Put Constitution on $1 bill — or just First Amendment?


PDA






2dogs
September 9, 2003, 08:31 AM
The only downside to this plan might be that after the First Amendment goes on the $1 bill, the National Rifle Association will want to slap the Second Amendment and its disputed right to "keep and bear arms" language on the $2 bill.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2003-09-08-mauro_x.htm

Put Constitution on $1 bill — or just First Amendment?

By Tony Mauro

As important as it is, most Americans have only the vaguest idea of what the Constitution contains.
Randy Wright is a middle school civics teacher on a mission. If he ever succeeds, dollar bills won't just be the lowest denomination of paper money; they will also be teaching tools. That's a good thing, though the concept needs work.

For five years, Wright and his students at Liberty Middle School in Hanover, Va., have been trying to interest Congress and the Treasury Department in redesigning the back side of $1 bills to include the preamble to the U.S. Constitution and a summary of all the Constitution's provisions. The idea is to educate the public about the Constitution, the founding document of the nation, which is vastly more important than the better-known Declaration of Independence.

As important as it is, most Americans have only the vaguest idea of what the Constitution contains. What three branches of government did it create? Many citizens couldn't tell you. Ask what is in the First Amendment to the Constitution, and many people can't say.

The idea for summarizing the Constitution on $1 bills emerged from a brainstorming session among Wright's students on how to one-up the previous year's civics classes, which had memorized the Constitution's amendments. (No wonder Virginia is known as the birthplace of presidents.)

Since 1998, eager-to-please members of Congress have introduced bills to implement the students' idea. Hearings have been held, students have testified, everyone seems to like the idea — but nothing has happened. Some of Wright's students who first cooked up the concept are in college. Wright is philosophical about the long wait, mindful that change happens slowly in Washington. Lately, a new batch of public service ads touting the idea has run in magazines, and Wright reports a new surge in public interest. The campaign has its own Web site: www.libertydollarbill.org.

But the students still have an uphill climb. The Treasury Department has been rolling out redesigned currency of higher denominations, but it has decided that altering the $1 and $2 bills is not worth the bother — largely because counterfeiters don't think they are worth the bother either. Vending machine manufacturers are not keen on the retooling that a new design might require. And in the background is the perennial debate over whether dollar bills should be junked altogether, in favor of $1 coins.

But as long as $1 bills are in circulation — more than 7 billion of them at any given moment — they could use a makeover. Next to the bigger, bolder and slightly off-center Abraham Lincoln ($5), Alexander Hamilton ($10), Andrew Jackson ($20) and the rest, George Washington looks shriveled and puny on the front of the $1 bill.

And look at what's on the back of the single. Both sides of the U.S. Great Seal stare out at us, with a spooky symbolism that means nothing to modern-day Americans. Just what is that shimmering eye doing on top of a pyramid, anyway?

The kids from Hanover, Va., would erase most of the back of the $1 bill and replace it with the Constitution, or at least a summary of it. Therein lies the problem with the concept. Capsulizing the titles of each part of the Constitution does not do it justice. In the proposed design, for example, the description of the 14th Amendment would be: "defines citizenship." From those two words it would be hard to explain how the 14th Amendment was the foundation this June for the U.S. Supreme Court's expansive decision in favor of gay rights.

The caption for the Fifth Amendment is "rights of the accused," which is accurate to a point. But it misses the Fifth Amendment's protection of property rights. Who needs to know anything about the never-invoked Third Amendment, summarized as "do not have to quarter soldiers during peacetime"? The Constitution, in short, does not lend itself to easy rendition on the back of a dollar bill.

Here's an alternative: On the back of the $1 bill, why not print the text of the First Amendment, pure and simple? "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

The First Amendment, more than any other part of the Constitution, defines what is unique about America. The late Supreme Court Justice William Brennan Jr. once told columnist Nat Hentoff that the First Amendment was his favorite part of the Constitution. "All other liberties and rights flow from the freedom to speak up," Brennan said. "Its enforcement gives us this society. The other provisions of the Constitution merely embellish it."

The only downside to this plan might be that after the First Amendment goes on the $1 bill, the National Rifle Association will want to slap the Second Amendment and its disputed right to "keep and bear arms" language on the $2 bill. And will criminal defendants, organized crime and property rights activists want to "take the Fifth" and put the Fifth Amendment on the $5 bill?

The possibilities are endless. Civil rights groups could join forces to push for creation of a $14 bill to celebrate the Fourteenth Amendment. The alcoholic beverage industry will want a $21 bill to celebrate the 21st Amendment, which repealed Prohibition.

But as they say, first things first.

The kids of Hanover should take a fresh look at their idea and go back to first principles — back to the First Amendment.

If you enjoyed reading about "Put Constitution on $1 bill — or just First Amendment?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Mike Irwin
September 9, 2003, 11:30 AM
Funny...

I guess there's never been a court case disputing the provisions of the First Amendment, either...

Kaylee
September 9, 2003, 11:56 AM
hrmm.. interesting idea. What I DONT like is the idea their to put their intreptations of what the Amendments MEAN. BAD idea, given a lot of the intenional disinterpretations out ther, particularly with the 2A.

Given it's future, I'd be more inclined to put the text on the $20. Less chance of it being discontinued in 15 years.

Still, if the prospect is one of Constitional memory, I'd just LOVE the irony of putting Article One, Section 3 on the back of the modern money:


Section. 10. No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.


along with 1:8 perhaps, listing among the powers of Congress
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

Say what you will about the wisdom or lack thereof of a metallic currency -- the sheer irony of that would just tickle my funny bone.

:)

OF
September 9, 2003, 11:58 AM
NO SUMMARIES!

The original language must remain intact. That is the whole point of a written constitution.

- Gabe

BigG
September 9, 2003, 11:59 AM
It'll never fly. Educating "the masses" is the last thing any career politician wants. :uhoh:

scottgun
September 9, 2003, 05:50 PM
It's funny how the First Amendment is taught in school as "separation of Church and State amendment" which it never actually says. Its just the catch phrase used by liberal educators to eliminate religion from all aspects of life.

How about the catch phrase "separation of my gun and the State" for the Second Amendment.

But summaries or catch phrases do little compared to the original text.

How about printing the Bill of Rights on a business sized card and handing them out?

Standing Wolf
September 9, 2003, 05:59 PM
NO SUMMARIES!
The original language must remain intact. That is the whole point of a written constitution.

If that's a motion, I'll second it.

Zedicus
September 9, 2003, 07:40 PM
I still wonder why people think that the constitution & bill of rights have to mean something other than what they say in plain blask & white text.....

If a Newspaper Prints "Streak at football game was Arrested"
What would you Interperate it to mean?

Somone painted a yard line in the wrong spot???:)

Nightfall
September 9, 2003, 08:37 PM
The only downside to this plan might be that after the First Amendment goes on the $1 bill, the National Rifle Association will want to slap the Second Amendment and its disputed right to "keep and bear arms" language on the $2 bill.

Only "disputed" to those who can't understand plain English. Or selectively choose not to... :rolleyes:

Jake
September 9, 2003, 08:57 PM
Easy solution would be to print different series of 1$ bills. Print some with the 1st Amendment in full, some with the 2nd in full and the 3rd and so on and so on. I mean they make a different quarter for every state so why not a bill for every Amendment.

Moparmike
September 9, 2003, 11:47 PM
http://www.securityedition.com/

Metal Bill of Rights. Keep them on you when you go to the airport so they can take away your dangerous BOR. You could hurt someone with it (the truth).:mad:

Detachment Charlie
September 10, 2003, 09:28 AM
I'm with Jake. But the politicians are loath to have the unwashed masses know what that document really says.
But, Jake has a great idea.

BHPshooter
September 10, 2003, 11:17 AM
Metal Bill of Rights. Keep them on you when you go to the airport so they can take away your dangerous BOR. You could hurt someone with it (the truth).

That is the coolest thing I've seen! I think I'm just gonna whip out the ol' credit card, and...

Thanks for that link!!!

Wes

BHPshooter
September 10, 2003, 10:53 PM
I was just here (http://www.securityedition.com/view.asp) and was reading responses to the idea of a metal Bill of Rights... Here is one of the thoughts:

However, by placing the connotation of a libertarian moron on a metal copy of the Bill of Rights, one carrying such an item might be thought to be one and thus considered a hazard. If I were to carry the Bill of Rights, it would not be to somehow spite "Big Brother," but to show that I am a proud American who does not take for granted his rights as such.

Ummm... I hate to say it, but Rights ARE supposed to be "granted," if you believe anything written in the Declaration of Independence.

Any thoughts?

Wes

jimpeel
September 11, 2003, 01:52 AM
I think this idea falls dead center right in the middle between dumb and stupid.

labgrade
September 11, 2003, 03:49 AM
I'm w/jimpeel.

The whole thing is stupid as are most of us. We won't get it and none of our institutions will allow us to.

There's a preamble to the (formally capitalized) bill of rights that succinctly states that these things may never be violated by any form of our government.

NEVER.

Not in the name of convenience, not in the name of safety, not in the name of peril, nor ever in the name of whatever damnable thing any jack-off may come up with.

Never.

That's the whole point of it.

There is nothing that will get it through anyone's head other than reading. - & just playing out the "grand experiment."

Duh! & just merely taking a look at what the document says. Period.

Whatever.

We've tossed it all in the trash, played it to death, compromised it away & called it "good enough to suit the times," to have bastardized away anything akin to whatever birthright we ever had.

Say Goodnight America!

Was so very nice to know you.

Printing anything about the consitution is as stupid as saying "Smoking is not good for you!"

jimpeel
September 11, 2003, 04:08 AM
Printing anything about the consitution is as stupid as saying "Smoking is not good for you!"As evidenced by those who sue the tobacco companies, and say they have smoked for forty years and never read the warning on the pack, I agree.

suijurisfreeman
September 11, 2003, 08:41 AM
If the people of this country are ever going to reclaim their birthright, freedom/liberty , then each individual American must begin by first understanding what their natural, inherent and inalianble rights are, declaring those rights, exercising those rights on a daily basis and finally be willing to defend those rights no matter what the consequences! :banghead:
Back in 1994-95 we used the Susan B. Anthony coin as our attempt to draw attention to what's wrong in this country, we circulated 1000's of them each week in Hillsdale County, Michigan. But it was only a symbol for all those involved except me, out of the hundreds of people involved during that time period, not one, no not one with the exception of me followed through and actually lived their daily lives as a free Human Being! Only you can set yourself free! Just talking won't get the job done! You gotta live it! Everyday! :cuss:

Kaylee,
Your quote of Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution for the united States of America is a good point, "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility."

I still believe that 'Constructive Notice' (or should that be Actual Notice) could be served on any State court that attempts to collect any court costs and/or fines citing this Constitutional violation in Article I, Section 10. I asked the 2nd District Court in Hillsdale, Michigan back in 1994 about what was considered acceptable methods of payment, I was told cash, money orders, or certified checks. I asked if they would accept gold or silver coin, she checked with her supervisor and said NO! Sure sounds like a violation of Article I, Section 10 to me! What would the courts do if this issuse was raised?! :evil:

BHPshooter
September 11, 2003, 10:42 AM
There's a preamble to the (formally capitalized) bill of rights that succinctly states that these things may never be violated by any form of our government.

NEVER.

Not in the name of convenience, not in the name of safety, not in the name of peril, nor ever in the name of whatever damnable thing any jack-off may come up with.

Never.

That's the whole point of it.


That's exactly what I mean. I agree with you totally.

The reason I like this idea is the sheer irony of it. That, and it's just the kind of smartass remark that I love to make.

Wes

If you enjoyed reading about "Put Constitution on $1 bill — or just First Amendment?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!