A while ago a friend of a friend blogged about the invasion of privacy involved in these airport pat downs. It sparked a pretty heated debate about where the line should be drawn in invasion of privacy in light of the constitution. However, as I looked into the comments, I started to realize that a lot of people just didn't have a clear view of how the constitution works. This is not to say there is one right way that it should work, the debate on how the constitution should be used has been a hot topic since it was written. What surprised me was that people did not seem to know how they wanted it to be interpreted. I understand this happens all the time with legislative acts and supreme court rulings, but I thought that the document that ferments our way of governing would be different. Then I thought some more.
Before law school I don't think I had any idea what the constitution meant to me. Sure, I had read the big passages and could say "separation of church and state!" loudly with conviction, but I didn't have a clue what I thought about the constitution as a whole. Luckily for me, hours of debate and a few too many papers have helped me form a pretty strong view point of what I want out of my constitution (and the people who are in charge of dealing with it). But what about people who have not been subjected to the hours of socratic method that I have?
I should say that in no way do I think I am any smarter than my non-legal friends, in fact many of them are much smarter than I. Perhaps they were able to pick up more of the intricacies of this document from the few hours of required government in college. I just didn't myself. What does that say about our education? Maybe it's not a big problem because if a person wants to go into politics or some other profession that deals with the constitution on a daily basis they will most likely get the extra training. I use my body every day, and still know nothing about medicine.
On the other hand, how can one not understand the document that outlines their rights as citizens? Some of the problem might stem from when we are required to learn about our basic rights - in high school where rote memorization is key, or a required class in undergrad with 400 people where debate is not possible. As long as you learn the 3 branches of government and watch that School House Rocks "I'm Just A Bill" video three times, you pass.
I don't really have a point to this post other than to wonder at the level of constitutional instruction given to students, and contemplate if more is even necessary. Does anyone have an opinion? Better yet, do some of my non-legal friends have some good viewpoints on what the constitution means to them? Maybe I just lost touch with the world, and people do have opinions without the painful law schooling that is more valuable because they are based in real life and not some stuffy classroom. Thoughts?
[NB: I know I've kinda put myself out there with this post, but no matter how clumsily I wrote this I did not mean to offend anyone or their smarts. I'm just curious...]
What the Constitution Means to Me
ReplyDeleteBy: Blair Shiff
Sometimes, the Associated Press editor in me is annoyed by the Constitution because they randomly capitalize words that are, most definitely, NOT proper nouns.
When I read the Constitution, I am constantly wondering why 25 was such a useful age. Mainly, this age minimum has annoyed me in renting a car. But, why must my representative be 25? It reminds me of the West Wing episode where the kid lobbyists go to the White House and argue with Toby over the ageism that exists in America. And, on that note, why does a Senator have to be 30? I say let’s eliminate all ages. I know some 17 year olds that are WAY more mature than some 30 year olds.
I also think the Vice President gets a bum wrap and pretty much no influence. He’s like the backup quarterback of Peyton Manning. You know he’s never going to get minutes. Still, he has to work out with the team. I think he should just be in charge of the Senate and that’s it – or just eliminate the position entirely.
Power that I don’t think Congress should have: declaring war. Pretty much, I think it would be sweet that Congress SUGGESTS that we declare war and then it goes up to an impromptu American vote. How sweet would that be? That way you could legitimately say, “I didn’t support the war from the beginning.”
Power that Congress needs: establishing Post Offices. Nothing is spreading faster than the mailing of letters. They should have a hand in it. ;)
I’m also weird. I personally think that the President shouldn’t be President for four years. I think they should be President for either six or eight. I mean, most of our Presidents get re-elected. Even the dumb ones. Might as well just make it 8 years ahead of time.
I really like the idea of a 2/3rds majority. However, I don’t think people should be able to leave. I think it should be you have an hour to leave. If you don’t leave within that hour-block, then you’re stuck there until we make a decision. Tough crap. Let’s cut out the extra time. ;)
In other words, Brandan, you’re right. No one cares about the Constitution. Except you, me and a few other lawyers and journalists. America can barely read. That means, no one can read the basis of our government. And even if they COULD read, they would still pre-form their opinions on it without fully understanding the living document.
What the Constitution Means to Me
ReplyDeleteBy: Blair Shiff
Sometimes, the Associated Press editor in me is annoyed by the Constitution because they randomly capitalize words that are, most definitely, NOT proper nouns.
When I read the Constitution, I am constantly wondering why 25 was such a useful age. Mainly, this age minimum has annoyed me in renting a car. But, why must my representative be 25? It reminds me of the West Wing episode where the kid lobbyists go to the White House and argue with Toby over the ageism that exists in America. And, on that note, why does a Senator have to be 30? I say let’s eliminate all ages. I know some 17 year olds that are WAY more mature than some 30 year olds.
I also think the Vice President gets a bum wrap and pretty much no influence. He’s like the backup quarterback of Peyton Manning. You know he’s never going to get minutes. Still, he has to work out with the team. I think he should just be in charge of the Senate and that’s it – or just eliminate the position entirely.
Power that I don’t think Congress should have: declaring war. Pretty much, I think it would be sweet that Congress SUGGESTS that we declare war and then it goes up to an impromptu American vote. How sweet would that be? That way you could legitimately say, “I didn’t support the war from the beginning.”
Power that Congress needs: establishing Post Offices. Nothing is spreading faster than the mailing of letters. They should have a hand in it. ;)
ReplyDeleteI’m also weird. I personally think that the President shouldn’t be President for four years. I think they should be President for either six or eight. I mean, most of our Presidents get re-elected. Even the dumb ones. Might as well just make it 8 years ahead of time.
I really like the idea of a 2/3rds majority. However, I don’t think people should be able to leave. I think it should be you have an hour to leave. If you don’t leave within that hour-block, then you’re stuck there until we make a decision. Tough crap. Let’s cut out the extra time. ;)
In other words, Brandan, you’re right. No one cares about the Constitution. Except you, me and a few other lawyers and journalists. America can barely read. That means, no one can read the basis of our government. And even if they COULD read, they would still pre-form their opinions on it without fully understanding the living document.
That's really interesting - and I agree the VP does seem to be a somewhat useless position. The old system had the VP be whoever came in second in the election. This was because they were worried that each senator would only vote for their state's candidate then toss out their second on some one who would never win. So, they added in the VP to keep the voting system fair, but limited the power. However, when parties started to form, clashed between the pres and VP got out of hand. This led (though a bunch of acts/party moves) to the process now where the party selects the VP. So we have this vestige system, like in much of the constitution, where the VP is kind of a figurehead.
ReplyDeleteI guess I didn't make myself clear though - what I'm interested in is how people see the constitution as document controlling our nation. You said "living document" so I'm guessing you think that the interpretation should change overtime to reflect current thinking/issues, despite the inconsistencies that might arise, both over time as views change and in the times where people disagree over what the issues are?
As someone who took Regular Government in High school (gasp!) because I wanted to be able to act out roles of our govt in the courtroom, and then subsequently met my govt requirements by studying Mao Zedong and the Chinese, I have little to no post-high school exposure to the constitution. At first I couldn't even conceive of the constitution being "mine" or that it could be possessed at all. However, after thinking about it a bit more, I kinda figured out what you lawyer people were talking about.. I think it should be used as a loose guideline for our current-day society- isn't that what judges and the court system are for? To help us interpret the law and apply it to our current situations? I mean, Ben Franklin, et al could not have foreseen such advances as abortions, atomic bombs, or Tweeting. So i think we can only view it as flexible and as a guideline, otherwise so many things in there would be both archaic and outdated. I think they wrote it to be loosely interpreted and to be applied judiciously to current day situations, otherwise why would they leave so many things so vague? However, I am also a utilitarian, so I think the law should be interpreted such that it benefits the majority of the people involved to their greatest benefit...
ReplyDeleteI see it the same way I see the bible (as someone who rarely goes to church, I pretty much have no accountability to be talking about politics or religion...) I think someone wrote those stories as a guide for how to live your life, that can be interpreted personally and applied to life how each of us feels is judiciously, based on our own set of moral guidelines. Again, the bible could not predict things such as abortions, civil unions, or Jews for Jesus. Ok now i am getting unfocused, so i will stop, but i found this post to be very interesting!
Yeah, I was being pretty mocking there with a report on what the Constitution meant to me. ;)
ReplyDeleteI definitely see your point, Merce. I think that if you strictly interpret things that were written over 300 years ago, it can be a problem. I mean, times have to change. Times HAVE changed. Thus the foundation of our society (seemingly the Constitution), must at least be thought of while trying to adjust it to modern day.
As for abortions, there were abortions then. If a guy didn't want a kid, they just hit the woman to kill the baby. Obviously, violence like that was not condoned, hence the Biblical stance on it.
If the Constitution were that black-and-white, we wouldn't need a court system/justice system at all. If murder was 100% bad all the time, then what's the point of a judge?
It's funny because you guys outlined an argument that goes on non-stop in constitutional law classes (without the annoying jargon). Maybe education reform isn't needed in government education?
ReplyDeleteThe odd thing is that the way the constitution is worded is very instructive (in most parts) and it is the courts that add the flexible language. For example, all men are equal is very definite language that has been reinterpreted like 10 times. Obviously in this case it seems like the most recent interpretation is best, but there are other sections, like that Congress can only regulate interstate commerce that some think have been interpreted out of control. [Ex: interstate commerce includes regulations on drinking ages].
So I'm coming into this a bit late But here is my stance...
ReplyDeleteI think that we should scrap our current Constitution. I know it was meant to be flexible, but we have entered a new age with technology and development. Like y'all said, they couldn't have foreseen TV and internet, but now it's here. Our culture is maturing much faster and we deserve to have a new and mature Constitution to go with it.
But on the educational front, I think you have smart friends, Brandan. So you're asking the wrong people. Kids are definitely not getting the proper education in government.
Bean you sound so much like Dad it's scary. I think that would be a good idea, but almost impossible to pass - can you imagine what it would be like to try and get even a majority of the states to ratify something like that?
ReplyDelete