I need a drink.

And yes, she is (1) legally aggrieved and (2) hot.

Which assumes that the Constitution isn't defensible by means of truth. You do know better, don't you?

No, it assumes that the Constitution can be attacked by means of truth.

I'm a believer that out loyalty is implied and does need to be affirmed by such statements.

Fly in the grape juice: Barrack Obama.

Because teaching is about conveying unmolested knowledge. If teachers had to filter everything they teach though a "defend the constitution" test, then students are being cheated of knowledge

Which assumes that the Constitution isn't defensible by means of truth. You do know better, don't you?

I'd argue that teachers are the first line of defense, by means of what they teach.

Because teaching is about conveying unmolested knowledge. If teachers had to filter everything they teach though a "defend the constitution" test, then students are being cheated of knowledge. Examples:

Should a History teacher not show that the constitution has been repeatedly violated, often to the benefit of our country?

Should a Philosophy teacher tailor their instructions so as not to question the correctness of the constitution?

Should a Law or Politicial Science teacher not teach about loopholes and ways to work around the constitution?

Should our teachers be tasked with uplifting the constitution? Barred from telling students to question it? Or should they just give their students all knowledge that is available to give them?

Our judges, schooled as they are in case law instead of constitutional law, have created through "immanations or penumbras" the right to murder unborn citizens without half the legal rights of the spotted owl.

Not to detract from your point, but they're not technically citizens until birth.

I'm a believer that out loyalty is implied and does need to be affirmed by such statements.

The simple answer is to just get it changed.

You could argue it, but you'd be wrong.

Demonstrate, please.

The article says the woman is pushing 40. Who's the teenie bopper in the picture doing her best sad puppy impersonation?

At one time, I would have been horrified by a refusal to take an oath to the constitution. Now I have to wonder, why bother, it's just something for fouth grade teachers to use in order to pass time teaching. Cnynical? You bet!

a living document"

I was born into the Jehovah’s Witnesses in 1957.I was the good little JW boy who got beaten up in the school yard for not saluting the flag and remaining seated for the Star Spangled Banner as demanded by my Jehovah’s Witnesses leaders.
This was the ‘better dead than red’ era of the 1960’s, I suffered much,only to learn that the Watchtower corporation is just another made up man-made religion and not the true one.
Kids suffer because of arbitrary rules by Jehovah’s Witnesses leaders,senile old men squatting in their insulated ivory tower.
I now proudly fly the Flag at my home

The 'religion' of Jehovah's Witnesses is a dangerous cult that controls every aspect of its members' lives.

Are they knocking on your door?
----
Danny Haszard

I'd argue that teachers are the first line of defense, by means of what they teach.

You could argue it, but you'd be wrong.

Not so much because of the abject stupidity and violation of academic freedom cited by John Cole and Fontana Labs, although those factors are surely there. But why on earth are college professors being asked to take oaths that they couldn’t possibly be called on to carry out?

I'd not be so quick on this one, James.
I'd argue that teachers are the first line of defense, by means of what they teach.