. They failed miserably. Only 28%knew that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and just 26% identified the Bill of Rights correctly. More than two out of threedid not know that the President heads the executive branch of government and just one in ten correctly identified the length of a Senator’s term. (This is the fruit of school years spent studying social studies, diversity, and world cultures to the neglect of American history and government.)

American adults---including those serving in politics---fare no better when it comes to their knowledge of the Constitution.  In early 2011, the Intercollegiate Studies Institutesurveyedadults and college students to assess their civic knowledge. They discovered that ordinary Americans actually scored higher on their knowledge of the Constitution than the elected officials surveyed.  For example, fewer than half of the politicians surveyed (46%)“knew that Congress, not the president, has the power to declare war.” Fifty-four percent of ordinary Americans correctly placed the war power in Congress’ hands. The origin of the famous phrase, a “wall of separation" between Church and state, was more frequently misidentified by politicians than by the public: only 15% of politicians knew that the phrase appeared not in the Constitution but in Thomas Jefferson’s letters, while 19% of regular folks did.

So many citizens are unaware not only of the genius at the heart of the American form of governance but also of its specifics. And that’s a dangerous place for our country to be in. Citizens who do not understand their rights---or the limitations of government—can neither defend those rights nor participate meaningfully in the political process.  When the Constitutional Convention ended in 1787, someone asked Benjamin Franklinwhether the young country would be a monarchy or a republic.  Franklin gave the famous reply, “A Republic, if you can keep it.”

His words hold true today.  America is a republic---but all of us must work to keep it that way.  How? First, by knowing what the Constitution actually says.

How to Save Your Family:  Read the Constitution!

That leads me to the really good news….I’m happy to help Hillsdale in spreading the word that on September 15^th, in honor of Constitution Day and our founders’ great wisdom, Hillsdale Collegeis offering a fantastic, free, and easy way for every family to become more familiar with our Constitution: a series of short, but powerful, webcasts called “Introduction to the Constitution.” Simply register at

http://constitution.hillsdale.edu/(or, for an address that’s easier to remember you can log onto www.Hillsdale.eduand look for the promotion) and you’re on the road to informed citizenship.

The Constitution is an amazing document!  Your children need to understand this great treasure too—so make sure they watch the Hillsdale series with you (once you sign up you can watch each lecture at your leisure).  Another great resource for kids is ConstitutionFacts.com  where you’ll find games and children’s activities, and free copies of the Constitution (pay only shipping and handling).

Family by family, let’s cherish our Constitution so that we may continue to enjoy the freedoms that flourish because of it.

[Tublecane]

“nor is it the foundation of conservatism”

Neither is the Constitution, by the way. Conservatism is much bigger.

[ArrogantBustard]

“A person who insists upon folding the two aspect of religious freedom into one has no rational basis for not folding the two aspects of expressive freedom into one.”
I can’t follow this argument.

It seems to me that "press" and "speech" are simply two forms of "expression". The freedom of both is protected. I think it's fairly easy to fold those two into one, and further to fold the "petition for redress of grievances" into it as well. I don't agree with folding those three freedoms/rights into one, but I can see how somebody might do it.

I see freedom to practice one's own religion and freedom from having to support (or even put up with) some other religion that has been established by the state as two very distinct freedoms.

I don't see how there is any rational basis for folding the two religious protections into one "freedom of religion" and NOT folding the three expressive protections into one "freedom of expression".

I suggest looking at the placement of commas in the 1A because the commas separate six distinct things that the Congress is forbidden to do.

1) It is forbidden to establish a religion.
2) It is forbidden to prohibit the free exercise of religion.
3) It is forbidden to abridge the freedom of speech.
4) It is forbidden to abridge the freedom of the press.
5) It is forbidden to "pass a law respecting" the right of the people to peaceably assemble
6) It is forbidden to "pass a law respecting" the right of the people to petition the Government.

[Jacquerie]

I don't disagree with your quibble, and the 10th is important, yet it is consistently ignored, as is the 9th.

Check out this two page pdf on the Article III power. The Supreme Court was never designed to be supreme over the other branches of government.

Despite common belief, the courts can be checked by Congress. The only reason they have not, is because the politicians like unelected judges taking the heat for unconstitutional decisions instead of them.

Ditto you comment re: Bush. It made me cringe too.

Here is another thing Congress can do. The only Constitutionally established court is Scotus. I say a BIG BANG is needed to clear out the Marxists in the lower courts. Assuming conservatives retake Congress next year, we can Disestablish the entire lower system and replace them with Constitutional judges. Continue to pay the Commies that were pushed aside so as to not violate the Constitution, but GET THEM OFF THE BENCH!

Until the rot of generations of Marxist judges is excised from our body politic, our republic will continue downward into tyranny.

[Tublecane]

“It seems to me that ‘press’ and ‘speech’ are simply two forms of ‘expression’”

The press involves speech, obviously, and certainly much of what they do could be covered by free speech alone. But they also expect, and often get, special consideration having nothing to do with speech. I couldn’t name all these considerations, only to say that I know they don’t include, for instance, freedom from being compelled to testify on the basis that you don’t want to reveal a source, since I know that’s been decided against the press. Access is one, I gather, as are invidious taxes. Not bills of attainder, either, but special taxes against newspapers in general, for instance. These considerations are not absolutes, of course, but then again neither is free speech.

“I see freedom to practice one’s own religion and freedom from having to support (or even put up with) some other religion that has been established by the state as two very distinct freedoms.”

I see trumping up the government not being able to establish religion to an individual’s freedom from having to support some religion as an abuse of language. You could warp any restriction on the power of the state as a freedom in this manner, or frankly any authorization of power if you’re clever enough, too, which dilutes what we commonly mean when we refer to freedom.

[Tublecane]

“what we commonly mean when we refer to freedom”

Rather, I should say what we commonly mean when we refer to specific freedoms.

[Tublecane]

“I don’t see how there is any rational basis for folding the two religious protections into one ‘freedom of religion’ and NOT folding the three expressive protections into one ‘freedom of expression’”

There’s one pretty obvious rational basis, in that the different freedoms of expression are specified, whereas on of the religious items does not constitute a freedom, or at least a much more roundabout freedom than the others.

[Tublecane]

on of the religious items = one of the religious items

[Tublecane]

“I suggest looking at the placement of commas in the 1A because the commas separate six distinct things that the Congress is forbidden to do”

You wouldn’t need to worry about comma placement to get that meaning. In fact, I don’t think you’ll find much of anyone to argue against there being six forbiddens in amendment one.

[Durus]

Oh it is it? What is the foundation of conservatism then?

[Tublecane]

“What is the foundation of conservatism then?”

That’s harde to say, but just off the top of my head, and speaking very broadly, it’s hard to imagine what conservatives would be without the Western Tradition, the Wisdom of the Ancients, and the oft referred to Judeo/Christian Worldview, and all predate the U.S. Constitution.

[Stepan12]

I would direct them to the appendix of "The Great Income Tax Hoax," written by Peter Schiff's father, Irwin Schiff.

There, one can see the Supreme Court cases, Wheat; etc., that point out that gold and silver are real money.

Also, I would note that while the Articles of Confederation allow for fiat currency; e.g., emit bills of credit, that language was omitted from our Constitution.

[Tublecane]

harde = hard

[COBOL2Java]

Barry knows. It's always getting in his way.

[ArrogantBustard]

OK.

Under the 1A, the following are protected:

1) Freedom from the imposition of an established religion.
2) Freedom from restrictions on the practice of one's own religion.

3) Freedom to speak as one wishes
4) Freedom to publish as one wishes

5) The right to peaceably assemble
6) The right to petition the Government.

Sorry ... no matter how you cut it, it's six. Not five.

[Tublecane]

“Sorry ... no matter how you cut it, it’s six.”

Not if “cut it” by not counting the establishement clause as a freedom, which it isn’t.

[Tublecane]

Not if “cut it” = Not if you “cut it”

[ArrogantBustard]

From the "Legal Dictionary"

Main Entry: free·dom

Function: noun

1 : the quality or state of being free: as a : the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action b : liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another c : the quality or state of being exempt or released from something onerous

2 a : a political or civil right b : FRANCHISE 2

So:

The absence of ... coercion to support a state religion with which one disagrees.

the quality or state of being exempt ... from something onerous like supporting a state religion with which one disagrees.

The "no establishment" clause protects a freedom (from a state religion).

[Lady Jag]

Not knowing who did the painting I looked it up. He is very good; I had to share the link.

Thanks for finding it.

[Durus]

The Constitution was created from a distinct philosophy that incorporated the "Age of Reason" with radical ideas about individual freedom and liberty. It incorporated morality yet still remained secular out of respect for varying religious views. It wasn't based on a "tradition" or "wisdom of the ancients". It was new, it had never before been attempted, it was genius. It formed a nation, and a government that was ruled by the people without the obvious drawbacks of direct democracy. It limited the powers of government to only those enumerated. It held that all other rights were retained by the states or by the people.

What else could you possibly want to conserve any more than the Constitution, the very foundation America? We have fallen far. The constitution is the only way back.

[Phlyer]

Actually, the primary limit is in the nature of the Constitution itself, which is merely clarified by the 10th amendment.

We're actually in agreement of course. A "fair" reading of the Constitution makes the Bill of Rights moot. But English is a complex and subtle language. There is logic behind the analysis of the 4th Amendment says that there is a qualified right for a person to be 'secure in their person'. If that's the case, and the 'privileges and immunities' of US citizens include this right to be secure in their person, then the 14th Amendment might place it within federal authority to do something about ensuring people have that right - which is how we got Roe v. Wade.

That logic is not precluded by the rather vague language on 'regulating' interstate commerce. However, I maintain that it is precluded by the 10th Amendment that says even if there are nebulous 'rights' like that - it's not up to the federal government to secure them. One of our explicit, written out in the 10th Amendment, 'privileges and immunities' is freedom from federal interference in every last aspect of our lives - even if that aspect is a 'right'. I think any rational, honest, 'fair' person would recognize that an explicit, unambiguous right would be more compelling than 'shadows and penumbras' in a sometimes vaguely written document.

Of course, since FDR we haven't had rational, honest, and fair Justices on the Supreme Court - at least not a majority of them. That also applies to the lower courts, because the Supreme Court lets them get away with political rather than legitimate decisions.