In the wake of Constitution Day, there is a truly depressing survey by the Annenberg Public Policy Center that found that 227 years after the signing of the Constitution only 36 percent of Americans can actually name the three branches of government. Thus, 64 percent of Americans cannot name the three parts of our tripartite system.
The same rough percentage (62 percent) was unaware that the GOP controlled the House of Representatives and 17 percent actually thought that the Democrats were in control. The same percentage — only 38 percent — knew that Democrats controlled the Senate. Some 20 percent thought that the GOP controlled the Senate.
The situation is even worse with regard to the details of Article I. Only roughly a quarter knew that it took two-thirds of a majority of both houses to override a presidential veto (27 percent).
Only 15 percent could identify the Chief Justice of the United States while, in a truly depressing comparison, 27 percent knew Randy Jackson was a judge on American Idol.
That is a chilling result 227 years after the signing of Constitution, but that is not likely to concern most citizens since only 13 percent knew the Constitution was signed in 1787.
As discussed earlier, the problem is not unique to the United States as similar surveys in Germany and England have shown.
This is the result of years of neglect of the civics training in our country from elementary high schools. We need a return to basics in our schools, including our constitutional history and values. Americans are fiercely proud of their country but many know relatively little of the key characteristics of our system or its history — the very thing and defines and binds us as a people.
Source: Washington Post
The Declaration of Independence was inspired by Locke, “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” are Locke’s ideas and others as well.
Our founding was based on natural rights stemming from our nature as human beings. We dont enter into society to diminish our rights, we enter into society to expand our rights. Society offers protection from all against all.
Our founding was based on a protection of individual rights and a limitation on government so that those natural or God given rights would be protected by government not trounced by government. We are so far away from the ideal of our founding that most people dont know what freedom should be.
Freedom isnt freedom from want as the progressives of the 19th, 20th and 21st century like to assert. We have given up much of our freedom for security, for Medicare, for social security, for college tuition and all the other things government does that was never proposed by the founders.
The road to hell is paved with “free” government goodies. Paid for at someone else’s expense. The mother of three working 2 jobs to support her children is being penalized by the middle class family getting grants to send their children to college and the factory owner is forcing the middle class family to subsidize some new technology he lobbied the government for tax payer money.
Everyone forcing everyone else to pay for things we should pay for ourselves using government to rob Peter to pay Paul. And in the process subverting the ideal on which our country was founded: the right of an individual to live his life for his own benefit.
And that is what made America the greatest country in the history of mankind. That simple idea is the most powerful force in our world. It raised the masses of mankind out of the gutter in 100 years and extended life spans and created fabulous inventions.
When you free the mind of man and let him live for himself, there is no limitation on what can be accomplished.
Oily,
There reaches a time for all.
I see it more like what happens with circuit breakers; once they get tripped, they begin to require less and less load to trip them. My guess is you are reaching the point of complete failure.
Obviously the owner is oblivious. Sometimes when fame goes to ones head they lose perspective, obviously it’s happened. I was once a supporter of a nomination to the US Sct today it would be an obvious mistake. His reasoning is starting to sound like Scalia who needs no reasoning, because he is in a position of authority and not to be challenged.
Sad, sad to see an ego so inflated that logic and reason are defiled.
I remember when Scalia used to be called out for the same logic used here today on this blog.
This blog is an example of an advanced society and the ability to freely discuss “differing theories and philosophies.” We make “room” to discuss everything we want, including Sharia Law. But theory and philosophy end with constitutional authority and unalienable rights.
I doubt the regressive bureaucracy will continue to keep us stagnated either. But that will require a far more enlightened citizenry than what the 36% would indicate we have. This blog proves there are also “enlightened” folks that simply reject the principles upon which we were founded.
“The US Constitution IS Positve Law.”
The US Constitution defines the limits of government authority. It includes a Bill of Rights that ensures the law-making authority is to be SUBORDINATED to the natural rights of its citizens. NO LAW IS JUST that is proven to violate natural rights; those are unalienable rights. Government can create positive rights (legislated rights) and take them away; those are alienable rights.
” Thomas Hobbes left an everlasting influence on political thought. His idea of people being selfish and brutal and his thoughts on the role of government led to more investigations such as by John Locke. After the Revolution, his ideas also influenced federalists in arguments to adopt the Constitution. He thought that all people should have equal rights and nobody should have more power over anyone else,(besides the King, who should have absolute power). Due to Hobbes’ ideas, they saw that people cannot survive without a strong central government that would protect them. Even today scholars still study and discuss his work. The questions Hobbes stated in the seventeenth century are still important today because he challenged the relationship between science and religion and also the limitations of power the government should have.
Even though during his time his work was apposed by many, it was still admired. His ideas however were still considered crazy until about half a century after his death. Yet since then, he has been known as one of the most important political thinkers and still today has people talking. His social contract theory established that a government should serve and protect all the people in the society. acting only with the “consent of the governed”, this influenced the U.S constitution.”
http://www.americassurvivalguide.com/thomas_hobbes.php
Thomas Hobbes, the social compact and the founding fathers.
I would hope that the percentage would be much lower for the students that I taught in classes such as American History, social studies, Western Civilization, civics and others that spanned four decades. The good news is I’m only 64 and a blog gives me the opportunity to continue to keep my writing skills intact and writing about politics and whatever catches my interest. the interesting thing to me is when I’m writing regularly I have more blog visits per day than when I was teaching 125 – 175 students a day. I don’t have advertizements or make any money. My mot memorable teaching experience was working as an adult teacher in the amnesty Program of the late 80’s I taught American History and English to those students and I’d bet their knowledge of and about the three branches of government was closer to 95 % than 36 5. K.D.F.
Kenneth – since the emphasis is on math and English, there is no reason to teach either social science or civics. I am surprised the number is not higher. People in our age range are at about 100% identification of the three branches of government.
The Common Core is not going to help any and the APUSH is a joke with the changes they have made.
The US Constitution IS Positve Law.
Some here call for teachers to motivate and inspire. I’m all for it but ask: can one motivate and inspire by limiting questions?
Don’t think so.
http://profj.us/outlines/ch01.doc
Natural Law and Positive Law.
Yes, it is pitiful. And then there are the parents (even ‘educators’) who LIMIT the number of allowed questions. Now what kind of parent LIMITS the number of questions a child can ask?
JT: “Americans are fiercely proud of their country but many know relatively little of the key characteristics of our system or its history — the very thing and defines and binds us as a people.”
I’ve asked some questions to determine the extent Legal Positivists understand “the key characteristics of our system or its history”. For instance, Annie has made the follow statement on another thread that really goes to the heart of this discussion:
“Natural rights can mean anything to anyone. It takes consensus after extensive discussion that is INCLUSIVE that defines positive law, IMO. Some Mullah can not just exclaim that Islam is the Natural Law of Allah in our form of positive law government.”
Perhaps we can move passed this “civility” distraction and get back on topic. Here are the 7 questions again:
1. What theory is our nation founded on?
2. Did the Framer’s design our form of government to secure unalienable rights?
3. Did the founding generation believe they were empowering a government to secure unalienable rights?
4. Did the founding generation believe they were electing representation that would decide what ALL of their rights would be?
5. What is the point of arguing for a political theory our nation was NOT founded on?
6. Why would one argue in favor of a theory that would make one less secure in the life, liberty or property?
7. If you already have a government designed on the principle of unalienable rights, then WHY would you ever want to change that government so that nothing you have is unalienable?
Nick – I am going to support Elaine on her Alexander Pope quote. She is correct and quoted it in context.
You quote is also correct, but many years later. Almost the Einstein corollary.
observer:
My wife is a retired grammar and high school union teacher. I am not sure I understand the insult? Unless of course you dont think very highly of union teachers. My wife is a great teacher with or without a union.
It is funny how that works, you must have little regard for grammar school teachers and so consider it an insult.
I think the problem lies in your estimation of public school teachers, I hope Elaine isnt a friend of yours if you think that little of them.
“Learn how to research, retired grammar school union teacher.”
Jonathan Turley,
Do you consider the previous comment to be civil? Isn’t is “personal” when the party to whom it’s addressed is clear, if not openly stated?
observer – We know who you are. We know what you are doing. We just wish you would move the conversation forward. Think you can do that?
Well Jon, I rarely sugarcoat much. In as much I didn’t know it was in moderation. Thanks for clearing that up.
Jon,
Does the same thing go for the poster that starts the uncivil comments to begin with?
If I recal, I responded to Elaine in agreement as to what she said. It was in reference to an email I sent you in which you refuse to address in attacking Elaine.
If that’s uncivil I need a new dictionary.
Anonymously yours, I have deleted a comment in moderation which contained foul language and a personal attack.