Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Oh good, Americans support the Constitution:
Sixty-three percent (63%) of American adults give the United States Constitution a good or an excellent rating. A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 21% give the document a fair rating while just 12% say poor. Survey respondents were asked to rate the Constitution "in terms of how it impacts life in our country today."Eighty-four percent (84%) would vote to continue using the Constitution as the fundamental law of the United States. Just 8% would vote against it.
Sixty-one percent (61%) say the Constitution should be left unchanged. Twenty-nine percent (29%) say minor changes are needed. Only 7% believe major changes are needed and another 4% think we should scrap the document and start over again.
I'd be more inclined to cheer about that if those "average Americans" who were surveyed actually had some idea what the Constitution actually said. I'd be even more inclined to cheer if they knew what it said and cared when it was violated. Unfortunately, the vast majority of Americans don't have the first clue what the Constitution says and can't be bothered to give a damn when the government violates it. Michael Dorf had a column a few years ago about a survey of Americans and what it found:
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" - one of Karl Marx's most famous maxims - describes what Marx believed to be the proper means for distributing resources in a communist society. With the fall of communism in eastern and central Europe, and the increasingly market-oriented policies of nominally communist countries like Vietnam and China, one might have thought Marx's adage a quaint relic.Astoundingly, however, a new survey of a representative sample of over a thousand Americans conducted by Columbia Law School shows that Marx's slogan is alive and well--right here in the United States. The survey found that sixty-nine percent of respondents either thought that the United States Constitution contained Marx's maxim, or did not know whether or not it did.
And that's not at all unusual. Survey after survey has shown that Americans are abysmally ignorant of what the Constitution says. Only a small percentage can name the rights guaranteed in the first amendment; only a fraction of those could likely tell you anything about separation of powers or give a minimally coherent definition of habeas corpus. Only 60% of those surveyed knew that the President could not suspend the Bill of Rights in a time of crisis and at least some of them were probably guessing at it. As always, I am disturbed by the fact that we listen to the opinions of the ignorant.
Comments
I would guess that a good portion of the 29% wishing for "minor" changes want some sort of marriage protection amendment...hardly what I would call minor.
Indeed. Out of curiosity, have you thought of reading The Myth of the Rational Voter? I enjoyed it quite a bit.
Posted by: nicole | July 10, 2007 9:19 AM
I know whatcha mean, Ed.
I wish sometimes we could have a simple 20 question quiz before you are allowed to go vote in a polling place.
It's only a pipedream, of course, because we know it would be screwed up by some beauracrat trying to score points for one party or the other, but it's a nice thought sometimes.
For what it's worth, I'm one that would like to see some minor changes (mostly with the sytem of voting, we are a little behind the times these days), but then, my opinion has always been that that's the reason the framers wrote in the amendment process.
Cheers.
Posted by: Fastlane | July 10, 2007 9:25 AM
Yes, it is sad. And what is worse is most of the ignorant don't even know that they are ignorant. I at least know that I am ignorant and reading this blog is one of the (too few) ways that I am slowly educating myself.
Posted by: Don | July 10, 2007 9:27 AM
I agree this does not look good for the average American, but do you really think it's any different around the world. I'm sure most "average" people have no clue how their government really works - it's just a fact of life.
Posted by: Matt | July 10, 2007 10:15 AM
As always, I am disturbed by the fact that we listen to the opinions of the ignorant.
Well, it's either that or tyranny (or, if you're really unlucky, both). Given the available options, I think we're stuck with listening to the ignorant.
Sure, we'd all love a perfect government by sublimely enlightened sages who truly do have everyone's best interests at heart, but it's never going to happen outside of some philosopher's self-justifying wank fantasy.
Posted by: Dunc | July 10, 2007 10:51 AM
Dunc - that's why I say the government that governs least governs best.
Posted by: steven | July 10, 2007 10:57 AM
This is why it is critical to stop encouraging people to vote.
Thanks, do-gooder vapid celebrity promo "public service" messages, aimed at encouraging people to "get out and rock the vote" while failing to provide information and education to assist those vote -rockers in making an informed decision about issues and candidates that are important, while placing them in an overall context of existing law and government.
Proposed new public service spot for Bono and Janeane Garafolo:
"So come on America, time to get out there and randomly flip levers and punch chads corresponding to candidates you don't know, running on platforms you don't understand, while taking a morally ambivalent stance on issues you are unfamiliar with!" :b
I'm kidding. I hope.
Posted by: threetorches | July 10, 2007 11:31 AM
Lies, damned lies, and statistics. Americans don't like to look stupid, so they speak loudly and with confidence whether they know what they're talking about or not. Every time I see poll results with votes for dead candidates, and numbers on questions corresponding strongly with numbers for parties, it's clear that people are going into voting booths and doing what they're told. On the internet and in person, I witness people repeating information that came directly from biased (and Faux) sources, unable to actually support their statements with research or understanding obtained on their own. And heaven forfend you catch them and call them on it - just like our president, "the decider", they'd rather stick to a wrong idea than be a "flip-flopper".
Most of the intelligent, thoughtful people I know turn down opportunities to participate in polls (granted, they're more often pop culture polls than anything meaningful) because they have better things to do with their time. So I've already made an assumption about who is answering these questions. My bad. Sorry.
Posted by: Alison | July 10, 2007 11:45 AM
Maybe a class on the constitution specifically as part of high school and college graduation requirements, instead of just shuffling it into social studies and civics?
Posted by: PennyBright | July 10, 2007 11:57 AM
@alison
Americans hardly have a monopoly on stupidity. Spend five minutes in a british pub and bring up politics or try putting up a building in asia with a 4th floor sometime and see how many tenants rent in that building.
The problem I have with polls is not the time they take is that they are either biased, intentionally misworded, or geared toward the results that the poller wants. There are exceptions to this but I don't find polling useful from the standpoint of swaying my opinion on anything.
Posted by: yoshi | July 10, 2007 12:02 PM
What color ribbon means you support the Constitution?
Posted by: mark | July 10, 2007 12:41 PM
So, here's a question based on something someone brought up in this thread. Would it be unconstitutional to have to pass some sort of basic civics test before you're allowed to vote? You know, of the same order they have immigrants take before they can get their citizenship.
I mean, I know even if it was constitutional, such a thing would be a nightmare to administer on voting day. Maybe you could have it as a requirement to register.
Posted by: MyPetSlug | July 10, 2007 1:36 PM
I can confirm the lack of knowledge of the Constitution among the general populace. In a course I teach on the Bible, I get my students to discuss the relationship between Biblical laws and American law. I am regularly confronted with assertions that show students don't even know what the First Amendment says. If they wanted to debate whether it really calls for a separation of church and state, I could live with that, but to not even know what it says is just appalling.
Posted by: James McGrath | July 10, 2007 1:52 PM
It reminds me of a Late Show with Jay Leno bit several (probably 10+) years ago where he asked a bunch of immigrants/new citizens various civics questions, which they all got right, and then asked similar questions of "naturally born Americans" which they all got wrong, and then put them all in a paddy wagon, to be shipped out of the country.
And then there was the interview that Stephen Colbert did with some representative who was trying to get a Ten Commandments monument Amendment passed who couldn't name even five of the Commandments. I watched for the same reason I would watch, Are You Smarter than a Fifth Grader.
Posted by: Shawn Smith | July 10, 2007 3:03 PM
As can I. I have mentioned this before on your blog, but most high schools no longer teach dedicated civics courses. Kids get a few weeks in middle school or elementary school, and then they never see it again. I never read a single line of the Federalist papers until I came to your blog.
Posted by: FishyFred | July 10, 2007 3:14 PM
For anyone interested, I am happy to make myself available to make all those decisions. I am cheap, reliable, and come with a reasonably-slim carbon footprint. A bonus is I scare fewer small children than Dick Cheney and don't require grow-lights.
So vote for me. Or, rather, don't. I'll take care of that. You'll be glad you didn't.
Posted by: kehrsam | July 10, 2007 3:43 PM
Would it be unconstitutional to have to pass some sort of basic civics test before you're allowed to vote?
Not unconstitutional AFAIK, but I'm pretty sure it would illegal under the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Which, of course, was passed because various states used various "tests" to disenfranchise minority voters.
I'm not, nor have I ever been, an American citizen, nor have I ever lived in the US. Don't you people even know your own recent history?
Posted by: Dunc | July 11, 2007 6:39 AM
I was not introduced to the actual Constitution, Bill of Rights, words of the founders, etc., until Sophomore year of High School, Honors History 2. I think the A-track classes got it, too, but B-track and C-track got only enough history to pass state requirements. Since so much was packed into the Honors track classes, though, it was somewhat glossed over. The kids who went on to the more focused History classes got a much better education.
Honestly, I think that even at the elementary level you could introduce one concept at a time and it would stick. High School is way too late. My kids learn more about it at the dinner table than they do at school.
Posted by: Alison | July 11, 2007 9:54 AM
Ed:
And that's not at all unusual. Survey after survey has shown that Americans are abysmally ignorant of what the Constitution says.
Which is why I now make it a habit on July 4th to re-read it, I guess; I'd rather not be like one of those poor bastards who confused the content of the Constitution with the Communist Manifesto (unless that's an urban legend or an anecdote; sadly, I think it's the truth) a few years ago.
Posted by: Chris Krolczyk | July 11, 2007 8:36 PM
PennyBright:
Maybe a class on the constitution specifically as part of high school and college graduation requirements, instead of just shuffling it into social studies and civics?
Been there, done that.
IIRC, passing a test on the Constitution was probably mandatory around the time I graduated from grammar school in the late 70's; Passing American Government 101 (which not only includes Federal constitutional law but provides a blueprint for how our behemoth of a Federal government actually works) was mandatory for my graduation from college, and although it was taught - unsurprisingly - in a large lecture hall/smaller discussion group format (big deal; most general survey courses are, even if they're mandatory for graduation on the baccalaureate level), it certainly got the point across adequately enough.
Posted by: Chris Krolczyk | July 11, 2007 8:45 PM
Anybody calling for things such as universal health care is confusing the communist manifesto with the constitution. OK, maybe they aren't actually confusing the communist manifesto with the constitution, but they certainly subscribe to the philosophy which says "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." This may piss some people off, but its true.
Posted by: steven | July 12, 2007 7:59 AM
steven:
Anybody calling for things such as universal health care is confusing the communist manifesto with the constitution.
Troll. Or you're a bit, well, dim.
Here are my comments, again, and what they were intended to mean:
"Which is why I now make it a habit on July 4th to re-read it, I guess; I'd rather not be like one of those poor bastards who confused the content of the Constitution with the Communist Manifesto (unless that's an urban legend or an anecdote; sadly, I think it's the truth) a few years ago."
Slight clue: the point I was trying to make was that there are certain sections of the Bill of Rights that just might come off as a little, oh, radical. Free speech and that sort of thing. Hence, the confusion of the Constitution with the CM by certain individuals who are easily confused by such weighty subjects, like the anecdotal guy I mentioned in my comment.
Now here you are again:
OK, maybe they aren't actually confusing the communist manifesto with the constitution, but they certainly subscribe to the philosophy which says "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." This may piss some people off, but its true.
Other than the stunning irrelevancy to both the blog entry that started this thread and to what I actually posted, what's your point? And why is it relevant here, since it'd make more sense on a blog devoted to health care policy?
Posted by: Chris Krolczyk | July 12, 2007 8:26 PM
Maybe a class on the constitution specifically as part of high school and college graduation requirements, instead of just shuffling it into social studies and civics?
How about just civics classes at all? I'd gotten the impression those things are extinct.
Posted by: Coin | July 12, 2007 8:45 PM
Chris - if you think my comments aren't revelant to the discussion then ignore them. Otherwise you can kiss my ass.
Posted by: steven | July 13, 2007 7:46 AM
steven:
Chris - if you think my comments aren't revelant to the discussion then ignore them. Otherwise you can kiss my ass.
Sorry, no.
Very adult level of discourse from you, BTW.
Posted by: Chris Krolczyk | July 13, 2007 5:47 PM