Americans know literally nothing about the Constitution

  • Thread starter Thread starter randomuser888
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

randomuser888

Guest
*** More than one in three people (37%) could not name a single right protected by the First Amendment. THE FIRST AMENDMENT.**
*** Only one in four (26%) can name all three branches of the government. (In 2011, 38% could name all three branches.)**
***** One in three (33%) can’t name any branch of government. None. Not even one.****
***** A majority (53%) believe the Constitution affords undocumented immigrants no rights. However, everyone in the US is entitled to due process of law and the right to make their case before the courts, at the least.****

 
Last edited:
There was another survey in which the respondents thought that “checks and balances” meant the Democrats versus the Republicans instead of the Legislative versus Executive versus Judicial obligations written into the Constitution.
 
CNN, I guess Trump bashing was getting boring…why not start on the American people? Most people, if accosted on the street and asked a random question would probably answer, I don’t know, just to be on their way (yeah, probably to Starbucks…)

I recall about 20 years ago, Anderson Cooper was working for Channel One, a school announcement/news current events station. They tried to do a piece on VETERANS day in the US, instead of dealing with US vets, they did the entire piece on Holocaust survivors. While a worthy topic in and of itself, it was NOT a Veterans day topic. Now Cooper is the CNN star?
 
Last edited:
The great ignorance of the masses, who supposedly are educated in government schools, is well documented. Knowing this I can’t understand what sane person would advocate universal enfranchisement.
 
What Americans don’t know is the proper use of the word ‘literally’! 😃
 
Too bad the TV networks did away with “America Rock” segments between the kiddie cartoons. I learned a lot of basic knowledge about things like the Constitution and checks and balances from those little songs. I remember a test in junior or senior year high school where we had to write out the preamble to the Constitution, and pretty much everyone remembered it by singing the “Preamble” song in their head.
 
exnihilo said:
The great ignorance of the masses, who supposedly are educated in government schools, is well documented. Knowing this I can’t understand what sane person would advocate universal enfranchisement
Click to expand...
Sane people advocate it because you are not going to get those “masses” to fight and defend your wealthy, educated person and your property if they don’t even get to vote. If you don’t let people vote then they are more likely to just go revolt against your wealthy, educated person and your property. I seem to recall that’s how the USA got started in the first place.
 
Tis_Bearself said:
Sane people advocate it because you are not going to get those “masses” to fight and defend your wealthy, educated person and your property if they don’t even get to vote. If you don’t let people vote then they are more likely to just go revolt against your wealthy, educated person and your property. I seem to recall that’s how the USA got started in the first place.
Click to expand...
I don’t know. It seems they’ve always found plenty of people to fight even when you had kings. And it was always the common man, the soldier, who kept down revolts of his fellow common man. Democracy if anything makes war easier. At least in the past men might not want to fight to enrich the king because they would see the war for what it really was. Now he thinks he is fighting for ‘his’ government.

Indeed. It was sort of the revolt of the vice president or mutiny of the first mate who wants to be fully in charge.
 
Of course there are plenty of people to fight.

From the song “Gee, I Wish I Was Back in the Army”

Three meals a day
For which you didn’t pay
Uniforms for winter, spring and fall

Why do you think NK has such a large army?
 
The only pity is that the revolution did not go far enough.
What was needed was a simultainious revolt in America, Jamaca, Ireland, and Scotland all at once. Then get the rest of Europe to blockade the usurpers into surrender. And then you could move on to take vengence. (Sell them as slaves to the sugar islands, outlaw the Anglicans and make Hinduism the state religion, ban anglicans from inheritiing land, rename London “Dublinderry”, etc. Launch random attacks and blame it on “Mohawks”. It would be a grand old time.
 
This is why democracy is a failure. How can the people govern themselves when a large majority lack basic knowledge of how the system works?

Note to self, along with property ownership and/or military service, passing a civics test yearly should be required for voting rights.
 
All anyone needs to know is that Democrats and liberals are out to destroy it and use groups like antifa and blm as their cowardly army, and that the Republicans have too much of a weak spine to protect it.
 
America is a republic, not a democracy, there are differences…


The key difference between a democracy and a republic lies in the limits placed on government by the law, which has implications for minority rights. Both forms of government tend to use a representational system — i.e., citizens vote to elect politicians to represent their interests and form the government. In a republic, a constitution or charter of rights protects certain inalienable rights that cannot be taken away by the government, even if it has been elected by a majority of voters. In a “pure democracy,” the majority is not restrained in this way and can impose its will on the minority.

Most modern nations are democratic republics with a constitution, which can be amended by a popularly elected government. This comparison therefore contrasts the form of government in most countries today with a theoretical construct of a “pure democracy”, mainly to highlight the features of a republic.

Common confusion in the USA People commonly confuse direct democracy with representative democracy. The US officially has a representative style, though many have suggested the US is closer to an oligarchy or plutocracy. The US is actually a Republic. It is governed by rule of law.

The US is actually a Republic. It is governed by rule of law. The elected are bound by oath to the written governing limits (ie constitution) yet vote “together” and create laws to address concerns of the represented in a democratic way
 
Last edited:
I definitely agree with this and I dont think its gotten this way by coincidence either! It would be in a tyrannical Govts best interest to have a public that has little to no understanding of its nations founding principles.

I do give them credit for what they have done though, its something the founding fathers could have never foreseen or guarded against, they have basically ensured there will never be another revolution in the US, no matter how tyrannical the govt becomes, all they have to do is sway public opinion to their side, if people believe tyranny is being done in their best interest and its touted as a good thing…well, anyone trying to disrupt this will be labelled a terrorist and quickly jailed, silenced, and most people will agree thats where they need to be, thinking they are the patriotic american themselves! LOL

I saw a quote on another forum that really stuck with me and makes sense…" in todays world, with the type of tyrannical govt currently in the US, REAL American patriotism would look more like domestic terrorism to the brainwashed mind".

I think that says it perfectly, after all, its not patriotic in the slightest, to be totally subservient and obedient to a tyrannical authority, its actually treasonous.
 
You’re correct that only wealthy, educated white males could vote in USA at the time of the Revolution (in some places I recall they even had to be Church of England), but the revolution was spurred by the fact that people in USA were being taxed by the UK without representation in the UK legislative body.

I also think the French Revolution that followed after was the one that really put the fear of God into all the people in power about what might happen when people were not given sufficient rights or say in a government.
 
Last edited:
I reckon if that had happened, we would have ended up similar to Canada, or perhaps Australia.
The way things were going in human history, though, some group of people in some country was going to have a mass revolt against the aristocracy, as those ideas were out there. Better to have the US example setting the pace rather than the French one, which went out of control pretty quickly.
 
Republicans do nothing but meddle in international affairs, spy on us in direct violation of the 4th ammendment, pass “right to freeload off the unions without paying dues but get the same union-negotiated pay rate” laws, infringe on our RKBA (the attrocities of '68 and '86) , decry socialism and communism as evil, but use them as international scabs to destroy US wages. How is destroying US wages so the ordinary Jimmy cannot make enough money to buy a house, marry Suzie, afford to have children, and ever have a glimmer of a hope to retire “pro-life”?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top