Publishing Company Under Fire for Putting Warning Label on Constitution

hearingimpared

LessisNevermore wrote: »

*conservatism
And no, not true. But you're getting played by Faux News. No other major news outlet covered this story.....Why do you suppose that is?

Look, it's really not too complicated to see what is happening here......



Ok, at this point...June 09, 2010, who exactly are they under fire from, if Fox news is who broke the story? A few illiterate hot heads at Amazon?

Throw in some comments by folks who may, or may not have actually read the disclaimer, or had "the gist" of it fed to them. The first line of the story should be tossed for leading the witness, IMO. But with it in place, it sets up the disclaimer, which most didn't read, or flat out took out of context, then move to the comments from the "man on the street".

Bam, instant controversy. It's a gol-derned cunspuracy. :rolleyes:

It's a whole lot of flying off the handle over a $5.00 patriotic book.

I don't know, maybe because I read the disclaimer, and read no deeper than the exact words, but I still can find NOTHING subversive about it. Neither can anyone else, not without adding their own words to it. Try it.

What's "rich" have to do with the price of tea in China!?!:rolleyes:

The whole first paragraph of the disclaimer you posted insinuates (I'm not adding words, it's there in black and white) that the contents of that book is useless and too open to interpretation as well as that it is racist, homophobic, and not useful because of interpersonal skills have changed since it's inception.:rolleyes:

I don't find anything subversive but I do fine it accusatory of what constitutes this greatest county on God's green earth.

BTW getting played? CNN and rest of the BSers and manipulators and language twisters are doing the playing.

Agree to disagree but don't make it a conservative vs liberal thing, of which it is not.

headrott

deleted.

LessisNevermore

hearingimpared wrote: »

What's "rich" have to do with the price of tea in China!?!:rolleyes:

About as much as "fair and balanced" has to do with Fox News. lol

hearingimpared wrote: »

The whole first paragraph of the disclaimer you posted insinuates (I'm not adding words, it's there in black and white) that the contents of that book is useless and too open to interpretation as well as that it is racist, homophobic, and not useful because of interpersonal skills have changed since it's inception.:rolleyes:

I don't find anything subversive but I do fine it accusatory of what constitutes this greatest county on God's green earth.

So a publisher goes to the trouble of collecting, and reprinting our country's most important documents, in one convenient package, and then tells you to ignore the contents within, because it's irrelevant? In what world would that be a good idea for sales? Makes no sense.

Some of our founding fathers legally owned slaves.
It was once legal to beat your wife.
Homosexuality was against the law.
Who do you suppose made the call on all those?
Things have changed, that's all it's saying. There is zero mention of any uselessness of any of it, those were still in fact, your words, and your assumptions.

It's damn hard to insinuate something without someone else to assume it.

hearingimpared wrote: »

BTW getting played? CNN and rest of the BSers and manipulators and language twisters are doing the playing.

Agree to disagree but don't make it a conservative vs liberal thing, of which it is not.

I don't get my news from any one source. language twisters? you mean lawyers? lol

We can agree to disagree, I just think this was less than a molehill, not a country crushing mountain. I don't think the disclaimer was necessary, but it's a litigation-happy world.

hearingimpared

LessisNevermore wrote: »

Some of our founding fathers legally owned slaves.
It was once legal to beat your wife.
Homosexuality was against the law.

Okay, we'll agree to disagree but I do have one question for you; Do you know for a fact that the above laws were contained in that book? I would find it hard to believe in that the laws you mention above are state defined laws.

Yes it is a known fact that our founding fathers owned slaves, the rule of thumb came from the maximum thickness of the stick that could be used to beat your wife, and homosexuality is still illegal in some states or a least still on the books but I reiterate those were/are state laws.

If I'm wrong and those above are in that book then I'll stand corrected.

Fongolio

The United States of America was founded because a few brave souls questioned the archaic laws governing their land and the founding fathers recognized their right to question those laws. Then they wrote it into the constitution. That freedom should never be taken away. Flame on.

nooshinjohn

To correct the assumption that our founding documents were written by slavers, I submit this very long winded post...

Even though the issue of slavery is often raised as a discrediting charge against the Founding Fathers, the historical fact is that slavery was not the product of, nor was it an evil introduced by, the Founding Fathers; slavery had been introduced to America nearly two centuries before the Founders. As President of Congress Henry Laurens explained:

I abhor slavery. I was born in a country where slavery had been established by British Kings and Parliaments as well as by the laws of the country ages before my existence. . . . In former days there was no combating the prejudices of men supported by interest; the day, I hope, is approaching when, from principles of gratitude as well as justice, every man will strive to be foremost in showing his readiness to comply with the Golden Rule ["do unto others as you would have them do unto you" Matthew 7:12]. 1
Prior to the time of the Founding Fathers, there had been few serious efforts to dismantle the institution of slavery. John Jay identified the point at which the change in attitude toward slavery began:

Prior to the great Revolution, the great majority . . . of our people had been so long accustomed to the practice and convenience of having slaves that very few among them even doubted the propriety and rectitude of it. 2
The Revolution was the turning point in the national attitude–and it was the Founding Fathers who contributed greatly to that change. In fact, many of the Founders vigorously complained against the fact that Great Britain had forcefully imposed upon the Colonies the evil of slavery. For example, Thomas Jefferson heavily criticized that British policy:

He [King George III] has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. . . . Determined to keep open a market where men should be bought and sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce [that is, he has opposed efforts to prohibit the slave trade]. 3
Benjamin Franklin, in a 1773 letter to Dean Woodward, confirmed that whenever the Americans had attempted to end slavery, the British government had indeed thwarted those attempts. Franklin explained that . . .

. . . a disposition to abolish slavery prevails in North America, that many of Pennsylvanians have set their slaves at liberty, and that even the Virginia Assembly have petitioned the King for permission to make a law for preventing the importation of more into that colony. This request, however, will probably not be granted as their former laws of that kind have always been repealed. 4
Further confirmation that even the Virginia Founders were not responsible for slavery, but actually tried to dismantle the institution, was provided by John Quincy Adams (known as the "hell-hound of abolition" for his extensive efforts against that evil). Adams explained:

The inconsistency of the institution of domestic slavery with the principles of the Declaration of Independence was seen and lamented by all the southern patriots of the Revolution; by no one with deeper and more unalterable conviction than by the author of the Declaration himself [Jefferson]. No charge of insincerity or hypocrisy can be fairly laid to their charge. Never from their lips was heard one syllable of attempt to justify the institution of slavery. They universally considered it as a reproach fastened upon them by the unnatural step-mother country [Great Britain] and they saw that before the principles of the Declaration of Independence, slavery, in common with every other mode of oppression, was destined sooner or later to be banished from the earth. Such was the undoubting conviction of Jefferson to his dying day. In the Memoir of His Life, written at the age of seventy-seven, he gave to his countrymen the solemn and emphatic warning that the day was not distant when they must hear and adopt the general emancipation of their slaves.

nooshinjohn

More...

While Jefferson himself had introduced a bill designed to end slavery, 6 not all of the southern Founders were opposed to slavery. According to the testimony of Virginians James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and John Rutledge, it was the Founders from North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia who most strongly favored slavery. 7
Yet, despite the support for slavery in those States, the clear majority of the Founders opposed this evil. For instance, when some of the southern pro-slavery advocates invoked the Bible in support of slavery, Elias Boudinot, President of the Continental Congress, responded:

[E]ven the sacred Scriptures had been quoted to justify this iniquitous traffic. It is true that the Egyptians held the Israelites in bondage for four hundred years, . . . but . . . gentlemen cannot forget the consequences that followed: they were delivered by a strong hand and stretched-out arm and it ought to be remembered that the Almighty Power that accomplished their deliverance is the same yesterday, today, and for ever. 8

Many of the Founding Fathers who had owned slaves as British citizens released them in the years following America’s separation from Great Britain (e.g., George Washington, John Dickinson, Caesar Rodney, William Livingston, George Wythe, John Randolph of Roanoke, and others). Furthermore, many of the Founders had never owned any slaves. For example, John Adams proclaimed, "[M]y opinion against it [slavery] has always been known . . . [N]ever in my life did I own a slave." 9
Notice a few additional examples of the strong anti-slavery sentiments held by great numbers of the Founders:

[W]hy keep alive the question of slavery? It is admitted by all to be a great evil. 10 CHARLES CARROLL, SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION
As Congress is now to legislate for our extensive territory lately acquired, I pray to Heaven that they may build up the system of the government on the broad, strong, and sound principles of freedom. Curse not the inhabitants of those regions, and of the United States in general, with a permission to introduce bondage [slavery]. 11 JOHN DICKINSON, SIGNER OF THE CONSTITUTION; GOVERNOR OF PENNSYLVANIA
That men should pray and fight for their own freedom and yet keep others in slavery is certainly acting a very inconsistent, as well as unjust and perhaps impious, part. 12 JOHN JAY, PRESIDENT OF CONTINENTAL CONGRESS, ORIGINAL CHIEF JUSTICE U. S. SUPREME COURT
The whole commerce between master and slave is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions, the most unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading submissions on the other. . . . And with what execration [curse] should the statesman be loaded, who permitting one half the citizens thus to trample on the rights of the other. . . . And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever. 13 THOMAS JEFFERSON
Christianity, by introducing into Europe the truest principles of humanity, universal benevolence, and brotherly love, had happily abolished civil slavery. Let us who profess the same religion practice its precepts . . . by agreeing to this duty. 14 RICHARD HENRY LEE, PRESIDENT OF CONTINENTAL CONGRESS; SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION
I hope we shall at last, and if it so please God I hope it may be during my life time, see this cursed thing [slavery] taken out. . . . For my part, whether in a public station or a private capacity, I shall always be prompt to contribute my assistance towards effecting so desirable an event. 15 WILLIAM LIVINGSTON, SIGNER OF THE CONSTITUTION; GOVERNOR OF NEW JERSEY
t ought to be considered that national crimes can only be and frequently are punished in this world by national punishments; and that the continuance of the slave-trade, and thus giving it a national sanction and encouragement, ought to be considered as justly exposing us to the displeasure and vengeance of Him who is equally Lord of all and who views with equal eye the poor African slave and his American master. 16 LUTHER MARTIN, DELEGATE AT CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION
As much as I value a union of all the States, I would not admit the Southern States into the Union unless they agree to the discontinuance of this disgraceful trade [slavery]. 17
Honored will that State be in the annals of history which shall first abolish this violation of the rights of mankind. 18 JOSEPH REED, REVOLUTIONARY OFFICER; GOVERNOR OF PENNSYLVANIA
Domestic slavery is repugnant to the principles of Christianity. . . . It is rebellion against the authority of a common Father. It is a practical denial of the extent and efficacy of the death of a common Savior. It is an usurpation of the prerogative of the great Sovereign of the universe who has solemnly claimed an exclusive property in the souls of men. 19 BENJAMIN RUSH, SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION
Justice and humanity require it [the end of slavery]–Christianity commands it. Let every benevolent . . . pray for the glorious period when the last slave who fights for freedom shall be restored to the possession of that inestimable right. 20 NOAH WEBSTER, RESPONSIBLE FOR ARTICLE I, SECTION 8, 8 OF THE CONSTITUTION
Slavery, or an absolute and unlimited power in the master over the life and fortune of the slave, is unauthorized by the common law. . . . The reasons which we sometimes see assigned for the origin and the continuance of slavery appear, when examined to the bottom, to be built upon a false foundation. In the enjoyment of their persons and of their property, the common law protects all. 21 JAMES WILSON, SIGNER OF THE CONSTITUTION; U. S. SUPREME COURT JUSTICE
t is certainly unlawful to make inroads upon others . . . and take away their liberty by no better means than superior power. 22 JOHN WITHERSPOON, SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION
For many of the Founders, their feelings against slavery went beyond words. For example, in 1774, Benjamin Franklin and Benjamin Rush founded America’s first anti-slavery society; John Jay was president of a similar society in New York. In fact, when signer of the Constitution William Livingston heard of the New York society, he, as Governor of New Jersey, wrote them, offering:

I would most ardently wish to become a member of it [the society in New York] and . . . I can safely promise them that neither my tongue, nor my pen, nor purse shall be wanting to promote the abolition of what to me appears so inconsistent with humanity and Christianity. . . . May the great and the equal Father of the human race, who has expressly declared His abhorrence of oppression, and that He is no respecter of persons, succeed a design so laudably calculated to undo the heavy burdens, to let the oppressed go free, and to break every yoke. 23
Other prominent Founding Fathers who were members of societies for ending slavery included Richard Bassett, James Madison, James Monroe, Bushrod Washington, Charles Carroll, William Few, John Marshall, Richard Stockton, Zephaniah Swift, and many more. In fact, based in part on the efforts of these Founders, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts began abolishing slavery in 1780; 24 Connecticut and Rhode Island did so in 1784; 25 Vermont in 1786; 26 New Hampshire in 1792; 27 New York in 1799; 28 and New Jersey did so in 1804. 29
Additionally, the reason that Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Iowa all prohibited slavery was a Congressional act, authored by Constitution signer Rufus King 30 and signed into law by President George Washington, 31 which prohibited slavery in those territories. 32 It is not surprising that Washington would sign such a law, for it was he who had declared:


I can only say that there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it [slavery]. 33
The truth is that it was the Founding Fathers who were responsible for planting and nurturing the first seeds for the recognition of black equality and for the eventual end of slavery. This was a fact made clear by Richard Allen.
Allen had been a slave in Pennsylvania but was freed after he converted his master to Christianity. Allen, a close friend of Benjamin Rush and several other Founding Fathers, went on to become the founder of the A.M.E. Church in America. In an early address "To the People of Color," he explained:

Many of the white people have been instruments in the hands of God for our good, even such as have held us in captivity, [and] are now pleading our cause with earnestness and zeal. 34
While much progress was made by the Founders to end the institution of slavery, unfortunately what they began was not fully achieved until generations later. Yet, despite the strenuous effort of many Founders to recognize in practice that "all men are created equal," charges persist to the opposite. In fact, revisionists even claim that the Constitution demonstrates that the Founders considered one who was black to be only three-fifths of a person. This charge is yet another falsehood. The three-fifths clause was not a measurement of human worth; rather, it was an anti-slavery provision to limit the political power of slavery’s proponents. By including only three-fifths of the total number of slaves in the congressional calculations, Southern States were actually being denied additional pro-slavery representatives in Congress. Based on the clear records of the Constitutional Convention, two prominent professors explain the meaning of the three-fifths clause:

nooshinjohn

the last...

[T]he Constitution allowed Southern States to count three-fifths of their slaves toward the population that would determine numbers of representatives in the federal legislature. This clause is often singled out today as a sign of black dehumanization: they are only three-fifths human. But the provision applied to slaves, not blacks. That meant that free blacks–and there were many, North as well as South–counted the same as whites. More important, the fact that slaves were counted at all was a concession to slave owners. Southerners would have been glad to count their slaves as whole persons. It was the Northerners who did not want them counted, for why should the South be rewarded with more representatives, the more slaves they held? 35 THOMAS WEST
It was slavery’s opponents who succeeded in restricting the political power of the South by allowing them to count only three-fifths of their slave population in determining the number of congressional representatives. The three-fifths of a vote provision applied only to slaves, not to free blacks in either the North or South. 36 WALTER WILLIAMS
Why do revisionists so often abuse and misportray the three-fifths clause? Professor Walter Williams (himself an African-American) suggested:
Politicians, news media, college professors and leftists of other stripes are selling us lies and propaganda. To lay the groundwork for their increasingly successful attack on our Constitution, they must demean and criticize its authors. As Senator Joe Biden demonstrated during the Clarence Thomas hearings, the framers’ ideas about natural law must be trivialized or they must be seen as racists. 37

While this has been only a cursory examination of the Founders and slavery, it is nonetheless sufficient to demonstrate the absurdity of the insinuation that the Founders were a collective group of racists.

---

For more information on this issue see George Washington, Thomas Jefferson & Slavery in Virginia, The Bible, Slavery, and America's Founders, Black History Issue 2003, Confronting Civil War Revisionism, and Setting the Record Straight (Book, DVD, or VHS).

---

."

This is reason our full history MUST be taught in our schools. You cannot simply make a statement that our founders were slavers when you see their own words and understand them. For some of our Founders, the War for Independence was about ending slavery as well. I encourage each of us to study our history and know it well, as it may be our futures that depend on it.

unc2701

Soooooo.... what you're saying is that an uninformed reader of the constitution may misinterpret something like the 3/5 compromise as racism on the part of the founding fathers.

However, when presented with more information about the context of such a decision, the intent of the founders becomes clear.

ohskigod

how dare you use real history to make a point...LOL

nooshinjohn

unc2701 wrote: »

Soooooo.... what you're saying is that an uninformed reader of the constitution may misinterpret something like the 3/5 compromise as racism on the part of the founding fathers.

However, when presented with more information about the context of such a decision, the intent of the founders becomes clear.

Exactly... The question now becomes "Why are we not teaching a full and complete understanding of our history to our children?"

If you don't want to teach the truth, it means you need to teach mis-truths or outright lies for a purpose, and again it raises the question..."WHY???" We need to ask these questions and demand answers.

unc2701

nooshinjohn wrote: »

Exactly... The question now becomes "Why are we not teaching a full and complete understanding of our history to our children?"

If you don't want to teach the truth, it means you need to teach mis-truths or outright lies for a purpose, and again it raises the question..."WHY???" We need to ask these questions and demand answers.

Dead, on man! When a child reads the constitution the first time, s/he could pick up these sorts of misconceptions that stick around, never get corrected in school and leave them with a complete lack of knowledge of the history of our country.

Parents should sit down with their kids, read the constitution, read the federalist papers for a first hand account of the thought processes of the founders and talk about how this has shaped our great country.

nooshinjohn

unc2701 wrote: »

Dead, on man! When a child reads the constitution the first time, s/he could pick up these sorts of misconceptions that stick around, never get corrected in school and leave them with a complete lack of knowledge of the history of our country.

Parents should sit down with their kids, read the constitution, read the federalist papers for a first hand account of the thought processes of the founders and talk about how this has shaped our great country.

A great start to be sure, but it should not stop there. Parents need to go to their school boards and demand answers, and replace those members of the board that support the teaching of such bile to our children.

unc2701

You know, someone should make an edition of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Federalist Papers, the Articles of Confederation- bind them all together in one book and right there on the first pages tell parents to read these with their kids, get some other history books, and discuss how things really were when these great men were putting pen to paper.

tonyb

nooshinjohn wrote: »

A great start to be sure, but it should not stop there. Parents need to go to their school boards and demand answers, and replace those members of the board that support the teaching of such bile to our children.

Agree big guy, your assumeing of coarse that most parents give 2 craps about what is taught. When you have a vested interest in the collapse of capitalism, an interest to win the minds of the young, an interest to some how turn the constitution into a misguided document, an interest to destroy God, and the family unit, then what do you do ? Why, you give them a teaching position at an Ivy league school. You appoint them to positions of power. I believe thats called the fundamental transformation of america that we heard so much about. People really need to pay attention,do alittle reading,some homework, there's a framework being installed infront of your noses. Or have we become so complacent, that we don't care anymore ?

hearingimpared

tonyb wrote: »

Agree big guy, your assumeing of coarse that most parents give 2 craps about what is taught. When you have a vested interest in the collapse of capitalism, an interest to win the minds of the young, an interest to some how turn the constitution into a misguided document, an interest to destroy God, and the family unit, then what do you do ? Why, you give them a teaching position at an Ivy league school. You appoint them to positions of power. I believe thats called the fundamental transformation of america that we heard so much about. People really need to pay attention,do alittle reading,some homework, there's a framework being installed infront of your noses. Or have we become so complacent, that we don't care anymore ?

Excellent post Tony! Thanks John for that history lesson, I read every word.

cstmar01

xcapri79 wrote: »

How many of the 69,456,897 voters (52.9 %) actually wanted the results of this change in November 2008?
Hopefully enough people will wake up and realize what is actually happening, and the huge mistake they made.
I guess we will find out in 2012.

reported. Taking it off topic to make thread political even though already in nature, they were talking about founding fathers not the present day political battles.

JohnLocke88

unc2701 wrote: »

You know, someone should make an edition of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Federalist Papers, the Articles of Confederation- bind them all together in one book and right there on the first pages tell parents to read these with their kids, get some other history books, and discuss how things really were when these great men were putting pen to paper.

El oh El.

hearingimpared

JohnLocke88 wrote: »

El oh El.

At first I thought you were calling an Arab or a Mexican Don! LOL!!!

nooshinjohn

The point "X" is to not derail the thread. While this thread does touch on matters that are political, it has NOT become a political discussion. Your comments are serving to change that balance. All we are asking is that you refrain from comments that change the discourse taking place.

Kex

Storm in a tea cup, seems to me.

Maybe the publisher did it on purpose, hoping for some free publicity or something? I'm not understanding why they thought the disclaimer was necessary, or why some are having such a strong reaction to it either, but please carry on, since you seem to be having such a good time.

tonyb

I remember when I was in school, we had to pass a constitution test in order to graduate. Not so today,not even in law school. How in the heck do you defend something you know nothing about ? Ditto for a certain Supreme Court nominee who managed to change Harvards law school requirements to not include the understanding of the constitution as a requirement to graduate. Part of the oath of office, including the prez, is to preserve and protect the constitution,not change it, not undermine it. You can add to it but in doing so,you make it as complicated as the tax code,which maybe some peoples intent.

nooshinjohn

tonyb wrote: »

I remember when I was in school, we had to pass a constitution test in order to graduate. Not so today,not even in law school. How in the heck do you defend something you know nothing about ? Ditto for a certain Supreme Court nominee who managed to change Harvards law school requirements to not include the understanding of the constitution as a requirement to graduate. Part of the oath of office, including the prez, is to preserve and protect the constitution,not change it, not undermine it. You can add to it but in doing so,you make it as complicated as the tax code,which maybe some peoples intent.

To add to it, you need an amendment. To undermine it, all that is needed is to forget about it, and use case law or international law to tell you that it is ok...

Look to the writings of Woodrow Wilson and you will easily find the seeds being planted for where we stand today.

Erik Tracy

tonyb wrote: »

I remember when I was in school, we had to pass a constitution test in order to graduate. Not so today,not even in law school. How in the heck do you defend something you know nothing about ? Ditto for a certain Supreme Court nominee who managed to change Harvards law school requirements to not include the understanding of the constitution as a requirement to graduate. Part of the oath of office, including the prez, is to preserve and protect the constitution,not change it, not undermine it. You can add to it but in doing so,you make it as complicated as the tax code,which maybe some peoples intent.

My son had to pass a constitution test this year for his 8th grade graduation to High School.

Not all is lost for our youth - just takes guts on the part of the school to make it part of their curriculum.

unc2701

xcapri79 wrote: »

Appointing activist Supreme Court justices helps too.

No kidding. Thanks a lot, Marbury v Madison.

hearingimpared

Erik Tracy wrote: »

My son had to pass a constitution test this year for his 8th grade graduation to High School.

Not all is lost for our youth - just takes guts on the part of the school to make it part of their curriculum.

Give that man a ceegar!!!

hearingimpared

tonyb wrote: »

I remember when I was in school, we had to pass a constitution test in order to graduate. Not so today,

Yep that was all part of the mandatory curriculum! Two years ago my sons school made them do a project on the "Preamble." That was it. Nothing else has come into this house from school or presented to my son in school on the Constitution or any part thereof.

I remember an old Star Trek episode with the "yangs" & the "combs" where the yangs were the offspring of America and the combs were of the communists. At the end when the yangs took out the "Holy Book" which was the Constitution of the US and they were mis-prouncing the words of it, Kirk grabbed a hold of it and started to read it. It was the Preamble to the Constitution . . . I got goose bumps watching that episode way back then in the '60 and still get goose bumps everytime I see that episode.

It is very inspiring . . . too bad we are not using it anymore to inspire our new generation.

headrott

hearingimpared wrote: »

Yep that was all part of the mandatory curriculum! Two years ago my sons school made them do a project on the "Preamble." That was it. Nothing else has come into this house from school or presented to my son in school on the Constitution or any part thereof.

I remember an old Star Trek episode with the "yangs" & the "combs" where the yangs were the offspring of America and the combs were of the communists. At the end when the yangs took out the "Holy Book" which was the Constitution of the US and they were mis-prouncing the words of it, Kirk grabbed a hold of it and started to read it. It was the Preamble to the Constitution . . . I got goose bumps watching that episode way back then in the '60 and still get goose bumps everytime I see that episode.

It is very inspiring . . . too bad we are not using it anymore to inspire our new generation.

"E-plabnista". Great episode of Star trek.

Greg

Kex

hearingimpared wrote: »

... It is very inspiring . . . too bad we are not using it anymore to inspire our new generation.

You mean we should be showing the original Star Trek shows in schools?! :eek:

hearingimpared

Kex wrote: »

You mean we should be showing the original Star Trek shows in schools?! :eek:

You know that wouldn't be a bad idea. There were a lot of great messages in some of the episodes.