Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My class learned the names of all of the US Presidents, but never actually read the Constitution. Though, we did discuss checks and balances and the branches of government... and the names of all of the US Presidents.
I don't know why we didn't... it's a pretty straightforward document. For reference, I attended public school in Maryland... and I did read the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, and the Declaration of Independence years later... especially when I swore to protect it as a Air Force Officer.
What I've come to understand, however, is that the Constitution is a document meant to restrain government, and that the government isn't likely to police itself. The people must police the government. I believe that, to police the government, the people must know and understand the Constitution.
So... did you learn the Constitution in civics class?
Problem is, if you just read the text of the Constitution, you really are only scratching the surface of Constitutional law. Without studying it in the context of the case law interpreting it, you can't fully understand any of it in a modern context.
Problem is, if you just read the text of the Constitution, you really are only scratching the surface of Constitutional law. Without studying it in the context of the case law interpreting it, you can't fully understand any of it in a modern context.
Wouldn't you agree that understanding the original intent of the document provides a good background for understanding case law, and forming an opinion of whether or not you agree with court decisions? Court decisions don't trump the original document, after all.
My class learned the names of all of the US Presidents, but never actually read the Constitution. Though, we did discuss checks and balances and the branches of government... and the names of all of the US Presidents.
I don't know why we didn't... it's a pretty straightforward document. For reference, I attended public school in Maryland... and I did read the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, and the Declaration of Independence years later... especially when I swore to protect it as a Air Force Officer.
What I've come to understand, however, is that the Constitution is a document meant to restrain government, and that the government isn't likely to police itself. The people must police the government. I believe that, to police the government, the people must know and understand the Constitution.
So... did you learn the Constitution in civics class?
I had to pick your second choice but then my senior year was 1949 - 1950 and I would have probably forgotten most of it by now.
I did cover the whole thing very thoroughly in 25 years of teaching a government class in Kansas schools. We read it and I explained the whole thing so the kids could know about it. I always loved that part of the class time because kids were really interested in it. Now I must admit that my last year of doing that was 1986 and I don't think either of my boys got in on anything like that in 2000 and 2004. I think that the lack of knowledge about the Constitution I see here on C-D is a sign that it just doesn't happen anymore, and I am pretty sure I know why.
Problem is, if you just read the text of the Constitution, you really are only scratching the surface of Constitutional law. Without studying it in the context of the case law interpreting it, you can't fully understand any of it in a modern context.
When you put in the words modern context you told me something. If you studied the document as you said I wonder what else you got done in that class. That thoroughly would have taken a whole lot of one school year.
My class learned the names of all of the US Presidents, but never actually read the Constitution. Though, we did discuss checks and balances and the branches of government... and the names of all of the US Presidents.
I don't know why we didn't... it's a pretty straightforward document. For reference, I attended public school in Maryland... and I did read the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, and the Declaration of Independence years later... especially when I swore to protect it as a Air Force Officer.
What I've come to understand, however, is that the Constitution is a document meant to restrain government, and that the government isn't likely to police itself. The people must police the government. I believe that, to police the government, the people must know and understand the Constitution.
So... did you learn the Constitution in civics class?
Yes, and I studied Constitutional law. But based on polls I've read, some 70% of Americans cannot 1) Name the 3 branches of government or 2) Name at least 3 members of the Supreme Court. It's not exactly a shock (though very disappointing) that most Americans are oblivious to the Constitution. Heck, even the one' people claim to know like Freedom of Speech, most people don't understand its application and limitations. I can't tell you how many times I've seen people on this board claim "What happened to Free Speech?!" when a private corporation fires someone for breaking their employment agreement.
Wouldn't you agree that understanding the original intent of the document provides a good background for understanding case law, and forming an opinion of whether or not you agree with court decisions? Court decisions don't trump the original document, after all.
Not necessarily. The laws must be able to keep up with changing society and culture. The founders also didn't explicitly state their original intent for everything (Due process comes to mind as something that has had varying interpretations and is not expressly defined).
Not necessarily. The laws must be able to keep up with changing society and culture. The founders also didn't explicitly state their original intent for everything (Due process comes to mind as something that has had varying interpretations and is not expressly defined).
Oh come on now, the mechanism for providing due process might not be explicitly spelled out, but the intent is pretty clear: No person or government is allowed to deprive you of your life, imprison you, or take your stuff without some sort of a judicial proceeding according to the law of the land.
The due process clause in the 5th Amendment was ripped almost directly from the Declaration of Independence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill of Rights
No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, page 500
Phrase means that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, property or of any right granted him by statute, unless matter involved first shall have been adjudicated against him upon trial conducted according to established rules regulating judicial proceedings, and it forbids condemnation without a hearing, Pettit v. Penn., La.App., 180 So.2d 66, 69.
Did you actually read the US Constitution in Your HS Civics Class?
I don't recall but since then I've been educating myself on the topic. Therefore, it doesn't matter.
[it was 22 years ago...]
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
