< PREVIOUS ] [ 1997 Index ] [ Ed Quillen HOME ] [ SEARCH ] [ NEXT >
We can assume that state Sen. Charles Duke had good
intentions when he introduced SB 19, concerning the
documents to be included in the teaching of United States
history and civil government.
As many surveys have demonstrated, most Americans, when
presented with the Bill of Rights, denounce its provisions
as subversive ACLU poppycock -- bleeding-heart knee-jerk
drivel about how excessive bail shall not be
required
or no person ... shall be compelled in any
criminal case to be a witness against himself.
Duke's bill would require that the Bill of Rights, along with the rest of the U.S. Constitution, be taught in Colorado schools. Other required reading includes the Declaration of Independence, the Federalist and Antifederalist Papers, the Emancipation Proclamation, the Gettysburg Address and George Washington's Farewell Address.
Further, Duke wanted teachers to present each
writing, including the author of and circumstances
surrounding the writing, in the light most favorable to its
author.
Suppose that this becomes law, and we'll visit a classroom at Future High School. As long as we're dreaming anyway, let's also presume that these students, despite the best efforts of their teachers over the years, actually enjoy learning and perform considerable outside reading.
Good morning, class. As you may know, the state
legislature demands that we discuss certain works, such as
the Antifederalist Papers.
Mr. Drone, I couldn't find any mention of the
Antifederalist Papers in our encyclopedia at home.
That's because you have an old edition. I found them
on the Web at link -- it's a collection of writings by people like Patrick
Henry and Elbridge Gerry who opposed the
Constitution.
So the Antifederalist Papers are just one book, and
the general assembly requires it? Doesn't our state
constitution say that 'Neither the general assembly nor the
state board of education shall have the power to prescribe
textbooks to be used in the public schools'?
Class, please. I'm no lawyer. Why don't we discuss
the Federalist Papers in the light most favorable to their
author?
Mr. Drone, the Federalist Papers were published
anonymously. How can we be favorable to the authors when we
don't know who the authors were?
It is generally held that the Federalist Papers were
written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John
Jay.
Mr. Drone, I read that Hamilton was a bastard, and
that he was a political antagonist of Thomas Jefferson, who
wrote the Declaration of Independence. How can we discuss
them both in the most favorable light when they were
opposed on almost everything?
But didn't Hamilton pull strings for Jefferson when
he and Aaron Burr were tied in the 1800 electoral
vote?
Mr. Drone, is it true that Jefferson owned slaves,
grew tobacco and hemp, and supported violent
revolution?
Class, please, I'm just trying to do my job. Let's
talk about Washington's Farewell Address.
Wasn't it ghost-written by Hamilton?
Why did William Bennett censor some of it for his
'Book of Virtues'?
Mr. Drone, I read it, and President Washington
denounces political parties as causes of 'disorders and
miseries.' Was that a slam at Jefferson, who was organizing
a political party then? And Washington wrote that we should
'steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the
foreign world.' Does that mean things like NATO and the
UN?
Class, perhaps we can deal with this later. Let's
look at the Emancipation Proclamation.
Mr. Drone, the proclamation freed slaves only in
areas 'in rebellion against the United States.' Doesn't
that mean that it had no practical effect, since it freed
slaves only in places controlled by the Confederate
government, where Lincoln could not enforce it?
But Mr. Drone, even if didn't really free any slaves,
didn't it keep England out of the war? Wasn't the
Proclamation just a foreign-policy ploy?
Just where did Lincoln get the constitutional power
to deprive slaveowners of their lawful property without
just compensation? Isn't that a 'takings' in violation of
the Fifth Amendment?
Class, you know we can't discuss those angles. We
might fail to put Abraham Lincoln in the most favorable
light. Can't we agree that Lincoln's main goal was
preserving the Union, and that any action he took with
regard to slavery, which he abhorred, was subsidiary to
that goal?
But Mr. Drone, what was the point of preserving the
Union if it meant trampling all over the Constitution in
the process?
That question troubled President Lincoln, too,
and...
Fortunately, the bell rings, and Mr. Drone feels pleased that he's managed another day without being arrested. Why couldn't he get a classroom of normal kids who just count the holes in the ceiling tiles?
< PREVIOUS ] [ 1997 Index ] [ Ed Quillen HOME ] [ SEARCH ] [ NEXT >