I have a theory that most Americans, including many if not most well informed poltically active Americans, have never actually read the Constitution of these United States. I get this impression from the manner in which people sometimes discuss the Constitution and the rights contained within. (People presuming that private citizens criticizing or choosing not to associate, either personally or fiscally, with others when they disapprove of something that other person has said offends the right to freedom of speech is a perfect example.)
So I have some questions. Have you ever read the US Constitution and if so when did you first read it? (I have. The first time was in undergrad in my “US Constitutional History” Class).
By extension, who has read the full text of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts? I must confess, I have not. I’ve only read portions.
Are there any other sources or documents that people think we should all read or that other people profess to understand without ever having read? (The Bible comes to mind).
…it’s the understanding. One group that stands out for its reading of the Constitution are the anti-guvmint Freemen in Montana and Idaho way. Granted, they focus particularly on one amendment, but still they read it religiously.
<
p>
Frankly, I think it’s like religion — the Bible is greatly enhanced by reading St Thomas Aquinas and other commentary, so too is the Constitution best read in context. (This is from someone with a miniature copy of the Constitution on his desk, and the text of the First Amendment posted on his classroom wall.)
I agree that all Americans should read the Constitution, including all 27 amendments. However, as sabutai mentions, simply reading the text alone is not entirely helpful in and of itself.
<
p>
After all, what the heck does “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech” mean? The debate has gone on for many years, and will go on for many more.
sabutai and hoyapaul are both right here. If you just look at the Constitution and nothing else you won’t get an accurate picture of whats going on. With the 1st amendment example the framers were very clear in saying that only Congress shall pass no law. The states were free to, and did, have laws establishing an official church, or allowing censorship, etc. The Congregational Church wasn’t disestablished in Massachusetts until the 1840s.
<
p>
If you only read the US Constitution, and no other commentary on it, you would never know that the 1st amendment had been applied to the states as well because it is not explicitly in there. If you only read the text of the MA Constitution you would never know that gay marriage was legal, because no where is that made explicit either. There has been 200 plus years of case law dramatically altering the way we read and interpret those documents.
<
p>
The MA Constitution did make it impermissible to discriminate based on gender — and therefore outlawing homosexual marriage was, in fact, unconstitutional. The MA courts didn’t write law — they erased unconstitutional law.
<
p>
Cue the lawyers, cuz I ain’t one. Feel free to shred this comment as appropriate.
…”all men are born free and equal” doesn’t mean what it says.
<
p>
That was the provision of the state’s 1780 constitution that the MA state courts used to declare slavery in MA unconstitutional in 1783. And that was the provision of the 1780 constitution that the MA SJC used to declare the state’s discrimination against same sex marriage unconstitutional in 2003.
…that the Constitution needs to be considered in context, especially the Supreme Court interpretations and rulings. Another perfect example of the disconnect is the “right to privacy”. Ask anyone on the street if the Constitution guarantees a right to privacy and most would say yes. But does it? If so, how and why? The fact that so many people ignore or presume to already know the source document is, to me, very interesting and perhaps indicative of some of our big problems as a society. Why do some assume that their beliefs about what the Constitution says and represents are true without having taken the care to read it?
…is available on-line, but the on-line version is so poorly organized as to be virtually worthless. It seems to have the original text, plus pointers to amendments–all of them.
<
p>
I’ve read the US constitution. Of course, we had to read the US constitution in the ConLaw course in law school. Reading the constitution is only half the battle of understanding how the constitution has been applied. Illustration: do you know what the 11th amendment is supposed to accomplish? The Supreme Court apparently doesn’t even understand that.
…is another perfect example. How on earth did what was written become the sovereign immunity doctrine that exists today? The obvious answer is the Supreme Court told us what it meant. But that begs the question, why?
<
p>
What people perceive of now as the “Constitution” is a vague understanding of how it has been interpreted. I would guess that more people are clued into interpretational doctrine (or some bastardization thereof) than they are to the actual text.
…How on earth did what was written become the sovereign immunity doctrine that exists today?
<
p>
is activist judges on the Rehnquist Supreme Court.
<
p>
The Seminole vs. FL line of cases defies explanation. The doctrine certainly has nothing to do with the 11th amendment.
As far as how much Americans know of their Constitution, here is an interesting series of poll questions put out by the First Amendment Center on the subject.
<
p>
For example, only 13% of people could name freedom of the press as a First Amendment freedom, and only 17% noted that it protects freedom of religion.
of the Bible.
<
p>
<
p>
Hilarious for a country that fancies itself God’s chosen, church-goin’, Bible-thumpin’ nation.
<
p>
Similar hilarity ensues from claims that the Founders were Evangelical Christians, or that American law is based on the Bible. Might as well write “moran” on one’s head.
I had a con law professor, whom I will not embarass by naming him or the school he taught at, who thought that “Thou Shalt Not Kill” was the first commandment. (I only know that it is in fact the sixth commandment because of the scene in “Kind Hearts and Coronets”). I don’t think most people know much about the commandments except that they forbid murder, adultery, and coveting thy neighbor’s ass.
there is an ongoing and very a fine display of the extent of constitutional ignorance in the form of arguements against and press coverage around the marriage equality issue (yes friends, all posts lead to marriage equality :).
<
p>
there is a constant claim by anti-equality folks that their freedom of religion will be toast wherever marriage equality exists. this claim is given erroneous substance by:
1) journalists who seldom care to tease apart civil v church marriage, and the roll of the 1st amendment in protecting a church’s right to refuse to marry whoever they want to refuse to marry; and
2) legislators, who write legally unnecessary escape clauses for churches into pro-equality legislation. all because anti-equality religious fanatics never bother to understand the constitution.
<
p>
a fine display. a mighty fine display.
The Federalist Papers are extremely useful reading for anyone who wants to talk about about what the Founding Fathers thought or meant when designing our government. Not that I expect most people to read all 85, I doubt I ever got through all of them. But reading at least some of the original source documentation that argues for the then-new system of government is instructive. Hamilton’s essay 78, for example, the Judiciary Department, explains why the Constitution appointed judges for life.
<
p>
What I also find interesting about the Federalist Papers is that those essays were published in general-circulation newspapers of the time for voters to read during the debate on whether to ratify the new form of government. That’s a sobering thought when considering the “quality” of much of our political discourse today.
<
p>
To answer your questions, yes I’ve read the full U.S. Constitution, all amendments included, I think for the first time in high school American History class. No, I haven’t read the full Massachusetts one, only portions as well. I did not grow up and go to school here, so wouldn’t have seen it in school, except as excerpts for being one of the models for our federal form of government.
<
p>
Separately, I still remember screaming at the television set during presidential debates when Ronald Reagan declared that the Constitution guaranteed Americans the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Kind of depressing when the man who takes an oath to protect and defend the document outlining the laws of our land doesn’t know the difference between our legally binding Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.
…if memory serves, FP78 and some of the other FPs regarding the “judiciary department” make clear that what has come to be referred to as “judicial review” was presumed to be part of “judicial power” referenced at the beginning of Article III of the US Constitution at the time the constitution was ratified. Judicial review didn’t require Marbury vs. Madison.
<
p>
The constitution was not written in a vacuum. There were a number of common law measures that were presumed to exist when the constitution was written and ratified. Including Habeas Corpus. And that is why Speedy Gonzales’s claim that there is no right of HC in the constitution–despite the fact that there obviously is (how can there be a provision–in Art. I–limiting bases on which a right can be suspended, for a right that does not exist?) is so laughable.
I’d suggest adding the Anti-Federalist Papers to the reading list, too.
<
p>
It’s fascinating to me that these issues remain open to debate even today. Well, at least to history/polisci/philosophy geeks like us.
<
p>
And to save another post further down, I think many people could benefit from reading…
–the Koran, for religious understanding
–deToqueville, for Americans to understand ourselves
–Machiavelli, for understanding on governing. not the Prince, the one where he champions republicanism (not the republican party). The Prince is about as misunderstood as a book can be.
–Makes me wanna holler (Nathan McCall)–for understanding race
It Can’t Happen Here by Sinclair Lewis and 1984 by George Orwell. Because it can happen here and it can be that bad.
The Machiavelli book you were refering to is Discorsi or Discourses on Livy.
<
p>
I think other important books are Plato’s The Republic and Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations.
Aristotle’s The Politics over Plato’s Republic. Then again I’d recommend anything by The Philosopher over his teacher if you could only choose one.
<
p>
Aristotle lays it all out for you. In the Republic you have someone ask Socrates what justice is and 450 pages later you have a description of the just state, and by analogy a justly ordered soul, but still no definition of what justice is. If you had to read something by Plato I would reccomend the Apology. Its shorter, more to the point, and better articulates how to live a more virtuous (just?) life.
…in large part because they lost the debate when the Constitution was ratified.
<
p>
But you do have a point.
by Thucydides. Not exactly on the subject of American government, but… reading it made me realize that really very little has changed in over the ensuing 2,400 years. GOvernments still make treaties and only keep them until it is inconvenient. Political factions within a country happily undercut (or even sacrifice) each other for the sake of power. Good leaders make bad decisions. Etc. After reading that, I’m just not surprised by the advent of Bushco types. I will of course still work in opposition to them, but I’m over that common schoolkid assumtion that we are at some apex of evolution. Noop. Not yet.
No student can graduate from a public high school in the Commonwealth without passing at least 1 year of US History…there was a time when it was also in fashion for every student to take a year of Civics/ Problems of Democracy.
<
p>
Part of the curicullum in “POD” class was the reading and discussion (and even memorization of parts) of several great documents:
<
p>
The Declaration (of Independence)
The Preamble (of the Constitution)
The Bill (of Rights)
The (Gettysburg) Address
<
p>
Students today are rarely asked to memorize passages of anything…but it is a great mind exercise…and many of the words stick with you long after your school years have passed…when you read the daily news, sometimes the passages echo back to you…
<
p>
At least some schools still do this – at my sons’ Cambridge K-8 public school (King Open) the 7/8 students read through the entire constitution – section by section with commentary, the Bill of Rights and some of the major amendments (the post civil war 13,14 and 15 amendments, women’s suffrage, etc) They read primary documents from supporters and opponents of the Constitution and the amendments. And they were tested on the different sections. Because he has a reading disability I did read through it with him and I think embarrassed him by writing notes to the teacher when I disagreed with some of the accuracy of the commentary . But on the whole it was a solid introduction to the Constitution and set in context.
<
p>
It was quite an arduous process (for all the school’s reputation as a groovy school – calling teachers by their first names, mixed grades, a social justice based curriculum – it is academically rigorous – my fifth grader’s class is putting on Midsummer Night’s Dream – through streamlined it is all in Shakespeare’s language) and I think very worthwhile. My older son did it last year – but he remembers it all and it informs out discussions about things in the news (the role of juries, who declares war, tax issues).
<
p>
And while I agree you need context – there is nothing like reading the documents as the starting point – they give the context to the cases and commentary.
I read the US Constitution… probably when I was in college? Or shortly after? I re-read some of the amendments every few years, and occasionally an article, but haven’t reread the whole thing start to end. Massachusetts, on the other hand… I’d love to find an online readable copy of it that makes any sense! I’ve tried to find answers to some questions about the MA Constitution by looking at it online and have usually ended up confused.
at the State House. The you can dog ear it, mark it up, whatever. Much nicer than online, unless of course you’re doing a word search.
I think the problem is the document itself, which contains many noble sentiments, but not in any particular order. I think of the Massachusetts Constitution as an old Yankee attic with all kinds of wonderful things in it, just sort of piled up here and there over the past couple of hundred years or so.
it does make sense, but you do have to familiarize yourself with it. all those former bit ‘n pieces that have been removed and make the online version confusing? yep, they’re all there in print too. but it’s easier to ex out those sections on paper once you figure out what’s been supersceeded by what.
Is anybody interested in our press release below? Thanks for your consideration.
_____________________________________________________
<
p>GRANDPARENTS FILE CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT AGAINST DCF
<
p>ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND THEIR GRANDSON
<
p>FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
<
p>CONTACT: Mare S. Fox, Esq. 413-253-0037 (or respond to post on Blue Mass. Group)
<
p>SPRINGFIELD, MA – Two Franklin County grandparents and their custodial grandson contend they survived a two-year reign of terror by Hampshire-Franklin Department of Children and Families’ employees. Last week they filed a complaint in federal court alleging the agency violated their constitutional and state civil rights.
<
p> In their complaint, Grandparents Michael Hootstein and Kathlyn Stein allege that DCF has become an out of control agency, where DCF employees (including a former DCF Commissioner, a Greenfield area DCF director, three social workers and a DCF attorney based in Springfield): prevented them from appearing before juvenile court on proceedings concerning their grandson; threatened them and their former attorney; created a series of state-created harm to the child; conspired to commit felony extortion and deprive them of constitutionally protected rights; defamed them; intentionally inflicted emotional distress upon them; invaded their privacy; and violated Constitutionally protected rights to free speech, due process, access to the courts, equal protection and to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.
<
p> The couples’ involvement with DCF began in January 2004 when DCF employees determined that their grandson had been neglected by his parents. DCF promised to begin providing substantive services for the child and his disabled mother; but never did. By July 2004, the parents had signed paperwork to make the couple co-guardians of the child and their grandson lived with his grandparents 3-4 days/nights per week.
<
p> In late October 2004, Mr. Hootstein and Ms. Stein filed an emergency motion to obtain full temporary custody of the child in Greenfield Probate and Family Court. In an effort to gain control of Grandson, DCF employees unlawfully seized the child from his co-guardian grandparents and forced the mother to leave her home with the child and enter a homeless shelter. Three weeks later, DCF employees seized grandson from his mother and ejected his mother into the streets of Northampton where she languished. DCF employees never filed any neglect and/or abuse complaint against co-guardian Grandparents.
<
p> DCF refused to ever recognize the couples’ co-guardian status. By not naming Mr. Hootstein and Ms. Stein in their removal proceedings, DCF prevented them from accessing the juvenile court system to protest the proceedings. At later hearings involving custody of the child, DCF employees threatened that Mr. Hootstein and Ms. Stein would never see the child again if they filed in court to protest DCF’s actions.
<
p> DCF employees placed the child in foster care with strangers where he suffered emotional abuse. DCF forced Mr. Hootstein to complete supervised visitations and later let the child reside with Mr. Hootstein and Ms. Stein on a part-time basis. Eventually, Grandparents were approved by DCF as Kinship Foster Parents, but DCF continued to impose retaliatory requirements on Mr. Hootstein and Ms. Stein and continuously threatened and intimidated Grandparents. DCF forced Mr. Hootstein and Ms. Stein to complete two psychological evaluations, disclose medical records, used threats to the child to extort foster Grandparent’s unwilling submission to their unlawful demands and even forced their dog to be psychologically examined. They were told by the area director and DCF attorneys that threats to remove the child would be carried out if they filed any motions in court.
<
p> DCF’s reign of terror finally ended on September 25, 2006, when Plaintiff Grandparents prevailed in state court and a judge decreed that they be appointed permanent guardians of Grandson. They consider themselves lucky to have survived the DCF system.