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.

[Iron Munro]

Imagine if Progressives were held back by "rigid ideas of what government could or could not do"!

[ArrogantBustard]

What are the 5 freedoms guaranteed by the 1st Amendment.

Freedom of Speech. Freedom of the press. Freedom of peaceable assembly. Freedom from the establishment of a religion. Freedom to practice one's religion. Freedom to petition the government for redress of grievances.

That's six, not five, and I'm right.

Your question is posed wrongly.

Try reading the Constitution some time.

[Phlyer]

Whatever 9 lifetime political appointees say it says.

That's their opinion.

If we let them get away with it - meaning, we don't take steps to overrule them through the other branches - then We, the People will have concurred. But it is that concurrence that makes it so. The most important words in the Constitution are not, "We, the Justices of the Supreme Court . . . do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." It's "We, the People. . ."

In some cases - in fact, in a lot of cases - I find the logic and decisions of the Supreme Court to be compelling, and so I - as one of We, the People - agree with what they say the Constitution says. In a few high-profile cases I disagree. If enough people agree with me (and not with them), then we have the ultimate power to 'interpret' the Constitution through the ballot box.

Unfortunately, for a lot of "We, the People" the faded words aren't worth the parchment they cover. But that is our fault, not the justices. They're just politicians who are getting away with it.

[ArrogantBustard]

BTW, here's the text of the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

If you want to be pedantic, it protects three freedoms and two rights, and imposes a restriction upon the government.

[Phlyer]

That's a very interesting picture, and it carries with it an implication that those who are to one side try to uphold the Constitution, while those to the other side do not.

That's a good question to ask, and like a horse race there can be real differences of opinion on it.

One of the interesting corollaries to that spread is that most of the more modern presidents are on the side of trampling the Constitution while most of the earlier ones are on the other side - with a notable exception of Reagan.

Unfortunately, if that is the true spectrum being displayed, then Lincoln belongs well over on the other side. And while I'd put George W. Bush well in the midst of traditional democrats like FDR and Kennedy, there is no way he is more to the 'trample' side than LBJ. (Lots of subtle things in this image, like GWB standing with the tramplers but looking at the respecters - a great thumbnail of his presidency.)

Thanks for sharing it.

[Kaslin]

His paintings are awesome

[tnlibertarian]

That's six, not five, and I'm right.

Your question is posed wrongly.

Try reading the Constitution some time.

Out of curiosity, are you a prick all the time, or just when you can hide behind the anonymity of the internet?

[C210N]

No, it is NOT BS.

Perhaps, though, I could have worded my statement better. You read it inverted - i meant that Most-to-all ‘rats don’t understand the constitution, but, giving a morsel, perhaps there are a small few who do. It goes hand-in-hand with members of the ‘rat party.

[ArrogantBustard]

What you see is what you get, bubba.

Out of curiosity, do you throw vulgar insults at strangers in real life, or only behind the anonymity of the internet?

[tnlibertarian]

I call 'em as I see 'em.

Judging by your handle, it's the reaction you're trying for, anyway. I should've recognized the personality flaw sooner, and I wouldn't have fed it.

[Ted Grant]

I know a deeply principled, free market conservative guy that once insisted that the postal system shouldn’t be run by the Federal Government because it was unconstitutional for it to be involved in such a tast. He went on and on on this theme - very thoughtful and very principled.

Then I told him the Constitution specifically empowers Congress to pass laws regarding establishing post offices.

Just shows to go you: for too many folks of all political stripes, being “principled” means turning your brain off at the door. :-)

[ArrogantBustard]

Hey, n00b, do you have any comments on the facts being discussed?

No?

Didn't think so.

Tells me everything I need to know about you.

[ArrogantBustard]

BTW, are you and that appalachian guy actually the same person using two different screen names? The sign-up dates on the two profile pages are within a week of each other.

[tnlibertarian]

So, the answer to my original question is ‘all the time’. Thanks.

[tnlibertarian]

BTW, are you and that appalachian guy actually the same person using two different screen names?

No, but that is an interesting coincidence. Oh, and he's right, it's 5.

[appalachian_dweller]

1. Press
2. Religion
3. Speech
4. Assembly
5. Redress of grievances

You counted freedom of religion twice. Now go away.

[appalachian_dweller]

Stop the name calling and learn to count.

[Jacquerie]

Anyone can break any law, that doesn't invalidate the law

Well said. The Constitution, despite some laughable Scotus decisions, still means what it says.

[Repeal The 17th]

OBAMA:
“...What kind of country would this be
if this chamber had voted down Social Security or Medicare
just because it violated some rigid idea about what government could or could not do?...”

[Darth Reardon]

Suppose someone mentions that gold and silver are money and paper is not supposed to be money under our Constitution. That the fiat currency we now hold is absolutely illegal. What will be the reaction from the Liberals and even many Conservatives to that?

Perhaps to challenge you site a reference.