Help for all the folks here. Constitution 101

The U.S. Constitution is the key to securing liberty for all Americans -- yet very few know exactly what it says and what freedoms it protects. Hillsdale College is working to make 2015 the "Year of the Constitution," dedicating this year to educating millions of Americans about this critical document. That's why the College is offering its most popular course, "Constitution 101" for free, when you sign up now.

Understand the Constitution like never before - for FREE

Hillsdale's course, Constitution 101: The Meaning and History of the Constitution, features the same professors who teach this course on Hillsdale College's campus. Hillsdale is one of the only colleges in America -- outside of the military academies -- that requires every student to take a course on the Constitution to graduate.

http://lp.hillsdale.edu/constitution-101-signup/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=newsfeed&utm_content=breitbart&utm_campaign=con101

Hillsdale is a second rate Michigan college where students would be far better served taking a constitution course at their local junior college.

Question,  Markle?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

If Pace High School decides to do a morning prayer in homeroom,  
how would you interpret and apply that clause in the 1st Amendment?  Would you say the Constitution does or does not prohibit that school prayer?  And explain why you take whichever position on this?

2seaoat wrote:Hillsdale is a second rate Michigan college where students would be far better served taking a constitution course at their local junior college.

Obviously you did neither.

Thank you for sharing.

Obviously you did neither.

Thank you for sharing.


You are right, I was reading Lawrance Tribe's treatise cover to cover and being taught the constitution by best, but you are like a person pretending to be a wine expert talking about Boone's farm apple's crisp flavor.

Now Hillsdale this is the standard:

in 2013 Hilldale president Larry Arnn was criticized for his remarks about ethnic minorities when he testified before the Michigan State Legislature against the Common Core curriculum standards. Expressing concern about government interference with educational institutions, he recalled that shortly after he assumed the presidency at Hillsdale he received a letter from the state Department of Education that said his college "violated the standards for diversity," adding, "because we didn't have enough dark ones, I guess, is what they meant." After being criticized for calling minorities "dark ones",

1400 students and an administration against affirmative action. They filed suit that they did not have to comply........you know the constitutional experts......and the Supreme Court (surprise) ruled they did......so they withdrew from all federal assistance and became the Mecca for Bat Chit crazy.



Hey friends!

Just to give you a heads up, ugly things are happening in the Supreme Court right now. Justice Anthony Kennedy is seen as the "swing vote" and, if that is the case, he will have the power to legalize same-sex marriage NATIONWIDE! Yeah... I do not even think we can imagine the effects this could have on our nation, the church, and families.

So we are praying for God to give the Justices and the courts wisdom, courage, and discernment, for evil to be revealed and destroyed, and for a heart of love and sound mind.

There is a "time of prayer" at the Old Snack Bar Tuesday, May 5, from 4:30-5pm so people can pray together against marriage equality.

Great official letters being sent out this year........by Mr. Markle's constitutional experts.......too funny that Mr. Markle consistently finds the dark side in America.

Kagan and Ginsburg should recuse as they have already performed same sex marriages.

by Wordslinger Today at 10:43 am
KarlRove wrote:
“
Kagan and Ginsburg should recuse as they have already performed same sex marriages.
”

I don't think you've ever revealed it, but just what is your sex War Hero?
-----
Yes to sex

by Sal Today at 10:51 am
KarlRove wrote:
“
Kagan and Ginsburg should recuse as they have already performed same sex marriages.
”
The other seven should recuse themselves because they haven't.
---
Not logical

http://www.forwardprogressives.com/the-simple-truth-republicans-hate-our-constitution/

The Simple Truth: Republicans Hate Our Constitution May 9, 2013 By Allen Clifton

I’m so tired of hearing this absurd claim by Republicans that they are the “party for Constitutional values.” I wrote an article a couple weeks ago about how Republicans love a Constitution, just not ours. But even when I spelled it out simply for them, they still didn’t get it. They don’t understand that simply wanting something to be true doesn’t mean that it is. Republicans, listen and listen good—you are not the party of Constitutional values. Not even close. Just because you put a “God Bless America” bumper sticker on your vehicle and fly an American flag at your home doesn’t make you a patriot, and it damn sure doesn’t make you an advocate for our Constitution. In fact, almost daily I read about some right-wing agenda that seeks to violate our Constitution. It’s pretty amazing how many Republican politicians, and their voters, support the stance to ignore and dismiss federal laws if they disagree with them. Abortion? Well, we disagree with it, so we can try to violate the Constitutionally protected right a woman has over her own body. The Affordable Care Act? Well, we disagree with it, so it’s okay to try and ignore that Constitutionally upheld law. Religion in public school? Well, we think our country was founded on Christianity (even though the word Christianity doesn’t appear even once in our Constitution), so it’s okay to ignore the First Amendment and force religion (as long as it’s the Christian religion) into our public schools. Freedom for all? Well, not if you’re homosexual. Then we’ll continue to violate the First Amendment by supporting laws that define marriage as between a man and a woman. A belief that’s based on the Christian Bible—a belief of which millions of Christians don’t even support. Conservatives don’t like that minorities often don’t vote for their party, so it’s acceptable to try and change our Fourteenth Amendment and the Constitutional definition of what constitutes an American citizen. Certain demographics don’t vote for us, so let’s find ways to make it harder for them to vote. Similar to poll taxes or tests once used to discourage certain voters from voting. When they call themselves the “party of Constitutional values,” they simply have got to be joking. The only amendment they really defend without question is our Second Amendment—and even then they ignore the entire first half of it and just focus on the last part. Republicans are for their interpretation of what they want the Constitution to be, not what it actually is. Conservatives have no problem ignoring our Constitution, or violating American rights, on issues of which they disagree. It’s just laughable that the party which openly tries to defy Constitutionally protected rights whenever they disagree with them, flies this false banner of the party for “Constitutional values.” The worst part is, deep down they really think “Constitutional values” means a nation ruled by theocracy (a theocracy built on their perversion of Christianity), denying women’s rights, opposing gay rights, changing the definition of what it is to be an American citizen and a country where gun rights are more important than human rights. Sadly, they’re just becoming more and more extreme on these issues, and that’s a slap to the face of our Constitution and our country as a whole.

******************

othershoe1030 wrote:The Constitution looks like a simple document but obviously it is not. Scholars study it for years and still people disagree as to what it means in particular situations.

It astounds me that some people can walk around with a pocket version and claim to understand what the Constitution means. Then there are others who have spent their entire adult lives studying it and still we need the Supreme Court to interpret its meaning.  

The job of the Supreme Court is to determine if a law complies with the Constitution. Understanding the Constitution is relatively simple. Semi-retired President Obama says it is wrong. Plain and simple, I'm sure that's one of the reasons he believes he is entitled to simply ignore the founding document.

Basically, the Constitution is set up to protect the citizen from government.  Think of where the founding fathers came - England.  They fled intrusion of government.

So the Constitution is for the people.

Politicians, especially President Obama who has been outspoken on this matter, feel the Constitution needs change to give power to the government to help people.

Personal rights is not enough so that a person can have the same chance as others to do well...they want to intrude to make sure everyone has an equal hand in the pocket of riches. 

Interpretation...in the eye of the socialist vs a constitutionalist.  

Limited Government - the constitutionalist

Unlimited Government - Socialist  (among others that can fall into this category)

It matters very little what anybody's opinion is on this forum or who they think can best interpret the Constitution. That is irrelevant. The only relevant consideration is what the Supreme Court decision or decisions are on a particular issue, and the ability to interpret and understand that decision. Most of what I have read on this thread is pedestrian and sophomoric. Mr. Markle has no grasp of the Constitution, and is not well read on Supreme Court decisions. I doubt if anybody has read an entire Supreme Court case, and gets their interpretations from some anonymous person's blog on the internet. The Constitution is interpreted by the Supreme Court and the depth and quality of any expert on the constitution starts with a comprehensive understanding of case law and fact patterns which define the rule of law. The use of the word socialism when discussing the constitution is a tell of a complete void of the requisite understanding of the constitution and the Supreme Court cases.

2seaoat wrote:It matters very little what anybody's opinion is on this forum or who they think can best interpret the Constitution.   That is irrelevant.  The only relevant consideration is what the Supreme Court decision or decisions are on a particular issue, and the ability to interpret and understand that decision.  Most of what I have read on this thread is pedestrian and sophomoric.  Mr. Markle has no grasp of the Constitution, and is not well read on Supreme Court decisions.  I doubt if anybody has read an entire Supreme Court case, and gets their interpretations from some anonymous person's blog on the internet.  The Constitution is interpreted by the Supreme Court and the depth and quality of any expert on the constitution starts with a comprehensive understanding of case law and fact patterns which define the rule of law.  The use of the word socialism when discussing the constitution is a tell of a complete void of the requisite understanding of the constitution and the Supreme Court cases.

Shut down the forum. Seaoat has deemed it irrelevant.

Only those in Judges clothes can participate.

Shut down the forum. Seaoat has deemed it irrelevant.

Only those in Judges clothes can participate.
Quite the contrary......it is entertaining.....like Art Linkletter talking with children about their perceptions.

Sal wrote:

Well,  if they are,  then we can react in one of two ways.  
Either,  one,  we can mock them and put up cartoons.  lol
OR,  two,  we can engage them like I try to engage the Truthers.  

So again,  why don't you address the question I asked in post #3,  Markle?
It would help if you can give us your thinking about at least one facet of the Constitution.  

p.s.  we all here have opinions about this and everything else,  seaoat.
True,  the SCOTUS has the power to decide how the Constitution will be interpreted.  
But,  public opinion DOES influence ELECTED officials and it's an elected official who decides which blowhard is gonna sit on the Supreme Court.
So even though you claim to have Supreme Knowledge of the Supreme Court,  you fail to even understand that the Constitution was designed such that the ultimate power of the Supreme Court was placed in the hands of the people's representative.  That's one of the "checks" which was written into the document to provide "balance".

So even though you claim to have Supreme Knowledge of the Supreme Court,

Few mechanics I know claim to have supreme knowledge of all things mechanical, but they are able to distinguish the difference between a carb and a spark plug. It does not take Supreme knowledge to realize most cannot make that simple distinction when discussing the constitution. I am amazed that most schools have not worked harder to make civics courses mandatory. Ignorance can be cured, but when people think that the shifted burden of proof in the context of a manslaughter case where a prima facia case is made converts into a conviction......I am speechless, and believe that individual probably when buying a spark plug for his vehicle gets a candle and a lighter(which works).

2seaoat wrote:  Ignorance can be cured, but when people think that the shifted burden of proof in the context of a manslaughter case where a prima facia case is made converts into  a conviction......I am speechless.

Are you talking about Zimmerman?  Which "people" thought that? And what on earth does that have to do with a discussion of the U.S. Constitution?

And what on earth does that have to do with a discussion of the U.S. Constitution?




If you have to ask the question, then you are the answer.  The common law, statutory law and constitution are the fabric of our nation's laws.  Ignorance disallows an intelligent conversation of any component if a person lacks even cursory reading, but relies on ad hoc blogs and interpretations from people more disconnected from the beauty of the connections and flow of our laws in America.  It is amusing to see somebody copy a statute or amendment to the bill of rights and without knowledge or context spout an opinion.......like butts....we all have one, but a very little reading can go a long way in curing abject ignorance.

2seaoat wrote:And what on earth does that have to do with a discussion of the U.S. Constitution?




If you have to ask the question, then you are the answer.  

The reason I have to ask the question is because you often go off on tangents and what it is you're trying to communicate gets lost in that.