While the Media Sleeps, A New Jersey High School Student Steps In To Fact Check Michele Bachmann
A New Jersey High School Sophomore recently challenged U.S. Representative Michele Bachmann to a public debate and fact test on The Constitution of the United States, U.S. History and U.S. Civics:
Dear Representative Bachmann,
My name is Amy Myers. I am a Cherry Hill, New Jersey sophomore attending Cherry Hill High School East. As a typical high school student, I have found quite a few of your statements regarding The Constitution of the United States, the quality of public school education and general U.S. civics matters to be factually incorrect, inaccurately applied or grossly distorted. The frequency and scope of these comments prompted me to write this letter.
Though I am not in your home district, or even your home state, you are a United States Representative of some prominence who is subject to national media coverage. News outlets and websites across this country profile your causes and viewpoints on a regular basis. As one of a handful of women in Congress, you hold a distinct privilege and responsibility to better represent your gender nationally. The statements you make help to serve an injustice to not only the position of Congresswoman, but women everywhere. Though politically expedient, incorrect comments cast a shadow on your person and by unfortunate proxy, both your supporters and detractors alike often generalize this shadow to women as a whole.
Rep. Bachmann, the frequent inability you have shown to accurately and factually present even the most basic information about the United States led me to submit the follow challenge, pitting my public education against your advanced legal education:
I, Amy Myers, do hereby challenge Representative Michele Bachmann to a Public Forum Debate and/or Fact Test on The Constitution of the United States, United States History and United States Civics.
Hopefully, we will be able to meet for such an event, as it would prove to be enlightening.
Sincerely yours,
Amy Myers
Host: Jeff Foxworthy, obviously.
A little known fact is that Bachmann has a J.D. and an advanced legal degree. So she knows the Constitution, but has chosen to deliberately spout the teabag view of it instead. She is a actually a cynical propagandist who must work very hard to appear as stupid as she seems. She knows exactly what she is doing.
Bachmann might well win the debate by racking up technical points on the non-controversional provisions in the Constitution. She would lose on interpretation, but that is subjective.
Now why didn’t some enterprising Delaware teen think of challenging Christine O’Donnell?
She has a J.D. From Oral Roberts University.
I’m sure the Cherry Hill HS student knew that when she wrote the letter and had to restrain herself from enclosing ‘advanced legal education’ in quotes.
And an LLM (advanced legal degree) from William & Mary, so she has also been exposed to non-ideological law school classes, too.
Oh yeah, I missed that in the letter. Smart cookie, that sophomore.
In a fair forum with a typical audience, I’ll put my money on the young woman.
She’s obviously articulate and above average intellectually.
Bachmann’s lost whatever intelligence with which she was once graced.
Just look into her eyes.It’s all there.
She’s quite MAD.
Her primary Prof. Was Oral Roberts little brother, Anal!
Not to give away secrets of the profession, but, holding a Juris Doctorate makes one no more an expert on the US Constitution than holding any other degree makes one an expert in any field. A JD degree is what is needed to take a bar exam. Passing the Bar is what is needed to get a license to practice law. Law expertise, like every other profession, is a matter of obtaining knowledge through every day experience. I have been a licensed attorney for over 30 years, yet my “expertise” is only in those areas of the law that I became proficient in over time. The fact is that their is no “major” in law school. Every law student takes one basic course in constitutional law-usually in the first year. I am sure that the congresswoman took that one couse-at Oral Roberts. Who knows what her professor taught-the law school is long-since closed.
Though the congresswoman has an advanced degree from William & Mary-it is a degree in TAX LAW. Her legal experience is from being a tax attorney for the Minnesota Department of Revenue. She knows about as much about constiutional law as I do about tax law! I do not intend to ever opine about tax law! An attorney is licensed to practice all types of law as there are no recognized specialities ( except Patent Law). It is cause for disbarment for an attorney to represent himself or herself as knowledgeable in an area of law where that attoreny is not competent. I am not comnpetent to represent myself as competent on tax law-my areas of presumed competence ( based on my 30 years of “practice” are criminal and civil litigation and family law-in Pennsylvania, and Delaware Insurance Law for the last 5 years. I am sure the congresswoman can competently discuss the tax codes, and no more.