September 17 ­ “Constitution Day”?


September 17 ­ “Constitution Day”?
or “Undermining the Constitution Day”?

by Allen Quist


Issues and Action in Education

An e-letter produced
by
EdWatch, a nonprofit organization.


September 13, 2005

        New federal law
requires all schools that receive federal funds to hold a Constitution Day
on or about September 17. Judging from the readily available curricula for
this event, however, most schools will be more engaged in undermining the
Constitution than in teaching it.

       The
curriculum published by the Bill of Rights Institute, for example, says that
our Bill of Rights (Ninth Amendment) may very well include the rights to
abortion, euthanasia, socialized medicine, homosexual activities, gay
marriage and illicit drugs. One of the more interesting statements in this
curriculum is the following, “The Ninth Amendment does not list any specific
rights, but its inclusion in the Bill of Rights raises many possibilities”
[p. 138 of the “Student Handout”]. Is this kind of instruction actually
teaching our Constitution? Or is it undermining the Constitution?

        The Bill of Rights Institute curriculum also teaches
the doctrine of the “evolving Constitution.” It says, “What people claim as
rights -­and what the government denies as rights under the law -­ has
evolved since the Founders wrote the Constitution in the late eighteenth
century” [“Student Handout” p. 138]. At the same time, this curriculum
avoids saying that real truth exists ­- one of our nation’s foundational
principles as stated in the Declaration of Independence. (An “evolving
Constitution” means whatever the Court means it to mean.) No mention of real
truth with a corresponding emphasis on a supposed “evolving Constitution” ­-
is this type of instruction teaching the Constitution or undermining it?

        This curriculum also strongly implies that there
exists an “informal” means of amending the Constitution (one of the common
doctrines of social studies today). The idea is that the Constitution can be
changed, or amended, in two ways ­- by the usual (I would add “legitimate”)
method of passage by Congress or constitutional convention and ratification
by three-fourths of the states, or by the “informal” method of Supreme Court
decisions. If Supreme Court decisions amend the Constitution, then the
Constitution is no longer the highest law of the land because the Supreme
Court has made itself the highest law of the land. Consequently, we no
longer have a real constitution ­- only a way of rationalizing Supreme Court
authoritarianism. Teaching the doctrine of an “informal” method (even though
the word “informal” may not be used) of amending the Constitution is clearly
undermining the Constitution, not teaching it.

        Another of the many curricula being promoted for
“Constitution Day” features Supreme Court Justices Sandra Day O’Connor and
Stephen G. Breyer. This curriculum is highlighted on the

JusticeLearning.org web page (a project of National Public Radio and the
New York Times). When you go to its

Justice Learning home page, the UN logo is especially conspicuous. Click
on the subject of “gun
control,” go to the lesson plans, and you will find the lesson, “Faces
behind the guns,” a lesson plan that links to the

ACLU and to

“Policy.com Issue of the Week: Gun Violence and Children.“Needless to
say, it’s gun control that is being taught and promoted, not the Second
Amendment. Once again, such curricula are not teaching the Constitution;
they are undermining it.

        Should we be surprised at the nature of such
programs?  The law never requires schools to actually teach the
Constitution. The left is much too clever for that. The law says only that
schools shall conduct an “educational program” that is “on the United States
Constitution.” Does a program that undermines the Constitution qualify as
meeting that law? It probably does. Since this law is itself a violation of
the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution (submitted without public hearings
as an amendment by Democratic Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia), we
shouldn’t be too surprised that it fails to stipulate that the Constitution
actually be taught.

        So how can we tell if a given curriculum is teaching
the Constitution or undermining it?  Let me suggest three questions that
will help differentiate legitimate curricula from the many frauds:
 
1. What standard is being employed? That is, how is the meaning of the
Constitution being determined? Is the interpretation based on what the
Constitution itself says? Or is the supposed meaning of the Constitution
being based on Supreme Court rulings and/or on the radical national
standards (Federal Curriculum)? See the author’s book:

Fed Ed: The New Federal Curriculum and How It’s Enforced, available at
EdWatch.org
and Amazon.com.
 
2. Does the curriculum recognize the importance of our nation’s foundational
principles as stated in the Declaration of Independence? Our Constitution is
based on and applies these Declaration principles of the God-given rights to
life, liberty and property; real truth; national sovereignty and natural
law. Any curriculum that suggests the Constitution may include a right to
abortion, gay marriage, hard drugs and euthanasia is obviously in violation
of the foundational principles that under-gird our Constitution. Any
curriculum that speaks of an “evolving Constitution” or an “informal” method
of amending the Constitution, or of supposed “positive rights,” such as
socialized medicine, are in violation of these basic principles.
 
3. How is the unconstitutional agenda of the left treated? For example, is
the right to gun ownership by private citizens described at face value or
does the Second Amendment become a “controversial issue” and/or a matter of
gun control? Similarly, is the Tenth Amendment which describes the doctrine
of the reserved powers for the states and people treated as it is stated in
the Constitution? Or is the Tenth Amendment reduced to the “incorporation
doctrine” of the Supreme Court?  And are the central precepts of the United
States which make it a “beacon light of freedom” promoted by the curriculum?
Or are the UN and its functions highlighted instead? The question is this:
Is it the Constitution that is being taught? Or is the Constitution a mere
pretext for promoting left-leaning political ideology?
 
        We need to recognize that advocates of the political
left want to totally change our nation, not preserve it. They want to
redefine our Constitution, not teach it. Let the buyer beware. The left is
targeting patriotic Middle America; for that reason their programs are
designed to look traditional. They will speak of “limited government,”
“property rights” and our being a “nation of law.” Read past the glitter,
because programs that are “on” the Constitution are usually quite different
than curriculum that actually teaches the Constitution.

Allen Quist is an author, speaker, and
professor of American Government

at Bethany Lutheran College in Mankato,
Minnesota.

Popular pages at
EdWatch.org



In the News: EdWatch Speakers in radio, print, and internet



Featured Itesm: Popular articles, Updates and Resources

==============================================================================================

EdWatch
105 Peavey Road, Suite 116, Chaska, MN 55318
952-361-4931


EdWatch is entirely user-supported. The continuation of our research and
distribution work is entirely dependent upon individual contributors. If
you want to assure that our work continues, click 


here.  If you want to
subscribe or unsubscribe to this EdWatch e-mail service, mail to:
edwatch@lakes.com. Put “subscribe” or “unsubscribe” in the SUBJECT of
the message. Resources of videos, books, and audiotapes are available on
our

shopping cart.

Home