Header Image (book)

aowheader.3.2.gif

Monday, December 20, 2010

Constitution Classes For Congress

Interesting concept:
When the 112th Congress convenes next year, Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann’s Tea Pary Caucus will get a crash course on the constitutional separation of powers by Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia...in late January.

Bachmann spokesman Doug Sachtelben says the educational series is a response to conservatives’ calls for a return to constitutional principles in governing.
Video:



Attendance is voluntary, of course.

I have mixed feelings about these seminars. Have we really reached that point that our elected public servants at the federal level lack a basic understanding of our founding documents? If so, our nation has come to a sorry pass.

On the other hand, re-education with regard to our Constitution might be a good idea.

Your thoughts?

18 comments:

  1. While Kagan was at Harvard, she removed the requirement for students to take a consitutional law class..but did require International law, so fair to say they need a course. But then, is it now suppose to be a "living document" Bah humbug!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Perhaps some in Washington don't know their Constitution all that well.

    I believe most don't CARE what it says and they will do what they will, and even worse probably see it as a HINDERANCE to what they want to do.

    ReplyDelete
  3. AOW I do not believe that the most in the Congress know what the Constitution says or what the Declaration of Independence really means. Not these days. Years past perhaps, but not now.

    I realize Ted Kennedy is loathed by many, but that man was one of the few that new the Constitution and The Declaration of Independence well.

    On another note, I am disgusted with Joe Liberman. Did you see his picture with Harry Reid "in the wind?"

    Yes, a thumbs up for repealing Clinton's "Don't ask, Don't tell" policy for gays in the military.

    Sorry for the sidebar, but I must ask, will straight men and women feel comfortable and safe now in the military without having to fear being "hit on" by their own gender? Don't you think that is going to be a huge deterrent to people joining the military? I know if I was younger I would not join knowing that. God knows who would stick you during those open showers! God help this immoral nation.

    Hope today is bringing you a little more comfort than yesterday. I made sure leave you an encourage comment to your comment today AOW.

    God bless you. xo

    ReplyDelete
  4. I guess it's somewhat strange to have men and women that have already been voted as legislators to the United States Congress taking courses in basic Constitutional principles. Of course, if they're willing to truly delve into the subject and if it doesn't somehow impede them from being on the floor fighting off insane legislation, then why not?

    I think the big news this morning is the FCC's push tomorrow for more extensive internet regulation. And this is after both Congress and the courts said "no way!" If you want discuss true Constitutional dilemmas, there's one right there.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "Government should be censoring the American news media" Rep. Elect Allen West

    Will that cretin be attending?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Yo Duck,

    First of all, why are you coming down on one guy on "our side" when "your side" has made a career of censorship and repression of free speech since its incipience? Second, Allen West was referring to the media's shameful coverage of WikiLeaks' leaking of classified U.S. documents (i.e. condoned cyberterrorism). You want to slam censorship? Why don't you slam Henry Waxman or the myriad other "cretins" that call themselves liberal and seek censorship of the internet?

    ReplyDelete
  7. MJB,
    LOL to that comment you've made to Duck!

    ReplyDelete
  8. How about slamming Al Sharpton, who wants to work with the FCC to drag Rush and 'others' for going beyond the limit of free speech?

    In his own words.

    You're pathetically predictable and willfully blind, Ducky.

    ReplyDelete
  9. MJB,
    I think the big news this morning is the FCC's push tomorrow for more extensive internet regulation. And this is after both Congress and the courts said "no way!"

    Serious business indeed!

    Controlling the media, including controlling the Internet, is tyranny's best method of controlling the people.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Bunkerville,
    Thanks for making that important point about Kagan.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Brooke,
    Perhaps some in Washington don't know their Constitution all that well.

    I believe most don't CARE what it says...


    Something seems to happen to politicians' brains when the arrive to Capitol Hill.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Layla,
    On another note, I am disgusted with Joe Liberman. Did you see his picture with Harry Reid "in the wind?"

    Yes, a thumbs up for repealing Clinton's "Don't ask, Don't tell" policy for gays in the military.


    Really? I haven't checked the news headlines and news photos today?

    Along the lines of your tangent (I don't mind tangents at all!), see this post over at Be Sure You're RIGHT, Then Go Ahead. Brief excerpt:

    First of all, many Senators and Congressmen apparently changed their minds about the policy after the so-called poll was released in which the media and legislators claimed that 70% of troops supported repeal. But, if anyone actually read the report, they would have seen a different outcome...

    Quite a list of stats there!

    In my view, the repeal of DADT has more to do with pandering for votes from the "gay block," or whatever it's called.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Along the lines of MJB's mention of regulation the Internet, see THIS.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I'm afraid Brooke is right, a majority of these people don't care what's in the Constitution or Declaration. They have their vision of Utopia and by thunder, they are going to bring it about by whatever means they can.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Alligator,
    Their view of Utopia is one of Utopia for them, the elitists.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I thought most of elected representatives are lawyers. Did Constitutional Law get dropped from Law School as well as government (public) schools? I know Obama studied Constituonal Law because he was very clear that he considered it wrong and a hurdle to his agenda. Of course he did just figure out he could bypass the voters, the courts, and the Constitutional by misusing the Office of the Presidency.

    Welcome to the new dictatorship with death panels, FCC regs, Czars, drilling bans...etc etc etc....oh yeah we got change all right..

    meanwhile the liberal left throws out barbs and jabs as they quote this or that Conservative who speaks out of frustration and anger over a government weaking this country and stripping away our liberties.....

    ReplyDelete
  17. Blogginator,
    Did Constitutional Law get dropped from Law School as well as government (public) schools?

    Not dropped, exactly, but taught in a "different way."

    The left has been infiltrating colleges for decades, particularly the Ivy League schools.

    One would expect lawyers, who should be quite the capitalists, to be conservatives. They used to be, but not so much now. Instead, today's lawyers mine the loopholes in existing law and precedence. Plus, many have climbed onto a moral high horse, meaning that they want to bring about societal justice contrary to the principles of our founding documents.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Also, in my view, America would do better with fewer lawyers in positions of governmental power.

    A little factoid: nothing in our Constitution states that a Supreme Court justice has to be a lawyer. I suspect that our Founders left out that particular requirement deliberately. They likely looked across the Pond at England and saw how lawyers strove to circumvent the English Bill of Rights.

    ReplyDelete

We welcome civil dialogue at Always on Watch. Comments that include any of the following are subject to deletion:
1. Any use of profanity or abusive language
2. Off topic comments and spam
3. Use of personal invective