Rule of Law

Tea Party’s Wobbly Constitutional ‘Lessons’

 

ACSblog
Tea Party’s Wobbly Constitutional ‘Lessons’
June 8, 2011

 

 

The tea party-fueled effort to provide public schools with so-called constitutional history lessons continues to attract concern, with Constitutional Accountability Center’s Doug Kendall calling it a disgraceful propaganda movement.

In a recent piece for The Huffington Post, Kendall challenged the Tea party to “find one credible historian,” to support the Tea Party’s constitutional lessons, which are based on materials created by W. Cleon Skousen, a far-right conspiracy theorist with links to the John Birch society ….

ACS has also called out the Tea Party for its take on the constitution’s underpinnings, which echo Christian nation enthusiasts’ talking points. Also is an article for The Huffington Post, ACS Executive Director Caroline Fredrickson knocked the Tea Party “Patriots” for “pushing a constitutional curriculum designed by the National Center for Constitutional Studies, which disseminates reading materials suggesting that God intended for America to be a Christian nation, that the Jamestown settlers starved to death because they were communists who failed to embrace capitalism, and that the national parks were unconstitutional.”

Public school officials should not open their doors to these types of lessons, which are clearly intended to push a political agenda, besides offering wildly distorted interpretations of history, Fredrickson continued. (Moreover the lessons are laced with religiosity, which could prove constitutionally problematic for the public schools. The Supreme Court has ruled that organized prayer and other religious activities in the public school violate the First Amendment, though truly voluntary student prayer and religious activities are permissible.)

Instead of allowing Tea Party elements to invade the nation’s public schools with their take on the Constitution, Fredrickson said school officials should look to ACS’s long-running Constitution in the Classroom Project.

That project involves bringing local attorneys into the classrooms to introduce students to a decidedly nonpartisan examination of important constitutional principles that affect their lives, such as freedom of speech and religion and privacy rights.  The ACS project does not claim the Constitution was created by Christians for Christians. Instead, the nation’s Constitution is a progressive document with the promise of inherent rights for all humans, protection of those fundamental rights from unconstitutional government action, and equality under our laws for all humans.

See here for more information about ACS’s Constitution in the Classroom project.  

More from Rule of Law

Rule of Law
November 15, 2025

Justice Jackson goes ‘her own way’ in Supreme Court’s SNAP fight

CNN
As she oversaw President Donald Trump’s emergency Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, case this...
Rule of Law
November 5, 2025

What’s at stake for Trump with Supreme Court tariff case?

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
Elizabeth Wydra, a lawyer and president of the Constitutional Accountability Center, says the stakes for...
Rule of Law
November 5, 2025

CAC Release: Supreme Court Considers Presidential Authority to Impose Tariffs Under Emergency Powers Law

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in Learning Resources...
Rule of Law
November 4, 2025

The other arguments in Trump’s tariffs case

SCOTUS Blog
When the Supreme Court hears oral arguments on Wednesday in the challenges to the tariffs that President...
Rule of Law
November 3, 2025

A SCOTUS Bench Memo for the Trump Tariff Case: Separation of Powers, Delegation, Emergencies, and Pretext

Just Security
Soon after taking office, President Donald Trump invoked the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act...
Rule of Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

Appalachian Voices v. Environmental Protection Agency

In Appalachian Voices v. Environmental Protection Agency, the United States of Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit is considering whether the Trump administration can unilaterally terminate an entire mandatory grant program created by Congress.