I’m slightly annoyed that this knowledge is expected of a prospective citizen, but not of natural-born ones, who can even be elected to Congress without basic knowledge. (Like how Senator-elect Tommy Tuberville didn’t know the three branches of government.)
I can guarantee you that a naturalized citizen knows more about the US, its laws, the Constitution, its history, and all else than the vast majority of natural born citizens. Probably more than many elected officials, especially those on the right.
I’ve sometimes toyed with the idea of making everyone earn their citizenship, but there are a number of downsides to that that are probably more detrimental than the problem of people taking it for granted.
You used have to know it well enough to pass a Civics class to earn a high school diploma. I’m not so sure about that now unless all of those non-college educated Trump voters also happen to be non-high school educated as well.
You may still have to.
But attaining a 70% in a one semester class that covers some of the basics does not an informed citizen make.
Plus things change. One of the arguments I got into with my mother was about the filibuster. She was insistent that you still had to actually filibuster, like stand there and read a phone book, in order to do one. That was the case when she was in high school, but things have changed since then.
That’s correct history. However, since all the states went to single-member districts in the mid-1800s, the notion that a Representative represented anyone outside the home district became moot.
Try telling a Manhattan rep that he or she is also responsible for a farm district upstate and see how far you get. Tell any Republican that he or she also needs to represent a Democratic district and you’ll be laughed out of the office.
The change from multi-member or full-state districts came about entirely because it was recognized that the job of representing the state was the Senate’s and that representing smaller districts with particular local needs was the job of the House.
This also has history. James Madison wrote in Federalist Paper 56, “divide the largest state into ten or twelve districts and it will be found that there will be no peculiar interests…which will not be within the knowledge of the Representative of the district.” It may have taken a while for all states to recognize this principle, but we’ve lived under it for nearly two centuries.
I’m not sure I’d go that far. But I think there should be a law requiring every naturalization test to be run past a sample group of natural born citizens. Let’s say any question which can’t be correctly answered by at least seventy percent of the natural born citizens gets thrown out of the test.
Not a bad approach.
And as to the OP, consider:
“The first duty of a member of Parliament is to do what he thinks in his faithful and disinterested judgement is right and necessary for the honour and safety of Great Britain. His second duty is to his constituents, of whom he is the representative but not the delegate. Burke’s famous declaration on this subject is well known. It is only in the third place that his duty to party organization or programme takes rank. All these three loyalties should be observed, but there is no doubt of the order in which they stand under any healthy manifestation of democracy.”
Sir Winston Churchill, Duties of a Member of Parliament (1954)
Whereas today’s politicians have it in this order:
-
Duty to self. Get more money. Get re-elected. Fill your pockets
1a. Duty to family. Help them get more money and line their pockets -
Duty to wealthy individuals and corporations who give you money
-
Duty to Party leaders. Do what they tell you, so that you can continue to stay in power and make money
-
Duty to Party as a whole
-
Duty to other not-as-wealthy who can still offer you benefits
That’s it. There is no other duty. The constitution is just a piece of paper.