Posted on 09/16/2005 7:43:23 AM PDT by albertp
Starting this year, every educational institution receiving federal aid must teach about the U.S. Constitution on the September 17 anniversary of its signing (September 16 in 2005...)
The requirement is ironic, given that it came from the Senate's leading Constitutional scholar, yet clearly conflicts with the Constitution, and on many grounds.
Last year, Senator Robert Byrd (D.-W.Va.) inserted it into a spending bill packed with pork that was blatantly inconsistent with Americans' general welfare, which is the Constitution's rationale. There is nothing in the document that permits the federal government to tell local schools what they can and cannot teach.
The bill was also at odds with the 10th Amendment's restriction of the federal government to only its enumerated powers, as well as the 9th Amendment's guarantee of liberty, the 13th amendment's prohibition of involuntary servitude, as well as the whole spirit of the document that is supposed to restrict what the federal government can do.
Questions about his "solution" aside, Senator Byrd is correct about our insufficient Constitutional knowledge. For instance, two-thirds of adults said detailed knowledge of what is in the Constitution was "absolutely essential," but only one in six claimed such knowledge, in a National Constitution Center poll.
What will public schools teach about the Constitution? Most likely, they will emphasize its democratic character: that is, that it set up a framework for majority rule that was gradually perfected over time through the expansion of the franchise and, along with it, the size and scope of federal management of national life.
America's Constitution is far from an endorsement of majority rule. The founders did believe in voting to select who should be entrusted with the power of government... The overwhelming consensus in those classically liberal days was that goverment should leave society and economy alone....
(Excerpt) Read more at mises.org ...
That all-important "right to privacy" among the varied emanations of saving penumbras.
Yes. And pervert the first.
Or, as the ACLU (what do those initials stand for?) would say: Perverts first, the First for perverts. Interesting that the First can be used to protect assertive, vindictive atheists, assorted pagans and secular humanists, but just mention the name Jesus Christ in a reverent way!...
I'll let them ban the pledge of allegience when they replace it with a daily recitation of the US constitution.
The structure of this passed law says when educators receive Federal monies they must teach the US Constitution. I didn't read the whole thing, but I'd bet there's no mention that the Federal government shouldn't be funding local (state) schools.
It didn't mention that the sovereign states power has been shrunk to nearly nothing by the illegal Federal Income Tax, which is required by the Constitution to be gather by apportionment from the states after _they_ exercise their right to direct tax. After this slate of hand, they then feel obligated to turn around and give some of it back to the state on their terms.
Seems to me there are illegal reasons that they can force the teaching of the US Constitution, since the states haven't worked to restore the taxing issue and now line up at the Federal feeding trough.
Seems to me trying to teach the sheeple the US Constitution is an awesome thing, in spite of the illegalities of getting it in place. Thank you Congressmen Byrd for seeing fit to add something useful onto this pile of broken and twisted law.
It would appear that a number of public officials in New Orleans are Constitution-challenged, especially when it comes to the Bill of Rights.
This is the ironic part. There's nothing in the Constitution that permits the federal government to fund local schools, either.
That the requirement is linked to the funding is a red herring.
Thank you John Dewey, [NOT!]
"PRECEDENT POLICY. Now, as congressional lawmakers dug into Day Two of confirmation hearings for John Roberts' nomination to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, they put the commerce clause front and center. Business was listening intently, as were activists on both ends of the political spectrum. The root question is this: Where does Roberts draw the line on federal power?
His answer was surprisingly equivocal: In essence, he told lawmakers it depends. But the full impact of what he said should make business -- and some liberal activist groups -- smile, even as it likely will alarm advocates of a strict "constructionist" interpretation of the Constitution.
Business doesn't give a whit about judicial philosophy. What it wants from the courts is consistency and predictability -- tools for planning in the short term. That's one reason Corporate America mourned the resignation of Sandra Day O'Connor. "
At least the preamble. No wait, the Preamble and the Bill of Rights.
Our son was studying this in his 'gifted' class and his sheet on the Bill of Rights had for the second amendment "The right to have Weapons". He had crossed that out and put "The Right to Keep and Bear Arms" RKBA baby!! And he knows why that's so important too.
So true, many people interpret the constitution in a manor that favors their point of view, disregarding the fact that they actually are undermining the true intentions setforth in the document.
Interesting idea! People may actually get beyond reading the First Amendment. Indeed, by reading the First Amendment itself day after day, people just might begin to ask, "WHERE is that phrase - separation of church and state"? Doing a bit of research, the phrase may be found in the private letters of Thomas Jefferson. It may also be found in Article 51 of the Constitution of the former Soviet Union!
I di not know that. Thanks!
The Bill of Rights can also be called the Bill of limitations on government, lol. (swiped from A Patriot's History of America)
But the problem is that they'll pervert its meaning, which will make the problem worse, not better.
My daughter is studying the Constitution in High School. I was prepared for some watered-down "interpretation" but found that-- at least, so far-- they're going through it pretty thoroughly. Her notes on Article I are longer than the Article itself. I plan to keep an eye on this, especially when they get to the BOR.
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.