I did that to go to San Diego for boot instead of Great Lakes (USN) in winter. Guess what I went to San Diego for boot, but they got me on my 1st Duty station, they sent me to VA. instead of any West Coast billets.
JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Army Reserves Questions...
- Thread Starter sbryson21
- Start date
I did that to go to San Diego for boot instead of Great Lakes (USN) in winter. Guess what I went to San Diego for boot, but they got me on my 1st Duty station, they sent me to VA. instead of any West Coast billets.
- Messages
- 1,109
- Reactions
- 19
Interesting interpretation of the statute:
Under the usual "plain meaning" rule of statutory interpretation, offering any US history or civics class is likely enough for middle schools and high schools to be in compliance with the statute. To the best of my recollection, credits in both subjects were required for graduation back in the 1990's, and probably still are.
It's pretty clear that the University of Oregon (and probably every other institute of higher education in the state) is in violation of this statute, as it does not require any U.S. History/Constitution courses for graduation ( <broken link removed> ), but I can't imagine who could possibly have standing to sue and get a judge to enforce the law. Perhaps a well-written op-ed or a letter to the state board of higher education might be in order.
- Messages
- 287
- Reactions
- 128
"Under the usual "plain meaning" rule of statutory interpretation, offering any US history or civics class is likely enough for middle schools and high schools to be in compliance with the statute. To the best of my recollection, credits in both subjects were required for graduation back in the 1990's, and probably still are."
If you would, please forgive my response's length. Also, if it sounds brusque, I apologize. Written words really lack the help of non-verbals; no discourtesy intended.
I do agree with your sentiment that some corrective action is in order. Regarding your reference to "the usual 'plain meaning' rule of statutory interpretation, I'm not sure if you are speaking of any particular law on legislative interpretation. The Oregon Constitution at Art. IV, Sec. 21 states:
"Acts to be plainly worded. Every act, and joint resolution shall be
plainly worded, avoiding as far as practicable the use of technical
terms."...
The law on legislative interpretation (construction) at ORS 174.010 states:
"General rule for construction of statutes. In the construction of a
statute, the office of the judge is simply to ascertain and declare
what is, in terms or in substance, contained therein, not to insert
what has been omitted, or to omit what has been inserted; and
where there are several provisions or particulars such construction is, if
possible, to be adopted as will give effect to all."...
The law on legislative interpretation at ORS 174.020(2) states:
"When a general and particular provision are inconsistent, the latter is
paramount to the former so that a particular intent controls a
general intent that is inconsistent with the particular intent."
You use the word "offering" to describe how schools provide classes under ORS 336.057. But the word "offering" implies that discretion was bestowed by this law to Oregon's public schools by the legislature. However, the law uses the words "shall be given"; explicitly as the legislature's intent (see 174.010 above).
"In all public schools courses of instruction shall be given in the
Constitution of the United States and in the history of the
United States.
These courses shall:
(1) Begin not later than the opening of the eighth grade and shall
continue in grades 9 through 12.
(2) Be required in all state institutions of higher education
This law doesn't entertain a "likely enough to comply" interpretation because it doesn't provide curriculum policy designers authority to use discretion in whether or not or how often to provide these courses. The word "shall" is a direct command by our legislators to school administrators who 'administer' the laws dealing with public schools.
This law likewise doesn't use the word "or" to give curriculum designers the option of providing one class (Constitution class) or the other (US history class). The word used by the legislature is "and", which as a conjunction, recognizes both classes as independent and links them both to the command of "shall be given".
Logic applied directly to 336.057's plain language (complying with Or.Const. Art. IV, Sec. 21) allows for no other interpretation than that Oregon's public schools are and have been denying Oregonians the fundamental knowledge they need to be fully informed about how government policies and rules.
I graduated high school in Oregon and to my recollection, if I were to tally the class time I spent specifically studying and learning about the Constitution into a consecutive total, it wouldn't be any more than two, maybe three months.
Being denied the knowledge I need to know, understand and exercise my rights and be able to recognize when my government is overstepping its constitutional limits, is a deprivation of knowledge that I need to prevent my public servants from defrauding me out of my rights through sophistry and suggestion.
It's pretty clear that the University of Oregon (and probably every other institute of higher education in the state) is in violation of this statute, as it does not require any U.S. History/Constitution courses for graduation ( <broken link removed> ), but I can't imagine who could possibly have standing to sue and get a judge to enforce the law. Perhaps a well-written op-ed or a letter to the state board of higher education might be in order.[/QUOTE]
Being a victim of fraud and deprivation of rights is grounds for standing. You yourself concede that U of O and other higher education institutions are clearly in violation by reading the plain language in subsection (b) of 336.057. The language above that subsection is no less direct and no less condemning of curriculum policy decision making in grades 8 through 12. In talking with many people about the high school experience regarding Constitutional education, my experience is shared by all but one or two (who went to private schools).
If you would, please forgive my response's length. Also, if it sounds brusque, I apologize. Written words really lack the help of non-verbals; no discourtesy intended.
I do agree with your sentiment that some corrective action is in order. Regarding your reference to "the usual 'plain meaning' rule of statutory interpretation, I'm not sure if you are speaking of any particular law on legislative interpretation. The Oregon Constitution at Art. IV, Sec. 21 states:
"Acts to be plainly worded. Every act, and joint resolution shall be
plainly worded, avoiding as far as practicable the use of technical
terms."...
The law on legislative interpretation (construction) at ORS 174.010 states:
"General rule for construction of statutes. In the construction of a
statute, the office of the judge is simply to ascertain and declare
what is, in terms or in substance, contained therein, not to insert
what has been omitted, or to omit what has been inserted; and
where there are several provisions or particulars such construction is, if
possible, to be adopted as will give effect to all."...
The law on legislative interpretation at ORS 174.020(2) states:
"When a general and particular provision are inconsistent, the latter is
paramount to the former so that a particular intent controls a
general intent that is inconsistent with the particular intent."
You use the word "offering" to describe how schools provide classes under ORS 336.057. But the word "offering" implies that discretion was bestowed by this law to Oregon's public schools by the legislature. However, the law uses the words "shall be given"; explicitly as the legislature's intent (see 174.010 above).
"In all public schools courses of instruction shall be given in the
Constitution of the United States and in the history of the
United States.
These courses shall:
(1) Begin not later than the opening of the eighth grade and shall
continue in grades 9 through 12.
(2) Be required in all state institutions of higher education
This law doesn't entertain a "likely enough to comply" interpretation because it doesn't provide curriculum policy designers authority to use discretion in whether or not or how often to provide these courses. The word "shall" is a direct command by our legislators to school administrators who 'administer' the laws dealing with public schools.
This law likewise doesn't use the word "or" to give curriculum designers the option of providing one class (Constitution class) or the other (US history class). The word used by the legislature is "and", which as a conjunction, recognizes both classes as independent and links them both to the command of "shall be given".
Logic applied directly to 336.057's plain language (complying with Or.Const. Art. IV, Sec. 21) allows for no other interpretation than that Oregon's public schools are and have been denying Oregonians the fundamental knowledge they need to be fully informed about how government policies and rules.
I graduated high school in Oregon and to my recollection, if I were to tally the class time I spent specifically studying and learning about the Constitution into a consecutive total, it wouldn't be any more than two, maybe three months.
Being denied the knowledge I need to know, understand and exercise my rights and be able to recognize when my government is overstepping its constitutional limits, is a deprivation of knowledge that I need to prevent my public servants from defrauding me out of my rights through sophistry and suggestion.
It's pretty clear that the University of Oregon (and probably every other institute of higher education in the state) is in violation of this statute, as it does not require any U.S. History/Constitution courses for graduation ( <broken link removed> ), but I can't imagine who could possibly have standing to sue and get a judge to enforce the law. Perhaps a well-written op-ed or a letter to the state board of higher education might be in order.[/QUOTE]
Being a victim of fraud and deprivation of rights is grounds for standing. You yourself concede that U of O and other higher education institutions are clearly in violation by reading the plain language in subsection (b) of 336.057. The language above that subsection is no less direct and no less condemning of curriculum policy decision making in grades 8 through 12. In talking with many people about the high school experience regarding Constitutional education, my experience is shared by all but one or two (who went to private schools).
- Messages
- 1,109
- Reactions
- 19
Well, it sounds like you ought to try filing a lawsuit!
- Messages
- 3,053
- Reactions
- 1,934
PM me...I was an MP even overseas. Trust me, you wont be "in the thick of the acion" as much as the armpit of the Army.
My advice? Be a scout...even if you want to be a cop when you get out, it will still help you.
- Messages
- 287
- Reactions
- 128
The implication that many of the good people who raise their hand and swear an oath of office to uphold and defend something that curriculum policy decision makers have ensured their ignorance of, is that as public servants, they are fundamentally, educationally incompetent to be in a position of public trust....as held up to what the law requires of their basic knowledge and their oath of office.
The fact that the rest of the People, in general, are equally educationally emaciated on this body of knowledge as well means that we also have a hard time detecting whether or not our public servants can or are acting faithfully to their oath of office.
How often do you hear people or the media or public servants refer to our nation as a "republic" as opposed to a "democracy". Try finding the word "democracy" in the Constitution. How many people know what the difference is between a republic and a democracy and why our Constitution's authors chose a republic as our form of government.
I don't mean any uppityness. I'm sure you know these sorts of things, but many many people don't and that's my point to the good man who started this thread. I am a veteran myself and I think his spirit of national service is honorable, but good intentions can be taken advantage of.
To "out" what has become institutionalized, socialized constitutional ignorance with a lawsuit, is to shine a spotlight on the People's intellectual defenselessness and those who helped achieve it and commodify it. For those whose careers or corporate associations are too big to fail, the ramifications of such a suit is a matter of politics or business, not law.
Economic attrition is a quiet, but effective way of making these kinds of cases go away because the public's ignorance is their insulation from upholding the law and ensuring continued revenue flow, constitutionally or not. And yes, in respect of your suggestion, I have in good faith tried our courts. It was a good education for me.
Upcoming Events
New Classified Ads
-
Aero Precision, Ballistic Advantage Hansen, Mega 223 Wylde Complete Upper w BCG CH- Started by Tacompton173
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
