With the rise of Trump, it’s popular for
liberals to complain about the sad state of civics education in the US
today. I think the sad state of civics
education is the result of liberals not wanting the populace to have a civics
education. The complaints are ironic to
the point of absurdity.
Liberals control education in the United
States. Any failures in education are liberal failures, either by neglect
or by design. I believe the failure of the US education system to teach
civics and relevant history is the desired result of the liberals who control
it. It's difficult to reconcile the "consent of the governed"
with regulatory overreach, executive orders and rogue court decisions which
obviously violate existing laws and the Constitution. Congress, an
elected coequal branch of government, has been cut out of most processes.
Notably left out of the civics classes that
are taught are the key writings and historical events that influenced or
explained the Constitution. For example,
John Locke wrote “Two Treatises on Government,” published in 1690, to justify
the overthrow of King James II in the Glorious Revolution of 1688. Locke advanced the idea that government
existed by the “consent of the governed,” not by the divine right of
kings. Locke also said that government’s
function was to preserve the “life, liberty and property” of the people it
governed. Another example is the “Federalist
Papers,” a group of 85 articles and essays arguing in favor of adopting the
Constitution written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay under
the pseudonym Publius. While the
Federalist Papers are considered to be an “incomparable exposition of the
Constitution” according to one historian, the odds are that most civics classes
never read even one of them.
Regulatory
agencies today have executive, legislative and judicial functions all rolled up
into a single agency. There is no separation of powers. They make
the rules, decide who to prosecute for breaking the rules and then conduct
hearings in their own administrative proceedings. They can decide to
declare war on coal or regulate the internet with no legal basis for doing
either. Congress, supposedly the legislative branch of the federal
government, can't stop them. According to the Constitution, "All
legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United
States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."
Clearly, administrative agencies are legislating. Anyone who
studies the Constitution is going to notice a huge disconnect between the
Constitution and current practice. It's a lot easier not to teach civics.
That way, teachers don't have to explain why we're not following the
Constitution. Since most teachers
are liberals, it would be against their political interest to point out that we
aren’t following the Constitution.
Voters might get the idea that regulatory agencies should be reined in.
Executive orders have become very popular with
the current administration. The way President Obama behaves is very close
to the behavior of Charles I (1600-1649). Charles I tried to rule without Parliament for 11 years.
President Obama used his pen and phone to rule by decree. Charles thought he
should be an absolute monarch by divine right. President Obama believes he is
"on the right side of history," acting with "the fierce urgency
of now." President Obama believes he can grant exemptions to any law
at any time, like refusing to collect Obamacare employer mandate taxes or the
ordering the administrative enactment of the Dream Act for illegal aliens
brought here as children after it failed to pass Congress. I hope we can solve
our problems with the Smartest President Ever without following the historical
pattern of Charles I. Charles' insistence on absolute power lead to the English
Civil War. Charles I lost the Civil War he initiated by trying to arrest 5
members of Parliament on the floor of the house. Victorious Parliamentary
forces executed Charles I in 1649. Oliver
Cromwell, the Parliamentary Army’s commander, became a military dictator in 1653
and held power until his death in 1658.
Please notice that most readers
have never heard of Charles I. This history, England from 1625 to 1776,
is a vital part of the background of the Constitution. The 2nd Amendment
is designed to make military dictatorships, like Cromwell's, impossible to
impose on the United States, because an armed populace would be able to resist.
The clause that says the president "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully
executed...." is aimed at Charles I and his son, James II, who were in the
habit of ignoring laws passed by Parliament.
Rogue court decisions are another area where
civics becomes hard to teach. The Constitution is a contract between the
states and the federal government. Article V. has two methods of how to
change the Constitution. Both methods require 3/4 of state legislatures
to ratify changes. Most people would agree that contracts can't be
changed unless both parties to the contract agree to the change.
Unfortunately, liberals believe the Constitution is a "living
document." This means that federal courts can reinterpret the Constitution
to mean something different than what was originally agreed to. This
means that the "consent of the governed" is no longer necessary to
change the Constitution.
Let's look at a recent example. The 14th
Amendment was passed in 1868. The Republicans who wrote it meant it to
protect recently freed black slaves from abuse from state laws and state
courts. Here's the key sentence: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge
the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any
state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of
law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the
laws." In 1868,
homosexual acts were illegal in every state. In 1868, the definition of
marriage was considered to be a state issue. In 1967, the "equal
protection of the law" clause of the 14th Amendment was used to strike
down state laws prohibiting mixed race marriage in Loving versus Virginia.
I think this is a logical extension of the original meaning of the
amendment, which was definitely about race.
In 2016, the 14th Amendment was used to
mandate same sex marriage for all states in Obergfell versus Hodges. This is a "living
Constitution" decision in two ways. Since in 1868 homosexual acts
were outlawed, the ratifiers of the 14th Amendment could not have known they
were voting for mandatory legalization of gay marriage. If they had
known, the 14th Amendment would not have passed. Also, since generally
marriage is a state, not a federal, issue, the case should have been decided on
state grounds. Under the "full faith and credit" clause,
marriages performed in one state must be recognized in all states.
Deciding the case this way would have allowed state legislatures to
decide for each state how to define marriage.
Changing the definition of marriage is a very
big change. It seems to me to be something to be resolved by legislative
processes after full debate. Changing the Constitution to mandate same
sex marriage for all states, overriding several state constitutions and
referendums, is really a violent remedy. Making a change this big without
the consent of the governed is very difficult to explain in rational terms to
students. It's a lot easier to avoid teaching civics.
Liberals control education completely in
the US. Education failures in the US are the result of liberal design or
liberal neglect. Teaching civics is
avoided because current practice deviates substantially from original
Constitutional design. Preserving ignorance of the Federalist Papers, John
Locke's "Two Treatises on Government" and the history of England from
1625 to 1776 allows liberal changes in government to go unchallenged by a
population too ignorant to realize they are being cheated.
Original Article:
