Coffee Klatch

Following up on my last post, I just learned (via a story on FoxNews) that every September 17 is supposed to be Constitution and Citizenship Day, where all schools that get federal funding are required to teach about the Constitution.

It was part of the “omnibus spending bill” that was passed by Congress last December, but it was buried in there somewhere and this is the first I’ve heard of it. To be fair, it was, in fact, officially communicated on 24 May 2005.

“One will not protect what one does not value. And one cannot value what one does not understand,” Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., said when he introduced the provision, explaining that if students understood the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, they would do more to protect and defend them.

“Through our schools, we can help to ensure that each new generation of Americans understands what is at stake,” Byrd said.

Starting this fall, Byrd’s provision will require all schools that receive federal assistance — that includes most public institutions and many private ones, too — to offer a “Constitution Day” program commemorating the signing of the U.S. Constitution on Sept. 17, 1787.

The measure also requires that all new federal government employees receive educational materials on the Constitution at the time of hiring. All federal workers will also be offered some form of program each Sept. 17.

“It’s just common sense that on the day the document was ratified we spend a little time thinking about what it is and what it means and how it affects our everyday lives,” said Tom Gavin, Byrd’s spokesman, who added that the legislation was left purposefully open so that schools could create their own programs.

There has even been some help for creating learning activities put on the web. And it takes a step toward answering the question I posed at the end of my previous discussion of the Constitution. Cool!

Current music: The Mask: Music From The Motion Picture

When we talk about what the Founding Fathers intended, we can’t just look at the Constitution from our own contemporary perspective. We have to read what they had to say about it, in letters, documents, etc., from that time. If we are truly after an interpretation of our government based on the way our Founding Fathers set it up, we have to understand their perspective and what they meant by things.

Nowadays I feel we grossly misinterpret their intentions. From what I’ve read in various places, our government today is quite far from its origins. For instance, based on their writings I would say that they never intended religion to be totally removed from government and civic activities. I think the “separation of church and state” has been redefined over the years and has gone places that our Founding Fathers never wanted. I also see many signs indicating that the power of the national government has grown way beyond what they intended back then.

Recently I read an interesting quote from James Madison.

“Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution.” [emphasis added]

– James Madison (Federalist No. 39, 1788)

What’s the difference between Federal and National? (at least in this context) A national constitution would be a document laying out the fundamental principles of the government of the entire country. That’s not what the Founding Fathers had in mind. Rather, a federal constitution means that the document explains the principles by which the states are connected and what powers the central authority over them has. It’s not mincing words; it does make a difference. The states were originally to be more independent and not to be dominated by the federal (not national) government.

Maybe the problem lies in that we have a Constitution that’s well over 200 years old. How many other countries can say that? Society has changed in incredible ways since our country was founded, as has our nation itself. Technology only increases that rate of change. Maybe what we need is a total revamp of the basis of our country, clearly explaining in contemporary terms what the rules are. People have changed, the culture has changed, and language has changed. It’s no wonder that people today can disagree so much over the Constitution and yet feel that they themselves have the correct perspective.

I’m not advocating rebellion and overthrowing our government. Not at all. I still think we’ve got the best thing going in the world! But the very preamble to our constitution says that the purpose of creating a federal government was “in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.” When the federal government goes beyound that, it goes beyond the intentions of those who created this government. Is that what we still want today? Or are the intentions of our FEDERAL government different than they were 230+ years ago? Has the excess that has occurred been exactly what the Founding Fathers tried to prevent? Or is it legitimate?

We either need a newly-worded version of our Constitution, defining the basis of our federal government, or else we need an extremely articulate apologist to stand up and apply this old-yet-revered document to our modern society.

Current music: The Passage, by Andy Narell

Just a quick note. Yahoo! News posted an article this morning written by a journalist from AP. The title: “Katrina Divides Rather Than Unifies U.S.” As I was observing yesterday, there’s more blame than help going on, and this article does a nice job of comparing the national reactions to 911 and Hurricane Katrina, noting the similarities of the situations and the differences between the responses. It’s worth a read.

Current music: Buon compleanno Elvis, by Ligabue