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.
... and the Federalist papers that were written to EXPLAIN their meaning to the people.
Now in college they go into that more deeply.
But K-12 is where everyone gets their foundation education and less than 50% graduate college (4 years) and less than 30% graduate college (2 years).
They should be taught the Bill of Rights as written, and afterwards they can read a summary if they so choose. Although I don't know why one would need a summary - the whole Constitution, and especially the Bill of Rights, is pretty easy to understand. What I would do to learn about the Constitution is read it with all 27 amendments as written, plus interpretations and opinions from a diversity of sources on what the Constitution means, the Federalist papers, the anti-Federalist papers, and the ratification conventions.
Guyer High School in Denton, TX has new history books. New books is a good thing, right? Well, not always. Especially when the authors of that history book have rewritten the Bill of Rights to fit an ideological point of view rather than putting the actual text of the Bill of Rights into the book.
Since we've all debated the 2nd Amendment ad nauseum on these forums, we all know what the actual text is:
Simple enough, right? Apparently not for the authors of the new history book. Here's their version that they call a "summary":
They've also misrepresented several other amendments in their "summary". Do we really need a summary of 10 Amendments? Is there some sort of problem with teaching the Bill of Rights as it is written?
They should be taught the Bill of Rights as written, and afterwards they can read a summary if they so choose. Although I don't know why one would need a summary - the whole Constitution, and especially the Bill of Rights, is pretty easy to understand. What I would do to learn about the Constitution is read it with all 27 amendments as written, plus interpretations and opinions from a diversity of sources on what the Constitution means, the Federalist papers, the anti-Federalist papers, and the ratification conventions.
Exactly. The Constitution was written to be understood by the PEOPLE. It was not written by lawyers in legal-speak to be interpreted later by other lawyers. The words are plain and mean what they say.
The final ratified version is the only one that counts.
Not I a history class. Should we not teach our kids that the first version of the constitution didn't have a senate? I'd say thats pretty damned important
They should be taught the Bill of Rights as written, and afterwards they can read a summary if they so choose. Although I don't know why one would need a summary - the whole Constitution, and especially the Bill of Rights, is pretty easy to understand. What I would do to learn about the Constitution is read it with all 27 amendments as written, plus interpretations and opinions from a diversity of sources on what the Constitution means, the Federalist papers, the anti-Federalist papers, and the ratification conventions.
The summary shouldn't include false information. Or at the best, incomplete information.
Not I a history class. Should we not teach our kids that the first version of the constitution didn't have a senate? I'd say thats pretty damned important
It's interesting but not really all that important. What's important is what they decided in the end and passed.
Guyer High School in Denton, TX has new history books. New books is a good thing, right? Well, not always. Especially when the authors of that history book have rewritten the Bill of Rights to fit an ideological point of view rather than putting the actual text of the Bill of Rights into the book.
Since we've all debated the 2nd Amendment ad nauseum on these forums, we all know what the actual text is:
Simple enough, right? Apparently not for the authors of the new history book. Here's their version that they call a "summary":
They've also misrepresented several other amendments in their "summary". Do we really need a summary of 10 Amendments? Is there some sort of problem with teaching the Bill of Rights as it is written?
high school is where they should be studying these things in detail, not getting paraphrased with a summary.
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.
