Posted on 09/15/2011 9:07:34 AM PDT by 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 15th, 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.
No, I didn't
"Establishment of religion" and "free exercise of religion" are distinct concepts, as are "freedom of speech" and "freedom of the press".
You can go on looking silly if you like, of course.
Your freedom of speech is protected.
Oh and their oath is not to what the Supreme Court says the Constitution means.
If conservatives take back Congress and the Presidency, it is high time to invoke their Article III power to limit Scotus power subject to “such exceptions and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.”
Any yes, since we the sovereign people granted only certain powers, it is up to us to keep government within enumerated bounds.
I’m not sure old Abe is on the right side, there.
2) I provided a correct answer to the corrected question posed in post #10.
3) Your claim that nobody has answered it correctly is now no longer true.
4) The only name-calling going on here is from the fellow who called me a "prick".
5) If you two can't count to six, I suggest that you repeat first grade.
6) If you two can't distinguish between "free exercise" and "establishment", I suggest that you repeat first grade.
Good day, gentlemen.
“That’s six, not five, and I’m right.”
Not really. It’s a stretch to count the non-establishment clause as “freedom from the establishment of a religion.” That’s like counting article IV, section IV as the freedom to have a Republican government section, or article III, section I as the freedom to have a supreme court section.
To: tnlibertarian
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.
32 posted on Thursday, September 15, 2011 1:59:14 PM by ArrogantBustard (Western Civilization is Aborting, Buggering, and Contracepting itself out of existence.)
######
You must have a very short memory. And you should so something about that inferiority complex you have.
“What are the 5 freedoms guaranteed by the 1st Amendment”
I sometimes forget the “petition the Government for a redress of grievances” clause, partly because I don’t fully understand it. I mean, I know why that’s an important mechanism. What I don’t understand is why it’s necessary to specify it. As long as we have freedom of speech and assembly they can’t stop us from petitioning them, right? And the Constitution doesn’t say the government has to listen to petitions, or anything. So what is it this right is supposed to accomplish, exactly? To outlaw the post office from burning petititions? To prevent armed guards from not letting petitions past the capital lobby?
“deeply principled, free market conservative guy that once insisted that the postal system shouldnt be run by the Federal Government because it was unconstitutional for it to be involved in such a tast”
On the flip side, I once saw a smarmy Congressman—can’t remember who—respond to a question about the Constitutionality of (I think) the individual healthcare mandate by shooting back (and I paraphrase), “Well, Mr. Smart Pants, where does the Constitution say we can have a post office?” To which his interlocutor said (again I paraphrase), “The post office clause, duh.”
“’Establishment of religion’ and ‘free exercise of religion’ are distinct concepts”
Yes, they are distinct, in that one is a freedom and the other is not.
From what I can remember, folks back in the colonies were imprisoned for complaining about what the king was doing.
It’s good you know the Constitution. The 5 freedoms question I’ve been asking is a type of test I’ve been running to see how bad things really are.
The fact that I can’t find anyone (outside of FR) who can correctly answer the question is frightening.
Since you are the one that is into semantics, I didn't technically call you a prick, I asked how often you were one.
And, in post 32, you posted "Hey, n00b, do you have any comments on the facts being discussed?" so your claim that I am the only one engaged in name-calling is incorrect.
Based on your posts here and my being here 9 years, however, only one of the names tossed about appears accurate.
“Tells me everything I need to know about you.”
Much like your use of the term “n00b,” and especially the fact that you spell it with numbers, tells me what I need to know about you.
I disagree.
An establishment of religion is distinct from a suppression of the practice of religion. A government could constitute some formal state religion while imposing no restrictions on the practice of other religions. Conversely, a government could impose restrictions on the actual practice of any or all religions while constituting no particular state religion.
Present day United Kingdom is an example of the former. The Church of England is the state religion, but other religions may be practiced freely. Present day Peoples Republic of Korea is an example of the latter. All religions are suppressed. Present day Saudi Arabia is an example of both establishment of religion and prohibition of free exercise of religion.
I see protecting expression by the spoken word and expression by the printed word as being far more related concepts.
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 may be disagreeing with the content of some 8th grade civics textbook. This would not be the first time I have done so.
Note that in one of my posts on this thread, I suggested that a pedantic reading of 1A shows a protection of 3 "freedoms" and two "rights" (the authors use those words), along with imposing one restriction on government action.
I posted the text of 1A earlier in this thread. Please read it carefully, paying close attention to the placement of commas.
“From what I can remember, folks back in the colonies were imprisoned for complaining about what the king was doing.”
That’s kinda my point. How does free speech not cover that? Petitions would be nice as well, but since the government can say “[raspberry!]” just as easily as it can to any other form of speech, was it really necessary to include it in the Constititution.
What does it officially require the government to do, anyway? Glance at it for at least 2.5 seconds before pitching it in the trash. You can say that if we have the right to petition the government we can damn the government for ignoring us. But can’t we do that with speech and assembly alone?
I have actually asked that same question to a few people. Most get 3: Press, Religion and Speech (or is that 4?). I asked my son after his civics class and he came up with 4, missed the assembly one, but got the redress of greivances one. I was surprised. He did pretty good on a off-the-top-of-my-head amendments quiz, too. So maybe there is hope after all.
Of course, if I am talking to myself, you already know all of this. :)
There is a certain redundancy in “freedom of speech” and the “right to petition for redress of grievances”. The latter refers to requesting (formally or informally, in speech or writing) that the government take some specific action or that it cease disobeying its own laws.
“From what I can remember, folks back in the colonies were imprisoned for complaining about what the king was doing.”
To clarify, I realize the right to petitition was one of those old rights that had been around for a while and was very meaningful to people. One of the reasons that compelled us to seperation as expressed in the Declaration was that King George didn’t listen to petitions for redress of grievance.
“An establishment of religion is distinct from a suppression of the practice of religion.”
Absolutely. There can be toleration for heretics and infidels in countries with official state religions. This is not the point of disagreement between us.
“I see protecting expression by the spoken word and expression by the printed word as being far more related concepts.”
This is one of those areas where freedom of religion and freedom of speech overlap, so that it shouldn’t be necessary to have a seperate ability to practice a religion of your choosing in order to have that freedom. But that’s a small point.
“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.
“Note that in one of my posts on this thread, I suggested that a pedantic reading of 1A shows a protection of 3 “freedoms” and two “rights” (the authors use those words), along with imposing one restriction on government action.”
Actually, all of them impose restrictions on government action.
“I posted the text of 1A earlier in this thread. Please read it carefully, paying close attention to the placement of commas.”
What is it you’re suggesting I’m missing? Look, the nub of our disagreement is over whether the non-establishment clause constitutes a freedom, which I maintain it does not.
“the primary limit is the 10th Amendment, which says that even if there are shadows and penumbras, the federal government is prohibited from interfering”
Actually, the primary limit is in the nature of the Constitution itself, which is merely clarified by the 10th amendment. Like the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc., amendments it shouldn’t have had to be written at all. I’m glad it was, incidentally.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.