PDA

View Full Version : Common Core Worksheet: Fix the 'Outdated' Bill of Rights




FrankRep
10-08-2013, 09:08 PM
Worksheet asks children to remove parts of the Bill of Rights (http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/359714)


Digital Journal
Oct 5, 2013


A student in Bryant School District in Arkansas brought home a worksheet that presented her with a scenario that referred to the Bill of Rights as “outdated” and that as part of a special committee she would need to throw out two of the Amendments.

The worksheet was handed out to Sixth grade students in a History class. According to the girl’s mother, Lela Spears, she has not received any government or civics classes and this was the first assignment dealing with the Constitution or Bill of Rights. The school district (http://www.bryantschools.org/parents-students/common-core/common-core-presentation-video) is participating in the embattled (http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/04/20759234-parents-teachers-join-pockets-of-rebellion-against-common-core?lite) Common Core curriculum.
...

The Bill of Rights is the first ten amendments to the Constitution of the United States. The amendments recognize a person’s inalienable rights to things such as free speech, due process, trial by jury, and the right to bear arms, as well as many other staples of traditional American values. They also establish limits on Federal power.


http://www.digitaljournal.com/img/2/0/8/8/2/1/i/1/5/8/p-large/1379669_645534145480842_877145441_n.jpg
http://www.digitaljournal.com/img/2/0/8/8/2/1/i/1/5/8/p-large/1384375_645534195480837_277555428_n.jpg
A photo of the worksheet asking students to "omit" two Amendments in the Bill of Rights


Background on Common Core:


Common Core: Dangers And Threats To American Liberty And Education (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epo2oWoL7ZE)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epo2oWoL7ZE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epo2oWoL7ZE

Ben Swann Exposes Common Core Curriculum (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrpjiywhSQU)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrpjiywhSQU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrpjiywhSQU


Common Core: A Scheme to Rewrite Education (http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/education/item/16192-common-core-a-scheme-to-rewrite-education)


Common Core — new national education standards that the federal government is bribing and coercing states to adopt — will harm students, not benefit them.

Orwellian Nightmare: Data-mining Your Kids (http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/education/item/16193-orwellian-nightmare-data-mining-your-kids)


Being implemented hand in hand with the new national curriculum standards being pushed on schools, called Common Core, is government surveillance of students.

Natural Citizen
10-08-2013, 09:15 PM
Anything on what the people from this particular school are doing in response, Frank?

FrankRep
10-08-2013, 09:24 PM
Anything on what the people from this particular school are doing in response, Frank?

Yeah..

Parents, teachers join pockets of rebellion against Common Core
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/04/20759234-parents-teachers-join-pockets-of-rebellion-against-common-core?lite

mad cow
10-08-2013, 09:24 PM
She should ask Mrs. Knight which ones are still in effect before she wastes any more time on this assignment.

mczerone
10-08-2013, 09:30 PM
"Ah! Let's kill these branches! They're spreading everywhere! Everyone! Quick! Rally around for a fight about the new federal standards being pushed out!"

"Hey, that's just a symptom of having a public school system. If you really want control, strike the root and stop letting govt have anything to do with schools..."

"You're INSANE, we NEED schools! WE just have to implement MY curriculum for everyone! MUHAHAHAHAHA!!!"

Natural Citizen
10-08-2013, 09:31 PM
Yeah..

Parents, teachers join pockets of rebellion against Common Core
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/04/20759234-parents-teachers-join-pockets-of-rebellion-against-common-core?lite

I didn't see anything here as far as the parents response to curriculum applied to ask the student to remove amendments from the Bill of Rights. I see the paper but not a direct source for the story. That's what I was looking for. Seems to me that would be a very big deal and i'd surely like to read it.

better-dead-than-fed
10-09-2013, 09:25 AM
nineteenth amendment is sketchy.

mczerone
10-09-2013, 09:32 AM
nineteenth amendment is sketchy.

19>10.

Christian Liberty
10-09-2013, 09:38 AM
If the 14th amendment is in the "Bill of Rights" that might be one.

Just to troll the teacher, I might falsely state that the 13th is also in the Bill of Rights and propose its repeal. That would tick off the PC nuts in Common Core:p



(I'm kidding about the 13th, but serious about the 14th, for the record.)

In all seriousness, though, this is a serious problem... I hate these people. I even hate the teachers that teach this crap. They are evil.

Root
10-09-2013, 09:40 AM
Very creepy.

Occam's Banana
10-09-2013, 10:02 AM
A student in Bryant School District in Arkansas brought home a worksheet that presented her with a scenario that referred to the Bill of Rights as “outdated” and that as part of a special committee she would need to throw out two of the Amendments.

What, only two? That's eight less than the Fed. Gov. already ignores ...

FrankRep
10-09-2013, 10:19 AM
If the 14th amendment is in the "Bill of Rights" that might be one.

Just to troll the teacher, I might falsely state that the 13th is also in the Bill of Rights and propose its repeal. That would tick off the PC nuts in Common Core:p



(I'm kidding about the 13th, but serious about the 14th, for the record.)

In all seriousness, though, this is a serious problem... I hate these people. I even hate the teachers that teach this crap. They are evil.

The first 10 amendments are the Bill of Rights.

Christian Liberty
10-09-2013, 10:53 AM
The first 10 amendments are the Bill of Rights.

I know, I was joking about the 14th being in the Bill of Rights because it was the first amendment I could think of that I want to get rid of:p

Tywysog Cymru
10-09-2013, 12:30 PM
I couldn't do this assignment as I can't think of any rights I would give up.


I know, I was joking about the 14th being in the Bill of Rights because it was the first amendment I could think of that I want to get rid of:p

What's so bad about the 14th?

Occam's Banana
10-09-2013, 01:02 PM
What's so bad about the 14th?

Incorporation doctrine.

Matthew5
10-09-2013, 01:30 PM
To be fair...some amendments could use some tweaking. We could probably find a better use for the slot that the 7th amendment takes up.

mczerone
10-09-2013, 02:03 PM
As far as govt schools go, this isn't that bad of an assignment.

It's basically: You need to learn to work with a group to put together a persuasive paper and give a presentation/defense to that paper.

It incorporates a history lesson (the bill of rights) and it gets kids thinking about political philosophy without explicitly guiding their conclusions.

Cons:
It teaches "central plannerism" (that one person or group can come up with solutions for everyone's problems).

It takes the obliteration of economic liberty as a given.

By asking kids to "prioritize" the rights, it presumes that one can trump another; either they are inviolable rights or they are privileges - there is no middle ground. Either they are all always applicable and prioritizing them makes no sense, or they are not rights.

Even in the assignment's pretend world, this is not how Amendments are made to the Constitution. A civics lesson could teach them that they might be doing something like this for a think-tank or policy group, which would then go seek support for the Amendments.

It doesn't give any objective measures for "success" of their changes (in the assignment, just doing the work will probably get them a good grade).

Ways to improve:
They could have the same assignment designed in a business environment: take a set of policies, or a line-up of products and services currently offered by the company, and have the kids analyze which should stay or go, and what to replace them with. Have them prepared to show why their suggestions help the bottom line of the company.

mczerone
10-09-2013, 02:07 PM
Teacher's dream answer:

Drop the 2nd and Tenth. Add in a right to k-infinity schooling and healthcare.

Matthew5
10-09-2013, 02:55 PM
Much ado about nothing, really. It's getting kids to critically think about rights, what's wrong with that? What if you removed two and made them stronger by adding better wording? Do some rights hinge on others?

What's wrong with getting kids to think about such subjects? I'd do the same in a home school environment.

Tywysog Cymru
10-09-2013, 03:16 PM
Incorporation doctrine.

Why should the states be able to violate basic rights? The point of the Bill of Rights is that there are certain rights that are inalienable and the rest can be left to the states or the people.

Occam's Banana
10-09-2013, 04:30 PM
Why should the states be able to violate basic rights? The point of the Bill of Rights is that there are certain rights that are inalienable and the rest can be left to the states or the people.

They shouldn't. But the notion that the federal government is going to be some sort of benign "Dudley Do-Right" who rides in and rescues people from the evil "Snidely Whiplash" states is a deluded fantasy. The Feds are much bigger tyrants - both literally and figuratively. The only sane approach is to move the power to deal with violations of rights "downward" to the local level - NOT "upward" to the national level. "Incorporation" does nothing but concentrate power in the hands of fewer, more distant and less accountable people ...

better-dead-than-fed
10-09-2013, 05:08 PM
Incorporation doctrine.


The first amendment to the Constitution ... like the other amendments proposed and adopted at the same time, was not intended to limit the powers of the State governments in respect to their own citizens, but to operate upon the National government alone.

United States v. Cruikshank, 92 US 542 - Supreme Court 1876 (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9699370891451726349)

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?413246-A-march-on-Washington-with-loaded-rifles&p=5009101&viewfull=1#post5009101

Natural Citizen
10-09-2013, 05:39 PM
Incorporation doctrine.

which just happens to be a legal fiction if people would wake up and see it.

Tywysog Cymru
10-09-2013, 06:42 PM
They shouldn't. But the notion that the federal government is going to be some sort of benign "Dudley Do-Right" who rides in and rescues people from the evil "Snidely Whiplash" states is a deluded fantasy. The Feds are much bigger tyrants - both literally and figuratively. The only sane approach is to move the power to deal with violations of rights "downward" to the local level - NOT "upward" to the national level. "Incorporation" does nothing but concentrate power in the hands of fewer, more distant and less accountable people ...

Although I support local autonomy/state's rights several states abused their powers through Jim Crow laws and without the Fourteenth Amendment they would be fine to do that.

Acala
10-10-2013, 11:54 AM
Much ado about nothing, really. It's getting kids to critically think about rights, what's wrong with that? What if you removed two and made them stronger by adding better wording? Do some rights hinge on others?

What's wrong with getting kids to think about such subjects? I'd do the same in a home school environment.

I agree. I think it is actually a pretty good exercise, not unlike some that have been posted on this forum. The Bill of Rights is far from perfect. Does anyone think it could not be improved? Don't we want children thinking about and discussing limitations on government power?

Occam's Banana
10-10-2013, 01:02 PM
Although I support local autonomy/state's rights several states abused their powers through Jim Crow laws and without the Fourteenth Amendment they would be fine to do that.

Using the Federal Government to "right the wrongs" of the State Governments is like using an 800-pound gorilla to deal with a misbehaving chimpanzee. What are you going to do when the 800-pound gorilla starts doing bad things - especially now that you've stripped the states of a significant amount of sovereignty and turned all that authority/power over to the gorilla?

What good does it do to get rid of "Jim Crow" if the Feds end up being the sole arbiters & deciders of rights?
Concentrating power in the hands of fewer & fewer people will NEVER redound to the benefit of human liberty.
The fact that they might make a few actors stop "behaving badly" in a few instances does not change this fact.

Two wrongs do not and cannot make a right.

Matthew5
10-10-2013, 01:14 PM
I agree. I think it is actually a pretty good exercise, not unlike some that have been posted on this forum. The Bill of Rights is far from perfect. Does anyone think it could not be improved? Don't we want children thinking about and discussing limitations on government power?

Indeed, I think you do more damage in treating it like sacred scripture rather than the governing document that it is. Those need to be reviewed from time to time, and encouraging kids to think about it critically is a good thing.

Tywysog Cymru
10-10-2013, 03:37 PM
Using the Federal Government to "right the wrongs" of the State Governments is like using an 800-pound gorilla to deal with a misbehaving chimpanzee. What are you going to do when the 800-pound gorilla starts doing bad things - especially now that you've stripped the states of a significant amount of sovereignty and turned all that authority/power over to the gorilla?

What good does it do to get rid of "Jim Crow" if the Feds end up being the sole arbiters & deciders of rights?
Concentrating power in the hands of fewer & fewer people will NEVER redound to the benefit of human liberty.
The fact that they might make a few actors stop "behaving badly" in a few instances does not change this fact.

Two wrongs do not and cannot make a right.

There are certain fundamental God-given rights that no Federal Government, State, City, or County can take away. You cannot strip citizens of human rights at a local level. I am a firm believer in local autonomy, but there is a limit.

Occam's Banana
10-10-2013, 05:56 PM
:confused::confused::confused:


There are certain fundamental God-given rights that no Federal Government, State, City, or County can take away.

If States, Cities or Counties can't take them away, then why do you need the Feds to make the States, Cities or Counties stop taking them away?


You cannot strip citizens of human rights at a local level. I am a firm believer in local autonomy, but there is a limit.

Again: if this cannot be done, then why do you need someone (the Feds) to prevent it from being done?

Tywysog Cymru
10-10-2013, 06:07 PM
:confused::confused::confused:

If States, Cities or Counties can't take them away, then why do you need the Feds to make the States, Cities or Counties stop taking them away?

Again: if this cannot be done, then why do you need someone (the Feds) to prevent it from being done?

I did not mean "no ability too," I meant that it is unacceptable for any government to take them away. Those rights have been taken away by local and national governments before.

Occam's Banana
10-10-2013, 06:30 PM
I did not mean "no ability too," I meant that it is unacceptable for any government to take them away. Those rights have been taken away by local and national governments before.

"Taken away by local AND national governments" - exactly!! So what sense can it possibly make to remove the authority to decide when rights are being violated (and the authority to do something about it) from the local level (where actual, individual people are far, FAR more likely to be able to effect any needed changes) and transfer it to some far away group of inaccessible & unaccountable elites at the national level? And even if it did make any sense, what makes you think that the elites at the national level are going to be any less likely to abuse that power & authority than the ones at the more local levels?

At least when the states were in charge of these things, abominations like "Jim Crow" were limited to the scale of individual states. But using doctrines such as "incorporation," vicious nonsense like the "right" to health care or education can be forcibly imposed on everyone in the entire country much, MUCH more easily. The fact that "incorporation" was used to do a few nice things like get rid of "Jim Crow" does not change the fact that "incorporation" is a cure worse than the disease ...

Tywysog Cymru
10-10-2013, 06:38 PM
"Taken away by local AND national governments" - exactly!! So what sense can it possibly make to remove the authority to decide when rights are being violated (and the authority to do something about it) from the local level (where actual, individual people are far, FAR more likely to be able to effect any needed changes) and transfer it to some far away group of inaccessible & unaccountable elites at the national level? And even if it did make any sense, what makes you think that the elites at the national level are going to be any less likely to abuse that power & authority than the ones at the more local levels?

At least when the states were in charge of these things, abominations like "Jim Crow" were limited to the scale of individual states. But using doctrines such as "incorporation," vicious nonsense like the "right" to health care or education can be forcibly imposed on everyone in the entire country much, MUCH more easily. The fact that "incorporation" was used to do a few nice things like get rid of "Jim Crow" does not change the fact that "incorporation" is a cure worse than the disease ...

I fail to see the point of the Bill of Rights if the states can ignore them. If some state decided to re-legalize slavery, the National government has the right to strike it down.

osan
10-10-2013, 06:56 PM
Why should the states be able to violate basic rights? The point of the Bill of Rights is that there are certain rights that are inalienable and the rest can be left to the states or the people.


They shouldn't. But the notion that the federal government is going to be some sort of benign "Dudley Do-Right" who rides in and rescues people from the evil "Snidely Whiplash" states is a deluded fantasy. The Feds are much bigger tyrants - both literally and figuratively. The only sane approach is to move the power to deal with violations of rights "downward" to the local level - NOT "upward" to the national level. "Incorporation" does nothing but concentrate power in the hands of fewer, more distant and less accountable people ...

I do not see the BoR as a license for the feds to act in the manner you suggest in any common fashion. I see it as a set of fundamental guarantees to which any state choosing to join the union becomes beholden. If you want to be a member of this union, you must toe these lines. Period. They are conditions of membership that apply to states and/or the fedgov. It is clear to me beyond any doubt whatsoever that the Second Amendment, for example, prohibits ANYONE from infringing the right to keep and bear arms.