Ignorance of the Constitution

[Armed-N-Ready]

Perhaps I'm just asking too much of our public education system or patriotism from our citizenry. I am saddened by the number of people that have never read our Constitution and even more disappointed by those that don't have any understanding of how our government works. I am in no way a Constitutional scholar but I have read, studied and occasionally review our founding document. I'm always shocked at the number of people that can't even name the three branches of our government or understand why we have a Constitution. My commanding officer made sure each sailor under his command read and understood the principles we had sworn to support and defend. I do frequently use this to my advantage when discussing the amendments, if they've not read it how can they really argue their point against our 2nd amendment right or what our government is doing to us.

 

[Manan]

100% agree. I just helped a guy at work get his citizenship and he had to take a test. Out of 15 people at work he and I are the only ones who can name the three branches of government, name the Indiana Reps and Senators, etc. Sad.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I find the subject fascinating. Is there anything, in particular, you're interested in? If there's a subject you want to discuss, I'm more than game to crack open some books and learn with you.

OP, do you have a copy of Paine's "Common Sense?"

 

[Armed-N-Ready]

I don't have a hard bound copy of Common Sense, read it a long time ago and have it on my iPad though. I'm always open to learning more about the Constitution. The founding Fathers clearly meant to "outline" how our government was to function. The limitations placed upon our leaders and their methods of circumventing those limits raise my blood pressure every day.

 

[Manan]

I find the subject fascinating. Is there anything, in particular, you're interested in? If there's a subject you want to discuss, I'm more than game to crack open some books and learn with you.

OP, do you have a copy of Paine's "Common Sense?"

Kutnupe, can you shed some light on the "Dict Act of 1912" and how that impacts proposed current legislation.

 

[Kmcinnes]

You know, I don't remember reading the constitution at all in school. I didn't take gov/economics in high school so I can't speak to if they did (I would assume so) but I grew up in Texas so in history class (which should have just been called Texas History) we spent most of the year learning about the Alamo and Santa Anna. So I have had to take up learning it on my own and I really just started this a couple years back so that I can teach my son how important this wonderful founding document is since I do not feel it is given justice in the public school system.

 

[Ted]

I was recently in an 8th grade Social Studies classroom recently, and watching the teacher instruct from powerpoint prepared from Prentice Hall publishers.

I was amazed to discover, among other things, that James Madison was a Republican. Considering that the GOP wasn't founded until 46 years after he became president......well, you know.

If the educators can't get that right, it doesn't surprise me that they can't get the rest of it right either.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Kutnupe, can you shed some light on the "Dict Act of 1912" and how that impacts proposed current legislation.

Im not as versed on that as I would like to be, honestly, I've never even heard of it. You sure you meant "1912?"

I know of the Militia Act of 1903, also called the Dick Act (which is also thought to be from 1902).

If that's what you're talking about, my knowledge is very limited, but I can certainly jump on this a dig up what I can.

 

[Manan]

I did a quick Google on it and I have started a new thread on it specifically. Would be interested in learning more.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I did a quick Google on it and I have started a new thread on it specifically. Would be interested in learning more.

Right on, I'll certainly participate.... tomorrow, lol

 

[Manan]

Right on, I'll certainly participate.... tomorrow, lol

Thx. Looking forward to it.

 

[88GT]

I was recently in an 8th grade Social Studies classroom recently, and watching the teacher instruct from powerpoint prepared from Prentice Hall publishers.

I was amazed to discover, among other things, that James Madison was a Republican. Considering that the GOP wasn't founded until 46 years after he became president......well, you know.

If the educators can't get that right, it doesn't surprise me that they can't get the rest of it right either.

Actually, he was.

Jefferson's anti-federalist party was called the Republican Party contemporaneously, (and in some cases, it is clear it was used as an epithet ) but modern historians have used the hyphenated Democratic-Republican Party to distinguish it between the modern GOP and the short-lived Republican Party that split from the original in the first half of the 19th century. (The other party from that split became the Democratic Party, which has always made me chuckle that the party of Jefferson became the party of everything that he abhorred.)


I can't speak for Prentice Hall's materials or intent, but it is not incorrect to call Madison a republican.

 

[Ted]

Actually, he was.

Jefferson's anti-federalist party was called the Republican Party contemporaneously, (and in some cases, it is clear it was used as an epithet ) but modern historians have used the hyphenated Democratic-Republican Party to distinguish it between the modern GOP and the short-lived Republican Party that split from the original in the first half of the 19th century. (The other party from that split became the Democratic Party, which has always made me chuckle that the party of Jefferson became the party of everything that he abhorred.)


I can't speak for Prentice Hall's materials or intent, but it is not incorrect to call Madison a republican.

When you speak of 'contemporaneously', I see the word, 'revisionist' as far as the allocation of name. The short lived Republican party that you speak, was rather the "National Republican Party", which morphed into the "Whig Party", then in 1854 into the Republican Party.

The "Democratic-Republican Party" should, for the sake of context, be rather termed "Jeffersonian Republicans", instead of merely "Republican".

While historians might not see the difference, political scientist certainly do, and understandably quantify their reasons instead of merely attaching a misleading label. Therefore, by modern standards, it is incorrect to attach the affiliation to Madison without explanation, lest Jefferson and Madison, along retroactively with Eisenhower and Nixon , could also be termed a "Whig".

Would that make them all WINOs?

 

[HoughMade]

Let's just brush up on a few things now:


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHp7sMqPL0g[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5M50xBz1cU[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyeJ55o3El0[/ame]

...and for a little more fun:

http://www.spike.com/video-clips/skk850/amendment-to-be

 

[jgreiner]

Our schools are not ignorant of the constitution, they just hold it in DISDAIN. And hence, they teach the "Living Constitution" concept/theology.

 

[88GT]

When you speak of 'contemporaneously', I see the word, 'revisionist' as far as the allocation of name. The short lived Republican party that you speak, was rather the "National Republican Party", which morphed into the "Whig Party", then in 1854 into the Republican Party.

The "Democratic-Republican Party" should, for the sake of context, be rather termed "Jeffersonian Republicans", instead of merely "Republican".

While historians might not see the difference, political scientist certainly do, and understandably quantify their reasons instead of merely attaching a misleading label. Therefore, by modern standards, it is incorrect to attach the affiliation to Madison without explanation, lest Jefferson and Madison, along retroactively with Eisenhower and Nixon , could also be termed a "Whig".

Would that make them all WINOs?

I don't care what you see. They were called republicans by their fellow citizens.

I didn't address the merits of Prentice Hall using the term without clarifying its historical meaning. I merely pointed out that it was not an incorrect label.

 

[johnny45]

Our schools are not ignorant of the constitution, they just hold it in DISDAIN. And hence, they teach the "Living Constitution" concept/theology.

Exactly.

The purpose of the public education system is not educate. It is to develop easy to control citizens of the state.

 

[japartridge]

Our schools are not ignorant of the constitution, they just hold it in DISDAIN. And hence, they teach the "Living Constitution" concept/theology.

Exactly.

The purpose of the public education system is not educate. It is to develop easy to control citizens of the state.

^^^^^

This! Unfortunately it now falls solely on the parents to teach how the Constitution and therefore the government is supposed to work. I appreciate the schoolhouse rock vids up above... going to torment my daughters with them regularly now!

 

[Enkrypter]

Why would they care about any of that stuff so long as they get welfare, social security, obama care, medicare, and almost unlimited unemployment? (if you know how to work the system as well as most of them)

We're up against people who want free hand-out's, you're fighting free-cheese gun grabbers with principals and moral values. Good luck. Guns aren't the problem in these matters, it's parents. Lazy ass parents!

 

[Ted]

I don't care what you see. They were called republicans by their fellow citizens.

I didn't address the merits of Prentice Hall using the term without clarifying its historical meaning. I merely pointed out that it was not an incorrect label.

And therein lies your problem. So just keep living with your closed mind, as usual, and in your own little world.

Given the same logic, the National Socialist Party of Nazi Germany is the same Socialist party of the USSR and the UK...because they all term(ed) themselves as Socialist and called Socialists by their fellow citizens.

After all, it is not an incorrect label.