I think a civics education should be constitutionally guaranteed. There is no point in the rights enumerated for the people if they simply are not aware of them. You shouldn't have knowledge of rights such as the Miranda rights only come from sources like TV.
im pretty sure he just meant that in crafting this argument he wanted to reduce the number of moving pieces so as to isolate an argument that would actually be attractive to an appellate court. By removing discussing racial inequities with respect to a civics education and focusing purely on constitutional rights, an originalist would be more amenable
I fear that no court would read a right to civics education into the Constitution because that right would be subsumed by a recognized right to public education--if you can read, you can read the Constitution, and that should be enough. I disagree with this line of reasoning, but it may be convincing to a court without any firm constitutional ground to require civics education otherwise.
If juries are an exercise of democracy, then why do we accept so easily the idea of peremptory challenges? Isn't a peremptory challenge an unjustified way of preventing someone to fulfill their democratic civic duty (and possibly constitutional right)?
It feels like the jury's power has been castrated over time. I see the jury as a gatekeeper to a given community. The jury (ideally representative of a given community) should decide what constitutes a crime. By that, I don't mean the legal definition of a given crime but something that transcends the legal definition. There seems to be something else there. Even if something is, legally speaking, a crime, the jury should have the power to decide if it also constitutes a crime against the community. Does the community condemn the alleged wrongdoer? And if not, is it it, or should it be a legal crime? The question should be whether the jury welcomes the alleged wrongdoer back to their community or whether the jury condemns that member of their community. If the jury cannot acquit the defendant, it doesn't serve its intended purpose.
How well-defined is a "civics education" anyways? And how uniform should that right be? Would a high-school teacher have creative discretion as to what aspects of Civics they were to teach? Doesn't this lead to disparate outcomes in civics education, which doesn't really cure (although arguably strictly improves) the issue of the ill-informed jury?
I disagree with @Titan. Ideally, you would have the open access where anyone who can read can read the Constitution and know their rights. But that simply is not the case. All of us came to law school and had to take a full class on Constitutional law to have any real understanding of what our constitutional rights are and how the text has been interpreted. We pay a lot in tuition for this access. The majority of people simply don't have the resources or time to get an understanding of what their rights are. Guaranteeing that right in the Constitution is a step to ameliorate that issue.