What does Constitution Day recognize?

Ironically, requiring schools to observe Constitution Day is technically unconstitutional.

In spite of Sen. Robert Byrd's (D-West Virginia) great Constitution Day essay, with which we largely agree, the new Constitution Day law imposes yet another federal mandate on schools that receive federal funding (a technique quite familiar to school districts, called "fiscal federalism"), and another external requirement on classroom teachers.

The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution reads:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Constitutionally, the federal government has no jurisdiction over education, so it's a state matter. For funding an average of 7% of a state's education budget, the federal government buys a lot of influence.

While we might not agree with the means, the desirable end of learning about the Constitution is of course an essential exercise of a self-governed people. As Senator Byrd says, "Without constant study and renewal of our knowledge of the Constitution and its history we are in peril of allowing our freedoms to erode." Or as Scholar puts it, "In Scientia Libertas."

Over the weekend, Scholar attended a lecture by Constitutional scholar Dr. John Eidsmoe, Thomas Goode Jones School of Law at Faulkner University. Eidsmoe and other speakers that evening cautioned the audience to ensure that local schools teach what's in the Constitution, not simply present programs "on" (or about) the Constitution as required by the federal Constitution Day law.

The evening opened with Mike Chapman of American Heritage Research celebrating the passage of the American Heritage Education in Minnesota Public Schools Act by stating the law's key provisions:

HF 141, 2005 Special Session, Omnibus K-12 
and early childhood education appropriations bill

 64.10     Sec. 20.  [120B.25] [AMERICAN HERITAGE EDUCATION.] 
 64.11     (a) School districts shall permit grade-level instruction 
 64.12  for students to read and study America's founding documents, 
 64.13  including documents that contributed to the foundation or 
 64.14  maintenance of America's representative form of limited 
 64.15  government, the Bill of Rights, our free-market economic system, 
 64.16  and patriotism.  
 64.17     (b) Districts may not censor or restrain instruction in 
 64.18  American or Minnesota state history or heritage based on 
 64.19  religious references in original source documents, writings, 
 64.20  speeches, proclamations, or records.

The latter provision is key because it frees teachers to use uncensored original source documents without fear of district interference and lawsuits. For example, before this law was passed one might imagine some teacher trepidation at classroom discussion of this quote from James Madison, fourth President and primary author of the Constitution: "The future and success of America is not in this Constitution, but in the laws of God upon which this Constitution is founded."

Or consider this example from patriot Patrick Henry, of which only the final sentence has been known in most American schoolrooms:

An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death.

Allen Quist provided the Homer Simpson "d'oh" moment by pointing out that Constitution Day (as a federal mandate) is unconstitutional. After a beat, this drew appreciative laughter as the audience grasped the irony. He also repeated Jay Leno's joke about the travails over the new Iraqi constitution: "Why don't we just send them our Constitution? It's worked for over 200 years, and we're not using it anymore [a reference to activist federal judges]!" Quist reiterated some of his thoughts on Constitution Day, posted earlier in this blog.

Eidsmoe presented a strict constructionist viewpoint of teaching the Constitution. He urged teachers to require students to actually read the Constitution, something that even many constitutional law professors don't require. He provided a long list of suggested resources for teaching the Constitution, available from EdWatch.

Eidsmoe also recommended the classic Commentaries on the Laws of England by Sir William Blackstone, and Two Treatises of Government by John Locke. In the former, Blackstone states that there are three types of law, revealed law from God (The Bible); law of nature (also from God but deduced by man); and municipal law created by man. Therefore, the phrase "under God" accurately places the nation and its laws subordinate to the laws of God. This is not the establishment of religion, this is the true history of our nation, the actual words and ideas that shaped our nation.

The federal Constitution Day and Minnesota's American Heritage Education law provide educators with the mandate and the freedom to preserve and transmit the Constitution to a new generation. How the Constitution and the Republic survive in the hearts and minds of that generation remains to be seen.

Further reading:

• Pioneer Press coverage of Constitution Day


• "'A republic, if you can keep it'... or remember what that means" by Cheri Pierson Yecke

EDUCATION

That's mighty white of you!

At Wayzata Central Middle School, the approximately 300 students in each grade are grouped into "teams" for administrative and logistical purposes. Until this year, each team was named for one of the Wayzata district colors: blue, gold, and white.

This year, I was surprised to hear from one of my seventh grade son's friends that the White Team was renamed the Silver Team. Why? "The name 'White Team' was racist," he said.

Be advised that the color white is now politically incorrect.

EDUCATION

I pledge allegiance...

The Washington Times reported that "A California federal judge yesterday ruled it is unconstitutional to require children to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools...The judge [said] he would sign a restraining order preventing the recitation of the pledge at the Elk Grove Unified, Rio Linda Union and Elverta Joint Elementary school districts, where the plaintiffs' children attend."

U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton provided the plaintiff, Michael Newdow, with some helpful legal advice.

During oral arguments for the case in July, Judge Karlton threw out several parts of Mr. Newdow's revised lawsuit, saying the plaintiff's argument that the entire pledge is unconstitutional would not make it past a higher court. Rather, the judge said, the case should focus on whether saying the pledge in public schools is an unacceptable endorsement of religion.

Republican leaders defended the Pledge:

"The Pledge of Allegiance is a vital, ennobling part of our national identity, and the American people resoundingly support its value in the education of our children," said House Majority Leader Tom DeLay of Texas. "The ruling is wrong, period, and I look forward to its reversal."

"This is yet another example of an irresponsible decision by a liberal activist judge unable to separate personal politics from public service," said Sen. John Thune, South Dakota Republican. "As we work to fill two vacancies in the highest court of the land, today's news only serves to underscore the importance of appointing judicial nominees who refuse to allow their personal views to shape decisions."

Why were the words "under God" added in 1954, and why should they stay?

"In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war."
—President Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1954

Since I was a small boy, two states have been added to our country
and two words have been added to the Pledge of Allegiance: "under God." Wouldn't it be a pity if someone said that is a prayer and that would be eliminated from schools too?
— Red Skelton

Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God?
—Thomas Jefferson

The highest story of the American Revolution is this: it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity.
—John Adams

We've staked the whole future of American civilization not on the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us...to Govern ourselves according to the commandments of God. The future and success of America is not in this Constitution, but in the laws of God upon which this Constitution is founded."
—James Madison

The Bible is the Rock on which this Republic rests.
—President Andrew Jackson

The philosophy of the school house in one generation is the philosophy of the government in the next generation.
—Abraham Lincoln

Poll:

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Was the First Amendment written:

a) To protect the American people and their laws from religious values

b) To protect those values from government tyranny

If you think that these questions are esoteric matters of Constitutional law, or if you realize that they are much more than that, I challenge you to hear Dr. John Eidsmoe at the EdWatch event, "What Should Schools Teach About the U.S. Constitution?" sponsored by The Patriot and AM 980 KKMS (see previous post for details).

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

(Undermining the) Constitution Day

I starting writing a blog entry about the upcoming Constitution Day, now mandated by federal law in all schools receiving federal aid. Then I received this article from Allen Quist, Adjunct Professor of Political Science at Bethany Lutheran College in Mankato. After reading it I decided that my thesis looked pedantic and lame by comparision, so I junked my writing in favor of posting Professor Quist's essay. Here it is:

September 17: "Constitution Day" or "Undermining the Constitution Day?"

by Allen Quist

A 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 says it means). 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, FedEd: 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.

Event: "What Should Schools Teach About the U.S. Constitution?"
Date: Saturday, September 17, 2005
Cost: $15 (Student discount available)
John Eidsmoe, author and Professor of Constitutional law
Dessert and refreshments served.
Call 952-361-4931 or EdWatch.org for details and reservations.

The Big Game

This year on the Gold Coast, the first football game of the season was The Big Game. In the last game of the year last season, the Minnetonka Skippers defeated the Wayzata Trojans in the Class 5A Prep Bowl. In this year's opener, the Skippers came to "our house," as the Trojans call it, for a rematch. The teams did not disappoint the overflow crowd under the lights at the 5,500 seat stadium. They provided a wild game with high scoring, penalties on both sides, and exciting plays. It reminded me of the big football games I saw in high school between Bloomington Lincoln and our crosstown rivals, Bloomington Jefferson.

It was an extra special night for one proud dad, Wayzata High School alumnus Sen. David Gaither (R-Plymouth), whose son Ben was the starting quarterback for the Trojans. Ben completed seven of 14 passes for 128 yards and one touchdown. Gov. Tim Pawlenty performed the ceremonial coin-toss. It was the only high school football game scheduled this year on FSN North, and they gave it the slick production of a Monday Night Football game, with animated titles, stats, studio interviews, sideline interviews, mic'ed coaches, instant replay, and multiple camera angles -- everything but John Madden. Parents and fans had a pregame barbecue with a live rock band, sponsored by the Wayzata boosters. The game was anticipated by the teams, parents, students, and the communities all summer.

Every now and then, someone proposes moving the sports programs out of the public schools to the city or county rec departments. This would leave the schools to focus on academics and provide easier access to sports like football to charter and private school students. In light of last night's Big Game, and the many big games over the years, I think we need to find other solutions that don't take away this kind of tradition and memories for future public school teams and fans.

EDUCATION