The words are written in crayon, in the haphazard bumpiness of a child's scrawl.
"I am willing to give up some of my constitutional rights in order to be safer or more secure."They're the words that Florida father Aaron Harvey was stunned to find his fourth-grade son had written, after a lesson in school about the Constitution.
paperAaron Harvey's son wrote as part of a school lesson, "I am willing to give up some of my constitutional rights in order to be safer or more secure." TheBlaze has redacted the child's name.
Harvey's son attends Cedar Hills Elementary in Jacksonville, Fla. Back in January, a local attorney came in to teach the students about the Bill of Rights. But after the attorney left, fourth-grade teacher Cheryl Sabb dictated the sentence to part of the class and had them copy it down, he said.
The paper sat unnoticed in Harvey's son's backpack for several months until last week, when his son's mother almost threw it away. The words caught her eye in the trash, and she showed it to Harvey, who said he was at a loss for words. He asked his son, who said Sabb had spoken the sentence out loud and told them to write it down. Harvey said he asked some of his son's classmates and got a similar answer.
"Everybody has their opinions," Harvey told TheBlaze. "I am strongly for proper education, for the freedom of thought so you can form your own opinion and have your own free speech in the future... [but] the education is, 'when was the Constitution drafted, when was it ratified, why did this happen, why did we choose to do this...all these things, why did they particular choose those specific rights to be in our Bill of Rights.'"
Kandra Albury, a spokeswoman for Duvall County Public Schools, which includes Cedar Hills, told TheBlaze she didn't know what prompted Sabb to have students write the sentence.
She said the principal had fielded one parent's concern about the lesson in January, but it wasn't Harvey. She said Thursday the district and principal were "checking into" what had happened.
Harvey, rather than asking the school for answers when he found the paper, wrote his concerns in an email, which was then forwarded to TheBlaze. He said he did it that way because he wasn't sure he would have gotten a straightforward answer if he asked the school directly.
He said he just wants to see a "proper, unbiased education" system and doesn't want any kind of religion or politics brought into the classroom."I believe in our Constitution. I am a veteran, I served for six-and-a-half years proudly and I served to protect our rights," he said. "Now whenever I have someone coming in and trying to pollute my child's mind with biased opinions...there's no education in that."Editor's note: TheBlaze has withheld the name of the child ad the father's request.
http://news.yahoo.com/dad-furious-finding-crayon-written-paper-florida-4th-124614291.html
Thats unacceptable. I'd pull my kid out of that school asap & homeschool if I had to. But thats the problem. Many people simply can't afford the time (or loss of income) to do that, or to put their kids in a decent private school. Since most families nowadays need to have two incomes (to keep up w rising costs of everything, inflation, healthcare, etc), then that means throwing their kids into the system, leaving it up to that failing education model & hoping for the best.
Yikes. That's definitely a teacher with an agenda.
That's what I thought. Maybe the teacher loves the patriot act, the TSA or who knows.
(http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/paper-620x362.jpeg)
You crazy tea baggers and your concerns about "liberty".
When the turrists come to get you it will be too late to reconsider.
Why just the other day we got threatened with thermo-nukular war. If you resist government efforts to make us more secure.... The turrists win.
You're with us, or your with the turrists.
THEY HATE US FOR OUR FREEDOM!!! One1
^Now THAT is funny!
StephenDare! imagines Ms. Sabb to be a "right wing republican". That is some spin. Especially at the same time that the democrats are subverting the Bill of Rights in the name of "security".
It seems like many assumptions are being made about why this child wrote the sentence. Without any real context provided, how can one become so sure there is some nefarious intent? Perhaps it was part of an exercise where class participants debate the declaration as true or false? It would seem that understanding why rights exist and how they function together would be a worthy topic of discussion and debate.
What if the kid had written this instead: Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania :) :), 175 :)9 US author, diplomat, inventor, physicist, politician, & printer (1706 - 1790)
FP,
The article states that the Father questioned his son and some of his classmates. They apparently did not conduct such a discussion. The school district is supposed to be investigating, so the story remains unfinished.
At least we can ALL agree with Benjamin Franklin. We seem to just disagree on the meaning of the word "essential". (And "infringed".)
How stupid it this fourth-grader? Writing in crayon and not able to spell "rights" and "or"? It's depressing.
All joking aside - I agree with FlowerPower. There are a lot of assumptions being made here (and elsewhere) about the motivations of the teacher and very little evidence. No one actually knows why the kid was told to write this. So the speculation is more than a bit premature.
Well... I'm a republican, although I don't recall taking a stand in favor of the patriot act, at least not after I learned what was in it.
I did vote for the simian who signed it into legislation. I did not however, vote for the intellectual who signed its extension into law.
Re- reading my first sentence reminds me how often I have debated a point from the perspective of ignorance. I am certainly guilty of that. I hope I have become more objective and informed. I was not a bad person, even as I voted for Bush, simply busy, and tuned in to a worldview which I allowed to be foisted upon me without having done the legwork to defend myself against it. So there's my daily introspection.
Personal freedom and constitutional rights are under constant assault from the right, the left and the middle.
Quote from: stephendare on April 13, 2013, 09:12:25 AM
Quote from: buckethead on April 13, 2013, 08:14:27 AM
Well... I'm a republican, although I don't recall taking a stand in favor of the patriot act, at least not after I learned what was in it.
I did vote for the simian who signed it into legislation. I did not however, vote for the intellectual who signed its extension into law.
Re- reading my first sentence reminds me how often I have debated a point from the perspective of ignorance. I am certainly guilty of that. I hope I have become more objective and informed. I was not a bad person, even as I voted for Bush, simply busy, and tuned in to a worldview which I allowed to be foisted upon me without having done the legwork to defend myself against it. So there's my daily introspection.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Patriot_Act
Quote from: stephendare on April 13, 2013, 09:12:25 AM
Quote from: buckethead on April 13, 2013, 08:14:27 AM
Well... I'm a republican, although I don't recall taking a stand in favor of the patriot act, at least not after I learned what was in it.
I did vote for the simian who signed it into legislation. I did not however, vote for the intellectual who signed its extension into law.
Re- reading my first sentence reminds me how often I have debated a point from the perspective of ignorance. I am certainly guilty of that. I hope I have become more objective and informed. I was not a bad person, even as I voted for Bush, simply busy, and tuned in to a worldview which I allowed to be foisted upon me without having done the legwork to defend myself against it. So there's my daily introspection.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Patriot_Act
QuoteThe history of the USA PATRIOT Act involved many parties who opposed and supported the legislation, which was proposed, enacted and signed into law 45 days after the September 11 terrorist attacks of New York City in 2001. The USA PATRIOT Act, though approved by large majorities in the U.S. Senate and House of Representative,
QuoteWithin a few weeks of the September 11 attacks, a number of bills attempting to make changes to anti-terrorism laws were introduced into Congress. The first bill proposed was the Combating Terrorism Act of 2001, which was introduced by Republican Senators Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Jon Kyl (R-AZ) with Democratic Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY) on September 13.[
QuoteThe Intelligence to Prevent Terrorism Act was introduced to the Senate on September 28 by Senators Bob Graham (D-FL) and Jay Rockefeller (D-WV).[
QuoteThe first version of the Patriot Act was introduced into the House on October 2, 2001 as the Provide Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (PATRIOT) Act of 2001, and was later passed by the House as the Uniting and Strengthening America (USA) Act (H.R. 2975) on October 12.[17] This was based on the afore-mentioned Anti-Terrorism Act, but had been changed after negotiations and work between Attorney General Ashcroft, Senators Leahy, Paul Sarbanes (D-MD), Bob Graham, Trent Lott (R-MS) and Orrin Hatch. It was introduced into the Senate as the USA Act of 2001 (S. 1510) by Tom Daschle (D-SD)[
Quote from: urbanlibertarian on April 13, 2013, 09:37:06 AM
Personal freedom and constitutional rights are under constant assault from the right, the left and the middle.
True story.
Quote from: Adam W on April 13, 2013, 10:06:14 AM
Quote from: urbanlibertarian on April 13, 2013, 09:37:06 AM
Personal freedom and constitutional rights are under constant assault from the right, the left and the middle.
True story.
Yep...
^ and teachers at CHES.
Quote from: urbanlibertarian on April 13, 2013, 09:37:06 AM
Personal freedom and constitutional rights are under constant assault from the right, the left and the middle.
^^Never has more truth been posted on this site. Only when people realize that republicans and democrats are really the same will things change.
Since the Constitution is a written constraint on the Federal Government, limiting the Federal Government to only those powers enumerated, it only makes sense that the broadening of those powers, the enlargement of the Federal Government beyond those constraints, and the crushing power of broad and sweeping taxation is an assault on our rights as citizens. UL is right when he says that those God given rights are under assault from all political wings.
I don't see what could be gained by rehashing old arguments about external threats and the response of government to those threats. All of the arguments can be read in those threads.
I would point out that our Founding Fathers established a government that respected our natural rights, as enumerated in the Declaration of Independence and the following Constitution. Those rights cannot be "repealed" or "given up" by anyone or any government. I have argued for support of emergency measures in times of a real danger from external threat, but that in no way alters the facts that our rights, yours and mine, are God given or "natural".
We were blessed with a republic. Can we keep it?
(The above is my opinion. I am not the ultimate authority of the world, you are entitled to your opinion as well. The above is based on simply reading the Declaration of Independence, the Virginia Declaration of Rights, the U.S. Constitution, The Federalist Papers, The Anti Federalist Papers, and various other sources.)
Read it again. Comprehension is important.
I wasn't here during the proposal and enactment of the patriot act. I do remember my thoughts: I don't have time to actually read legislation... I'll tust the president and Rush Limbaugh. (Just being honest)
Since the housing bust, I gradually found myself with more time on my hands, more Internet savvy, and more questions than answers.
By the time I made my way here, I had decided that most elements of the patriot act were far beyond what any reasonable security measure needed, and a blatant disregard for the most basic precepts of the constitution. In short, I changed my mind. (Actually, I just reclaimed responsibility for it)
Changing ones mind can be a good thing. Understanding why we did, and where we were previously are necessary for it to be effective.
Can this legislation be wrongfully be used against me?
A question which should be pondered any time a bill is proposed.
Quote from: buckethead on April 13, 2013, 04:14:46 PM
I wasn't here during the proposal and enactment of the patriot act. I do remember my thoughts: I don't have time to actually read legislation... I'll tust the president and Rush Limbaugh. (Just being honest)
Wow...and we wonder why this country is in the shape we're in.
Quote from: nemo594 on April 13, 2013, 07:37:24 PM
Quote from: buckethead on April 13, 2013, 04:14:46 PM
I wasn't here during the proposal and enactment of the patriot act. I do remember my thoughts: I don't have time to actually read legislation... I'll tust the president and Rush Limbaugh. (Just being honest)
Wow...and we wonder why this country is in the shape we're in.
I blame pseudonym wielding innerwebs commenters.
Have anything more to add?
I tend to satirize myself. You might stick around and learn this. There is an element of truth to my statement, so I made it clear. I'd be very interested to hear your opinions. Please include those times where you have changed your mind. Feel free to expound as to why.
Quote from: stephendare on April 13, 2013, 03:38:56 PM
you mentioned taxation. I wonder not now, if you think that the founding fathers were the kind of idiots who accidentally created a government with the ability to raise taxes as necessary?
Also when you were demanding bigger and better death marches in two or three different simultaneous invasions of soveriegn nations around the world, how exactly did you think that was going to be paid for?
Its a good thing we have such a solid champion for Constitutional Rights and the Liberties of Mankind and protection against tyranny like yourself on our side, notnow.
In fact let me remind you of some of your ringing defense of the god given nature of mankinds Rights.
Quote from: NotNow on April 21, 2009, 05:42:20 PM
This is an old argument with Stephen and to continue it is an exercise in futility. I will agree to disagree with him and simply point out once again that morality in war is a difficult subject, and our views are shaped largely by our individual experiences. In this particular case, I believe that the intent is not really moral outrage but a political agenda. If the acts described on this board (the actions of our government agents, not the childish crap of Abu Ghraib; everyone here should be able to tell the difference) are immoral to you, then the idea of war itself should be just as immoral since the idea is to kill and destroy. If there is no possible justification of "aggressive interogation" of the enemy fighters then how can killing the enemy be moral? My opinion is that we should kill those that directly and immediatly threaten us with death if no other alternative is possible or as sure in guaranteeing the lives of my fellow threatened compatriots. With that statement, it should be a given that I would support any act short of killing that would also remove that direct and immediate threat to those same lives.
This is not a blanket approval of torture on my part. It should be recognized that these types of instances are few and far between. I believe that the officials that made the decision to use the techniques that many are calling "torture" in the years following the attacks of 9/11 were justified. This was a difficult time and we were facing an new kind of enemy that hides behind innocents in multiple states, claiming religious righteousness. These decisions are difficult and I am sure that anyone who has been in the position of taking life understands the personal thoughts that follow such incidents.
I believe that the idea of judging the morality of previous administrations in a courtroom, whether foreign or US, is a dangerous road that can work both ways. Morality is a broad subject, encompassing more than just the subject of this thread. I fear that such prosecutions would result in even more devisivness than already exists in American politics. Granted, there are acts which are indefensible and should be crimanally prosecuted. The obvious instances such as Nazi Germany and Pol Pot's Cambodia come to mind. I agree with BT that the acts that are the focus of this thread do not rise to this level, and as I have stated, I believe they were justifiable. Of course, this is only my opinion, I am not a lawyer, or a politician. But I have been in harms way in defense of this country and in defense of citizens and I understand and firmly believe that evil must be met and defeated, using force when necessary.
My sleep is disturbed more by the evil actions that I have seen some are capable of and my belief that my fellow Americans and citizens are in peril than by my actions in defense of those same Americans and citizens.
Yawn.
Yep. I'm ok with killing those that are trying to kill me or innocents. I'm ok with collecting intelligence. I'm ok with advancing the interests of the United States over the interests of say...Cuba, or China. I know that hurts your feelings, and it doesn't align with your (professed) rainbow and unicorn vision of how things work. Tough.
All of that has nothing to do with forcing the Federal Government to follow the Constitution. I still adhere to the oath I took at an early age to support and defend the Constitution.
Do you believe that our rights are God given, or natural rights StephenDare!? Or do you believe that the Federal government can take away our basic human rights? Are you still advocating a 90% income tax rate and limiting citizens to "a six gun"? How consistent are you?
UPDATE!!!
Florida fourth graders allegedly told to write down desire to give up constitutional rights
The Daily Caller â€" 6 hrs ago Florida fourth graders allegedly told to write down desire to give up constitutional rights A father in Duval County, Florida has alleged that his son’s fourth-grade teacher instructed students to express â€" in crayon â€" their desire to trade rights guaranteed in the Constitution for a feeling of added security.
The concerned father, Aaron Harvey, says his son and other kids in his son’s class had to scribble: “I am willing to give up some of my constitution rights in order to be safer or more secure.â€
The incident happened at some point during a civics lesson at Cedar Hills Elementary School in Jacksonville, Florida, reports (http://www.firstcoastnews.com/topstories/article/308587/483/10-year-old-gives-up-his-Constitutional-rights) First Coast News.
A local attorney had spoken to the class prior to the assignment, explains (http://www.wokv.com/news/news/local/duval-teacher-tells-4th-graders-give-constitutiona/nXKxm/) local radio station WOKV. The purported goal of the overall lesson was to “create an awareness†of constitutional rights and help the fourth graders “determine their opinions on which rights they value most and least.â€
“I don’t believe that any American or American child should be asked to write this,†Harvey told First Coast News.
Amy Harvey, the boy’s mother, concurs. She was the one who found the tri-color treatise languishing in her son’s backpack (where it had apparently been sitting for several weeks).
“If I don’t check his backpack, I won’t find things like this,†she told First Coast.
The fuming father noted that his 10-year-old son can’t possibly want to give up the rights he enjoys under the Constitution because he doesn’t fully understand the rights he enjoys in the first place.
“I served in the military. I served to protect my family, my country, and that Constitution and everyone’s freedom,†Harvey added, according to WOKV.
Officials for the Duval County Public Schools can’t seem to keep their story straight. Initially â€" hilariously â€" district officials allegedly assured Harvey that his son had undertaken the declaration to give up rights entirely on his own, with no encouragement from his teacher.
Spokeswoman Marsha Oliver has since told WOKV that an investigation is underway.
According to First Coast News, Superintendent Nikolai Vitti has also issued this statement: “The Justice Teaching activity on constitutional rights that was conducted at Cedar Hills Elementary School is consistent with our efforts to broaden civics-based education and develop critical thinking skills among our students. The lesson builds awareness of First Amendment rights through a partnership with an association of local attorneys. Our possible concern rests with a follow-up activity that may have been conducted after the lesson.â€
On Friday, Harvey also had a conference call with his son’s teacher (as well as the principal and a counselor). An in-person meeting is scheduled for this coming Friday. A group of parents has been invited to attend.
http://news.yahoo.com/florida-fourth-graders-allegedly-told-write-down-desire-085034003.html (http://news.yahoo.com/florida-fourth-graders-allegedly-told-write-down-desire-085034003.html)
A vague update but at least there were death threats against the teacher.
http://www.wokv.com/news/news/local/superintendent-tweaking-needed-constitutional-righ/nXSMq/ (http://www.wokv.com/news/news/local/superintendent-tweaking-needed-constitutional-righ/nXSMq/)
QuoteJacksonville, FL â€" Just over one week after WOKV first brought you the concerns of local parents over how constitutional rights are being taught in elementary school classrooms, the Duval County Superintendent is looking at what needs to change.
Cedar Hills Elementary school 4th grade parent Aaron Harvey first raised some questions after finding a note in his son’s backpack reading “I would be willing to give up some of my constitutional rights in order to be safer or more secure.†The ten-year-old told Harvey the teacher had dictated the lesson, and Harvey says this was confirmed through speaking with some of the other parents in the classroom.
This is a link to the assignment. It looks like the assignment was designed to hone critical thinking skills and explore the students' first amendment rights.
https://docs.google.com/file/d/1RHTlJqIs3jCmUYqNcs8mlPQBys61_Os4Eq79f8DXWvDYrcwYWwqgXVTY3o47/edit (https://docs.google.com/file/d/1RHTlJqIs3jCmUYqNcs8mlPQBys61_Os4Eq79f8DXWvDYrcwYWwqgXVTY3o47/edit)
It also turns out that this was not the first time this exact assignment had been given. Whatever the thoughts were behind the creation of this assignment in the end it came across as a fail. Unfortunately we then see one mistake compound and lead to situations where we see the foolishness of death threats coming from unstable individuals. Sigh.