Referencing teaching the Constitution in schools below:

'T commemorate the September 17, 1787 signing of the Constitution of the United States, Congress has designated September 17-23 of each year as CONSTITUTION WEEK.

In 2004 Public Law 108-447, Section 111 was passed requiring the following:

"Each education institution that receives Federal funds for a fiscal year shall hold an educational program on the United States Constitution on September 17 of such year for the students served by the educational institution.
"each Federal agency or department shall provide education and training material concerning the United States Constitution to each employee...on September 17 of each year."

Has this ever been done in your child's school?

Reading "The 5,000 Year Leap" gives an interesting history of the concepts and philosophical base which influenced the writers of the Constitution, with sidelights not commonly taught in most schools. Most history focuses on the English evolution of concepts of liberty, with some mention of earlier attempts at democratic or republic forms of government (usually Greek or Roman). What you rarely see is the interesting paths Franklin's mind took, investigating Saxon common law and governance, as well as a look at how Native American tribal councils resolved differences.

Hello richrobinson,
A great thread. Some very good comments. If you or others are interested in how the founding fathers worked out their differences and have not yet read the Constitutional Convention Debates, I would highly recommend doing so. There were many serious disagreements and conflicts. Often the debates would become quite heated. Franklin, being the elder statesman, would often sit quietly listening and then offer a suggestion that would give rise to compromise. I would highly recommend reading the Signet Classic, The Anti-Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Convention Debates, ISBN 978-0-451-52884-1. If the Constitution was written today it would end up a disaster. Today's politician's are not the statesmen our founders were. I believe it was Thomas Jefferson, though away in France at the time but in contact by letter with Adams that called the assembly a group of "Demigods."
Regards,
O.A.

Good post, Rich!

What you've written is very true, but the opposite is equally true. The evidence of this is witness how over these last years our Constitution has been unwritten!

The signing of the Constitution is one of, if not THE MOST important event in history. For the first time, people were given the freedom, and yet the responsibility of running their government through an ingenious system of checks and balances. If the USA survives and grows back into the country the Founders envisioned, it will be the most significant document in history. If the USA doesn't survive, it will likely be obscured into a seditious document by whoever is in power. The Constitution and The Delaration of Independence should be taught in high school for and entire semester along with the historical setting that aided in its creation. Sadly, most Americans couldn't tell you its contents, let alone quote a single sentence from it.

The foundong fathers were all subjects of the British Crown. Their ancestors had gotten to the Americas primarily to escape religious persecution and to lessen the Crown's oppressive authority by time and distance.

The fight for individual rights had begun in England with the Charter of Liberties in 1100, and continued through the Magna Charta 1215, Petition of Rights 1628, the English Bill of Rights 1689, and the philosophy of John Locke in the early 1700's. Seen in this light, the U.S. Constitution was the culmination of a 700-year intellectual war successfully waged.

Their common knowledge of this history and agreement with its precepts explains how it got written.

Hello richrobinson,
I believe it was Ayn Rand that wrote/said (though I haven't been able to find it again to verify) that the Constitution of the United States could not have been written at any other time in history. Never prior to nor since then have all the conditions been right to accomplish what the founders did. The opportunity, the geography, but most importantly the philosophy. And that is what doesn't exist now, at least not in great enough numbers.

I was hoping that someone on here would recognize it and/or help me find it so I can quote it properly. It seems to apply to so many posts on this site in many different ways. To apply it here is to say that you are absolutely correct. We must defend the Constitution. We must save it now because we surely would not get it re-written correctly now.

Hillsdale college has free online lectures about the creation of the constitution and a discussion on the federalist and anti-federalist papers. It is quite good as it gives the full historical context.

I would recommenced reading the federalist papers, all 85 of them. When reading them keep in context that many if not most people were reluctant to have a central government between the states. Without these documents the constitution would not have passed.

Also a item of note, Jefferson was against a centralized government and felt the articles of confederation were to strong. The articles provided a very week central government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of...

Another thing to wonder about is if Jefferson had not been in France as a delegate of the US at the time of the constitutional debate would it have passed? He would have mustered everything he had to stop it, and I think he likely would have. He predicted that even the articles of confederation would eventually lead to a strong central authority usurping the freedom of man.

In the context of the times I would have been on the side of James Madison, John Jay, Alexander Hamilton and George Washington who were the "big government" guys of the day.

It is interesting to note that James Madison switched sides after the constitution was formed, from a person who was fighting for central government to Jefferson's closest ally in being a watch dog to keep the federal government from over extending its reach.

John Jay I do not kwow what is later attitudes were.

Alexander Hamilton after serving for 6 years in Washington's Cabinet resigned. In his resignation letter he stated that he had developed currency, a bank and foriegn affairs policy for the country and that he thought the federal government now had all the powers it would need for the future, no further powers were needed. When the progressive big government types of today quote his federalist papers to increase the size of government, they fail to recognize the rather important statement by their author stating that the feds have all the power they need 6 years into the Washington US administration.

Washington never made the power grabs that Hamilton did, but seemed to be in agreement with him based on his actions. The first 6 years had been about setting up basic systems needed to have a country. The last two had no new systems or departments but operated more as business as usual.

If our current congress wrote the constitution:

"OMG this is soooo boring butt here it gos LOLZ!! We the congress will do whatever the prez wants as long as we still get our $$ and free stuff, we ken also pic how much money we make and get AT LEAST 180 vaca days each year. Reading laws is sooo boring and takes waaaaaay too much time, so all future laws should be presented to us in picture format DUH! We the people blah blah whatever GTG fundraise!! OH NO, that's more than 117 char Twitter limit ;)"

What should be recognized first and foremost is that the Constitution was the second attempt at a government framework preceded by the first failed attempt known as the Articles of Confederation. What I find most instructive is that the same men who put together the Articles of Confederation didn't get it right the first time, but were willing to admit it, scrap everything, and start over. They also were willing to spend the time debating and wrangling not over _who_ was right, but _what_ was right - despite the presence of legendary figures and big egos. The most outstanding quality of the gentlemen involved was their willingness to suborn their own pride and stubbornness and concentrate on a solution that addressed the obvious flaws of every other government in the history of man to that point.

Having read the excerpts of the notes from the Constitutional Convention, it amazes me the depth of knowledge these men had of governmental theory - real political science - and the history of government: what worked and what didn't. They didn't allow fads determine policy or lead them about by the nose, they vigorously debated alternatives of each and every step and how it would tie in with the greater whole, and they expressly forbade a rush to just get anything done. There was no "well you have to pass it so we can see what's in it." These men knew that after they signed it, they would have to take it to their respective state legislatures and get them to sign on. They advocated the positions of their states, while recognizing the supremacy of the envisioned nation as a whole.

I think every American would be better off in many ways to spend an entire class on the Constitution of the United States, how it was written, and covering each and every provision of it. We would not only have a more informed society, but one which I hope would be less susceptible to the lies and usurpations of the politicians.

As far as your question about how it would be written today, I'm afraid that it would become the "living, breathing, constantly changing" document that the liberals would love to have. Instead of the firm, bedrock principles the The Founders came up with, that can be changed, but not, properly, without a lot of effort.

I fear it would turn out a lot like "The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms", which I only found out about recently in a discussion with a close Canadian acquaintance. My first surprise is that it is a relatively recent document, formulated in the Trudeau years and passed in 1982. It "supplements" their original Constitution Act of 1867. My friend, admittedly quite liberal, described it proudly as an "ever-changing document" which can be amended and override both Federal and Provincial laws by not only their Supreme Court, but lower level courts, also. Ouch.

In what way is that a government limited by principles? I certainly hope we never go down that path....

I recently took a required course for federal government employees on the Constitution. The course (on-line) presented the Constitution as giving certain rights to the citizens. I am sure that further explanation in this venue will not be necessary. The rest is, as the saying goes, history - modern history.

Last month I read " The Life and Times of Thomas Jefferson" and this month I am reading a John Adams biography. Both give very interesting insights into the actual process of the framers. These books also give insight into the British laws they were governed by until They declared independence. I am going to try and find a book on Washington next month. Another set of books worth finding is the " Annals of America". If you can find it. It is a 24 book set and very well put together. It cronicals the American experience from 1493 forward to about the 1830's. If Atlas (when) shrugs and we find ourselves having to educate children( and adults) of their heritage these would make good classroom tools. It is a shame that the knowledge of the constitutional process is taken so lightly in our schools today. Many men and women literally gave up the lives and fortunes so that we could have this document. I wonder if such courage exists today.

When I was in H.S. it was required we take a semester of Civics prior to graduation. Of course that was long ago.

I visited Jefferson's house in Virginia earlier this year. It was very interesting, and worthwhile for everyone to see. The feeling one gets is that the english settlers wanted to be free of the ENGLISH and THEIR religion. They wrote the part about freedom of religion, but what they meant was freedom from the king's religion. When it came to the Mormons, they were persecuted because their religion was different from the settlers. When it came to individual rights, the settlers wanted to be free, but when it came to the the individual rights of the indians- thats different. The individual rights of the slaves? Well, Jefferson had hundreds of them on his plantation. Individual rights of mexicans? Well, we can get to that after we capture all the land from Atlantic to Pacific oceans. The point that I got is that the constitution wasnt some sore of philosophical document- it was a series of compromises that enough people could agree on and sign. But the history of the USA isnt very clean. We say one thing and do quite another, from the start right up to today. The problem is that there was no real basis for the constitution like there would have been had Ayn Rand written it without all those compromises that were included in it.

there is a book "SUMMER OF 1776" which details the writing of the constitution. Very interesting, I strongly recommend it.

Many here have mentioned"individual rights", I believe that in and of itself is what our leaders see as the problem. They want us to act as groups, individuals are trouble makers, trying tohold them back. They are working to create a "what is best for the whole" society. Only the problem I see with that is it is based on the culture and education of whomever is in office, not our country as a whole. I am not sure the constitution was written on the best pretence but it was better than what they've ammended it to. It sickens me, the thought of slaves and what was done to the Indians, I often wonder if we are not getting what we deserve. A kind of justice. A country founded on the blood of the innocent now tearing itself apart from within. Sad but true.

It was written when men and women were still honest, when public service was not considered to be a "job" and the reward for doing that service was the service of itself.
Unfortunately times have changed.

I like it when you "let your mind out to wander."

our employees in the government have sworn to
obey and uphold the constitution. . they are failing
to do this. . we can't fire them. . this is a problem.

a popular uprising, if supported by a compliant
military, could amount to "firing them," but we're
not there yet. . Rand hypothesized a solution, yet
it is ungainly in the current situation. . the secession
of the producers' States would take awhile, but
could work. . what other options are there??? -- j

This piece is written about the Declaration of Independence, scroll to the bottom for the speech, written by Rush Limbaugh`s father that gives great insight to the Founders. http://4thestatemedia.com/?p=316

Great post. I had a civics class in High School in the early 70's in the already horribly liberal State of Massachusetts. What a joke. The entire format was for the teacher to put his feet up on the desk and read current events from today's newspaper. He would "encourage debate" but you can guess where it was going.

Fortunately I had educated myself, on my own time outside of the public indoctrination system on rationality and reason by reading everything by Ayn Rand, including her newsletter, I could get my hands on. But still woefully ignorant on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I had one good teacher that taught the court system and some of the jurisdictional separation of powers. Guess what? He was good and was a native born German. From there, the next bit of education came from a history class at the University of New Hampshire. The professor required the students to memorize the Declaration of Independence and write it out on paper as a final without reference to anything. Nice.

It wasn't until the 1990's when I got involved in the Sagebrush Rebellion in the West that I really got an education on the Constitution and the intended structure of our government. In my research, I found an old used book in a bookstore in Fallon, Nevada. It was a civics textbook for High School written by a Constitutional professor from an institution in Iowa. Published in 1894. What a gold mine of perspective. Relevant to the Sagebrush Rebellion was the chapter on new States and Statehood. At that time the next anticipated new State to be entered into the Union was Utah, which did occur in 1896. In it the author wrote: When Utah finally achieves statehood, the burden of managing the public lands within its sovereign boundary shall be relieved of the general government and passed to the State. Just imagine, every high schooler 100 years ago using this popular textbook knew that the feds can't retain authority over the public lands within a State. And now it is a huge battle of usurpation.

Read the 'Seven Miracles that Saved America' on the miracle of the Constitution. It will fully explain why we should be in awe of what transpired.

Absolutely love your post and comments. A little off subject but It made me realize just how important it is for us to do a better job in selecting and electing those that are supposed to be representing us, not just some of us, but all of us. We need people that understand history and are willing to work together, forgoing all this division nonsense.

I'm feeling those that are currently in these positions are in it for other reasons than to represent us, all of us, and to adhere to the Constitution.

Harry Reid is a perfect example of what's wrong with us today. Either he's just a despicable little man, and I'm not talking about his stature, or he's become senile, another reason for term limits and/or age limits. Just look at all of those crazies' from California, and that one that thinks the island of Guam might turn over, the one that was more interested in us putting Solar Power on the battlefield than the actual War the General was fighting. And "please address me as 'Senator`, I think I've earned it". (What an arrogant statement, especially to a General). My reply would have been, "Yes mam". Hopefully we'll learn a lot from this administration, but I'm not going to hold me breath.

And I still think that Newt should give history lessons to everyone taking office in DC.