- This topic has 4 voices and 17 replies.
-
Posts
-
As with the recent thread on the Bill of Rights, this series of posts will follow the same basic line; that is, a step by step look at the Constituion… article by article, with a brief synopsis of each including commentary based on the lessons (and the text mentioned in the previous thread) I used with my 8th grade history classes. In some cases readers here will note that points may seem over-simplified… please remember that the lessons were for kids in the 13-15 age group and that many citizens (outside of this forum) function at a level not to much higher… regardless of true educational level. 😮As before, the short posts will be presented here and the longer or more inviolved ones attached as .pdf's.Thank you in advance for the opportunity to provide this material.The Preamble: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.While most sources indicate that the Preamble is little more than an introduction to the Constitution, setting forth the purpose of the larger document, it does something much more important. The Preamble states, in fairly clear terms, that the powers vested in the government by the in the Constitution come from ?We the people??. The Federalist view was that it also explained the rights we had, making a separate Bill of Rights unnecessary. The Preamble is silent, really, on the powers the government will be granted or forbidden by the Constitution, it does, however, lay out the purposes for which we have established our government.Coming soon: Article 1 The Legislative Branch
As with the recent thread on the Bill of Rights, this series of posts will follow the same basic line; that is, a step by step look at the Constituion... article by article, with a brief synopsis of each including commentary based on the lessons (and the text mentioned in the previous thread) I used with my 8th grade history classes. In some cases readers here will note that points may seem over-simplified... please remember that the lessons were for kids in the 13-15 age group and that many citizens (outside of this forum) function at a level not to much higher... regardless of true educational level. 😮As before, the short posts will be presented here and the longer or more inviolved ones attached as .pdf's.Thank you in advance for the opportunity to provide this material.The Preamble: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.While most sources indicate that the Preamble is little more than an introduction to the Constitution, setting forth the purpose of the larger document, it does something much more important. The Preamble states, in fairly clear terms, that the powers vested in the government by the in the Constitution come from ?We the people??. The Federalist view was that it also explained the rights we had, making a separate Bill of Rights unnecessary. The Preamble is silent, really, on the powers the government will be granted or forbidden by the Constitution, it does, however, lay out the purposes for which we have established our government.Coming soon: Article 1 The Legislative Branch
In your view just who were "the people"?
We.edit: Sorry I read "are" for "were"; at the time it would have been free, white, property owning men, of a certain age. The implication, though, that we must assume is that those not blessed with those traits would be under an umbrella provided in the larger document. Not perfect (then or now) but the way it looks to me... based on the document as a whole, coupled with the liberal (in correct usage here) nature of our motivations at the time.
We are the people that rule the world. A force running in every boy and girl. All rejoicing in the world. Take me now - We can try. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DL_W8zOPXLg
Hunter-gatherers, perhaps?
I was referring to DEVO, a famous American band whose style over time has shifted between punk, art rock, post-punk, and New Wave. Their music and stage show mingle kitsch science fiction themes, deadpan surrealist humor, and mordantly satirical social commentary. I was much younger at the time ... :-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfzqK5XZa-E&feature=related
We.edit: Sorry I read "are" for "were"; at the time it would have been free, white, property owning men, of a certain age. The implication, though, that we must assume is that those not blessed with those traits would be under an umbrella provided in the larger document. Not perfect (then or now) but the way it looks to me... based on the document as a whole, coupled with the liberal (in correct usage here) nature of our motivations at the time.
What on earth does this mean in plain English? Obfuscation is not usually your wont!
We (free, white, property owning, of age, males), at the time, were going to make the rules for all; those not in our group would be given certain protections and rights under the Constitution. This was pretty liberal at the time… turn Enlightenment thought, as far as it went (not as far perhaps as it should have but good for the time. Never meaning to obfuscatate, my qualifiactions seem reasonable as it is wobbly point (some bring up) when we continued to have slaves and disallow votes to women.
We (free, white, property owning, of age, males), at the time, were going to make the rules for all; those not in our group would be given certain protections and rights under the Constitution. This was pretty liberal at the time... turn Enlightenment thought, as far as it went (not as far perhaps as it should have but good for the time. Never meaning to obfuscatate, my qualifiactions seem reasonable as it is wobbly point (some bring up) when we continued to have slaves and disallow votes to women.
So in 1776 We the People consisted of those free, white, property owning males who supported the revolt against the legally constituted government of Great Britain. As I recall that would be abut 1/3 of the population--am I correct? I have no problem with them denying votes to slaves and women. To advocate that at the time would have you sent to some asylum for the insane. I guess the problem is that we have a minority of a minority deciding to revolt--a non democratic method of setting up a nation based on libertyand democracy. In 1787 they then proposed a document that clearly was based on fear of the mob (the people?), and so constructed the government to guarantee that the will of THE PEOPLE could be tamed andaltered by having an electoral college and election of Senators by State Legislatures. Did this come up in your classes?
....
... in 1776 We the People consisted of those free, white, property owning males who supported the revolt against the legally constituted government of Great Britain.
Yes basically the same We that called the shots. I made the point in another thread earlier that the AmRev was more evolutionary (some call it a Civil War) than revolutionary as the movers and shakers of the colonies were the movers and shakers (mostly) for independence and again (mostly) the ones that formed the government.
As I recall that would be abut 1/3 of the population--am I correct?
That jives with the numbers I've seen and gave to the kids in the lesson. 1/3 against the split with Britain and 1/3 just wanted to be left alone.
I have no problem with them denying votes to slaves and women. To advocate that at the time would have you sent to some asylum for the insane.
Perhaps but it was considered by some or at least the possibility that it would be addressed later.
I guess the problem is that we have a minority of a minority deciding to revolt--a non democratic method of setting up a nation based on liberty and democracy.
That is, however, the case. The majority knew little as the media sources took weeks to get news of anything out. We are thinking like 21st century folks again when we forget that and that fully 1/3 of the population didn't really care who was in charge as long as they were left to their lives.
In 1787 they then proposed a document that clearly was based on fear of the mob (the people?), and so constructed the government to guarantee that the will of THE PEOPLE could be tamed and altered by having an electoral college and election of Senators by State Legislatures. Did this come up in your classes?
Yes. Why wouldn't it? The founders were products of the Enlightenment and as such realized that the people must have a role in their own governance but at that point it was to be limited, indeed, to protect from a mobocracy.I taught about the warts too. I wouldn't have been doing my job otherwise.
....
... in 1776 We the People consisted of those free, white, property owning males who supported the revolt against the legally constituted government of Great Britain.
Yes basically the same We that called the shots. I made the point in another thread earlier that the AmRev was more evolutionary (some call it a Civil War) than revolutionary as the movers and shakers of the colonies were the movers and shakers (mostly) for independence and again (mostly) the ones that formed the government.
As I recall that would be abut 1/3 of the population--am I correct?
That jives with the numbers I've seen and gave to the kids in the lesson. 1/3 against the split with Britain and 1/3 just wanted to be left alone.
I have no problem with them denying votes to slaves and women. To advocate that at the time would have you sent to some asylum for the insane.
Perhaps but it was considered by some or at least the possibility that it would be addressed later.
I guess the problem is that we have a minority of a minority deciding to revolt--a non democratic method of setting up a nation based on liberty and democracy.
That is, however, the case. The majority knew little as the media sources took weeks to get news of anything out. We are thinking like 21st century folks again when we forget that and that fully 1/3 of the population didn't really care who was in charge as long as they were left to their lives.
In 1787 they then proposed a document that clearly was based on fear of the mob (the people?), and so constructed the government to guarantee that the will of THE PEOPLE could be tamed and altered by having an electoral college and election of Senators by State Legislatures. Did this come up in your classes?
Yes. Why wouldn't it? The founders were products of the Enlightenment and as such realized that the people must have a role in their own governance but at that point it was to be limited, indeed, to protect from a mobocracy.I taught about the warts too. I wouldn't have been doing my job otherwise.
Wally:Wart teaching is good.What is the difference between a democracy and a mobocracy?You live in California. Was legislation by proposition or referendum a good idea--direct democracy!?
Willy, I thank you for agreeing that teaching the warts is good… it is also honest; if we want good voters / citizens out the end we need to tell them the whole story.Having dealt with many parents that ask questions like this (the difference being most of them really thought my politics mattered and were part of my teaching... I hope you don't)... the answer is:Not as much as we'd like. What I mean by this is if all the people were thoughtful, dedicated citizens that truly wanted the best for the whole nation (and we lived on an island) total direct democracy would be the way to go. Given that only a small % of the population meet these guidelines (BTW, who judges this and by what standards?) and we live in a geographically huge country where we cannot stop everything and get the whole electorate in one place at one time, we're sort of stuck with what we've got. We need to make it work by making better voters otherwise it's a mobocracy... that's where I come in trying to break the cycle one kid at a time.Yes I live in the PR of CA; Land of the Fruits and Nuts.The concept of direct voter action is fine, when all other means of having the voice of the people heard fails. I have a problem in that it has become the way around the process whenever someone has an ax to grind (and the money to pay signature gatherers) and doesn't want to wait for the process or thinks that they can stir up the population (read mobocracy). The idea that the legislative process is broken and the initiative process has to fix the ills of all is part of the reason the legislative process is in the state it is... the legislators can't win. Granted they, at one time, were so far out of touch that the people needed to rein them in (sounds like now doesn't it?) hence initiative, recall, and referendum. Consider these tools, they can be used with skill to accomplish a task or they can be used as a weapon to bludgeon an opponent.
