Korean Job Discussion Forums

[mithridates]

(copy of a post I made on the Ron Paul forums but since it's not specifically related to Ron Paul I'll post it here too)

--------

Latin used to be a much more important language than it is now, but it suddenly dropped off the map, with that went the basic knowledge of Latin that the average person had, and left English with thousands of Latin loanwords that don't mean anything to the average person. Other languages have done much better with the word constitution. Here's how some of them phrase it:

Turkish: Anayasa - means basic law
Swedish: Grundlag - basis and law, cognate with English ground (I think) and law.
Japanese: 憲法 (kenpou) - first one means law or teaching (but you only see it in the compound word for constitution) and the second one (hou) means law. Korean uses the same one but pronounces it heonbeop. Chinese writes it the same way too.
Estonian: P�hiseadus - means north (therefore head or main) law.

And so on. When you talk about following the constitution in English it sounds like you're talking about some obscure document from times of yore. In other languages though it often literally means the ground law or base law. Maybe it's time for English to go back to a Germanic expression. The groundlaw.

[Ya-ta Boy]

[thepeel]

Your average 12 year old Canadian doesn't. Prolly cause we don't have a "ground law" or constitution (I too prefer ground law).

[Ya-ta Boy]

[thepeel]

Canadians have an obsession with Obama. The 2 or 3 Canadians who post around her anymore are not an appropriate sample of the population.

But I, for one, will say that my fondness of the man and many of his ideas does have some envy in it.

[Ya-ta Boy]

[thepeel]

He is an inspiring, transformative character, no doubt. I figure Canucks are more inclined to the "diversity" angle than anything.

Though, Paul had great support amongst conservative leaning people in Canada. In the US is was dogmatic libertarians and poeple who just dislike things as they are. In Canada, he had a very solid chunk of the whole of the right-wing.

[Ya-ta Boy]

About a month ago, when the caucus/primary thing was getting started, someone mentioned they thought Koreans would be horrified at Obama (because Koreans are racist pigs). I've always thought that is a silly gross over-generalization and misunderstanding of Korea, so I asked some of the co-teachers. The three I talked to thought it was a stupid idea. (One even said that.) They all three said that if Obama were elected, he'd be the president of Korea's ally and therefore respected. One even said something along the lines of saluting the uniform, not the person.

[mithridates]

[Ya-ta Boy]

I'm not sure, mith. I do know that somewhere along the line, before they're 18-year old seniors in high school they develop the sophistication to understand that unconstitutional is more serious than illegal. Even the average student knew that unconstitutional means the law itself is illegal. They must get this from Junior High because they already know it when they get to high school.

I taught high school history/gov't classes and took students to mock UN Days, High School Bowls, Mock Legislatures and other events where students from Iowa, Nebraska, Missouri, Kansas, South Dakota and Minnesota met. The students--Sophomores, Juniors and Seniors--knew quite well what constitutions are and had pretty sophisticated understanding of the US Constitution. Sophomores were most often strict constructionists and Seniors more often broad constructionists, which is to be expected, given the maturation process.

The average student doesn't graduate as a Constitutional expert, but knows something about the 1st, 2nd and 5th Amendments, the amending process, and the role of the Supreme Court; how presidents are elected (but are fuzzy about the Electoral College) and how many terms a president can serve; and how a bill becomes law.

What the RP people don't advertise is that there has always been a heated debate between strict (also called narrow) and broad constructionists. The really strict constructionists think an amendment must be passed for just about everything--including the Interstate Highway System. I'm not kidding. Broad constructionists are not broad on every issue, but do believe the Constitution needs to be flexible within limits.

May I suggest reading up on John Marshall, who served as Chief Justice from 1801-1835? He was the cousin and political enemy of Thomas Jefferson and was the one who put the 'supreme' in Supreme Court.

[Ya-ta Boy]

PS: You haven't lived until you are in the middle of teaching your lesson on 'due process' and James throws a paper wad. You say, "James, you have detention. I'll see you at 3:20." And James replies, "You can't do that. It's unconstitutional. You can't imprison me without due process."

Your reply: Just watch me.


Every teacher in the history of the US has had a student plead the 5th Amendment when accused of some 'crime'.

More than once I was informed by 16-year olds that detention was 'cruel and unusual punishment'.

Oh yes. American kids know full well about the Constitution.

[Nowhere Man]

[Ya-ta Boy]

[thepeel]

I meant the phrase. I believe a government should be strictly limited in what it can legally do. Abuse of power is an acute problem in an institution that has a monopoly on the use of force.

[Ya-ta Boy]