Half of Congress has never read or understood the Constitution.

Question

The fact that more than half of Congress has never read or understood the Constitution is why there should be EXAMS to run for political office.
Nurses and MDs have Boards, Lawyers have Bar Exams…then wannabe politicians should have to pass an equally rigorous Constitutional exam.  Full stop.

Answer 1

This claim seems to not be true as there is no actual proof backing that members of congress do not know the constitution. The user blue sea provided a link to a post that a politician made, but this post shows that politicians opinion rather than proving they do not know the constitution. In order for this to be true, "more than half of congress has never read or understood the constitution", there would need to be actual reliable sources showing that those members do not know it.

What Are the Duties of Congress? (with pictures)

Comments

Your response to the claim above is very strong and debunks the statement they tried misleading the public with. You did a great job pointing out how their source was purely an opinion and didn't state facts. Your source does a great job explaining the duties of Congress but it doesn't seem to be completely reliable. I think that your response could use a government official source directly from Congress themselves to make it more trustworthy.

Answer 2

Technically, you don't need to read or pass any test to serve in Congress. According to the U.S. Constitution, the eligibility requirements for Congress are straightforward: for the House of Representatives, a person must be at least 25 years old, have been a U.S. citizen for at least seven years, and live in the state they represent; for the Senate, a person must be at least 30 years old, have been a U.S. citizen for at least nine years, and live in the state they represent (U.S. Const. art. I, §§ 2–3). While all members take an oath to support and defend the Constitution (5 U.S.C. § 3331), there is no legal requirement that they read or pass a test on it before taking office. It is ultimately up to the voters to decide if a candidate is knowledgeable and qualified.

Comments

Nice work on your fact-check. Please always include source links! Thanks!

Answer 3

I do not fully agree with is claim. To be a part of congress you have to be very education about our country and fully understand all the important parts about the constitution, declaration of independence and more.

Comments

I see where you're coming from, but I think your argument relies too much on assumption rather than evidence. Just because someone is in Congress doesn't necessarily mean they've read or fully understood the Constitution. There's no test or requirement that proves this and in fact, there have been multiple surveys and interviews over the years (like ones from the Annenberg Public Policy Center) showing that even some elected officials struggle with basic constitutional knowledge. I’m not saying the original claim is necessarily true, saying “half of Congress” may be a bit of an exaggeration, but I do think dismissing it just because you assume they must be well educated isn’t enough. It would’ve been stronger if you looked at real data or examples of constitutional misunderstandings by members of Congress to either support or refute the claim.

Answer 4

The statement in the blog post is a strong opinion about the credentials and assumed ability of elected officials, but it is a generalization stated as fact without supporting evidence. While it's rightly and fully okay to wonder whether politicians really do grasp the Constitution and to call for greater standards of knowledge or accountability in office to generally claim that "more than half of Congress has never read or understood the Constitution" can't be substantiated or confirmed, and generally is misleading. Such assertions might lead people to be wary but generally don't lead to productive dialogue and reform. If the goal is to encourage civic literacy among politicians, a better and more credible approach would be to call for open educational requirements, voluntary civic competency tests, or increased public access to candidates' stands on constitutional issues. Raising the bar for public service is an appropriate topic of debate but doing so effectively involves basing arguments on empirically verifiable facts rather than speculation.

https://ncph.org/project/biographical-directory-of-the-united-states-congress/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Comments

If you think the claim is a strong opinion, why not rate it as such? I see you marked it as exaggerated/misleading, but there's also a "no available information; opinion" option that may work better for your fact-check. Thanks!

Answer 5

A 2013 Washington Times article reported that plenty of lawmakers struggled to cite constitutional support for their bills, suggesting a lack of constitutional understanding, which is definitely concerning. However, there is no data in this article, nor is there from any other trusted source, that claims that "more than half" of Congress hasn't even read the constitution.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/14/defenders-of-constitution-dont-always-use-it-for-l/

Comments

I wonder if a 2013 news article applies to the claim today, since Congress members have changed. Just a thought!

Answer 6

While the idea of ensuring our elected officials have a strong grasp of the Constitution is appealing, the claim that "more than half of Congress has never read or understood" it lacks verifiable evidence and seems like a strong generalization. All members of Congress swear an oath to uphold the Constitution, which suggests at least a basic familiarity. The comparison to professional licensing exams for fields like nursing, medicine, and law raises an interesting point about qualifications for holding important roles. These professions are required to demonstrate a certain level of knowledge and competence to protect the public. The concept of a "Constitutional exam" for political candidates has been discussed before as a way to potentially ensure a baseline understanding of our governing principles. However, implementing such a requirement would involve complex considerations, including defining the scope of the exam, its potential impact on who can run for office, and whether it truly translates to better governance. While there is frustration behind the call for a "rigorous Constitutional exam" is understandable, focusing on promoting civic education for both the public and potential candidates, and holding elected officials accountable for their understanding and application of the Constitution, might be more practical approaches.

Answer 7

The claim that says half of congress hasn't read or understands the constitution is misleading/exaggerated. There is no data saying the percent of congress members who have read the constitution. The claim saying that congress members don't understand the constitution is false because it can be interpreted in more than one way. In an article from EveryCRSReport says, "For example, Members of Congress may interpret the Constitution when considering whether to vote for proposed legislation" Congress members get to interpret the constitution however, they seem fit. There isn't one right way to do so. Additionally, the claim saying that there should be a test isn't fully constitutional because it says the criteria for one to run, such as how old you have to be, citizenship, etc. For this to be required you'd have to amend the constitution which has only occurred 27 times through the history of the US

https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/R45129.html#:~:text=For%20example%2C%20Members%20of%20Congress,of%20Congress's%20oversight%20power%20or