# High Schooler challenges Michelle Bachman to a Constitution debate **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [May 17, 2011, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/high-schooler-challenges-michelle-bachman-to-a-constitution-debate/582212 "2011-05-17T16:09:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2011, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/high-schooler-challenges-michelle-bachman-to-a-constitution-debate/582212/21 "2011-05-17T20:48:29Z")
> [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > I disagree, not because I think the the 16 year-old would be more knowledgeable or a better debater, than a precocious 16 year-old (although it might be arguable), but because Bachmann, having to pander to the electorate, would have one hand tied behind her back. That is sort of what I meant by asking if it was a “real” debate. Just as a publicity stunt? Bachmann’s best bet would be to treat it like a roast, and joke good-naturedly throughout. That might score her some points; “debating” a kid couldn’t possibly. But you are correct. Bachmann couldn’t be seen as bullying the kid. I thought Hilary Clinton scored some points when she was running for the Senate because she was debating her opponent, a man, and he came up and sort of loomed over her. And that was seen, or at least spun, as bullying or intimidation. Not that he would have won the election anyway, but HRC was in somewhat the same position as the kid would be against Bachmann. But her opponent had to debate Hilary - Bachmann can blow this kid off and not lose anything. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![garygnu](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/garygnu/32/2924_2.png) [@garygnu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/garygnu)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2011, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/high-schooler-challenges-michelle-bachman-to-a-constitution-debate/582212/22 "2011-05-17T21:00:27Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > …Bachmann can blow this kid off and not lose anything. True. Almost no potential upside, and an incredibly damaging downside. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2011, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/high-schooler-challenges-michelle-bachman-to-a-constitution-debate/582212/23 "2011-05-17T21:28:02Z")
Quoth **Shodan** : > [@](#): > > These revenge fantasies about how any Republican is going to fall apart the first time she encounters a loaded question are entertaining, but naive. Of course that’s not when a Republican would fall apart. By the time the loaded questions come around, they’ve already long since fallen apart from things like “what newspapers do you read?”. And granted that there’s no real win in this situation for Bachman if she takes the offer, it’s also hard to see how refusing it helps her. It probably does her least harm to just completely ignore it, but least harm is still harm. ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2011, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/high-schooler-challenges-michelle-bachman-to-a-constitution-debate/582212/24 "2011-05-18T21:00:18Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > That is sort of what I meant by asking if it was a “real” debate. Just as a publicity stunt? Bachmann’s best bet would be to treat it like a roast, and joke good-naturedly throughout. That might score her some points; “debating” a kid couldn’t possibly. > > But you are correct. Bachmann couldn’t be seen as bullying the kid. I thought Hilary Clinton scored some points when she was running for the Senate because she was debating her opponent, a man, and he came up and sort of loomed over her. And that was seen, or at least spun, as bullying or intimidation. > > Not that he would have won the election anyway, but HRC was in somewhat the same position as the kid would be against Bachmann. But her opponent had to debate Hilary - Bachmann can blow this kid off and not lose anything. > > Regards, > Shodan I wasn’t talking about bullying although that is clearly an issue. My point is that there are areas where constitutional law may not line up with conservative\* talking points. In these cases for political reasons Bachman will have to debate in a way that supports the views of her conservative constituency even if it hurts her case in the debate. For example, she can’t concede that there is separation between church and state because that will offend some conservative voters. The 16 year old doesn’t have to stick to a script and so can take what ever position she feels will most help her in the debate. \*this is not to say that liberal talking points would necessarily line up any better. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2011, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/high-schooler-challenges-michelle-bachman-to-a-constitution-debate/582212/25 "2011-05-18T21:29:03Z")
> [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > I wasn’t talking about bullying although that is clearly an issue. My point is that there are areas where constitutional law may not line up with conservative\* talking points. In these cases for political reasons Bachman will have to debate in a way that supports the views of her conservative constituency even if it hurts her case in the debate. For example, she can’t concede that there is separation between church and state because that will offend some conservative voters. The 16 year old doesn’t have to stick to a script and so can take what ever position she feels will most help her in the debate. > > \*this is not to say that liberal talking points would necessarily line up any better. Perhaps you were not aware that Michelle Bachmann has both a J.D and an LL.M. degree. She used to work for the IRS as an attorney. You really think some 16 year old is going to be better at debating the law than she is? That’s like saying I could out-debate Barack Obama because he has to stick to a liberal script and I can say anything I want. This just doesn’t make any sense. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2011, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/high-schooler-challenges-michelle-bachman-to-a-constitution-debate/582212/26 "2011-05-19T13:55:20Z")
> [@Larry\_Mudd](#): > > I wouldn’t be prepared to place a bet on a _debate_, but as far as the proposed “Fact Test on The Constitution of the United States, United States History and United States Civics,” the smart money’s on the high-school student. > > Ms. Bachmann makes frequent assertions on these subjects and has consistently demonstrated a truly remarkable depth of ignorance and confusion on them. I’m a middle-aged Canadian and would go into a pop-quiz on these subjects feeling quite confident that I could outscore Michele Bachmann. A young person currently going through a U.S. high school curriculum, with access to its libraries and a particular interest in the subjects? Michele Bachmann would be utterly crushed, even if she crammed for it. Can you give me a couple of examples of Bachmann saying things that represent factual ignorance on the Constitution – things that would be unambiguously wrong on a test, for instance? ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2011, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/high-schooler-challenges-michelle-bachman-to-a-constitution-debate/582212/27 "2011-05-19T14:05:47Z")
> [@Larry\_Mudd](#): > > I wouldn’t be prepared to place a bet on a _debate_, but as far as the proposed “Fact Test on The Constitution of the United States, United States History and United States Civics,” the smart money’s on the high-school student. I would bet on a high school debate team member against most adults. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2011, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/high-schooler-challenges-michelle-bachman-to-a-constitution-debate/582212/28 "2011-05-19T14:16:48Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > While I agree that the SDMB (the group that collectively insisted Palin was wrong when she described the VP’s constitutional role of presiding over the Senate to a third grader as “in charge of the Senate…”) What - the whole SDMB collectively held that view and not just a couple of the more vocal lefties? I saw a lot of people agreeing with you in [that thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=488933). Back on topic, I vote that the whole thing is a publicity stunt for the student. I’m no fan of Bachmann or Palin and would frequently like them to shut up, but she should ignore this. If the student was in her district there might be a case for going, but New Jersey? Naah. ---
**Author:** ![Whiteknight](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whiteknight/32/4962_2.png) [@Whiteknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whiteknight)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2011, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/high-schooler-challenges-michelle-bachman-to-a-constitution-debate/582212/29 "2011-05-19T14:25:01Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Can you give me a couple of examples of Bachmann saying things that represent factual ignorance on the Constitution – things that would be unambiguously wrong on a test, for instance? ``` “Now ACORN has been named one of the national partners, which will be a recipient again of federal money,” Bachmann said. “And they will be in charge of going door-to-door and collecting data from the American public. This is very concerning because the motherload of all data information will be from the Census. And, of course, we think of the Census as just counting how many people live in your home. Unfortunately, the Census data has become very intricate, very personal (with) a lot of the questions that are asked. “And I know for my family the only question that we will be answering is how many people are in our home. We won’t be answering any information beyond that, because the Constitution doesn’t require any information beyond that.” ``` **Article I, Section 2, 3** “Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.2 The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, **in such Manner as they shall by Law direct**.” [bolding mine] The Constitution requires whatever Congress decides to implement. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2011, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/high-schooler-challenges-michelle-bachman-to-a-constitution-debate/582212/30 "2011-05-19T14:33:21Z")
> [@Whiteknight](#): > > “Now ACORN has been named one of the national partners, which will be a recipient again of federal money,” Bachmann said. “And they will be in charge of going door-to-door and collecting data from the American public. This is very concerning because the motherload of all data information will be from the Census. And, of course, we think of the Census as just counting how many people live in your home. Unfortunately, the Census data has become very intricate, very personal (with) a lot of the questions that are asked. > > ``` > “And I know for my family the only question that we will be answering is how many people are in our home. We won’t be answering any information beyond that, because the Constitution doesn’t require any information beyond that.” > > ``` > > **Article I, Section 2, 3** > > “Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.2 The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, **in such Manner as they shall by Law direct**.” [bolding mine] > > The Constitution requires whatever Congress decides to implement. By no means is that unambiguously wrong. “In such manner” refers to how Congress shall conduct the enumeration, and is not a license for Congress to ask additional questions beyond “how many people are there?” There’s no barrier to Congress deciding to ask that, but the Constitution does not require it. I’m sorry, but far from being unambiguously wrong, she’s precisely right. As to the census, the Constitutional command is limited to an enumeration every ten years. Additional question are not illegal, but the Constitution clearly does not require them. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2011, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/high-schooler-challenges-michelle-bachman-to-a-constitution-debate/582212/31 "2011-05-19T14:34:25Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > What - the whole SDMB collectively held that view and not just a couple of the more vocal lefties? I saw a lot of people agreeing with you in [that thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=488933). Those people didn’t like porridge. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2011, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/high-schooler-challenges-michelle-bachman-to-a-constitution-debate/582212/32 "2011-05-19T14:43:19Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Those people didn’t like porridge. Well that’s just un-American. And un-Scottish. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2011, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/high-schooler-challenges-michelle-bachman-to-a-constitution-debate/582212/33 "2011-05-19T14:44:03Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > Well that’s just un-American. And un-Scottish. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2011, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/high-schooler-challenges-michelle-bachman-to-a-constitution-debate/582212/34 "2011-05-19T14:45:08Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I’m sorry, but far from being unambiguously wrong, she’s precisely right. As to the census, the Constitutional command is limited to an enumeration every ten years. Additional question are not illegal, but the Constitution clearly does not require them. > [@Whiteknight](#): > > The Constitution requires whatever Congress decides to implement. Of interest to this discussion might be Scalia’s concurrence in _Department of Commerce v. United States House of Representatives_, 525 US 316 (1999), in which “statistical sampling” as a method for census counting was proposed under supposed Congressional authority but struck down by the Court. > [@](#): > > In a further effort to address growing concerns about undercount in the census, Congress passed the Decennial Census Improvement Act of 1991, which instructed the Secretary to contract with the National Academy of Sciences (Academy) to study the “means by which the Government could achieve the most accurate population count possible.” > . > . > . > [Scalia’s concurrence:]Dictionaries roughly contemporaneous with the ratification of the Constitution demonstrate that an “enumeration” requires an actual counting, and not just an estimation of 347\*347 number. Noah Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language defines “enumerate” as “[t]o count or tell, number by number; to reckon or mention a number of things, each separately”; and defines “enumeration” as “[t]he act of counting or telling a number, by naming each particular,” and “[a]n account of a number of things, in which mention is made of every particular article.” Samuel Johnson’s 1773 Dictionary of the English Language 658 (4th ed.) defines “enumerate” as “[t]o reckon up singly; to count over distinctly; to number”; and “enumeration” as “[t]he act of numbering or counting over; number told out.” Thomas Sheridan’s 1796 Complete Dictionary of the English Language (6th ed.) defines “enumerate” as “[t]o reckon up singly; to count over distinctly”; and “enumeration” as “[t]he act of numbering or counting over.” The notion of counting “singly,” “separately,” “number by number,” “distinctly,” which runs through these definitions is incompatible (or at least arguably incompatible, which is all that needs to be established) with gross statistical estimates. ---
**Author:** ![Whiteknight](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whiteknight/32/4962_2.png) [@Whiteknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whiteknight)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2011, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/high-schooler-challenges-michelle-bachman-to-a-constitution-debate/582212/35 "2011-05-19T14:46:35Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > By no means is that unambiguously wrong. > > “In such manner” refers to how Congress shall conduct the enumeration, and is not a license for Congress to ask additional questions beyond “how many people are there?” > > There’s no barrier to Congress deciding to ask that, but the Constitution does not require it. > > I’m sorry, but far from being unambiguously wrong, she’s precisely right. As to the census, the Constitutional command is limited to an enumeration every ten years. Additional question are not illegal, but the Constitution clearly does not require them. IANAL, so maybe I’m missing something here, but it seems to me that’s akin to the following. Constitution of the Republic of Bob Article I You must do anything that Mike tells you to do. Mike: Go make me a sammich. Bob: Hell no, the Constitution doesn’t require me to. Seriously, please fight my ignorance if I’m wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2011, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/high-schooler-challenges-michelle-bachman-to-a-constitution-debate/582212/36 "2011-05-19T14:51:57Z")
What the hell is a constitution debate, anyway? They gonna argue pro and con on whether the document should exist? They going to argue whether a particular statute is constitutional? They gonna rehash _Marbury v. Madison_? ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2011, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/high-schooler-challenges-michelle-bachman-to-a-constitution-debate/582212/37 "2011-05-19T14:58:41Z")
> [@Whiteknight](#): > > IANAL, so maybe I’m missing something here, but it seems to me that’s akin to the following. > > Constitution of the Republic of Bob > > Article I > You must do anything that Mike tells you to do. > > Mike: Go make me a sammich. > Bob: Hell no, the Constitution doesn’t require me to. > > Seriously, please fight my ignorance if I’m wrong. It’s more a case of: \*Article I You must make Mike a sammich of whatever type he may direct.\* Mike: Make me a ham on rye with a side of coleslaw and a gherkin. Bob: You can have the sammich but I am not Constitutionally required to give you slaw or pickle, you lazy bastard. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2011, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/high-schooler-challenges-michelle-bachman-to-a-constitution-debate/582212/38 "2011-05-19T15:02:52Z")
Gyrate is hereby appointed the Mayor of Absolutely Rightsville. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2011, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/high-schooler-challenges-michelle-bachman-to-a-constitution-debate/582212/39 "2011-05-19T15:04:17Z")
Bachmann isn’t so much stupid as she is a liar and a demagogue (and a religious nutcase). She is a lawyer, so if pushed to take a straight up fact test on the Constitution, I’m sure she could do at least as well asa 16 year old. Palin, on the other hand, truly is ignorant, incurious and lacks the ability to comprehend complex ideas. I wouldn’t put money on her to beat a reasonably prepared 5th grader. ---
**Author:** ![Whiteknight](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whiteknight/32/4962_2.png) [@Whiteknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whiteknight)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2011, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/high-schooler-challenges-michelle-bachman-to-a-constitution-debate/582212/40 "2011-05-19T15:07:58Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > It’s more a case of: > > \*Article I > > You must make Mike a sammich of whatever type he may direct.\* > > Mike: Make me a ham on rye with a side of coleslaw and a gherkin. > > Bob: You can have the sammich but I am not Constitutionally required to give you slaw or pickle, you lazy bastard. Ok, that makes sense. Thank for for the clarification. However, the very first census in 1790 required additional information beyond just the number of persons in each household. Making the argument against the added questions is solely politically motivated rather than inspired by the actions of the founders that Bachmann and her supporters supposedly idolize. Unfortunately, I guess that’s just expected. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/high-schooler-challenges-michelle-bachman-to-a-constitution-debate/582212.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/high-schooler-challenges-michelle-bachman-to-a-constitution-debate/582212.md?page=3)