[Millennium]

In the US, Sepember 17 is Constitution Day, and according to some new laws, government offices and public schools are required to hold a tutorial class on the Constutition on that day. Phyllis Schlafly argues that this should be extended to members of Congress and judges as well (and frankly I would include the President and Cabinet members here too).

Up to that point, I doubt this argument would be terribly controversial. A yearly reminder to government officers on their Constitutional powers, responsibilities, and limitations would be a great thing. But it does raise a question: how could something like this be implemented? When it comes to interpreting the Constitution itself, there are several major schools of thought, each of which seems to be firmly entrenched in one political party or another (for example, consider the battle between constructionists and "living document" folks). How best could one implement such a class while ensuring that each government officer was exposed to these differing methods of interpretation, to embrace or reject as they see fit, while allowing each method of interpretation a fair chance to argue its own case?

Thoughts?

[Dakar]

You could allow different camps to construct a class as they think relevant, but I'm afraid it might turn into a bunch of partisan propaganda -- not that some wouldn't argue that historians would give their own slant as well.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Millennium

In the US, Sepember 17 is Constitution Day, and according to some new laws, government offices and public schools are required to hold a tutorial class on the Constutition on that day. Phyllis Schlafly argues that this should be extended to members of Congress and judges as well (and frankly I would include the President and Cabinet members here too). ...

Thoughts?

In principle a good idea. However, I don't it to be practicable. Whenever there is a contested issue (abortion, rights of Gitmo detainees, just to name examples), the `other side' would accuse the scholar of propaganda whenever he would claim something that doesn't fit their ideological picture.

Also, I don't think `education' would have changed the (in general, not just current) Administrations stances on various issues until the Supreme Court had ruled otherwise.