http://professor-lyman.livejournal.com/ ([identity profile] professor-lyman.livejournal.com) wrote in [community profile] fandomhigh2006-02-01 12:50 pm
Entry tags:

US Government (Wednesday, February 1, 4th period)

Josh was reading the transcript of the State of the Union and rolling his eyes when the government students filed into the classroom.

"That speech," he sputtered. "Seriously? Seriously?" He coughed. "Sorry. Last night was a demonstration of Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution. 'He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge them necessary and expedient...'" Josh rolled his eyes. "At no point did the Constitution stipulate that it be interesting."

"Last class we discussed the preamble and the concept of separation of powers. Today we're going to discuss a couple of the mistakes that the Founders made." Josh looked down at his notes. "Even though the document begins 'We the people,' the Founders at the time were thinking more 'we the white guys with property.' Native Americans weren't considered part of the people and weren't given citizenship until the 14th Amendment passed after the Civil War. And it wasn't until 1968 that Native Americans living under tribal law on reservations were guaranteed the full rights of American citizens."

Josh made a face. "Sometimes, we kind of suck. Another example of this was the continuation of slavery that was allowed under the Constitution. The delegates from the slave states--South Carolina and Georgia in particular--wouldn't approve the Constitution if there was a part in it outlawing slavery. So the Founders punted and allowed slavery to continue until 1808, which then led into the cotton gin being invented and it was pretty much a straight line straight to Civil War, but if you want that story, take the US history class."

He looked back at his notes. "Okay. The two big deals that we haven't dealt with are known as the Three-Fifths compromise and the Great Compromise, and both deal with representation the Congress. The Great Compromise, despite its catchy name, wasn't that much of a compromise. Everyone was pretty much agreed on having a bicameral--two bodied--legislature. The makeup of the lower body--the House of Representatives--would be decided by population. The question then turned to how the Senate would be made up. The small states were very concerned that the three largest states would be able to outvote them on a sheer population basis in the Senate, too." Josh paused. "Much in the way that California can now outvote the rest of the West in the House."

He smiled. "The Connecticut Compromise, or the Great Compromise, allowed for the House makeup to be decided by population. In the Senate every state would have an equal amount of say--two votes per state. This leads to very interesting political differences between them. In the House, for instance, the Great State of South Dakota has exactly one vote of 435. In the Senate, with two out of a hundred, they wield a much more powerful stick."

He turned back to his notes. "Deciding that the House would be based on population brought up the incredibly unpleasant question of who counts as a person." He wrinkled his nose. "Yeah. The compromise was that slaves in the South would be counted for taxing and census purposes as three-fifths of a free person. This section was rightfully stricken from the Constitution in the 14th Amendment."

He cleared his throat. "Which brings us to the Amendments. The Founders knew they hadn't come up with answers to everything and provided a way for the Constitution to be amended. To amend the Constitution, the amendment must pass through both the House and the Senate with two-thirds approval, then be ratified by three-fifths of the states. Instead of going through the Congress, the states could also request a national convention, which has only been used once, to ratify the 21st Amendment repealing prohibition." Josh smirked. "Because trying to ban alcohol in this country was a deeply stupid idea. We've changed it 27 different times--ten of them immediately after the Constitution was ratified."

He pointed to the board where he had written "The Bill of Rights" in big letters. "Let's see how well you remember what you read." He pointed to a student at random. "Starting from the First Amendment and going down to the Tenth--give me an example of what the amendments say you are guaranteed right a right to in this country."

Before he dismissed the class, Josh stood up. "I'd forgot to mention my attendance policy at the beginning of the year because I'm a grown-up and just assumed that people would be showing up, thrilled to hear about the ins and outs of US history and government." He looked down at his class roster. "Apparently some of you are more thrilled about this than others. So beginning today, if you miss three classes in a row, I'm going to have to ship your name off for detention. And I don't want to be that guy. So everyone show up, okay? Thanks. You've got a test on Friday. Memorizing the preamble would not be an incredibly dumb thing to do. Just saying. Now get out of here."

Re: Discussion question

[identity profile] leeadama.livejournal.com 2006-02-01 09:04 pm (UTC)(link)
"I'm fond of your country's first ammendment as it allows the people to have a voice in the government, which can help keep your government honest and focused on the people they server, not the bureaucracy they live in," Lee offers.

Re: Discussion question

[identity profile] 02maxwell.livejournal.com 2006-02-02 05:19 am (UTC)(link)
"I gotta agree with Lee." Duo says firmly. "As long as there's an openin' to question the government, you can add in all the other stuff as you see fit. But if you can't say what you think, or print what you think, or tell the government what a sucky job they're doin', then all the other stuff won't matter cuz you'll be stuck in the proverbial rut." He nods. "With bureaucrats." He adds. "And, you know. 'Ew' to bureaucrats."

Re: Discussion question

[identity profile] carter-i-am.livejournal.com 2006-02-01 09:08 pm (UTC)(link)
"Second Amendment, the right to keep and bear arms," Sam recited, possibly visibly vibrating from eating an overly chocolatey brownie and a danish in the same morning. She had her foot out in front of her on another chair. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

"Because people should have the right to defend themselves and their loved ones. Even if they have a tendency to run into dangerous situations without thinking at all about their own safety and well-being..."

Re: Discussion question

[identity profile] notcalledlizzie.livejournal.com 2006-02-01 09:38 pm (UTC)(link)
Elizabeth muttered under her breath, "But where in the Amendment does it say that we have the right to try and police the world, spending nearly $500 billion in the process?"

Re: Discussion question

[identity profile] carter-i-am.livejournal.com 2006-02-01 09:42 pm (UTC)(link)
"It doesn't," Sam whispered back, "but considering where $6 billion of that money goes, maybe policing more than our fair share isn't all bad."

Re: Discussion question

[identity profile] notcalledlizzie.livejournal.com 2006-02-01 09:51 pm (UTC)(link)
"$8.3 billion of it last I checked," Elizabeth shrugged. "That's, what, 2% of the budget for a galaxy or two?"

Re: Discussion question

[identity profile] carter-i-am.livejournal.com 2006-02-01 09:53 pm (UTC)(link)
"Okay, point."

Re: Discussion question

[identity profile] izzyalienqueen.livejournal.com 2006-02-01 09:27 pm (UTC)(link)
"The ninth amendment is important because it states that these ten rights are not the be all and end all of the rights of the people. That they do have other rights that aren't specifically mentioned in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights." Isabel then coughed. Although it might have sounded a lot more like a muttered privacy.

Re: Discussion question

[identity profile] oatmanspatient.livejournal.com 2006-02-01 09:32 pm (UTC)(link)
"Fourth amendment. It keeps the 'Man' from invading your home and taking what's yours."

Re: Discussion question

[identity profile] kitty--fetish.livejournal.com 2006-02-01 09:38 pm (UTC)(link)
"I'll go with the sixth ammendment. It's good that we have people who look into the matter of a crime instead of just pointing fingers and claiming whomever did it; there's a chance you might be accusing the wrong person. It's not a completely perfect way to pick out who did it and who's innocent, but it gives a person the chance to speak their side of the story."
chasingangela: (dreams)

Re: Discussion question

[personal profile] chasingangela 2006-02-01 09:40 pm (UTC)(link)
"The fifth amendment gives rights even to people who have been accused of crimes -- it means a Grand Jury has to look at all the evidence before you can be charged, and that you can't be tried twice for the same offense, and that they can't just throw you in jail without due process."

Re: Discussion question

[identity profile] notcalledlizzie.livejournal.com 2006-02-01 09:46 pm (UTC)(link)
"The Eighth Amendment bans torture." Elizabeth shrugged. "That's enough for me."

Re: Discussion question

[identity profile] peter--parker.livejournal.com 2006-02-02 01:57 am (UTC)(link)
"The Tenth Amendment establishes that the federal government is limited in its power, which is helpful in case you have a power-mad nutjob running the place."

Re: Discussion question

[identity profile] whitedeathpod.livejournal.com 2006-02-02 02:43 am (UTC)(link)
"Sixth amendment," John says, nodding. "One of the most needed and important amendments out there. People take for granted being able to tell their side of the story during criminal or civil proceedings to a court of peers. In the past, they didn't have this luxury and their fate might've been decided without them ever having been given the chance to speak their case."

Re: Discussion question

[identity profile] wannabelawyer.livejournal.com 2006-02-02 03:59 am (UTC)(link)
"The fifth's good. Keeps you from having to incriminate yourself, and it guarantees you all sorts of fun stuff like due process."

Re: Discussion question

[identity profile] kawalsky.livejournal.com 2006-02-02 04:46 am (UTC)(link)
"Uh, I'll go with the third. The one about civilians not being forced to board military personnel during peace time. If they didn't have this one, it'd be an easy cop-out for the military budget. I think the military and the government should be responsible for its troops during peace time. They should give them proper quarters while they're training and at the ready to go to war if it ever comes up."