46 votes

Sixth Grade Assignment: Destroy the Bill of Rights

Sixth Grade Assignment: Destroy the Bill of Rights

Posted by: Allison Martinez Posted date: October 06, 2013

Welcome to the first day of civics class in the Common Core. Your first assignment? Revising the Bill of Rights in the U.S Constitution because it is an “outdated” document? The worksheet says:

"You have been selected to work on a National Revised Bill of Rights Task Force. You have been charged with the task of revising and editing the Bill of Rights. .. You will have to prioritize, prune, and add amendments."

Students are not being taught what the documents means, or any kind of appreciation for the document. The underlying assumption of the assignment is that the constitution is outdated and needs to be changed. Another underlying assumption is that this can be done by a citizen task force which ignores the actual procedure for amending the constitution.

Read more: http://freepatriot.org/2013/10/06/common-core-assignment-con...

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

First Day of Class

I took a graduate level class 3 years ago, and the instructor started the class by handing out the UN Charter on Human Rights. I ask about the US Constitution and he laughed. University PROGRESSIVES are idiots.

We Were Warned

Stop Common Core
A Five (5) Part Video Series, each episode 5 to 8 minutes.
Watch Part 1 ; I've also included links to a playlist re: this.


Playlist and bonus video.

"Beyond the blackened skyline, beyond the smoky rain, dreams never turned to ashes up until.........
...Everything CHANGED !!

The comment string is great.

Very entertaining. I had to sign up just to call out a troll. What fun on a Wednesday! :D (Great article, too!)

CHECK OUT MY VIDEO! The views stopped overnight when for 'copyright' reasons, mobile viewing was disabled. I want to get to 8,000 - HELP by watching: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-pTvjzHN3I

Preamble to BOR

For those who don't know this, you should read the Preamble to the BOR.


There is a mis-belief that the Bill of Rights are rights granted to us by government.

The Preamble states that the Bill of Rights are "further restrictions" on the federal government. They are a list of things that the federal government cannot do.

"congress shall make no law..."
"...shall not be infringed"
"...shall not be violated"

The president on circumventing the Constitution

Thanks. I never actually read the preamble. I was reminded of the president ruing the "negative" aspect of the Constitution - all those (federal gov't) "shall not's." Here he is in his own words on how to circumvent the Constitution, namely, for the redistribution of wealth:


When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir


Obama: "[The Supreme Court] didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution... that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can't do to you. Says what the Federal government can't do to you, but doesn't say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf.

Obama believes in positive rights and is against negative rights.

Positive rights occur when the government steals from one group to provide goods and services to another group.

Negative rights occur when the government protects everyone against aggression and theft.

LKY's picture

This is great

opportunity to actually educate the class about Bill of Rights. They are more scared to debate on Bill of Rights to anyone who understands them. In stead, use the opportunity to teach your children about the importance of Bill of Rights, then let them educate their classmates. They might get 'F' for the assignment, but it is too late then for the government to shut down the debate.

I would take this opportunity to do this....

I would start fixing the mistakes. Just for an example, take the 2nd amendment. With all the confusion and whitewashing about does it gurantee an indiviual's right to keep and bear arms.

I would re-write it and make it like a short story. It would read:

"The People have a natural and undeniable unalienable right to keep and bear arms of any type and to carry those arms with them at all times to further secure their own personal safety. They also have a natural and undeniable unalienable right to form Militia's to guard against the encroachment of their Liberty from their government as to which end, with current technological advances in weapons technology and future advances, shall NOT be denied their natural undeniable unalienable rights to possess, use and train with such weapons as the People who maintain their sovereignty at all times, have the natural right to use weapons of any type for the purpose of self defense on a personal basis and also for the purpose of forming Militia's which are necessary to stop government encroachment on the rights of the people."

Feel free to add to this.... As to my opinion, this leaves NO doubt as to who the right to keep and bears arms is intended and why.

Love Liberty, be Vigilant

"Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty" (2 Corinthians 3:17)

Faith in God will prevail all things!

My original thought was to

My original thought was to clarify the amendment with modern wording: "Own or possess" for "keep", "carry" for "bear". Make it clear what a militia is. Make it clear that militia service is just an example, and there are other aspects to the right. Make it explicit that the right includes self-protection - from assault by individuals, attack by animals, or even deadly attacks committed by alleged officials under color of law. Make it explicit that citizens are armed so that, if necessary, they can overthrow a runaway government, as the founders did before them, and that it is hoped that this threat will encourage the government to stay within constitutional bounds and remain responsive to citizens' opinions.

However, if you read the assignment, you'll see they're expected to delete at least two amendments and create another two, in addition to making other substantial changes. So it's clear that they will be flunked if they just clarify the existing bill of rights and/or reframe it in modern language.

You'll also see that they are made to work as groups. That means if one student tries a "just clarify" strategy, the rest of his group will get dinged in the grading if they allow it, creating enormous pressure to go with the program.

= = = =
"Obama’s Economists: ‘Stimulus’ Has Cost $278,000 per Job."

That means: For each job "created or saved" about five were destroyed.

Had a little show down with the high school last year over a

similar assignment.

10th grade social studies assignment:
Rewrite a fairytale showing communism in a positive light.
Student must use three values(yes- they used the word values) of communism when rewriting.
In the assignment description they chastised sleeping beauty for using her looks to get ahead in life and that instead of going off to the castle with the prince she should have given back to society.

That led to one very upset social studies teacher after a tongue lashing. Which then led to a phone call from the principal - who was promptly told if he even thought of making the daughter of a Marine complete this assignment, this Marine would be sending copies of the assignment to the parents of Marines in CT killed in the war on terror to see what they thought of it.

Thank you for setting a good example

Schools & teachers with a progressive political agenda only get away with what they do because so few parents speak out. Often parents aren't even aware of what their children are reading or what the assignments are. I wouldn't have known of a particular instance except that it was brought to my attention. I then brought it to the attention of some other parents in the class. As it turned out, it wasn't only my child who "opted out." (That was nice, though it wouldn't have mattered.)

One friend who had a problem in her school district re a disgusting novel that was required reading brought it to the attention of the clergy at her large church. But they didn't want to get involved, that is, they wouldn't even mention something at a service or in the newsletter to HELP EDUCATE PARENTS ABOUT THE SCHOOL DISTRICT REQUIRING CHILDREN/MEMBERS OF THEIR CONGREGATION TO READ A BOOK PROMOTING ACTIVITIES AND BEHAVIORS ANTITHETICAL TO THEIR VALUES, INCLUDING TEENS ENGAGED IN VARIOUS TYPES OF SEX ACTS, INCL W/ANIMALS. Imagine if it were the wimpy black-robed clergy of today standing in pulpits back in the 1700's. http://blackroberegiment.wallbuilders.com/

Thanks for setting a good example. And thanks for your service.
P.S. It's odd that fairy tales should come up twice in two days: http://www.dailypaul.com/301599/is-this-some-of-the-stuff-co...

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir

How is it wrong to read a

How is it wrong to read a book that is about activities that you consider antithetical to your values?

I consider the Catholic church to be antithetical to my values, but that doesn't mean that I expect there to be no books about the Catholic church on the reading list.

Banning books from the curriculum that go against one's core values is pure censorship.

I would have LOVED to have this assignment

This is the kind of stuff that I love about government, politics, and social theory. It is something that is always coming up in my thoughts.

It is fascinating to look into the discussions that the founding fathers were having when drafting these amendments (remember, they were amendments themselves ). Arguing about how specific they should be, whether having them at all would encourage abuse of other rights not included (see discussion on whether there should be an articulated 'right to wear a hat')

Did you know that two of the original amendments were tossed out? One of them was later passed in the form of the 27th amendment. So you could very easily say that the 27th amendment is itself an addition to the bill of rights.

Personally, I am not a fan of the way that the fourth amendment does not explictly say that a warrant is required; rather it says that general warrants cannot be issued, and, where warrants are granted, there needs to be probable cause. This is because at the time, a warrant was really a form of protection for the officer. I would have liked to have seen a more robust right to privacy ("security in persons, houses, papers, and effects") than was explicitly articulated.

Here's another: what is the meaning of due process in the fifth amendment, standing alone from the later fourteenth amendment, and the subsequent application of the bill of rights to the states? Can we think of a better way to write these amendments to clarify the meaning? Let's debate this in the context of the bill of rights, as is still being done in law schools and even at the supreme court.

What about an amendment that adds requirements before it can reach eminent domain? Should this apply to state governments as well? Personally I would like to see an amendment along these lines.

This is the kind of stuff that should be discussed and debated in a civics class. I don't see the what the problem is with an assignment to add, subtract and amend from the bill of rights.

This Common Core has got to go.

Parents, speak up.

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir

Oh, I'm not so sure

A few words here or there need to be shored up since there is this overwhelming number of legal "minds" that think SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED means infringe daily and that NO LAW means as many as we can get away with.

Well I suppose it isnt

Well I suppose it isnt suprising.

To climb the mountain, you must believe you can.