A.L.E.R.T.
(America Law Education Rights & Taxation)
07-17-2002
Know The
Constitution or S.C.A.T.!
QUALIFYING CONSTITUTIONAL CANDIDATES
The following article is beautiful -- really terrific. Reading it made my day! Visualize this happening all over America: citizens taking back their lawful government -- locally, where it counts -- one candidate at a time! Those who have read "Miracle On Main Street" by Tupper Saussey (available at amazon.com) will find themselves nodding in agreement.
I hereby propose the creation of a Standard Constitutional Aptitude Test (S.C.A.T.). If you're a candidate and don't know the Constitution, then SCAT!
A web site could be created and donations solicited to staff a small office that would:
(1) Contact local, state and federal candidates nationwide;
(2) Offer them the exam;
(3) Grade it if accepted;
(4) Expose those who refuse, and;
(5) Publish ALL results on a web site, in e-mail press releases to the media, and in written letters to the editors of local and area newspapers.
S.C.A.T. volunteers could be regular callers to talk radio shows, to expose both "flunkers" and "refusers" alike! I'd bet that even faux conservatives such as Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh would get behind the S.C.A.T. program. Why, it could become scandalous, darling!
After all -- how can any candidate, with a straight face, refuse to admit to understanding the Constitution? Let's embarrass them under the spotlight of public exposure, the public relations equivalent of getting "tarred, feathered, and run out of town on a rail"!
My proposed S.C.A.T. project will need a point person. All volunteers, angels with deep pockets, web designers and experienced media/PR folks, please step forward.
***
Qualifying Constitutional Candidates -- by Anonymous
I used to make it a practice to go to candidate forums. When they were done speaking and questions were allowed, I would ask: 'Mr. (Candidate), I understand that you, if elected, will take an Oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, is that correct?'
They would all say "Yes", with a puzzled look on their faces.
I would then ask, "Well Mr. (Candidate), I was wondering if you would be willing to take a scholastic aptitude test on the Constitution to prove to the voters that you are actually familiar enough with the Constitution to know what it is you are swearing to uphold and defend -- that is, that you are actually qualified to take such an oath?"
In one instance, a guy who was running for re-election, speaking to a republican club (he'd been the public defender for two counties locally and was expected to be a shoe-in), snapped proudly (in answer to the first question): "Yup, two of 'em, both the Federal and State Constitutions."
(He was beaming toward the crowd -- obviously pleased with himself for one-upping me. The room was quiet.)
I said, "Well (Mr. Candidate), do you believe that just some parts of the Constitutions should be enforced, or all of them?"
Mr. Candidate replied authoritatively and smugly, "Oh, absolutely -- every constitutional provision MUST be enforced. There's no question about that." (He was beaming even more brightly toward the crowd -- they were listening intently.)
I said, "Well then, I'd like to know whether or not, if elected, you intend to demand payment for your services in gold and silver coin as the Constitution requires, or if you intend to perjure your oath with your endorsement on your first paycheck?"
Mr. Candidate said, "Why should I demand gold and silver coin?" (His brow was slightly furrowed, but his confidence was still strong.)
I said, "Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution for the United States of America says, among other things, that "No state shall make any thing but gold and silver coin a legal tender in payment of debt." (Now Mr. Candidate wasn't beaming.)
Mr. Candidate said, "Well I'm a public defender, that's not my responsibility -- not MY part of the Constitution you know -- the part I'm responsible for, that is -- er, you'd probably have to ask the state treasurer or somebody else about that." (Mr. Candidate was now perspiring slightly, shifting back and forth on his feet a bit, looking a little less confident and feeling the change in mood in the room. He was now scanning the crowd hoping that someone would raise their hand with some other question -- but they were all watching me.)
I said, "Mr. Candidate, on the contrary. You told me that ALL parts of the Constitution must be enforced. Have you not ever heard of the charge of "misprision of a felony" -- that failure to notify the proper authorities when you have knowledge that a crime is being committed is itself a crime?"
Mr. Candidate was now sweating noticeably. His face colored. The crowd waited patiently, expectantly for his answer. He stood rock still like a deer in the headlights, appearing to be bolted to the floor. His eyes glazed over. He inhaled a couple of times as though he was going to answer -- but words never came.The silence was deafening. Finally, after a minute that seemed like an eternity, the woman who was chairing/hosting the meeting cleared her throat loudly and announced, "Alright, we're running short of time and we have another candidate who would like to address our club, please welcome our great and accomplished county prosecutor Mr. ____________."
Mr. Candidate, his feet released from their floor bolts at last, melted quickly off the floor as the prosecutor replaced him.
When the meeting broke up for refreshments, Mr. Candidate buttonholed me. "How did you come to know so much about the Constitution?" he asked.
I smiled, calmly looked into his eyes and said, "I can read."
Mr. Candidate didn't seem to want to ask me any more questions. He nodded slightly and moved off toward the bar.
I don't know whether or not it had anything to do with our encounter that night, but he was not re-elected.
Since that time I have thought that a grass roots organization could be created. Members would approach candidates requesting to know whether they would take a test to determine if they were actually qualified to take the oath when elected. (This could be done as soon as they declared as candidates.) If they refused, that information could be advertised in the local paper.
If they took the test, their scores could be published. Of course, this would require a reputable independent testing company AND several good, thorough tests on the Constitution -- so that they could be rotated, mixed, etc. But it could be done without any need for legislation. (Haven't we got enough laws already?)
I suspect that police academy candidates could be encouraged in a similar way. Send them a letter. Ask them to take the test so that the citizenry could know if they were actually qualified to take the Oath to become a policeman. If they refuse -- publish. If they take the test -- publish scores. (This could be easily published on websites for ALL government employees.)
Can't you just see someone in court challenging the testimony of a police officer because it was published that he refused to take the test, which raised doubts about his competence to take the Oath -- thereby raising the question of whether or not he might be a perjurer -- not qualified to testify?
Why ask government to do it when you can do it yourself?