The high schoolers' grasp of first amendment.

Textkit Community Open Board
1

is deplorable.

http://www.knightfdn.org/default.asp?story=news_at_knight/releases/2005/2005_01_31_firstamend.html

Among its findings:

  • Nearly three-fourths of high school students either do not know how they feel about the First Amendment or admit they take it for granted.
  • Seventy-five percent erroneously think flag burning is illegal.
  • Half believe the government can censor the Internet.
  • More than a third think the First Amendment goes too far in the rights it guarantees.

Don’t they teach the first amendment in Gov’t classes?? I guess students don’t get much out of it! Even private and charter schools were included.

2

What’s the first amendment?

3

Then we are doomed…



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.

freedom of religion, speech, press, and protest; probably the most important amendment.

4

i’ve never read it before, no wonder so many lawyers argue about it, it’s so ambiguously written (unless things like the right of freedom of speech and the press are positively laid down somewhere else in the constitution)

5

Yeah, I was also wondering whether statements like that were just a statement explaining the law, or the law itself.

6

a quick google search shows that’s the actual language and that’s the provision that’s meant to guarantee freedom of speech somehow without expressly declaring or assigning the right and without saying that other governmental agencies can’t encroach on the right either. it’s like guaranteeing your right to live by saying Mr X is not allowed to kill you :slight_smile:

but e.g. the aussie constitution which is meant to be a blend of the best parts of the us and uk constitutions is full of ambiguities too, what can you do :slight_smile: :slight_smile:

7

Better yet. “Mr. X shall not make a binding public announcement regarding his intentions to kill you.”

8

but e.g. the aussie constitution which is meant to be a blend of the best parts of the us and uk constitutions is full of ambiguities too, what can you do

The UK does not have a constitution

9

The UK does not have a constitution

Yes it does. ALL states have constitutions. The UK constitution is just unwritten.

As for the problems with your youth, ClassicalClarinet, I suspect that it is merely something they will eventually grow out of. I remember at secondary school, the equivalent of high school in the UK, if you had asked the kids who the Prime Minister was or what the age of voting was, they would not have been able to provide an accurate answer. At that age they’re all a bit discombobulated. They’ll change eventually.

10

Yes it does. ALL states have constitutions. The UK constitution is just unwritten.

As usual, at issue here is a problem of definitions.

Let us call Definition A the theory that a consitution is, grosso modo, a series of rules detailing the structure of the state and the relationship between individuals and the state. Probably most modern states have one (although I would not bet on it - Western Sahara anybody? Taliban Afganistan? etc… After all, they might be chaotic, but no one will argue that they are not states). Let us agree that whether these rules are “written” or “unwritten” is another discussion. Let us also agree that whether it is followed or not is also another story. I would like to say, though, that this phenomenon is, in the course of human history, very recent, although it seems to have perdured in Europe under one form or the other since Antiquity.

Let us call Definition B the theory that a constitution is the highest law of the land, the “rules from which all other rules are derived”. I happen to be partisan of this definition, detailed in the “Pure Theory of Law” of Hans Kelsen. It is not that far from a form of “social contract”. This definition is also the one developped by most of the Renaissance and Enlightenment philosphers which inspired the drafting of modern constitutions - of the top of my head I will cite Jean-Jacques Rousseau.

The characteristic of this “highest law of the land” is that it is the one most difficult to modify, as the rules defining its modification are very strict. (eg the U.S.). After all, the first amendment would not be of very great use if it could simply be modified by a 50 percent vote from both house of congresses. Or, to cite Rousseau “plus les délibérations sont importantes et graves, plus l’avis qui l’emporte doit approcher l’unanimité.” (Le contrat social, livre IV chapitre II).

Under definition B, there are many countries which do not have constitutions. But to simplify this discussion let us examine the UK, Israel, and the U.S. All three have Constitutions as understood under definition A. But only the U.S. has a constitution as understood under definition B.

The U.S. and Israel have one document outlining the structure of the state and the relationship between individuals and the state (although in the case of the U.S. at least this document, taken alone, cannot be at all understood, and is effectively worthless, without also taking into account the mountains of decisions of the Supreme Court on the topics of relevance).
England does not have such a document, although it has a collection of rules (most of them, actually, written) outlining how the state is to be governed, and what the relationship is between the state and individuals. These rules were developed (and for the most part, written) over the last millenia, but for the most part are creations of the 19th century.

If one wants to change the U.S. constitution, it is, to put it mildly, very hard. That is why, excluding the bill of rights, it was only modified 17 times in around 215 years (how static - probably the least modified “constitution” in the world). Article 5 explains the process.

However, should the U.K. or Israel want to change one of its very important rules, “constitutional rules” if you wish, they would need… a 50% vote in the house of commons, or a 50% vote in the Knesset. The rules detailed in the Isralie or UK “constitution” (Definition A) are therefore like any other law. Therefore, the Labour Party could, entirely legally, declare, for example, Tony Blair Prime Minister for life. And there is absolutely nothing anybody could do about it. Whatever rules not permitting him from doing so, may be abolished with a 50% vote from the house of commons.

As an example (of the top of my head):
-Tony Blair is modifiying the composition and powers of the house of lords. Such a process would be considered a “constitutional modification” (definition A) in any other country. But Blair can do what he wants. As a parallel, it would be like the U.S. House of Representatives modifying the composition and powers of the U.S. Senate following a 50% vote in the said House.

So no, I really do not consider the UK to have a constitution.

jc

11

I will add another funny example concerning the UK:

The country is a party to the European Convention on Human Rights (a document which could be regarded as “constitutional” considering the amount of rights it outlines). In most member countries, it is very hard to withdraw from the convention. In England, as well (from what I remember), there must be a 75% vote in the House of Commons to withdraw from the treaty.

The funny thing is, that the House of Commons need only pass a 50% vote to modifiy this 75% rule!

Conclusion: There is really no “high law of the land”, hence no constitutions, in many countries, including England.

jc

12

Among its findings:

  • Nearly three-fourths of high school students either do not know how they feel about the First Amendment or admit they take it for granted.
  • Seventy-five percent erroneously think flag burning is illegal.
  • Half believe the government can censor the Internet.
  • More than a third think the First Amendment goes too far in the rights it guarantees.

I have become suspicious of all poll results, in particular, polls which claim to report new lows in the knowledge of American students.

I don’t believe any poll results until I see the actual questions asked, who was asked the questions, and how the results were tabulated. It’s far too easy to construct a poll which tells you exactly what you want to hear.

The news media are telling us, over and over again, how stupid we are. I don’t believe it. Remember, you American folks here reading Latin and Greek, when they say Americans are stupid, they are talking about YOU. Are you stupid?

You can find stupidity anyplace you look for it. And if stupidity is all you look for, then stupidity is all you will find.

Even the reported results are senseless on their face. If “nearly three-fourths” of the students don’t know how they feel about it, then how can “more than a third” think it goes to far? Shouldn’t the pollsters themselves know how to add?

13

the ‘more than a third’ question was asked after the first one; the students were read aloud the amendment. Of course the poll results may not be accurate, but the numbers are so large I don’t think it would make much difference.

14

Did you know that 75% of all statistics you hear are wrong?

15

…And 82% of statistics are made up on the spot.

16

That’s true, but it assigns the right by default, by prohibiting the Congress from creating legislation limiting the right.

That’s also true, but in the meantime, the rights in the bill of rights have been extended to bind the states, too. I believe this is in article one of the 14th amendment. At least, that’s how the Supreme Court has interpreted things.

1925
In Gitlow v. New York, the U.S. Supreme Court upholds under the New York criminal anarchy statute… The Court concludes, however, that the free-speech clause of the First Amendment applies to the states through the due-process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

17

then check the survey out, looks legimate to me.