It's going to take A LOT longer I'm afraid.

The BBQ Pit
1

The Columbia School of Law did a phone survery of respondent’s knowledge of the constitution.

These people, presumably, are allowed to vote.

Results here.

A third of the electorate think that the U.S president may dispense with that pesky Constitution in times of war.

Over half think that if the Supremes overturned Roe v. Wade, that abortions would then instantly be illegal throught the U.S.

The first item of the survey…oh hell, see for yourself.

Surprising?..no.

I think I need a drink now.

On a completely unrelated matter. mrs beagledave just purchased two Wiggle’s videotapes for the Gigglepotamus™. One is playing in the VCR now as I type.

Can our resident lawyers clue me in as to whether this constitutes grounds for a spousal abuse complaint?

2

I would think our Socialist Doper friends might be pleased at the results to Question 1.

3

Well, our country may be stupid, but at least we’re consistently stupid!

4

So you’d think the GOP would stop resisting universal health care now. :wink:

5

Long live the U.S.S.A

Eh?

6

I just did the quiz and answered all the questions correctly. Doe this mean I get to become an American now?

7

Pissed I am. Only a third knew it was in the Constitution. We’re slipping. :stuck_out_tongue:

8

I wouldn’t head for the bottle just yet. These people may not be as dumb as you think. But those giving the survey are.

Here’s how they framed some of the questions:

“I am going to read you some statements about the Constitution. Please tell me if you think each statement is true or false.”

Note that they did not say “Tell me if this sentence is found in the consititution,” just "some statements about the constitution.

“In time of war or other declared national emergency, the President may suspend the Constitution’s Bill of Rights”

The answer is no. It’s not explicitedly stated, but Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus during the Civil War, . Recently, we have the attorney general advocating holding secret trials. Hell, under the Patriot Act, the FBI is ordering libraries to open their databases. They have to get a warrant, sure, but it’s done in secret, and librarians are ordered not to reveal that they were asked (No specific cite linked, but I read the story in the San Francisco Chronicle).

So while there’s no mechanism in the Constitution for the president to suspend the Bill of Rights, it has been done and the Supreme Court has supported the action.

“If the Supreme Court were to overrule Roe vs. Wade, abortion would be illegal throughout the United States”

Anyone who has seen the court strike down various state laws by pointing to Roe vs. Wade would feel confident in saying that, yes, if this ruling wasn’t here, many states would pass laws severely restricting abortion, if not outlawing it completely (such as in heavily Mormon Utah and many of the Southern states).

The results would be far more accurate if the Columbia Law School had phrased it as, “According to the Constitution, if the Supreme Court were to overrule Roe vs. Wade, abortion would immediately be illegal.”

But they’re not asking that. They shaded the result by posing it as “a statement about the Constitution.” Small wonder people told them what they thought would happen.

Granted, there’s no excuse for people confusing Marxist doctrine with the right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” but Columbia didn’t help matters by creating a vague survey.

9

That’s probably because only stupid people answer phone surveys.

I know I wouldn’t…
99% of those stupid survey calls are for marketing purpose, so I extricate myself as soon as I’ve figured out it isn’t someone I want to talk to. I wouldn’t even stay on the line long enough to find out it was (supposedly!) a Columbia school of law survey.

10

Does this mean I won’t get to become an American after all?

11

“I would think our Socialist Doper friends might be pleased at the results to Question 1.”

No, not really, just shocked. This socialist KNEW that the quote is nowhere in the constitution.

12

They only called the same people that watch FOX reality shows ans 'Survivor" type shows. That being the case, I’m surprised the results were that good.

13

That’s a shame to hear. I used to work as a phone surveyor for university and government surveys, and telephone survey results not only were used in studies (like this one) but helped decide state health care policy/spending in that state (by determining level of knowledge about diseases, level of health coverage, etc.).

I talked to a lot of people at that job, and very few of them would I classify as truly stupid. A lot of them were interested to hear that they could participate in our research.

14

Most people don’t pay attention to what is going on in the justice system, so they wouldn’t see any court point to Roe vs. Wade in striking down state laws, most people woudn’t be smart enough to make that connection, and I doubt anyone would give that much thought to a phone survey.

My guess is that more people knew the truth, weren’t really listening, just heard “Roe vs. Wade”, “abortion”, and “illegal”, and replied “True”.

15

FluidDruid, sorry to say it, but I think phone surveys are inherently flawed. They may have been more accurate in the past when the phone wasn’t abused as much. But it certainly does select only for people who take unsolicited phone calls.

Now that 99.9% of phone solicitations are marketing to find out what crap you would buy or trying to sell you crap you don’t want to buy, I don’t think they are anywhere near a “random sample”. Because they exclude everyone with caller ID, or who don’t respond to solicitation calls. From my personal experience, I will NEVER be polled, because my phone isn’t there on the off chance I will be a valuable statistic someday.

So besides the stupid (I stand by my original flippant comment, damnit!) I have to wonder who, after the first few years of the wonder of having a phone in your home wears off, spends a lot of time with random solicitors…

Possibly, the excruciatingly polite who can’t bring themselves to hang up. Or those who have a lot of time on their hands. Or, they are, in fact too stupid to realize that 99% of surveys that they answer are thinly disguised market research. Just because a few surveys are for a useful purpose, for me doesn’t justify wasting my time.

A recent example, some advertizing agency gets me to start answering their “important survey on current events”. It quickly devolves into extremely transparent questions about which local tv station news “catchphrases” I recognize, and am I more likely to get my weather from “stormstation2000” or “the LiveDopplerRadarUpYourButt WeatherTeam”?

And suddenly, I’m more likely to say “nothankyouI’mverybusyatthemoment” next time I get asked to do a survey. Not mad, just not interested.

I don’t really have a problem with public policy being made based on what the helpful, bored (and stupid) have to say. I believe as a rule government programs should be geared toward our least able citizens :wink:

16

IANAL, but I am a parent. I don’t know if it is grounds for spousal abuse complaint, but try child endangerment. I say this with the song “Hat on my Head” firmly burned into my brain from this morning’s episode of the Wiggles. Please give me Bear in the Big Blue House any day!

17

Well, I would have gotten them all right, but I would not have been in the poll either. I don’t talk on the phone with people I don’t already know. I also never give personal information, including opinions, over the phone.

Tris

18

I guess I can’t work up any particular outrage over this survey – yeah, a couple of the questions are obvious, but the rest are somewhat obscure. It has been about 30 years since the last time I read the Constitution so I would have missed a few of the questions. I don’t feel particularly guilty about it either. (Tenure of Supreme Court Justices? There’s a fact that will serve me in good stead in my daily life.) I’ve seen a lot more glaring examples of the public’s ignorance.

19

It’s still okay by me,Muffin. You’re already a North American. :smiley:

20

I can’t tell from your post if the question about the Supremes was one of your “obvious” ones…but cripes, entire presidential campaigns are waged on the idea that the winner gets to appoint a justice (subject to confirmation) for life…

When a justice dies…big news. Big speculation about who will be appointed. Big coverage of the confirmation process (especially if it’s a controversial candidate).

This ain’t exactly some obscure piece of governmental trivia…it ain’t like name the ambassador to Bumfuckistan.

Sorry, but not knowing that justices are appointed for life shows an amazing amount of ignorance of a fact central to the system of checks and balances at the federal level.