The 96 questions

[akdiver 3]

Just for fun, I took the 96 question test advertised as being questions that could be asked. I missed two of them - #72 (amendments pertaining to voting rights) and #73 (year constitution was written).

Of course, while I knew what answer they want for other questions, I don't really agree with them. IMHO, the right to vote is hardly the most important right you get as a citizen. Especially when you live in certain areas of the country (:

[NickD 203]

Just for fun, I took the 96 question test advertised as being questions that could be asked. I missed two of them - #72 (amendments pertaining to voting rights) and #73 (year constitution was written).

Of course, while I knew what answer they want for other questions, I don't really agree with them. IMHO, the right to vote is hardly the most important right you get as a citizen. Especially when you live in certain areas of the country (:

Wife is certainly taking an interest in US politics from lessons learned in Venezuela where the majority of the population likes to party, so a guy like Hugo can step in and literally destroy democracy in her former country. But with the civics tests, forget all that, let's just concentrate on the answers they want. But was deeply touched by the founders of this country and their rightful intentions causing me to write to our congressman on such issues, why the 5-4 vote in the supreme court? Even in the most basic courts a unanimous decision is required from a jury to convict a person, here major laws are changed or misinterpreted. And do we really have a balance of power when the executive selects a chief justice, his salve congress approves it, and this guy gives the edge for a 5-4 majority?

And why do our laws require interpretation by nine guys? If their is a question, simply ask the guys that wrote that law. There is no balance of power, Roe versus Roe has to be the most infamous supreme court decision in our history, a five to four vote. Then we have the likes of John G. Roberts Jr., you have to know that by the way defending a president that already has broken over 750 laws of our constitution.

Then we have the likes of Karl Rove playing the numbers game in the electoral system with the winner take all states. Another dictator in this country is Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the house, as you can probably determine, I am an independent, crooks on both sides, in a face to face talk with my congressman, she determines what or what not can be put on the floor an she won't permit an investigation of some of these criminal matters. So what has happened to equal representation?

I have no idea how Bill Clinton can speak to millions of people how great he was when is illegal contributions from China were never investigated along with a corrupt media dropping it, but making a big deal when his thingy was played with. He is responsible for millions of American jobs being lost, and Bush increased that by four fold. They also govern the EPA so we can't even drill for our own oil, and if one does come up with alternative means, the EPA will kill it. So sick about hearing about family values, abortion, and election reform. I feel my senator is conscientious, but in a face to face discussion with the problems in this country, he could only respond, I am only one in a hundred. Why Al Gore is still around beats the hell out of me, how much is Toyota paying him? In scientific terms, the guy is an idiot, but yet many people believe him and has done a lot to damage this country.

Making the president the commander in chief may have been a good idea with George Washington, but has been downhill ever since. The idea of a republic was only a step forward from the hierarchy of European rule, but we still have just a small handful of guys running this country. But set all this aside when reading the test questions if you want to keep your family together.

The 14th amendment was intended to give rights to the former salves of this country, but now gives Medicade to offspring born from illegal aliens that is costing us a small fortune. Just wonder how five out of nine supreme court justices can interpret this law in this manner, unless they are getting a couple of bucks from corporations wanting to get cheap labor.

Ha, you got me started. But this can be a great country.

[lucyrich 20]

And why do our laws require interpretation by nine guys? If their is a question, simply ask the guys that wrote that law.

No no no!

Such a practice would encourage lawmakers to write laws ambiguously. If they knew all the questions would come back to them, there'd be no incentive to be clear and precise. From a congressional point of view, it would be better to keep all laws ambiguous, so that each time there was a question, they could give the answer that suited them for that particular situation. The law says "Anti-Americanism is illegal". What constitutes Anti-Americanism, and what's the punishment? Only the Congressman who wrote the law knows. If you come to his attention as a political enemy, you may find out you've just committed Anti-Americanism, and the punishment depends on how deeply you've offended him, or how much money you contributed to his political opponent. Every law becomes an ex post facto law, since there's no way to know what it means until after you're accused of violating it.

In our current situation, lawmakers do often write the laws to be ambiguous and unclear in spite of everything, but at least they aren't rewarded for doing so. They know that any ambiguity or lack of clarity will be interpreted by someone else, with whom they may not agree. So it's in their best interest to make the laws clear enough for anyone to understand them.

Furthermore, sometimes Congress passes laws that the Constitution says they're not allowed to pass. There are all those really important Bill of Rights phrases that begin with "Congress shall make no law ...". The people who wrote the Bill of Rights are long dead, so we can't ask them what they meant. If Congress passes a law that seems like it restricts free speech, who decides if that law is in conflict with the Constitution? If Congress itself has the power to decide what the Constitution means, then you might as well erase the Bill of Rights, because Congress will never rule against itself.

[NickD 203]

And why do our laws require interpretation by nine guys? If their is a question, simply ask the guys that wrote that law.

No no no!

Such a practice would encourage lawmakers to write laws ambiguously. If they knew all the questions would come back to them, there'd be no incentive to be clear and precise. From a congressional point of view, it would be better to keep all laws ambiguous, so that each time there was a question, they could give the answer that suited them for that particular situation. The law says "Anti-Americanism is illegal". What constitutes Anti-Americanism, and what's the punishment? Only the Congressman who wrote the law knows. If you come to his attention as a political enemy, you may find out you've just committed Anti-Americanism, and the punishment depends on how deeply you've offended him, or how much money you contributed to his political opponent. Every law becomes an ex post facto law, since there's no way to know what it means until after you're accused of violating it.

In our current situation, lawmakers do often write the laws to be ambiguous and unclear in spite of everything, but at least they aren't rewarded for doing so. They know that any ambiguity or lack of clarity will be interpreted by someone else, with whom they may not agree. So it's in their best interest to make the laws clear enough for anyone to understand them.

Furthermore, sometimes Congress passes laws that the Constitution says they're not allowed to pass. There are all those really important Bill of Rights phrases that begin with "Congress shall make no law ...". The people who wrote the Bill of Rights are long dead, so we can't ask them what they meant. If Congress passes a law that seems like it restricts free speech, who decides if that law is in conflict with the Constitution? If Congress itself has the power to decide what the Constitution means, then you might as well erase the Bill of Rights, because Congress will never rule against itself.

LOL, this is getting way too complicated, but who is defending the constitution? Nine guys that are suppose to protect us from the congress that were put there by the congress? And why not a unanimous vote? Feel supreme court justices should be voted in by the people.

[T and M 1]

LOL, this is getting way too complicated, but who is defending the constitution? Nine guys that are suppose to protect us from the congress that were put there by the congress? And why not a unanimous vote? Feel supreme court justices should be voted in by the people.

Are you suggesting that the United States is not the bestest, most awesomest democracy in the world?

Direct democracy is attractive, but not something typically supported by the US. As someone sympathetic to Chavez, I would remind you that much of what the Venezuelan president has done has received the approval of a democratic majority of Venezuelans. The Bolivian president just announced a referendum on his new constitution, which is opposed by the US. Bolivia's white, racist opposition, which has been funded in the past by US taxpayers calls the referendum system the "trampling of democracy." Meanwhile, their paramilitary groups have been filmed beating unarmed Indian women on the streets of Santa Cruz and sent their wheelchair-bound handicapped population to attack the national police headquarters. I sh*t you not. The opposition leaders were pushing the wheelchairs while the disabled pounded the police with sticks and rocks.

This is American foreign policy when no one is looking, and I'm embarrassed (and slightly angered) to say...It ain't democratic.

Edited August 30, 2008 by Thomas F

[akdiver 3]

LOL, this is getting way too complicated, but who is defending the constitution? Nine guys that are suppose to protect us from the congress that were put there by the congress? And why not a unanimous vote? Feel supreme court justices should be voted in by the people.

Are you suggesting that the United States is not the bestest, most awesomest democracy in the world?

The U.S. is not a democracy. It's a republic. This is actually addressed in one of the 96 questions ("What form of government does the United States have?).

FWIW, there is a really big reason why democracy is bad. It's just mob rule with voting. That would suck.

[NickD 203]

LOL, this is getting way too complicated, but who is defending the constitution? Nine guys that are suppose to protect us from the congress that were put there by the congress? And why not a unanimous vote? Feel supreme court justices should be voted in by the people.

Are you suggesting that the United States is not the bestest, most awesomest democracy in the world?

The U.S. is not a democracy. It's a republic. This is actually addressed in one of the 96 questions ("What form of government does the United States have?).

FWIW, there is a really big reason why democracy is bad. It's just mob rule with voting. That would suck.

One thing I do not have to do is to say anything bad about the current leaders of our country, done far more eloquent for me by experts whenever I turn on the radio or the TV.

Perhaps one reason why Hugo is getting the majority of the votes, he is doing the counting, met many of my wife's friends down there living in fear and not knowing what to do. All middle class people where many have lost their jobs. Hugo is keeping the poor poor, has an excellent opportunity to bring in manufacturing for appliances, electronics, and automobiles, but kicking out what industries they do have. The climate is excellent for low cost manufacturing. He fired all the good people in the communications, energy, and oil refineries and put his own idiots in charge making a complete mess of everything. They don't even produce much of their own food and rely on imports, gets hot headed so the grocery store shelves are empty. The guy is an idiot hurting his own people and killing his country. Now trying to build a war machine, but did have a change of heart on his secret service, that was going too far.

We have some of the same leaders like that here, time to get rid of them, but at least we still can speak out.

[T and M 1]

FWIW, there is a really big reason why democracy is bad. It's just mob rule with voting. That would suck.

We have some of the same leaders like that here, time to get rid of them, but at least we still can speak out.

Great points all around!

Direct democracy would indeed be like mob rule with voting, but isn't that better than mob rule.....without voting? What I mean is that mobs are good at bringing down governments and destroying systems, something that is occasionally necessary and desirable. So if the mob uses the ballot box rather than weapons, aren't we all better off.

All that said, minority rights should be protected, which I agree is the idea behind many of the US's anti-democratic elements. I'm all for most of them, as long as they serve to moderate our most radical instincts in favor of deliberation and reason rather than stifle our ambition to make the world a better place.

[NickD 203]

FWIW, there is a really big reason why democracy is bad. It's just mob rule with voting. That would suck.

We have some of the same leaders like that here, time to get rid of them, but at least we still can speak out.

Great points all around!

Direct democracy would indeed be like mob rule with voting, but isn't that better than mob rule.....without voting? What I mean is that mobs are good at bringing down governments and destroying systems, something that is occasionally necessary and desirable. So if the mob uses the ballot box rather than weapons, aren't we all better off.

All that said, minority rights should be protected, which I agree is the idea behind many of the US's anti-democratic elements. I'm all for most of them, as long as they serve to moderate our most radical instincts in favor of deliberation and reason rather than stifle our ambition to make the world a better place.

It all boils down to power, greed, and corruption. Have no idea why this country was so against communism as a form of government, both communism and capitalism have their flaws. In true communism, everybody gets equal benefits, whether they work or not, really no motivation to work. In capitalism, one guy or a corporation has complete control over the lives of millions. The USSR was not a communistic form of government under Stalin, it was a dictatorship and typical to the Nazi party, and even capitalism, less than 10% of the population lived better easier lives with the other 90% living as virtual slaves. We essentially have the same form of lives in this country with less then 10% of the population controlling over 90% of the money.

The key word here is money and having lots of it, because in our society, having money translates into having power, and with power comes control. Having been a manage of a fortune 500 company, really didn't have any control of my life, what I could or could not do, when told by my superiors to go, I went. Ironically living in a so called democracy, think about it, our corporations where most of us work, are dictatorships. Told what to wear, how to act, how to behave, what time to be there, when you can even do something so basic as use the restroom, when you can eat, and if you don't, you are out of a job.

Forget about the right to shelter, if you don't pay your property taxes will be out in the street, this happened to me when I was ten years old when my great dad decided to leave with my mother helpless. Sheriff came over with a bunch of guys and hauled our junk out of our house, and still see that pile of our stuff on the street. Then they boarded up our home so we couldn't go back in. This is the America I grew up in.

In the last 30 years, while the minimum wage increased by 300%, the property taxes increased by over 1600%, with essentially the same benefits, think we are getting screwed, but nobody seems to be aware of it. Are our representatives expressing our will, or do they have other interests? My grandfather was born in Italy before Italy was Italy, but was a series of lords that charged taxes to protect the people of their small domains. Some were good, others wanted more land and power where as a puppet, had to fight and die for your lord to give him more power. What can we say about our draft in that respect, had more fear of my own commanders than the enemy, and the penalty for not obeying strict orders was severe, but yet we were fighting for freedom. Should have been a defense contractor instead and made millions in time of war.

Yes we are a republic, put in a different way, if a guy can get 51 senators, 218 congressman, and 5 supreme court justices on his side, has complete control over 315 million people, not bad, eh? But also not the intent of our constitution, those representing us are suppose to be our servants, it went the other way around. We do have a say every four years, but really don't know whom to believe, will say anything to get into office but once there have a free hand, and also immune to prosecution.

What really shocked me was a response from my congressman regarding all these laws of our constitution and corruption going on in Iraq that is constantly on the news. Told me the speaker of the house has all the power as to what issues can be brought to the floor and she is not permitting any of these issues to be addressed. I gather that means, one doesn't need 218 congressman to have absolute power, only one. So guy can run this country with just 56 people behind him. Not good for the rest of us.