Preserving, Protecting and Defending Our Constitution

---

---

It is ironic that we should observe the 225th anniversary of the creation of the U.S. Constitution at this time.

I know some folks who think the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are one and the same. That simply isn't so. The Constitution was created in 1787 and ratified in 1788. The Bill of Rights wasn't even created until 1789. America was very much a work in progress at that time — as it still is.

The 225th is a milestone — even if it lacks the pizzazz of a centennial or bicentennial — which is always an occasion for reflection.

This particular milestone, however, is more than an occasion to pause and reflect on the past. It is an occasion to ask ourselves where we are going and if a Constitution that was written in the 18th century is the appropriate vehicle to take us there.

The Constitution is the document that spells out the powers and duties of the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the U.S. government.

And the president's #1 duty is ...

---

"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States ..."

U.S. Constitution
Article 2, Section 2, Clause 1

---

When the president takes the oath of office, he swears that he will "preserve, protect and defend" the Constitution (which does not mention things like education, health care, marriage law, etc., being presidential responsibilities).

In other words, national security and defense are the president's top priorities. Some would say they are the president's only responsibilities. I don't feel that way. The president clearly has important domestic responsibilities as well, but he is the face of American foreign policy

However, it is Congress, not the president, that is authorized to declare war.

That condition has eroded considerably since about the mid–20th century.

And it leads me to wonder sometimes if the Constitution needs to be overhauled. I'm afraid, though, that, as polarized as this nation is, no consensus could be reached.

To listen to the presidential candidates this year — at least until recently — one would think that foreign policy no longer had any relevance to American life.

But the events last week in the Middle East prove that is not the case.

So it is a good thing that this Constitution Day brings a fresh reminder that, while a sound economic policy is critical to the well being of the United States, a president has a sacred commitment to the nation's security and defense.

Until last week, the most I had heard from either side regarding national security and defense was Joe Biden's proposal for a bumper sticker: "bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."

That kind of attitude demeans the importance of this portion of the presidential job description. To be sure, the economy and jobs are the most important issues facing this country, in the minds of most Americans, but that does not mean national security and defense have stopped being important.

What has happened — and continues to happen — in the Middle East underscores the fact that no president can control what people in other countries do. Jimmy Carter could not control the radical Muslims in Iran, and Barack Obama cannot control the radicals in Egypt or Libya or Syria.

The best any president can do is insist that U.S. troops be prepared. It is an ongoing responsibility. It cannot be checked off one's presidential to–do list simply by eliminating Public Enemy #1 from the global terrorism roster.

It's not so unusual for Democrats to ignore national defense issues, but it is rather unusual for Republicans to do so. Yet, that is what they did in their convention.

Voters can be forgiven for wondering if either candidate is prepared to stand up for them against a hostile world.

All along, the Obama administration has pretended — to its peril as well as the peril of the rest of us — that the situation in the Middle East was not what the rest of the world could see it really was.

Which goes a long way toward explaining the administration's tepid response to the wave of overt anti–Americanism that is sweeping through the region like a roaring fire.

The administration is perplexed. It sincerely believed that being apologetic and accommodating to the Muslim world would herald a new relationship between America and the countries of that region.

But that has not happened. And now the administration has been forced to acknowledge that privately — it cannot do so publicly because this is an election year.

So the cover story of an objectionable video was invented.

Actually, that's a reasonably plausible straw man, and it seems to be fooling quite a few people. We've already seen how little tolerance countries in that part of the world have for concepts like dissent and free speech, but some simply will not see it.

It seems to me that one would have to be a dunce not to realize the significance of the date on which these protests began. It was the 11th anniversary of 9/11.

Why, you may ask, didn't the terrorists try something on the 10th anniversary? Well, I would say it was not because they didn't hate us. They have hated us for a long time. I think the spotlight was too bright. Security was beefed up everywhere for that anniversary.

But, apparently, no one was really paying attention on the 11th anniversary. The rituals of every 9/11 since 2001 were observed, but I heard no talk of how U.S. forces were on highest alert for the anniversary.

Perhaps the extremists gambled that, since nothing happened in 2011, our guard would be down in 2012. We Americans are notorious for our short attention spans.

Surely, if nothing else, we have seen that these Muslim extremists are extraordinarily patient. After all, they waited nearly 10 years after their first attack on the World Trade Center to launch their second. Why wouldn't they be willing to wait out the 10th anniversary of 9/11 — with the intention of striking on the 11th?

I can't understand why any U.S. forces in the Middle East or any other place in the world where there is a significant Muslim population would not be on their toes on every September 11.

But this time, apparently, they were not. If they had been, four Americans would be alive today.

Failing the Test on Constitution Day

Yesterday was Constitution Day.

We didn't have Constitution Day when I was in school. But we did have what was called Citizenship Day, which was observed in May. Actually, Citizenship Day was observed on a Sunday so it had no specific influence on anything we did in school. In fact, by the time Citizenship Day was observed (the third Sunday in May), school either had dismissed for the summer or was about to dismiss for the summer.

Constitution Day, though, is different. It was created five years ago (September 17 was designated because it was on that day in 1787 that the Constitution was signed) and was officially named "Constitution Day and Citizenship Day." According to the law that created it, all schools that receive any federal funds must emphasize the history of the Constitution on that day. Many colleges and universities have turned it into week–long events that give some attention to the citizenship tests that immigrants must take to become U.S. citizens.

When I was a child, I was an exception to the rule. I have always been interested in American history. Maybe that was due to the fact that my parents invested in encyclopedias when I was young, and I had information sources readily available to me at home. I can't tell you how many times I heard a reference to something on the radio or TV that aroused my curiosity. When I asked my mother about it, she inevitably told me to look it up.

But even before I could read, I remember my mother reading stories to me about heroes in American history.

Somehow I developed an interest in the American presidency. I remember vividly that, when I was in first grade, I could recite all the presidents in chronological order — a talent that seemed to astonish all the adults in my world. For some reason, it didn't strike me as being anything remarkable, but I dutifully recited the presidents for any adult who asked me to do so.

I can still recite the presidents in chronological order. There are more of them now, of course, but the additions to the list have come in my lifetime. I guess that makes it easier.

Sometimes, when I was a child, I received a small reward for performing this "trick." I must confess, there were times when I felt like a puppy who was encouraged to "beg" before being given a favorite treat. But, even when I was 6 years old, I remember being aware of the fact that this was something that not everyone could do.

I guess I realized that most people — adults as well as my peers — wouldn't be able to tell you who William Henry Harrison or Franklin Pierce or Rutherford Hayes were. But it seemed inconceivable to me that anyone would not know who George Washington and Abraham Lincoln were. Their portraits always seemed to adorn the classroom walls when I was in school — and they were particularly prevalent in February, the month in which both men were born.

Things have changed more than I thought since I was in elementary school.

This week, News9 in Oklahoma City reported the results of a survey of Oklahoma high school students. The survey was commissioned by the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs in observance of Constitution Day. Questions were taken from the citizenship tests that immigrants must take to become American citizens.

The results were not encouraging.

Only 23% of respondents gave the correct answer to this question: "Who was the first President of the United States?"

Students were asked 10 questions. Immigrants who take the citizenship test must score 60% or better to pass, but only 3% of the students in Oklahoma would have scored that well.

A spokesman for the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs observed that this outcome is not unique to Oklahoma. He reported similar results in Arizona. That doesn't bode well for schoolchildren in the rest of the nation.

No child left behind?