Arizona first-in-nation law mandates students pass civic test

[nic34]

(Reuters) - Arizona's high school students will be required to pass the same civics test that immigrants must pass to gain citizenship, under a first-in-the-nation bill signed into law on Thursday.

Arizona Republican Governor Doug Ducey, who had championed the idea in his state-of-the-state address on Monday, signed the measure only hours after it sailed through the state House and Senate on Thursday.

"Not long from now, our children will be entrusted with protecting the principles on which this country was founded, and it is up to us to prepare them for that responsibility today," Ducey said in a statement.

Ducey, sworn into office on Jan. 5, hailed the bi-partisan passage of the bill and said it would "help ensure all Arizona students understand basic American civics."




http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/16/us-usa-arizona-tests-idUSKBN0KP09D20150116

Great idea.

Funny, I thought this was already mandated everywhere at one time.... :huh:

[nic34]

Now comes the debate on who writes the tests. :shocked:

[Peter1469]

Hopefully it represents true Constitutional values and not some perversion of it.

[Redrose]

Now comes the debate on who writes the tests. :shocked:


A couple of years ago, I saw a "man in the street" interview of young college kids. They were asked several very basic questions about our system of government. They were clueless.
The one response that stunned me was, "who succeeds the President of the US, if he dies or is unable to serve?" Only one said the VP. One actually said "Michelle Obama".

Another genius thought Lincoln was the second president and freed the slaves in 1940. ???????

We can do better than that.

[nic34]

A couple of years ago, I saw a "man in the street" interview of young college kids. They were asked several very basic questions about our system of governmement. They were clueless.
The one response that stunned me was, "who succeeds the President of the US, if he dies or is unable to serve?" Only one said the VP. One actually said "Michelle Obama".

Another genius thought Lincoln was the second president and freed the slaves in 1940. ???????

We can do better than that.

When I was a 2nd grader kid, my friends told me that since Kennedy won the 1960 election, Nixon became his VP.

Us republican kids were hopeful.... :laugh:

[The Sage of Main Street]

Hopefully it represents true Constitutional values and not some perversion of it. The Constitution should have been a temporary start-up document to be amended by all subsequent legislation. Americans in the 18th Century, whose decision shouldn't bind us, only passed it out of frustration in order to get things started and end all the bickering. The Framers, ingenious lawyers for the colonial 1%, tricked them mercilessly with all the deceptive language in the document. For example, titles were outlawed, but every other unearned privilege of the English hereditary aristocracy was permitted.

[PolWatch]

I see people who get their information from partisan sites, opinion shows & comedians. They never question conclusions, they gobble up sound bytes like popcorn. These are the parents of the kids who don't know anything. Why should the kids be any smarter or better informed? They are either going to follow their parents or rebel against them....and their choice will probably have little to do with informed decision.

[Common Sense]

Uh oh...

http://wthitv.com/2015/01/21/can-you-pass-the-u-s-civics-test-studies-show-most-americans-cant/

[Redrose]

When I was a 2nd grader kid, my friends told me that since Kennedy won the 1960 election, Nixon became his VP.

Us republican kids were hopeful.... :laugh:


Hey, makes sense right? First and second. lol

[nic34]

An Anti-Democratic Manifesto, Devised Behind Closed Doors

Corporate Powers fought incorporating a Bill of Rights



To Restore Democracy: First Abolish Corporate Personhood


During this same period, because everybody understood Paine and Jefferson’s argument that human-made institutions must be subordinate to humans themselves; virtually every state had laws on the books that regulated the behavior of corporations.

The corporate form is, after all, just a legal structure to facilitate the conversion of products or services into cash for stockholders. As Buckminster Fuller wrote in his brilliant essay The Grunch of Giants, “Corporations are neither physical nor metaphysical phenomena. They are socioeconomic ploys-legally enacted game-playing-agreed upon only between overwhelmingly powerful socioeconomic individuals and by them imposed upon human society and its all unwitting members.”

Thus, states made it illegal for corporations to participate in the political process: politicians were doing the voters’ business, and corporations couldn’t vote, so it didn’t make sense they should be allowed to try to influence votes. States made it illegal for corporations to lie about their products, and required that their books and processes always be open and available to government regulators. States and the Federal government claimed the right to inspect companies and investigate them when they caused pollution, harmed workers, or created hazards for human communities, even if in the early years that right was unevenly used.


http://www.thomhartmann.com/articles/2001/12/restore-democracy-first-abolish-corporate-personhood#sthash.41yYlS3x.dpuf

[Newpublius]

Corporate personhood, boy it just sounds wrong doesn't it? They're not people. What people forget is that it's shorthand. It's shorthand for the LEGAL FICTION OF SEPARATE PERSONHOOD. Why is it a legal fiction? Obviously because the connection between the shareholders and corporations is ridiculously obvious. So instead of the corporate entity being considered, again, a legal fiction, separate and distinct, it won't be, it will possess the collective personality of it's members, which won't change a thing.

[sachem]

(Reuters) - Arizona's high school students will be required to pass the same civics test that immigrants must pass to gain citizenship, under a first-in-the-nation bill signed into law on Thursday.

Arizona Republican Governor Doug Ducey, who had championed the idea in his state-of-the-state address on Monday, signed the measure only hours after it sailed through the state House and Senate on Thursday.

"Not long from now, our children will be entrusted with protecting the principles on which this country was founded, and it is up to us to prepare them for that responsibility today," Ducey said in a statement.

Ducey, sworn into office on Jan. 5, hailed the bi-partisan passage of the bill and said it would "help ensure all Arizona students understand basic American civics."




http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/16/us-usa-arizona-tests-idUSKBN0KP09D20150116

Great idea.

Funny, I thought this was already mandated everywhere at one time.... :huh:Bills like this, feel good do nothing crap, are the reason this country is fucked up.

[Newpublius]

The Constitution should have been a temporary start-up document to be amended by all subsequent legislation. Americans in the 18th Century, whose decision shouldn't bind us, only passed it out of frustration in order to get things started and end all the bickering. The Framers, ingenious lawyers for the colonial 1%, tricked them mercilessly with all the deceptive language in the document. For example, titles were outlawed, but every other unearned privilege of the English hereditary aristocracy was permitted.

Then it's not a Constitution. If a Constitutiion can be amended by legislation, have parliamentary sovereignty. We specifically chose not to do that. England did.

[PolWatch]

but the politicians can prance around and tell everyone how they are working to defend America....and hope no notices that their work product & a cup of warm spit are about equal in value.

[Peter1469]

Corporate personhood, boy it just sounds wrong doesn't it? They're not people. What people forget is that it's shorthand. It's shorthand for the LEGAL FICTION OF SEPARATE PERSONHOOD. Why is it a legal fiction? Obviously because the connection between the shareholders and corporations is ridiculously obvious. So instead of the corporate entity being considered, again, a legal fiction, separate and distinct, it won't be, it will possess the collective personality of it's members, which won't change a thing.

So the collective personality of IBMs stockholders agree on where contributions to political races ought to go?

[Newpublius]

So the collective personality of IBMs stockholders agree on where contributions to political races ought to go?

Thats the inherent problem of any collective action. The costs of collective action vs individual action are obvious. If my wife and I go to dinner, I can't dictate the venue every time. Same with business, there's no difference. The stockholders needn't agree at all. If the collective action is so contrary to your wishes, you sell the share. We engage in collective action when the costs of collective action still lead to a less desirable individual result. The Republican and Democratic parties essentially don't do anything different in actuality.

[Mac-7]

A couple of years ago, I saw a "man in the street" interview of young college kids. They were asked several very basic questions about our system of government. They were clueless.
The one response that stunned me was, "who succeeds the President of the US, if he dies or is unable to serve?" Only one said the VP. One actually said "Michelle Obama".

Another genius thought Lincoln was the second president and freed the slaves in 1940. ???????

We can do better than that.

If the students have been taught by liberal/libertarian/libertine educators they know more about sex than civics.

[Peter1469]

Thats the inherent problem of any collective action. The costs of collective action vs individual action are obvious. If my wife and I go to dinner, I can't dictate the venue every time. Same with business, there's no difference. The stockholders needn't agree at all. If the collective action is so contrary to your wishes, you sell the share. We engage in collective action when the costs of collective action still lead to a less desirable individual result. The Republican and Democratic parties essentially don't do anything different in actuality.

Or we don't pretend that corporations ought to have a constitutional right to donate to politicians. Each shareholder does have that right.

[The Sage of Main Street]

Hey, makes sense right? First and second. lol That was the law the Framing Fathers gave us. Pretty ridiculous for them to think it would work. The VP should be the President's party leader in the House or Senate and keep his position there.

[donttread]

Now comes the debate on who writes the tests. :shocked:

The victors always write history

[Mac-7]

Or we don't pretend that corporations ought to have a constitutional right to donate to politicians. Each shareholder does have that right.

Does that include corporate donations to private charities and community activists.

Should we ban corporation from giving money to Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton or the local symphony orchestra?

[donttread]

The Constitution should have been a temporary start-up document to be amended by all subsequent legislation. Americans in the 18th Century, whose decision shouldn't bind us, only passed it out of frustration in order to get things started and end all the bickering. The Framers, ingenious lawyers for the colonial 1%, tricked them mercilessly with all the deceptive language in the document. For example, titles were outlawed, but every other unearned privilege of the English hereditary aristocracy was permitted.

You're wrong Sage. common misconception. but the Constitution was not written about a specific point in history or state of technology. It was written about human nature and that has not changed. We have an amendment process they ignore already

[Peter1469]

If you had teachers in your life who told you that there is no such thing as a stupid question..., well they lied to you.


Does that include corporate donations to private charities and community activists.

Should we ban corporation from giving money to Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton or the local symphony orchestra?

[The Sage of Main Street]

You're wrong Sage. common misconception. but the Constitution was not written about a specific point in history or state of technology. It was written about human nature and that has not changed. We have an amendment process they ignore already It was written by spoiled snobs with a wannabe-aristocrat 18th Century view of human nature. You're as tricky as those lawyers for the 1% were. That anti-democratic manifesto did not reflect unchangeable human nature, it reflected an ephemeral view of human nature. Remember, during that era not believing that the King was appointed by God was thought to be about as radical as can be.

Who cares about the Constitution's amendment process, as if just having it takes care of any necessary change? The people have their own amendment process. It's called referendum.