Students are told that the Bill of Rights is “outdated” and must be “revised” - my thoughts

http://www.infowars.com/sixth-grade-assignment-destroy-the-bill-of-rights/

As I read the actual instructions of the assignment, I viewed it as an adult with many years of experience under my belt. On the surface, it first sets up a fictional scenario of the government trying to revisit and “update” the Bill of Rights. Seems harmless enough from THAT viewpoint. But let’s look at what is really going on.

First, consider that the audience is NOT a group of adults who actually know enough to say it is strictly fictional. The audience is a group of 6th graders who very likely are hearing about the Bill of Rights for the first time. The instructions do not tell the children what the purpose of the Bill of Rights were or why they were written in the first place. I can only assume that they had some previous study on this topic before the assignment was made. But based on the assignment, we don’t know how “accurate” the material they studied may have been. Anyway, they are to study the Bill of Rights and make changes as they see fit. Based on what? Their limited life experience as a child?

Second, they are given the PATRIOT Act as a guide, another document they may have very limited experience with. It does not mention whether or not the children know that parts of the PATRIOT Act were struck down in court for being unconstitutional because they violated the Bill of Rights. If I were a cynic, I would say the teacher probably doesn’t know that little fact.

Let’s see if I remember my history correctly. The Bill of Rights was written and adopted around 1789. This was some years after the Revolutionary war. One of the reasons for writing it was because a group of people feared that the “new” American government would be just a bad as the “old” British government. The document outlines the rights of people (who have them simply because they are human beings created by God) that cannot be taken away by the government. It is not a document that says the government is “granting” or “allowing” its citizens to have them. I’m saying it was written for the purpose of assuring its citizens that they are free to live life without interference from the government. It was written at a time of peace by the people who fought for freedom. The men who wrote it were of a mind of minimal government.

On the other hand, the PATRIOT Act was written out of fear. I believe it is an over-reaction to the events of 9/11/2001. The act takes away rights we have as citizens in an effort to “protect” the country from future terror attacks. It was written at a time when people were still in shock from all that happened on American soil, not only the terror attacks on the Trade Center and Pentagon, but the anthrax attacks that soon followed. It was introduced as “if you vote against this bill, you are voting for terror.” Its very name, which is actually an acronym, suggests that you can’t vote against it or else you’re a traitor. The bill was introduced and passed in October, less than two months after the attacks. With people still in shock and having fear for their lives, the Act was passed ignoring the unconstitutionality of so many of its provisions. Since so many that make up the legislature are lawyers, I would think most of them should have known better. But it didn’t matter.

My belief is that the PATRIOT Act was a knee-jerk reaction that sounded good at the time. Since time has passed, perhaps the PATRIOT Act should be revisited and revised with the Bill of Rights as a guide to changing it. I think that may be a better assignment for the children since our laws are weighed against the Bill of Rights when challenged. We could actually teach them how the process works.