Common Core’s Warped View of the Constitution, It’s Time to Worry


Constitution day

The page above comes from a Common Core second grade workbook. It is completely inaccurate.

The Constitution is not a piece of paper, first off.

It is also not true that we can’t say things that hurt others. We would hope people would care about peoples’ feelings but US law does not abridge speech based on other’s feelings. Sharia law does, the South African Constitution does, but US law forbids that type of infringement.

This is the proper wording of the First Amendment to the Constitution which guarantees our right to free speech:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

There can be no law prohibiting the free exercise or abridgment of speech. It says nothing about not being allowed to hurt other’s feelings.

The workbook page refers to the Constitution as a written plan. It is not. It is our rule of law.

This corresponds to things we are seeing in other spheres of society. Take the Washington Redskins for example.

We have a nonsensical battle going on now over the name of the Washington Redskins, a name the team has carried proudly for more than 80 years. President Obama weighed in on it, why I don’t know.  He told the Associated Press that if it “was offending a sizable group of people, I’d think about changing it.”

Is that how we determine our free speech rights now? We take a poll and if enough people are offended, we limit the rights of the others? In the case of the Washington Redskins, it is not meant to put Indians in anything but a positive light. If this is unacceptable, isn’t the Fighting Irish also unacceptable? What about the Cleveland Indians or the Minnesota Vikings, the Kansas City Chiefs, or the Chicago Blackhawks?

Some might point out that at one time, in some places, Redskins was a pejorative. Must we now be required to find out if a term was once a pejorative and then limit free speech accordingly? We must also then give up expressions such as bend over backwards or peter out because they were once vulgar slang.

The South African Constitution, which is so beloved by Justice Ginsberg, has restrictions like this on free speech. You can go to jail if you insult someone! That goes on all over Europe and elsewhere – people are imprisoned for their beliefs and exercise thereof.

Am I seeing a trending towards propagandizing our youth at an early age so a similar Constitution can be enacted in the United States at some point?

The worksheet from Harcourt-Brace came from a friend’s grandson’s homework. He’s in second grade.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Sheila Beers
Sheila Beers
7 years ago

In addition to my previous post, “free speech” in the U. S. Constitution means the right to express one’s opinion about the government and social and political issues. This right did not exist in Britain and other European countries, where people could be jailed or executed for expressing an idea not held by the “powers-that-be.” Your exploration of this subject is shallow, and you are taking things out of context and not even relating them to the ideas for which they originally were intended. As the author of this piece, YOU need to be educated!!!

As for Common Core saying the constitution is “a piece of paper,” I believe this wording was used to explain a document to second-grade children. You are not understanding much of the material that is the subject of your “complaint.”

7 years ago
Reply to  Sheila Beers

Shallow and out of context, Sheila? Really? Tell us about laws against” libel and slander”? Would those be federal laws? No, those would be ‘state’ laws. And just as there are no federal laws regarding ‘libel and slander’, the reason being that the freedom of speech doesn’t prohibit people getting their feelings hurt, contra what the CC lesson plan was trying to say, nothing prohibits the individual states from enacting slander and libel laws. Sara is spot on in deducing that these little licenses that “educators” take with the founding documents may be all right if in context and not contra to the fundamental, existential edifices of the founding documents, but if examined with an ……educated ……and practiced scrutiny, the licenses are patently not ‘poetic’.
Your comment that the First Amendment mean right to express one’s thes opinion about the government and politics and social issues omits a veritable sea of issues. If I may be so bold as to submit that the “science” of anthropogenic global warming is bull shit, please do not be so shallow as to deny me the freedom of that utterance. As would the grotesque, perverse and evil ideology which is at the root of the Common Core curriculums being shoved down our throats these days. Yes they are. Don’t tell me they aren’t. And don’t tell me I’m libeling or slandering anybody when I say that.

Sheila Beers
Sheila Beers
7 years ago

What about the laws against libel and slander? I know you mean well, but your interpretation of the U. S. Constitution still is inaccurate and certainly NOT what I was taught in school 50-60 years ago!