|
||||
One commentYou must be logged in to post a comment. |
||||
|
Copyright © 2024 both kinds of politics - All Rights Reserved |
||||
|
||||
One commentYou must be logged in to post a comment. |
||||
|
Copyright © 2024 both kinds of politics - All Rights Reserved |
||||
“The constitution is too hard to teach, because of these things that I basically just explained in a few words”
I can agree with the general premise of the article. But the idea that the constitution is too complex to teach is bullshit. Most of the difficult aspects of the constitution and its relation to our system of government are covered in the article. “Convention” covers the vast majority of where there’s a disconnect between text and practice.
The constitution is more interesting, easier to understand and far more relevant than Shakespeare. Understanding iambic pentameter doesn’t help people fulfil their duty as citizens. Yes, there’s other merit to be had from dead white guys, but if you can teach people to understand even half of the “early modern English” gibberish in Shakespeare’s oeuvre, you can teach our country’s founding document that’s shorter than most plays.
Yet he has the balls to call other people out for putting constitutional reform in the too hard basket?
/nerdrant