A Lesson in Civics

By: Bryan Zepp Jamieson

We all know what a tireless champion of the Constitution George W. is.

In two brief years, he has revised the meaning of much of the Constitution in his tireless efforts to keep American subjects secure and terrorist-free.

So it should come as no surprise to anyone that George wants the schools to start emphasizing civics in class, and to teach the kids what it means to be a good American citizen.

Now, politicians are always making a suggestion that civics be emphasized in school so the kids understand what this "American" stuff is all about. And, oddly enough, it turns out to be one of those feel-good notions that most people approve of but which never actually gets done, like outlawing spam and telephone solicitation calls, or balancing the budget.

Teaching civics is going to involve a certain amount of controversy, of course. The Constitution, for all its brevity and clarity, leaves a lot of room for debate about what this passage or that passage actually means. There are millions of pages covering thousands of legal cases to show that anyone who claims that any part of the Constitution is clear and straightforward and lends itself to only one interpretation is full of crap.

George, let's pretend that you are a teacher for a minute here. And you are teaching civics. For the sake of argument, we'll pretend that you know anything about civics and the Constitution.

Take the Second Amendment. If you, the teacher, say that the Second Amendment means that every individual American has a right to bear arms, and the next day half the seventh grade class shows up with howitzers, bazookas, and civil war cannon, you are going to have to explain that sometimes "every" actually means "some" and "right" actually means "adult privilege" and "arms" doesn't include weaponry capable of knocking a 767 out of the sky from six miles away.

Seventh grade kids being what they are, at least one smart mouth is going to ask if it's true that the first duty of all Americans is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and if you, the teacher, are disparaging their right to have on their persons any weapon they can carry, then aren't they obliged, as loyal Americans, to shoot you for assaulting the Constitution and the Bill of Rights?

Maybe we can just skip that Second Amendment there, George.

There's the Fourth Amendment, concerning unreasonable search and seizure. It's one of the bedrock principles of American freedom, and the most obvious element of the fact that the people have sovereignty over the government, and not the other way around.

But that same smart ass kid who threatened you with the bazooka yesterday is sitting right there, and he's saying something about locker searches. Sure enough, your school, like most schools in the country, has established random sweep searches of lockers for drugs and affirmations of the Second Amendment. So you explain that the restrictions are limited to the police only, that they have to have a warrant issued upon probable cause, but that schools are different because they have something called in loco parentis, and that damn pest is pointing out that one of his buddies stood in front of his locker with a gun and demanded to see the warrant and is now expelled and facing criminal charges, even though he didn't point the gun at anyone. In fact, it wasn't even loaded.

All he was doing was standing up for his rights. Oh, and incidently, when they were talking about Prohibition a few weeks back, didn't George mention that they needed a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol because the federal government doesn't have authority to impose blanket bans on substances like that? Didn't the teacher mention that amendment was repealed?

OK. The kids are only going to be confused if we talk about the Fourth Amendment. They think that "the people" applies to everyone in the United States, including people under the age of 18. And the drug war confuses everyone. So we'll skip the Fourth.

So you mention the First Amendment, and some kid says: "Hey, yeah. What the fuck's up with that, anyway?" You tell him to curb his language, and he points out that the First mentions freedom of speech. You sigh, and explain that freedom of speech doesn't include use of vulgarities in class.

But the kid with the attitude about drugs and the bazooka is in your face again. He says: "The First Amendment says I have freedom to worship as I please, and speak my mind, right?" You nod, warily. "So if I say Jesus was a faggot and got what he deserved when they hung him, that's covered by the Constitution , right?"

You wearily agree that he has that right, but add that people are also allowed to worship without facing disparagement of their beliefs in the classroom. The kid promptly asks if you feel calling someone gay is disparaging, and notes that if he hadn't been hanged by the Romans, Christianity would not exist.

A girl asks if the First Amendment permits blasphemy, and you have to admit that the Constitution makes it impossible to legislate against blasphemy.

Another kid wants to know about threats against public officials. You can relax. The Constitution explicitly bans speech advocating the violent overthrow of the government, and threats against public officials are penumbral to that. You threaten a public official, that's not covered by freedom of speech, and you can go to jail for doing it.

Some kid mentions the guy who got sentenced to 37 months in jail for making a joke about "a burning Bush". You admit that the guy probably hadn't advocated violence against your person. But it was borderline.

Another kid asks about First Amendment Zones. If people have freedom of speech, as long as they aren't blocking others from passing by, aren't First Amendment Zones an illegal restraint of freedom of speech?

You point out that the zones are for the protection of the First Amendment, and are meant to give people a place where they can vent.

A girl raises her hand. "Would you say that signs calling you a fascist don't violate freedom of speech?" You agree that they don't. "What about a sign offering you a pretzel?"

You have to think about that one for a moment. "Well, it's kind of a nasty thing to say..."

"Well, it hurts your feelings, but it doesn't actually threaten you, right?"

OK. Point made. The burning Bush case was a mistake.

Another kid pops up. "Shouldn't these First Amendment zones really be called Second Amendment zones?"

You ask him to explain.

"Well, you've already stipulated that people can protest, and say nasty things, as long as they don't block your path or the ability of others to get around, right?"

Right.

"Well, you can put them in places where you can see them, and they aren't shouting you down or blocking your path, right? So why are these zones usually out of sight, and sometimes miles from where you are? It's not because they are dissenting. It's because you're worried that one of them might have a gun and shoot you, isn't it?"

"So why not call them Second Amendment zones?"

George, you see the problem with your proposed civic courses. First, you can't really have a course on American civics without mentioning the Constitution, and lately, the government attitudes toward that document have been kind of confusing, to put it mildly.

So once you decide you have to discuss the Constitution, you have a second issue to address concerning the Constitution.

Are you for it, or against it?