Jump to content
To change color scheme, click on themes at bottom of page ×
RightNation.US
Sign in to follow this  
Liz

Parents Get Angry After Actress Teaches Students About The Constitutio

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Liz

Parents Get Angry After Actress Teaches Students About The Constitution

 

The Daily Caller

Grace Carr, Reporter

5:39 PM 09/19/2017

 

Excerpt:

 

Angry parents expressed outrage after actress Janine Turner’s “conservative” presentation on the Constitution to fifth and sixth graders at Eubanks Middle School in Southlake, Texas.

 

Turner, the founder of “Constituting America,” spoke to the middle schoolers on Sept. 12 about patriotism and the meaning of America’s founding document. She gave a lecture to promote “civic engagement and understanding of constitutional rights,” the mission of her nonpartisan organization.

 

“‘Constituting America’ seeks to promote the Constitution for students of all ages,” according to its website.

 

Constituting America @ConstituteUS

 

Our Founder & Cochair Actress @JanineTurner spoke to @EubanksDragons today for #ConstitutionDay-Book a speech: constitutingamerica@yahoo.com pic.twitter.com/sDAHQKER1W

1:16 PM - Sep 12, 2017

"The program itself was great as she talked about love for country and being a good citizen,” said school district spokeswoman Julie Thannum, according to The Dallas Morning News Monday. “It wasn’t until later that we started getting calls and seeing social media postings upset about materials the speaker passed out to the children.”

 

“These aren’t the topics we’d typically talk about with fifth and sixth graders,” Thannum added, noting that Turner addressed topics like sex trafficking and abortion.

 

Some parents thought Turner was not qualified enough to talk with kids about the Constitution, claiming legal scholars should explain the document instead. The topics she introduced were too advanced for the middle schoolers, others claimed, and Turner shouldn’t have broached the topics at all.

 

The school district apologized to parents in a letter, saying Turner addressed political material in an inappropriately partisan manner.

 

*snip*

 

Full Story

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ticked@TinselTown
“These aren’t the topics we’d typically talk about with fifth and sixth graders,” Thannum added, noting that Turner addressed topics like sex trafficking and abortion.

 

No, they start in kindergarten encouraging same sex experimentation, masturbation and wait until first and second grade to bring up gender identification and other issues that are so thoroughly age appropriate... <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Taggart Transcontinental

Funny how these people believe a Constitution that was written by common men for common men cannot be explained by the common man. We need "scholars" who will tell us what to think. Sorry that is wrong. The Constitution is plain and simple, it guarantees us rights that were given to us by the creator. Those rights cannot be seized by the government and destroyed on a whim. ANY common person can understand these truths.

 

And so can a 5th grader.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
corporal_little

There were less than 5 left wing parents that complained, including one loud mouthed lawyer.

 

99.9% of the rest of the parents didn't care, but let's not report that...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LongKnife
The school district apologized to parents in a letter, saying Turner addressed political material in an inappropriately partisan manner.

 

I'd say the only thing inappropriate was this letter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
corporal_little

I'd say the only thing inappropriate was this letter.

 

You have to understand, this is Southlake, Texas... one of the richest areas of Dallas-Fort Worth. Almost every parent is loaded, connected politically and some are extremely pretentious. The district always has to react this way to appease this small vocal minority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ladybird

According to the link in the story, she did this:

 

"As an example, she said the materials disseminated explain her own petition urging Congress to limit the size of bills so that average Americans can understand them. The documents make references to various large legislation such as the No Child Left Behind Act, Affordable Care Act and the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act. She briefly explained how the lack of transparency and complex legalese stalled the trafficking bill when Democrats discovered language that would have limited funding for abortions."

 

Why was that included? I think she over stepped her role here.

Why was this actress chosen to speak about constitutional law anyway?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LongKnife

Why was that included? I think she over stepped her role here.

It was probably included since she was speaking about the Constitution and civic engagement. I think explaining how a citizen can petition Congress to pass legislation is completely within the scope of the subject matter.

 

 

 

Why was this actress chosen to speak about constitutional law anyway?

You don't have to be legal scholar to speak about it. Even Barack Obama taught a class on it without seeming to have much regard for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JerryL

According to the link in the story, she did this:

 

"As an example, she said the materials disseminated explain her own petition urging Congress to limit the size of bills so that average Americans can understand them. The documents make references to various large legislation such as the No Child Left Behind Act, Affordable Care Act and the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act. She briefly explained how the lack of transparency and complex legalese stalled the trafficking bill when Democrats discovered language that would have limited funding for abortions."

 

Why was that included? I think she over stepped her role here.

Why was this actress chosen to speak about constitutional law anyway?

Why should she not be allowed to speak on this. She talked about the Constitution, not "constitutional law." The Constitution itself is beautifully written and easily understood...even by 5th graders. Practitioners of "constitutional law" are the ones who have been working to convince people that it does not say what it clearly does and that it does say things that are not mentioned at all. Obama, a supposed "Constitutional" lawyer, couldn't even identify if words came from the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence. Madonna and Oprah and Babs and George Clooney and Sean Penn and CNN news readers pontificate non-freaking-stop, but one actress tries to look at the actual Constitution and leftists are bent out of shape.

 

And, telling children of any age that laws and legislation should be understandable so that people can make informed judgments is bad how?

 

Seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Taggart Transcontinental

According to the link in the story, she did this:

 

"As an example, she said the materials disseminated explain her own petition urging Congress to limit the size of bills so that average Americans can understand them. The documents make references to various large legislation such as the No Child Left Behind Act, Affordable Care Act and the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act. She briefly explained how the lack of transparency and complex legalese stalled the trafficking bill when Democrats discovered language that would have limited funding for abortions."

 

Why was that included? I think she over stepped her role here.

Why was this actress chosen to speak about constitutional law anyway?

 

So wait, it's a bad idea that we start requiring our representatives to put a bill forth that is readable? This should be common sense. As for your political stuff? Are you kidding me? This is ONE group that pushes a pro right wing agenda. Schools will have 8-10 left wing agenda promotions that push abortion on demand. So you are shocked this ONE group is pro-American?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ladybird

Why should she not be allowed to speak on this. She talked about the Constitution, not "constitutional law." The Constitution itself is beautifully written and easily understood...even by 5th graders. Practitioners of "constitutional law" are the ones who have been working to convince people that it does not say what it clearly does and that it does say things that are not mentioned at all. Obama, a supposed "Constitutional" lawyer, couldn't even identify if words came from the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence. Madonna and Oprah and Babs and George Clooney and Sean Penn and CNN news readers pontificate non-freaking-stop, but one actress tries to look at the actual Constitution and leftists are bent out of shape.

 

And, telling children of any age that laws and legislation should be understandable so that people can make informed judgments is bad how?

 

Seriously.

No one is stopping her from speaking. She can speak to whomever chooses voluntarily to listen to her. If a spokesperson for People for the American Way came to your childs public school, and advocated for legislation, would you have any objection?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stick

No one is stopping her from speaking. She can speak to whomever chooses voluntarily to listen to her. If a spokesperson for People for the American Way came to your childs public school, and advocated for legislation, would you have any objection?

 

How is that the same thing? Campaigning for legislation in a public school (I think) would be illegal. Teaching about our founding document is NOT advocating for legislation.

 

Try again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
polkman

Why was this actress chosen to speak about constitutional law anyway?

 

She is more than 'this actress.' She runs a non-profit focusing on civic participation and understanding our roles as citizens, which is why she likely was invited to speak. She seems quite qualified to me on the subject, unless you ignore everything else and just want to paint her as 'this actress.'

 

http://constitutingamerica.org/

 

The best way to discourage participation in civic society is by reducing people to single descriptors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oki

I wonder if it that was pesky little 2nd Amendment and what the founding fathers wrote about which really upset this parent.

 

Oki

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ladybird

How is that the same thing? Campaigning for legislation in a public school (I think) would be illegal. Teaching about our founding document is NOT advocating for legislation.

 

Try again.

It was more than that. From the link in the OP:

 

Southlake parents became concerned after learning that their fifth- and sixth-grade children were given copies of a political petition, as well as materials that discussed legislation about helping sex trafficking victims and limiting abortion funding. Others questioned Turner’s qualifications for educating students about the Constitution, noting it is a complicated document that legal scholars and lawyers often struggle to understand and apply to legislation and policy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MontyPython

You have to understand, this is Southlake, Texas... one of the richest areas of Dallas-Fort Worth. Almost every parent is loaded, connected politically and some are extremely pretentious. The district always has to react this way to appease this small vocal minority.

 

Thanks for explaining that. I was scratching my head wondering how this could happen in Texas, not exactly famous for being populated by mindless leftists living in bubbles. Well, not outside Austin, anyway.

 

B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Noclevermoniker

Thanks for explaining that. I was scratching my head wondering how this could happen in Texas, not exactly famous for being populated by mindless leftists living in bubbles. Well, not outside Austin, anyway.

 

B)

Unfortunately, we have our share of Blue State locusts that come here and refuse to leave.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
polkman

It was more than that. From the link in the OP:

 

Southlake parents became concerned after learning that their fifth- and sixth-grade children were given copies of a political petition, as well as materials that discussed legislation about helping sex trafficking victims and limiting abortion funding. Others questioned Turner’s qualifications for educating students about the Constitution, noting it is a complicated document that legal scholars and lawyers often struggle to understand and apply to legislation and policy.

 

The other stuff I cannot speak to (whether she tried to proselytize her political ideologies, although sex trafficking legislation is hardly opposed by many), but as to the qualifications - by that argument NO TEACHER should teach the Constitution because legal scholars debate it and they are the only ones who can talk about that document. To use a southern phrase, I don't mean no harm but that's just silly.

 

She leads an organization that focuses on applying the US Constitution into civic living, which is very appropriate for kids at that age. She actually wrote a book on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MontyPython

Unfortunately, we have our share of Blue State locusts that come here and refuse to leave.

 

No doubt about it. I just couldn't picture the rest of Texans (i.e. the more sensible ones) feeling any need to "appease" the morons among them. (Well once again I mean outside Austin, well-known to have a much higher percentage of morons than most of the rest of Texas.)

 

B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oki

It was more than that. From the link in the OP:

 

Southlake parents became concerned after learning that their fifth- and sixth-grade children were given copies of a political petition, as well as materials that discussed legislation about helping sex trafficking victims and limiting abortion funding. Others questioned Turner’s qualifications for educating students about the Constitution, noting it is a complicated document that legal scholars and lawyers often struggle to understand and apply to legislation and policy.

 

 

Only because it was meant as a foundation in which to LIMIT GOVERNMENT POWER and LAY OUT A FRAME WORK OF WHAT GOVERNMENT CANNOT DO.

 

 

Oki

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
corporal_little

It was more than that. From the link in the OP:

 

Southlake parents became concerned after learning that their fifth- and sixth-grade children were given copies of a political petition, as well as materials that discussed legislation about helping sex trafficking victims and limiting abortion funding. Others questioned Turner’s qualifications for educating students about the Constitution, noting it is a complicated document that legal scholars and lawyers often struggle to understand and apply to legislation and policy.

 

Actually, I live here. I have friends who's kids go to CISD and other friends who are teachers at this very elementary school. It wasn't "Southlake parents"... it was a handful of loudmouth, too much free time, leftist a-holes who were causing a stink. No one else even cared. As usual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gravelrash

Don't have kids. Problem solved.

 

If you don't have kids but insist on complaining - STFU.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stick

Actually, I live here. I have friends who's kids go to CISD and other friends who are teachers at this very elementary school. It wasn't "Southlake parents"... it was a handful of loudmouth, too much free time, leftist a-holes who were causing a stink. No one else even cared. As usual.

 

Must be why Ladybird cares.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ladybird

Actually, I live here. I have friends who's kids go to CISD and other friends who are teachers at this very elementary school. It wasn't "Southlake parents"... it was a handful of loudmouth, too much free time, leftist a-holes who were causing a stink. No one else even cared. As usual.

 

But when a handful of loudmouthed parents complain about a teacher acknowledging one transgendered child, that's a mandate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stick

It was more than that. From the link in the OP:

 

Southlake parents became concerned after learning that their fifth- and sixth-grade children were given copies of a political petition, as well as materials that discussed legislation about helping sex trafficking victims and limiting abortion funding. Others questioned Turner’s qualifications for educating students about the Constitution, noting it is a complicated document that legal scholars and lawyers often struggle to understand and apply to legislation and policy.

 

It's not her fault that "... the No Child Left Behind Act, Affordable Care Act and the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act..." contain references to abortion and sex trafficking. And so what? She was showing examples of Bills of excessive size in her petition to get Congress to limit them. Those Laws are perfect examples. What, do you think she went in to detail about abortion and sex trafficking? Just the mere mention of these topics as part of documents in her examples have leftists setting their hair on fire. You guys never disappoint.

 

Must really suck to be so easily offended. Sheesh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...