• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should the Constitution be taught more thoroughly?

Should the Constitution be taught more thoroughly?

  • Yes

    Votes: 15 88.2%

  • No

    Votes: 2 11.8%
  • Total voters
    17
Eric

Eric

New member
Joined
Nov 9, 2009
Messages
20
Reaction score
17
Location
Athens, GA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
It never ceases to amaze me how many people don't know the constitution, and what it stands for. Do you believe it should be more aggressively taught in schools?

-- (For example; taught each year, rather than just the 1-2 it's taught in now.)
 
Last edited:
Yes, it should be taught thoroughly, but the reason it isn't anymore is most likely because our society tends to place less importance in the individual these days, and focuses on group-think and social values rather than knowledge.
 
lizzie said:
Yes, it should be taught thoroughly, but the reason it isn't anymore is most likely because our society tends to place less importance in the individual these days, and focuses on group-think and social values rather than knowledge.
Click to expand...


Ahh, excellent point. I assume you are referring to groups such as Unions?
 
Eric said:
It never ceases to amaze me how many people don't know the constitution, and what it stands for. Do you believe it should be more aggressively taught in schools?

-- (For example; taught each year, rather than just the 1-2 it's taught in now.)
Click to expand...

Not only should it be taught more thoroughly but the intentions of those who wrote it should be taught as well.
 
Only if the people teaching it actually know what the Constitution itself stands for: restricting government power. I'd be surprised if schools actually taught a "power to the people" approach to the Constitution under the permission of school boards.
 
Eric said:
Ahh, excellent point. I assume you are referring to groups such as Unions?
Click to expand...

No, not unions. Group-think is more along the lines of social and psychological conditioning for the purpose of creating a like-minded group (similar to religious indoctrination).
 
Yes, certainly. The Constitution refuses to learn that it's a living document, and it should be punished for insisting on being Amended before allowing changes.

We have to teach that Constitution a lesson.
 
Orius said:
Only if the people teaching it actually know what the Constitution itself stands for: restricting government power. I'd be surprised if schools actually taught a "power to the people" approach to the Constitution under the permission of school boards.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the elastic clause and supremacy clause are intended to restrict government power...
 
The schools are too dumbed down now to teach the Constitution.

The nation the Constitution represents is a nation of men seeking to make their own way without dependence on others. It's totally inappropriate to try to present that ideal to minds of children cast in the mis-shapen molds of socialism, dependency, and whiny-ness.

I'd say it's too late.

But if the Constitution was going to be taught, it's going to have to start with teaching the kids that it's not only okay to be independent, but necessary if they want to grow up to be men.


Better start by making dodge ball a gym class REQUIREMENT.
 
pro-bipartisan said:
Yeah, the elastic clause and supremacy clause are intended to restrict government power...
Click to expand...

The supremacy clause is just common sense. The elastic clause has been stretched way beyond what was originally intended.
 
jamesrage said:
Not only should it be taught more thoroughly but the intentions of those who wrote it should be taught as well.
Click to expand...

But doesn't that defeat the whole purpose of the vagueness of the document? So it can be applied to future generations? If we focus more on the intention, then we limit the application.

I think there are great stories from that era which would be good to teach children-- courage.
 
Arch Enemy said:
But doesn't that defeat the whole purpose of the vagueness of the document? .
Click to expand...

Who said it had to be vague, did the authors say they wanted it to be vague?Besides that if we are going to arguing what is and isn't constitutional then it should be the authors of the bill of rights who are the authority on what is and isn't constitutional.

So it can be applied to future generations? If we focus more on the intention, then we limit the application.
Click to expand...

Constitutional rights apply today just as they did back then when our founding forefathers wrote it. The fact we are more technologically advanced than our forefathers is irrelevant. The right to speech,freedom of religion, the right to remain silent, a well regulated militia ,the right to addresses grievances with the government, the right to keep and bears without it being infringed and many other rights apply today just as it did back then when the constitution was written. If you want a change to the constitution then it should be amended not ignored or blatantly misinterpreted.
 
Arch Enemy said:
But doesn't that defeat the whole purpose of the vagueness of the document? So it can be applied to future generations?
Click to expand...

Wait, what? Its intentions are irrelevant because it was intended to be vague in order to apply to future generations?
 
jamesrage said:
Constitutional rights apply today just as they did back then when our founding forefathers wrote it. The fact we are more technologically advanced than our forefathers is irrelevant. The right to speech,freedom of religion, the right to remain silent, a well regulated militia ,the right to addresses grievances with the government, the right to keep and bears without it being infringed and many other rights apply today just as it did back then when the constitution was written. If you want a change to the constitution then it should be amended not ignored or blatantly misinterpreted.
Click to expand...


I agree James. Back in the 1700's, Al Gore hadn't yet invented the internet, and without TV and Radio, that meant there were no means of mass communication to the public. Yet, today, the First Amendment protects every single broadcaster in America. Or what about the Fourth Amendment? Back then there weren't any telephones, yet today the police (Generally) need a warrant to listen in on your calls. Also, there were no helicopters or satellites to take images of your home, yet today you are protected from both of those by.. yep, the constitution.

The Constitution was designed carefully by arguably the smartest men in American History. They designed it to be difficult to change/amend. The founders weren't shooting for vague, that's why today all the Congressmen, the President, etc. all take an oath to Protect and Defend the Constitution of the United States of America.
 
Last edited:
Eric said:
It never ceases to amaze me how many people don't know the constitution, and what it stands for. Do you believe it should be more aggressively taught in schools?

-- (For example; taught each year, rather than just the 1-2 it's taught in now.)
Click to expand...

Lets see...how to put this.....


YES!

It is sad and disgusting that people don't know squat about the very document that literally defines our country.
 
No, it shouldn't. The Constitution only means whatever the lawmakers want it to mean, and only occasionally does the Supreme Court step in and say no, the Constitution means what they want it to mean. And, quite frankly, attempting to follow the interpretation of the Constitution that is being suggested here would be disastrous.

There would be far better ways of accomplishing the social goals being proposed here, and I even agree with some of those goals. Most of them, unfortunately, would require the people proposing them to stop looking down their goddamned noses at public education and start using it in the same fashion that their opponents have.
 
pro-bipartisan said:
Yeah, the elastic clause and supremacy clause are intended to restrict government power...
Click to expand...
The elastic clause does nothing other than give Congress the power to pass the laws necessary to exercise the powers given to it.
A decent education on the subject would have taught that....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom