Do they teach Constitutional Civics in school anymore? When I was in High Scool in the seventies, they wouldn't let you graduate until you had taken and passed a "Constitution Test" I seem to remember having to pass an easier version in 8th grade as well. Did they discontinue that practice? If so, when?

I graduated in '95. My father was my government teacher, so I got a great education (I'm obviously biased, but he is extremely well-read and he focused a lot on these issues while still trying to stay with required curriculum - not easy), BUT the class was only a semester. The second semester was economics.

I work in education now, and government is still taught to seniors in California, but I don't believe there's a Constitution test for high school students (I took one in 8th grade, also). And, the new standardized high school exit exam in California as only math and language arts.

My father recently retired, and one of the reasons was kids not giving a rat's behind about Constitutional issues and governance. While education is a mess, particularly in California, some amount of the problem is the students and not what's being taught.

As far as I understand it, NCLB institutes standards in English, Math, and Science. There are no Federal standards for Social Studies (history, civics, government, etc.).

Some states have standards for Social Studies, and some do not - so just what is taught and how it's taught, if it's taught at all, varies considerably.

One of my former colleagues in Maryland had previously taught Social Studies in Georgia where they didn't have state standards for civics or history. As a result, schools were actually cutting the number history and civics classes because schools had to dedicate their limited resources to subjects that would be tested by the state. [By cutting, she didn't mean that students no longer took these classes. There were just fewer teachers to teach the classes, meaning that there were more students, 40-50, in each class.][The way, if anyone objected, administrators and politicians could claim that that those subjects were still being taught.]

She brought the issue to the attention of one of her state legislators - a Republican of course - who said, "And that's how we like it. We don't want people to know too much about how their government's supposed to work." Of course, he immediately said he was kidding, but isn't that what they always say?

That said, I had great Social Studies teachers in high school both liberals and conservatives (and they made no bones about their view ... rather than hide it from us, they encouraged us to challenge their views)(and no, this wan't some fancy-shamcy private school. It was a rural high school in PA's Bible Belt). However, all this was before the "Republican Revolution" of 1994.

When I became a teacher, I was lucky enough to work high schools with strong Social Studies programs and had some of the best discussions of my life in the faculty room eating lunch or grading papers. Had I not known those teachers and seen how thoughtful and smart their kids were, I would've completely despaired for my country during Bush II's first term and his reelection.

The double-edged sword of our hodge-podge educational system is that while there's no consistently good Social Studies education in our country, at least it isn't across-the-board bad.

No one has been more blatant about how executive privilege exempts him from testifying to congress than Karl Rove. Rove would claim while holding a cat in the oval office in the presence of his King, that what he told the cat is privileged information. Are the courts the only way that the limits of executive privilege can be defined or is there some way for congress to define what is and what isn’t covered by executive privilege?

The GOP is the political arm of WallStreet but many of the GOP members do not understand this . All laws should be shaped to benefit WS and the main target is SS . More money flows through SS and Medicare than through WS and they have been salivating over getting their hands on it since it's inception . SS is an annuity the same as WS sells so all GOP campaigners are told to get SS out of government hands . Yet since RR they have included SS in the budget to hide the over spending . Which means the GOP and the WS gang are lying about SS's condition . WS does not pay in to SS . THINK about that . Since it's inception not one law has been made to increase SS inflow of cash . Only the reduction of outflow . It's time for WS to pay taxes on their income the same as the rest of us AMERICANS .

"Is that Michael Mukasey you have in your pocket or are you just glad to see me?"

It would be an understatement to say that Mukasey has completed the politicization of the Justice Department.

In fact he has now erased 'justice' from the functioning of the american political system.

All the other issues facing us will pale in comparison to this one. If the White House is immune from criminal prosecution, and by extension any friends of the WH (like say Karl Rove), then the rule of Law is finished in this country. The passing of laws relating to the executives activities such as for example spying legislation is utterly irrelevent if those laws cannot be enforced. There is thus now a two-tiered system of laws in our country, the laws for those without connections to the white house and the laws for those with connections to the White House. This latter is an empty set.

The idea of Congress 'forcing' the Justice Dept. to do anything is simply silly. They may have the authority, but the lack an organization of enforcement personnel. The Police report to Mukasey. Is there something about this sentence that is confusing? The police report to Mukasey.

Game/Set/Match: the Republican party with the Democrats playing 'me too' has presided over the destruction the American system of government. The congress is now impotent, and the Supreme Court has very carefully avoided taking any of the real cases that would put them in conflict with the executive. The Democrats could hasten such a conflict, by getting serious about subpoenas and contempt of congress citations. Should they move quickly in this area there may be some chance of reversing what has happened.

Look for them to stall.