Gradations of Constitutional Knowledge - A Question

[HikerGuy83]

There are those who know nothing about the Constitution.

There are those who understand it's basics (know something about the document itself).

There are those who know about constitutional law at some level (past cases)

And there are those who know more about how constitutional law works (we call them "scholars", when in reality they tend to be those who know how to manipulate it to their ends).

These are very general. I'd like to break it down into about 6 to 8 levels of knowledge gradation.

Any suggestions ?

 

[The Duke]

Why?

 

[HikerGuy83]

Why?

Good question.

Not everyone can be a Constitutional Scholar.

But they don't need to be.

They just need to know enough to vote for those who can actually influence things.

Example: I ONLY voted for DJT (as opposed to just throwing up and not voting at all) because of SCOTUS. And my vote was justified 3 times over......

I know a little something about the document, but I am never going to be as smart as Turley. So I know enough to know I want conservative justices on the court.

I consider my choice "informed" in that nobody had to tell me how to determine what I wanted. And I feel I can justify my position without help.

I am just wondering what levels of knowledge (sort of like stepping it up from nothing to Const Scholar) you think are out there.

So the answer to your question is, I am not really sure how informed someone needs to be (except they need to know more than nothing ) to be able to make a choice they can defend.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

There are those who know nothing about the Constitution.

There are those who understand it's basics (know something about the document itself).

There are those who know about constitutional law at some level (past cases)

And there are those who know more about how constitutional law works (we call them "scholars", when in reality they tend to be those who know how to manipulate it to their ends).

These are very general. I'd like to break it down into about 6 to 8 levels of knowledge gradation.

Any suggestions ?

An Elitist Manifesto That Only Political Cowards Worship

This is a secular tyranny imitating a totalitarian theocracy, with the Constitution as its Bible. You've been influenced to never question the right of the government to create a document that suppresses the right of us, the people, to political self-determination.

 

[Pellinore]

I'm not convinced that everyone can be sorted into terraces that easily.

In my experience, the people most likely to be the most knowledgeable are Professors. There are some exceptions, of course, but at that level they are very rare, and usually because their personal biases get in their way. Other teachers rank very highly as well, as do those with advanced education; just getting through that teaches a lot of different perspectives and the necessity for objectivity. "Fellow" (like at a think tank) is also usually a good sign, but not always.

What does not earn any special respect is if someone is an author, or a pundit. Those positions are awarded based on marketability or ratings, not wisdom or knowledge. Best to look for other credentials; if they have none, break out the grain of salt.

What you did specifically that was Exactly Right was to seek the knowledge that you knew you didn't have. I mean, if your toilet breaks, you call a professional, knowledgeable plumber, and not one who is trying to sell you something. If your taxes are complicated, you want the best accountant, and if you need heart surgery, you damn sure want the most educated, most experienced surgeon money can buy. It's no different with a political scientist or analyst: You want knowledgeable, impartial, and seen-a-lot.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

I'm not convinced that everyone can be sorted into terraces that easily.

In my experience, the people most likely to be the most knowledgeable are Professors. There are some exceptions, of course, but at that level they are very rare, and usually because their personal biases get in their way. Other teachers rank very highly as well, as do those with advanced education; just getting through that teaches a lot of different perspectives and the necessity for objectivity. "Fellow" (like at a think tank) is also usually a good sign, but not always.

What does not earn any special respect is if someone is an author, or a pundit. Those positions are awarded based on marketability or ratings, not wisdom or knowledge. Best to look for other credentials; if they have none, break out the grain of salt.

What you did specifically that was Exactly Right was to seek the knowledge that you knew you didn't have. I mean, if your toilet breaks, you call a professional, knowledgeable plumber, and not one who is trying to sell you something. If your taxes are complicated, you want the best accountant, and if you need heart surgery, you damn sure want the most educated, most experienced surgeon money can buy. It's no different with a political scientist or analyst: You want knowledgeable, impartial, and seen-a-lot.

Academentia

 

[Libby von H]

There are those who know nothing about the Constitution.

There are those who understand it's basics (know something about the document itself).

There are those who know about constitutional law at some level (past cases)

And there are those who know more about how constitutional law works (we call them "scholars", when in reality they tend to be those who know how to manipulate it to their ends).

These are very general. I'd like to break it down into about 6 to 8 levels of knowledge gradation.

Any suggestions ?

Yes , start with YOUR wrong pre-supposition.
The first thing to know about the Constitution is that the Founders used it to embody and flesh out the DECLARATION.

JQA attacked the Joe Biden of his day Van Buren over the equivalent of the Border Crisis and other abominations

John Quincy Adams begins arguments in Amistad case | February 24, 1841 | HISTORY

On February 24, 1841, former President John Quincy Adams begins to argue the Amistad case in front of the U.S. Supreme Court. A practicing lawyer and member of the House of Representatives, John Quincy Adams was the son of America’s second president, founding father and avowed abolitionist John...

www.history.com

"In a seven-hour argument that lasted two days, Adams attacked Van Buren’s abuse of executive power. His case deflated the U.S. attorney’s argument that the treaty with Spain should override U.S. principles of individual rights. In appeasing a foreign nation, Adams argued that the president committed the “utter injustice [of interfering] in a suit between parties for their individual rights.” In a dramatic moment, Adams faced the judges, pointed to a copy of the Declaration of Independence hanging on the courtroom wall, and said “[I know] no law, statute or constitution, no code, no treaty, except that law…which [is] forever before the eyes of your Honors.”"

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

There are those who know nothing about the Constitution.

There are those who understand it's basics (know something about the document itself).

There are those who know about constitutional law at some level (past cases)

And there are those who know more about how constitutional law works (we call them "scholars", when in reality they tend to be those who know how to manipulate it to their ends).

These are very general. I'd like to break it down into about 6 to 8 levels of knowledge gradation.

Any suggestions ?

Get a life?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Yes , start with YOUR wrong pre-supposition.
The first thing to know about the Constitution is that the Founders used it to embody and flesh out the DECLARATION.

JQA attacked the Joe Biden of his day Van Buren over the equivalent of the Border Crisis and other abominations

John Quincy Adams begins arguments in Amistad case | February 24, 1841 | HISTORY

On February 24, 1841, former President John Quincy Adams begins to argue the Amistad case in front of the U.S. Supreme Court. A practicing lawyer and member of the House of Representatives, John Quincy Adams was the son of America’s second president, founding father and avowed abolitionist John...

www.history.com

"In a seven-hour argument that lasted two days, Adams attacked Van Buren’s abuse of executive power. His case deflated the U.S. attorney’s argument that the treaty with Spain should override U.S. principles of individual rights. In appeasing a foreign nation, Adams argued that the president committed the “utter injustice [of interfering] in a suit between parties for their individual rights.” In a dramatic moment, Adams faced the judges, pointed to a copy of the Declaration of Independence hanging on the courtroom wall, and said “[I know] no law, statute or constitution, no code, no treaty, except that law…which [is] forever before the eyes of your Honors.”"

Ha, ha, ha... btw, one could do far better than history[,]com or the History Channel. I could refer you to mensa for kids.

JQA was not a founder. JQA was speaking metaphorically (in a dramatic moment ), and he was not saying as you infer, that the Declaration of Independence (DoI), was a law above the US Constitution (USC), or the laws of the land.

The US Constitution does not embody the DoI. The USC does not 'flesh out' the DoI. Your opinions are usually out there somewhere, so I thank you for your consistency here.

 

[HikerGuy83]

Get a life?

You first.