The annual Annenberg Constitution Day Civics Survey is the latest chilling survey revealing the lack of knowledge of most Americans about their own system of government. While this country remains highly patriotic, most Americans are woefully ignorant of the details of their constitutional system. According to the survey by the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania, only 39 percent of Americans can name all three branches of government.
While the survey did so improve on other questions, 22 percent of Americans could not even name one branch of government. Fourteen percent could name two branches.
It is yet another example of how poorly we continue to educate elementary and high school students on our system of government.
That lack of knowledge is a serious threat to our democracy. The greatest protections against tyranny is an educated populace. If that is true, this country is in growing peril.
The public education system turns out graduates who cannot read, write, or property express themselves. Parents cannot leave the education of their children up to the State. If their children are enrolled in public school, parents need to supplement their education.
I’ve always liked the Schoolhouse Rocks DVDs. If you want to teach your children about their country’s history, I can suggest the following.
https://thefederalist.com/2019/08/28/replace-howard-zinns-communist-account-u-s-history-american-kids/
https://members.learnourhistory.com/member.login
The public education system turns out graduates who cannot read, write, or property express themselves.
This isn’t exactly novel. See the articles published on the subject by James Q. Wilson in The Public Interest 25 years ago. Their contention was that performance scores on standardized tests over the previous 30 years showed a process of ‘mediacritization’, where the worst students were performing better and the best worse.
I knew a teacher who had started in 1967 and retired in 1991. She said there was a cultural shift in that time among parents that made it increasingly challenging to keep order, and half way through her career she’d asked for a transfer to younger kids she could handle better. A co-worker of mine some years back employed part time as a social studies teacher offered this assessment of the world of 2000 v. the world of 1990 in the schools in which he had worked: ‘academically, if anything, a bit better. Their behavior gets worse every year’. One of his co-workers at the local school (who began teaching in 1974 and retired around 2010) said the big change in his time teaching had been the escalating restrictions on what you could do to discipline the young. These three teachers worked in adjoining small-town / rural school districts, not in Louisiana, but in Upstate New York. One specialized in lower elementary grades, one junior high, and one had taught a mix of junior and senior high. One was born in 1938, one in 1951, and one in 1967.
So, you’ve had two problems: youngsters treated more indulgently at home, and school administrators insisting they be treated more indulgently at school. The broad community is injured by things done to accommodate ideologues in the school apparat, ambulance chasers, and the worst parents. The question is why is these tails allowed to wag the dog? You answer that, and you’ve diagnosed the political pathology of our time.
You know, a person could really get poetic here. . .
Speaker Forever Hold Your Piece???
A Short Poem by Squeeky Fromm
Hastert was a pedophile,
And Boehner was a drunk!
Poor Pelosi’s past “senile”
While Ryan played the “hunk.”
Mein Gott! These goobers- tres de’ment!
Were two heartbeats away-
From each becoming President!
A nightmare’s, what I’d say!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
,
,
Welcome back
Thank you!!!It is nice to know that there are still lovers of good poetry out there!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Come now professor surely you did not mean to exclude the famous Fourth Branch chuckle chuckle. IRS, BLM, DEQ, and more being the most well known recently. One’s where the powers of all three were awarded to just one of the three. it is the result of FDR’s infamous scientific government.
I forgot about the IRS but I did name BLM. What is DEQ? Don’t seem to have that here.
There are only 3? Nonsense. Around here we have
Department of Agriculture
US Forest Service
Bureau of Reclamation
Bureau of Land Management
Department of Energy
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Bureau of Indian Education
Bonneville Power Administration
US Army Corps of Engineers
Fisheries and Wildlife
US Park Service
FEMA
US Marshall’s Service
US Army
US Air Force
US Navy
FAA
Department of Homeland Security
for starters.
The three branches of the U.S. government: Executive, Legislative and Legislative.
The judicial branch is effectively and corruptly the second legislative branch and it is and has been the singular American failure. The sole function of the judicial branch is and always has been to assure that the actions of the legislative and executive branches comport with the “manifest tenor” of the Constitution. The entire American welfare state is unconstitutional and must have been declared void by the judicial branch before its forcible imposition on the American people. The greater portion of the judicial branch should have been impeached, convicted and penalized for abuse of power, corruption, usurpation and essential, egregious treason a long time ago.
Congress has no power to tax for the purpose of redistribution of wealth and no power to regulate other than interstate commerce. Article 1, Section 8 – Congress has the power to tax merely for “…general Welfare…,” and to regulate merely “…commerce among the several States…,”
The right to private property is unqualified in the Constitution and, therefore, immutably absolute, denying government any power to legislate to claim or exercise dominion over or to possess or dispose of private property in any aspect, form or fashion.
Affirmative action, quotas, welfare, food stamps, rent control, social services, forced busing, minimum wage, utility subsidies, WIC, TANF, HAMP, HARP, Dept.’s of Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Labor, Energy, Obamacare, Obamaphones, Social Security, Social Security Disability, Social Security Supplemental Income, Medicare, Medicaid, “Fair Housing” laws, “Non-Discrimination” laws, etc., are all unconstitutional and illegitimate.
The American Founders provided maximal freedom to individuals and severely limited and restricted government, confining it to the role of facilitating the freedom of individuals through the provision merely of security and infrastructure. Liberals, progressives, socialists and democrats have no desire or ability to grasp the full measure of American freedom.
Karl Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto 59 years after the adoption of the Constitution because none of the principles of the Communist Manifesto were in the Constitution. Had the principles of the Communist Manifesto been in the Constitution, Karl Marx would have had no reason to write the Communist Manifesto. The principles of the Communist Manifesto were not in the Constitution then and the principles of the Communist Manifesto are not in the Constitution now.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
“…courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”
“[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”
– Alexander Hamilton
_________________
Private property is “that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual.”
– James Madison
Thank you – very well stated.
“They can’t handle the truth.”
– Colonel Jessup, USMC
But more importantly, what percentage can name all 4 Marx Brothers?
Ruth, Sonia, Elena and Stephen
Hahaha Ruth..Good one!
They wouldn’t be Marx Brothers were it not for “Affirmative Action Privilege.” More accurately, the ladies are great, nay, superior! May we get rid of “Affirmative Action Privilege,” WIC, TANF, “Generational Welfare,” Obongocare, etc., etc., etc., now?
George ……..Hmm. This might be a good time to submit a question to you that I have asked before:
Are you the “George” who used to sit, nightly, at the end of the bar at The Columns Hotel on St. Charles in N’Orleans?
Why thank you for noticing. Yes, it was I.
Cindy Bragg – what were you doing nightly in the bar of the Columns Hotels in New Orleans? 😉
https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/illustration/sexy-woman-bar-royalty-free-illustration/104807900
——————–
NOW I remember her.🤔
George, too. They were both regulars.
Thanks to all for jogging my memory.😊
LOL……Paul C ………That’s where we always stayed ( The Columns) in the ’90’s when we visited our daughter attending Loyola. I absolutely loved the place…hubby did not. He still calls it Fawlty Towers South…..😃 It was never a boring experience…..lots of local color.
Before the place was restored, in the early 90’s, a Brooks Shield movie was filmed there in the 1980’s (Pretty Baby?)
But “George” was a local fixture. Even our son-in-law, who worked on the Columns restoration years before he and our daughter met, asked me if I remembered George at the end of the bar!
I do wonder if our George here was really “the” George?? He looked like a somewhat younger, slightly rotund, version of Mark Twain.
Cindy Bragg – it has been my experience that most bars have “regulars” and that they have a seat that they like. 😉
Paul C……yes…..like Norm at Cheers. except no one ever yelled “George!” at Columns… He wasn’t overly friendly.
Cindy Bragg – some people are shy.
Paul C….he was shy, in a complex way… Really, the locals, and the hotel itself, had the feel and texture of a Mike Leigh film!
George….are you pulling my leg?
Surely I jest!
Cindy Bragg – what are the real names of the Marx Brothers?
Paul C….oh no! It’s “Stump the Stars!” I have no idea, except I think Groucho was Leonard?? And Gummo was the 5th brother but he didn’t like performing as much as the others….and joined the Army??? extra points for that? 😊
Cindy Bragg – Groucho is Julius, there is a Milton, Leonard and Herbert. However I do not know who goes with what name. That is blindfolded and on a tightrope, folks.
Wow, Paul C…….impressive!
Bonus question: What was the password for the Speakeasy in “Horsefeathers”?
Cindy Bragg – I do no know. 🙁
Paul C………Swordfish! Remember? The dialogue between Chico and Groucho at the Speakeasy door is a scream.
I can’t copy the link, but I’m sure it’s online. Chico, actually, was my favorite.
Cindy Bragg – I am not sure I ever saw Horse Feathers
Paul C…..I think you’d enjoy it….Groucho is the president of a college, and Harpo and Chico are mistaken for a pair of football players….LOL It’s an early one 1932.
I read about a survey which says that only two percent of Americans can name by first and last name all of their great grand parents. Only five percent can name by first, middle and last name their grand parents.
It is sort of similar to the phrase: don’t know nuthin bout birthin babies.
In the government three branch topic: Some people do not think of the President and Executive branch to be a “branch”. The Court side is not a “branch”. Indeed the notion of a tree with branches is wrong. There are three trees holding up a platform. And on the platform the three branches of government stand again. They are joined sometimes.
The eyes of Congress are upon you. All the live long day.
Don’t you hear the whistle blowing… its coming from the courts.
Can’t you see the President sweating… he’s half a mile away.
EZ!
1. Food Stamp Branch
2. Unborn Black Baby Beheading Branch (40% now so says Kaiser, c’mon progressive slackers, you can do better, double it to 90%!)
3. Free Progressive Edumecayshunz
L’twawn
This post does show how important it is that we have no idea what our system of Government is, how it’s assembled, how power is distributed within our Government, and how the people come to a Majority Consensus within our Government!
Everyone is wrong, even those who conducted the survey, and even Prof. Turley who wrote this post.
We do not have 3 branches in our Government, and the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial are Definitely Not Coequal in any way. Our Government only has 2 branches, and yes they are Coequal and balance each other. The two Coequal Branches of our Government are the House and the Senate!
Federalist #51, Madison; “The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks and Balances Between the Different Departments
Hamilton or Madison From the New York Packet. Friday, February 8, 1788.”
This policy of supplying, by opposite and rival interests, the defect of better motives, might be traced through the whole system of human affairs, private as well as public. We see it particularly displayed in all the subordinate distributions of power, where the constant aim is to divide and arrange the several offices in such a manner as that each may be a check on the other that the private interest of every individual may be a sentinel over the public rights. These inventions of prudence cannot be less requisite in the distribution of the supreme powers of the State. But it is not possible to give to each department an equal power of self-defense. In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates. The remedy for this inconveniency is to divide the legislature into different branches; and to render them, by different modes of election and different principles of action, as little connected with each other as the nature of their common functions and their common dependence on the society will admit.………There are, moreover, two considerations particularly applicable to the federal system of America, which place that system in a very interesting point of view. First. In a single republic, all the power surrendered by the people is submitted to the administration of a single government; and the usurpations are guarded against by a division of the government into distinct and separate departments. In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself.
This formation of two distinct governments in the Legislature, a Government of the People balanced by a Government of the States is fleshed out further by Madison in Federalist #’s 51, 52-58, 62-63, and Jay in Federalist #64! Our Bicameral Legislature is the Federal Government, and as such is the predominant Legislative and Governing Authority in our Federal Government System! All other departments of our government are subservient to, and under the direct control of, Congress!
There is nothing in the Constitution that establishes, or even suggest, that the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Departments are Coequal Branches of Government! The term “Confederated Republic” defines the modes of Assembly, and distribution of Suffrage to reach Majority Consensus, to form the Bicameral Legislature, Congress!
We do not have 3 branches in our Government, and the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial are Definitely Not Coequal in any way. Our Government only has 2 branches, and yes they are Coequal and balance each other. The two Coequal Branches of our Government are the House and the Senate!
FPR,
You are misinterpreting what coequal means as it relates to the three branches of government. You need to think bigger.
Each branch has been established with specific powers to carry out certain functions of the whole. Coequal is not meant to describe one as more important than the others, but rather as 3 distinct entities structured in a way as to most effectively organize their specific enumerated powers, with checks and balances to secure a healthy system of government.
An example of this [whole] would be the major functions of the human body. Are these coequal functions? Which is more important than all the others? Which has the most power?
Respiratory
Cardiovascular/Circulatory
Digestive
Endocrine
Urinary
Reproductive
Nervous/Sensory
Integumentary
Muscular/Skeletal
Hematopoietic/Lymphatic
OLLY, you are only further confusing an individual who can’t grasp that the Constitution and Bill of Rights hold dominion in the United States and that, at best, the Federalist Papers loosely and hypothetically replicate a theory or initial “draft” of American fundamental law in the abstract.
You are absolutely correct in your explanation of coequal but I’m gonna take a wild guess that the legislative branch that can impeach and convict each of its two peers has the essential and crucial power.
Incidentally, that power of impeachment and conviction has not been wielded commensurately with the level of abuse of power, usurpation and treason that has transformed America into a collectivist welfare state over the past 150 years. By contrast, during the French Revolution, guillotines were used 2,639 times to effect their power of impeachment, conviction and penalization for abuse of power, other high crimes and acts of opposition.
You two amuse me, and I hope neither of you is an educator, or in a position of trust or authority in our Government!
First, our Government is nothing like a persons body, all Checks and Balances are Legislative, and the Federalist Papers were not written based upon an early draft of the Constitution, they were written for NY to help the ratification process of the Constitution, which NY didn’t ratify in time to participate in the first presidential election. Only 10 States participated and NY wasn’t one of them!
But you two well informed and scholarly individuals, yes I’m including you Olly, could do us all a favor and take a short quiz on Governing systems that I have prepared. Don’t worry about cheating, cheating is allowed, and you two can put your one brain cells together if you think it will help. I will grade your responses and give you an answer key once you have completed the quiz. Don’t worry, a score of zero is expected!
1. (20 pts.) Define the principles of republican Government that our Confederated Republic is Based Upon.
2. (20 pts.) Define the Power of the Purse, Legislative Checks and Balances, and Continuity and Stability of Government.
3. (10 pts.) Define the the Legislative Process.
4. (5 pts.) Define the rule of Apportionment of Representation and Direct taxes, and explain how the number of Representatives a State is Entitled is calculated.
5. (25 pts.) Explain the distribution of Representation and Suffrage to reach Majority Consensus Based Upon the mode of Assembly in a Bicameral Legislature.
6. (20 pts.) What is Congress, what constitutes a member of Congress, and how does the Bicameral Legislature function?
7. (1 bonus point) What is the role of Voting in a republican form of Government, and what are the qualified electorates associated with each electoral process!
I know you two won’t bother to take this quiz, because it is beneath you and it was prepared by someone you consider ignorant, uninformed, and stupid!
But if this is unsatisfactory to you, then maybe you can just explain, in your own words, what a republican form of Government is, how it is assembled, how power and authority is distributed, and how it functions?
Good luck!
First, our Government is nothing like a persons body,
You know why you’re such an angry person, because you’re a run-of-the-mill narcissist who believes your “special” interpretation of the Papers makes you a superior citizen and you’re pissed no one’s kissing your ring. Your idea of civics literacy is whatever you think you’re special at; not much different than a cardiologist that thinks it’s all about the heart.
Keep studying and maybe in the process you’ll learn some humility. Until then, you’re no Publius.
https://www.amazon.com/Humility-Unlikely-Biography-Americas-Greatest/dp/1595555692/ref=sr_1_1?crid=24GERWU8OWJNW&keywords=humility+david+bobb&qid=1568481235&s=gateway&sprefix=humility+david%2Caps%2C193&sr=8-1#reader_1595555692
So. I guess you can’t answer the questions! That’s ok, just shut the “F” up from now on! You opinion means squat if you can’t back it up.
See ya, wouldn’t want to be ya!
LOL! You’re still not Publius.
Who said I was, I can’t improve on their elucidations, maybe you too should value the words of those that wrote the constitution, especially Madison who was known as the father of the constitution, or do you think you are more informed and better than him!
Do you think that him is better than Madison?
Most people value the words of those that, uh, hum, who, wrote the Constitution.
He’s angry because he’s black and a beneficiary of generational welfare, affirmative action privilege and gradeless classrooms which has provided him a false sense of equality, intelligence and accomplishment, nay, superiority. He believes the Constitution made him equal when the closest it actually came was to posit that, in the universe, all men are created equal, leaving the success or failure of each man’s life up to that man alone. He confuses himself of his own incoherence which is immaterial because, no matter what, the government props him up with infinite false support. Rue the day he and his ilk are forced to achieve or fail of their own capacity, acumen and devices – no tilt of the playing in their favor.
Wrong! I retired as a chief Engineer! I am a process and product engineer with 40 years of experience specializing in analysis, troubleshooting, and optimization of equilibrium systems! I couldn’t think as rudimentarily as you if I tried. Oh I forgot, I’ve been studying the constitution for 45 years and only made the choice between constitutional law and engineering because of the starting pay!
So take your childish playground insults and put them wherever makes you feel good.
You need to shut up too, you’re pathetic!
You’re great! Superior!
You’re a product of antithetical, anti-American, unconstitutional, communist generational welfare, affirmative action. etc.
You fill an affirmative action slot.
Can we get rid of generational welfare, affirmative action privilege, forced busing, food stamps, unconstitutional fair housing laws, unconstitutional non-discrimination laws, WIC, HAMP, HARP, HUD, HHS, etc., etc., etc., now?
You are pathetic George, go back to your cave!
A Suffolk Community College professo9r gave his class the same test a resident alien has to pass to become a citizen. Nobody passed. Then he handed out a copy of a constitution and told the class it would be discussed the next day. But it wasn’t the US constitution — it was Russia’s constitution. Only three students recognized the scam.
RSA – I only got one wrong on the resident alien exam. And, as I have complained about before, Civics is no longer taught in high school. In your case, 3 student took it and passed it. 😉
https://www.123rf.com/photo_80907546_stock-vector-green-alien-face-emoji-extraterrestrial-humanoid-head-icon-vector-illustration-.html?vti=nobc0cduc81aphtkp8-1-5
Mr. Schulte,
I’d like to suggest that you take some copies of the resident alien exam with you when you venture into Area 51.
Anonymous – we are starting into “radio silence” on Area 51.
PCS, Your “Woodstock” of the Skunk/Phantom Works, “Storm Area 51,” has been moved to Las Vegas.
_________________________________________________________________________________
“Bud Light producing alien-themed can for ‘Storm Area 51’ events”
– LVRJ
George – we want the government to think we have moved to Las Vegas. Bud Light is in on it. 🙂
It’s Suffolk Community College. They’re there to learn horticulture, practical nursing, and dental assistance. The rest is filler.
Then they shouldn’t mind being ineligible to enter the franchise.
Effirmitive action in progress!
A few years ago videos appeared of black students verbally assaulting whites, in libraries and even screaming epithets at faculty, on the campus of the most prestigious universities.
Affirmative action entrance policies required “protected class” students with high school GPA of C- and lower, attend classes with higher achieving non-affirmative action students. AA policies require non-protected class students to have about 2 point higher GPA to get in.
What a shock to find that AA students can’t keep up! And who is to blame? Certainly not the AA policy! Certainly not protected class students with D+ or C- HS GPA!
WELL OF COURSE, DUMMY, it’s “SYSTEMIC RAY-cism!”
Trohar thinks blacks make up 61% of the population. Must have been in one of Smedley Butler’s fever dreams.
Maybe there are more illegal aliens in the United States than we know about. Next week ask your gardener if he knows the three branches of government, if he points to a tree you got your answer
Acccording to the 9th Circuit, there is only one branch of government.
That lack of knowledge is a serious threat to our democracy. The greatest protections against tyranny is an educated populace. If that is true, this country is in growing peril.
Really? You got survey research from 1922, 1948, 1970, and 1990 demonstrating a better grasp of conventional terminology?
DSS,
You’ve demonstrated a passionate interest in education in this country with an emphasis on the state of higher education. I share your concerns. When Turley says The greatest protections against tyranny is an educated populace. I believe he’s primarily talking about civics education. I agree within the context of civics literacy (CL).
I believe CL is more than being able to correctly answer questions on an assessment. It’s more than regurgitating facts regarding our country and our system of government. CL if done correctly is a process that shouldn’t end when we graduate from high school.
A civics assessment with a passing score of 60% is required for citizenship and of course then the right to vote. Why do we not require natural born citizens to demonstrate at least that same level of proficiency? And if it’s important to demonstrate that proficiency once in a person’s life, then why isn’t it important to demonstrate that throughout one’s life?
Why do we not require natural born citizens to demonstrate at least that same level of proficiency?
Because the administration of the test might be subject to manipulation. We don’t have a genius for elections administration in this country, and state legislatures have tended to exacerbate problems rather then solve them.
Because the administration of the test might be subject to manipulation.
Like everything else, not might but would. Do you know if there has been any administrative manipulation of the exam for new citizens?
Regardless, it would seem to be a tragic irony that we should not attempt to improve civics literacy with our citizens because a government bureaucracy would corrupt the process.
OH, it’s a good idea, and so are poll tests. I have no problem excluding people from the franchise who can’t read and don’t know a thing about civics.
However, there is a history of excluding blacks from voting with poll tests, and so it wouldn’t be feasible. You can look that one up on the internet.
and yet, I still think it’s a good idea.
I agree with you Mr. Kurtz. Here’s another irony. To be feasible would first require a level of civics literacy we don’t have.
We have a history of disenfranchising not just blacks, but women, non-property owners, etc. Disenfranchisement takes other forms as well. Let’s assume 51% of likely voters are civically illiterate; that means the majority of likely voters are deciding the direction of a government and effectively disenfranchising the minority that are civically literate.
Here is a better take on the franchise from Bastiat (1848):
But universal suffrage — using the word in its strictest sense — is not one of those sacred dogmas which it is a crime to examine or doubt. In fact, serious objections may be made to universal suffrage.
In the first place the word universal conceals a gross fallacy. For example, there are 36 million people in France. Thus, to make the right of suffrage universal, there should be 36 million voters. But the most extended system permits only 9 million people to vote. Three persons out of four are excluded. And more than this, they are excluded by the fourth. This fourth person advances the principle of incapacity as his reason for excluding the others.
Universal suffrage means, then, universal suffrage for those who are capable. But there remains this question of fact: Who is capable? Are minors, females, insane persons, and persons who have committed certain major crimes the only ones to be determined incapable?
The Reason Why Voting Is Restricted
A closer examination of the subject shows us the motive which causes the right of suffrage to be based upon the supposition of incapacity. The motive is that the elector or voter does not exercise this right for himself alone, but for everybody. The most extended elective system and the most restricted elective system are alike in this respect. They differ only in respect to what constitutes incapacity. It is not a difference of principle, but merely a difference of degree. If, as the republicans of our present-day Greek and Roman schools of thought pretend, the right of suffrage arrives with one’s birth, it would be an injustice for adults to prevent women and children from voting. Why are they prevented? Because they are presumed to be incapable. And why is incapacity a motive for exclusion? Because it is not the voter alone who suffers the consequences of his vote; because each vote touches and affects everyone in the entire community; because the people in the community have a right to demand some safeguards concerning the acts upon which their welfare and existence depend.
The Answer Is to Restrict the Law
I know what might be said in answer to this; what the objections might be. But this is not the place to exhaust a controversy of this nature. I wish merely to observe here that this controversy over universal suffrage (as well as most other political questions) which agitates, excites, and overthrows nations, would lose nearly all of its importance if the law had always been what it ought to be. In fact, if law were restricted to protecting all persons, all liberties, and all properties; if law were nothing more than the organized combination of the individual’s right to self defense; if law were the obstacle, the check, the punisher of all oppression and plunder — is it likely that we citizens would then argue much about the extent of the franchise?
Under these circumstances, is it likely that the extent of the right to vote would endanger that supreme good, the public peace? Is it likely that the excluded classes would refuse to peaceably await the coming of their right to vote? Is it likely that those who had the right to vote would jealously defend their privilege? If the law were confined to its proper functions, everyone’s interest in the law would be the same. Is it not clear that, under these circumstances, those who voted could not inconvenience those who did not vote?
In America, the mentally retarded can usually vote. Really. Wrap your head around that. That’s how cheap the franchise is here. No wonder people don’t get riled up about potential voter fraud and the multigenerational scheme to dilute the American electorate with teeming masses of migrants.
http://www.bazelon.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/2016_State-Laws-Affecting-Voting-Rights-of-PWD.pdf
Several measures to address some of these problems:
1. Remove from the rolls people who are incarcerated, on probation, or on parole.
2. Remove people who haven’t discharged fines, haven’t discharged labor services, and haven’t satisfied forfeitures.
3. Remove people under civil commitment orders.
4. Remove people who’ve been placed under guardianship.
The Secretary of State would collate the results of court proceedings around the state and send circulars to local boards of elections. The board of elections would remove the name from the rolls, while adding the name to a watch list. The persons in question could re-register at such time as their state had changed. The watchlist would alert officials to verify the return of eligibility.
Another thing you could do would be to debar the use of certain sorts of residences as voting addresses, requiring the people who lived there to set up a notional address with family members, vote by post and provide identifying information with the returned ballot (e.g. a signature and a photocopy of a photo ID). That would include anyone living in institutional housing – collegiate apartments, dormitories, and houses; nursing homes and assisted living centers; half-way houses and group homes; military base housing, &c. (People in prisons and asylums wouldn’t be eligible for any sort of ballot).
The people struck from the rolls would be so as a side-effect of legal proceedings conducted for other (and more consequential) reasons.
Did you say “natural born citizen?” Allow me to clarify.
Kamala Harris and Barack Obama will NEVER be eligible to be U.S. president.
Kamala Harris’ parents and Barack Obama’s father were foreign citizens at the time of their births.
– A “citizen” could only have been President at the time of the adoption of the Constitution – not after.
– The U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, requires the President to be a “natural born citizen,” which, by definition in the Law of Nations, requires “parents who are citizens” at the time of birth of the candidate and that he be “…born of a father who is a citizen;…”
– Ben Franklin thanked Charles Dumas for copies of the Law of Nations which “…has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting,…”
– The Jay/Washington letter of July, 1787, raised the presidential requirement from citizen to “natural born citizen” to place a “strong check” against foreign allegiances by the commander-in-chief.
– Every American President before Obama had two parents who were American citizens.
– The Constitution is not a dictionary and does not define words like “natural born citizen” as a dictionary, while the Law of Nations,1758, did.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Law of Nations, Vattel, 1758
Book 1, Ch. 19
§ 212. Citizens and natives.
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ben Franklin letter December 9, 1775, thanking Charles Dumas for 3 copies of the Law of Nations:
“…I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly that copy, which I kept, (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed,) has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author…”
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
To George Washington from John Jay, 25 July 1787
From John Jay
New York 25 July 1787
Dear Sir
I was this morning honored with your Excellency’s Favor of the 22d
Inst: & immediately delivered the Letter it enclosed to Commodore
Jones, who being detained by Business, did not go in the french Packet,
which sailed Yesterday.
Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to
provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the
administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief
of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolved on, any but a natural born Citizen.
Mrs Jay is obliged by your attention, and assures You of her perfect
Esteem & Regard—with similar Sentiments the most cordial and sincere
I remain Dear Sir Your faithful Friend & Servt
John Jay
Barack Obama will NEVER be eligible to be U.S. president.
Ye Gods you’re a Dunning-Kruger bore.
That aptly describes me. Now please describe “natural born citizen” as employed by Jay and Washington if you actually read and disagree with the history cited above. Please find that the Founders kept in their possession the Law of Nations as early as 1775 and that Obama ‘s father was a citizen of a foreign country causing Obama to be a “citizen” at most. Please describe the difference between “citizen” and “natural born citizen.” By some reason you find ad hominem appropriate and effective debate impossible.
___________________________________
“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”
“I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
– Vattel
______
“Permit me to…provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration…and…the Command in chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolved on, any but a natural born Citizen.”
– Jay to Washington, 1787
We suffer more with your “insights” considering George at least quotes Founding Fathers. Take a cue maybe?
The TRUTH is that the entire American welfare state is unconstitutional.
________________________________________________________
“You can’t handle the truth!”
– Colonel Jessup, USMC
All products of the public school system. Is Civics even a class anymore?
Political branch, Lobbying branch, Disinformation branch.
Since there are three branches of the [federal] government, this makes no sense to me: ” Fourteen percent could name 14 percent.” Cheers
It was a typo; 14% could name 2 branches.
There are three?
The 3 branches of government…let’s see…Waste, Fraud, and Abuse?
Or Moe, Curley, and Shemp?
Moscow, Beijing, and Riyadh.
While the survey did so improve on other questions, 22 percent of Americans could not even name one branch of government. Fourteen percent could name 14 percent.
Because the reference to a ‘branch’ is a conventional one they learned in junior high school and promptly forgot. They surely know there is such a thing as a court system, such a person as the mayor, and such a body as the town council.
And what are YOU complaining about? The 80 year long exercise in misfeasance by the judiciary in this country depends crucially on people not being disgusted by their usurping functions which belong to elected officials.
TIA says
“The 80 year long exercise in misfeasance by the judiciary in this country depends crucially on people not being disgusted by their usurping functions which belong to elected officials.”
Congress could strip the Article III courts of subject matter jurisdiction of certain topics like abortion. They could do it with a simple majority, although it might need more due to filibuster or to over ride veto.
People don’t generally know this. I didn’t know it until law school
Nobody very high in government wants to go that route. it’s easier to leave the hard issues to judges with lifetime tenure. So, I have heard opinion said from activists on both sides that the prolife and prochoice struggle is, as they say in pro wresting, “KAYFABE”
if so then perhaps we have the system we have, precisely because that is the way the social leadership has detected that it can impose its social engineering preferences with a minimum of hassle, and simultaneously preserve the illusion of self governance.
Clever huh?
Nobody very high in government wants to go that route.
Cocaine Mitch has neither the imagination nor the moxie. Doesn’t matter what he ‘wants’ or does not ‘want’, he does very little not intended to please donors, who don’t have a dog in that one.