Citizenship Test

[shanek]

1) How many articles of amendment were originally proposed in the Bill of Rights?
15

X

2) How many of these have been ratified into the Constitution?
10

X

3) On what date did Congress sign the Declaration of Independence?
Never. Unless you mean the Continental Congress. Which I think was established for that. And the Articles. But I don't remember.

The Continental Congress is what I was referring to, as they're the only Congress that signed it. But you didn't answer, so X.

4) On what date was the Constitution ratified?
Sometime in March

X

5) What document created the United States of America?
The Articles of Confederation

6) Who ORIGINALLY chose the senators?
The governors of the states

X

7) Who placed his signature on a proposed Constitutional amendment which said, "No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State"?
I don't know, and I won't guess.

X

8) What document freed the slaves?
13th Amendment

9) In what year did Congress gain the Constitutional authority to levy an Income Tax?
1916 or Never.

X (neither answer is correct)

10) What is the maximum number of years someone could serve as President?
Under the current constitution, eight.

X

How'd I do?

Looks like 2 out of 10. But at least no one can accuse you of cheating!

 

[scottmsg]

1) How many articles of amendment were originally proposed in the Bill of Rights?
Many, somewhere around 120.

2) How many of these have been ratified into the Constitution?
11

3) On what date did Congress sign the Declaration of Independence?
August 2, 1776, but a few signed later

4) On what date was the Constitution ratified?
March 4, 1789

5) What document created the United States of America?
Articles of Confederation

6) Who ORIGINALLY chose the senators?
State Legislatures

7) Who placed his signature on a proposed Constitutional amendment which said, "No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State"?
James Buchanan

8) What document freed the slaves?
13th Amendment

9) In what year did Congress gain the Constitutional authority to levy an Income Tax?
1913, although I guess it was technically possible before that if it could have been done with regard to a census. The Supreme Court's 1895 Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust decision always confuses me. Maybe, if I could actually read it sometime.

10) What is the maximum number of years someone could serve as President?
Unlimited

I will admit I need help to get the exact dates on 3 and 4 (I knew the general timeframe), and I had to look up 7, but the rest are from memory.

 

[Darat]

Can I just get this straight? The USA is an undemocratic country?


(edited for a n)

 

[Kerberos]

Can I just get this straight? The USA is a undemocratic country?

Well, 200 years ago or so, democracy was used exclusively to refer to direct democracies, while representative democracies were called republics. Shanek apparently thinks it some sort of crime to use democracy in the modern sense.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Well, 200 years ago or so, democracy was used exclusively to refer to direct democracies, while representative democracies were called republics. Shanek apparently thinks it some sort of crime to use democracy in the modern sense.

It also has to do with the fact that US deliberately created some institutions to prevent complete democracy, because a complete democracy would mean tyranny by the majority. That's why we have a bicameral legislature--half of it is based on the population sizes of the states, while the other half ignores the population. So a populous state will have more power than a less-populous state in the House, but in the Senate the playing field is level. Otherwise, in a completely democratic legislature, the big states could dominate the little states on every matter.

A complete democracy means the minorities have no protection but the good will of the majority. Yeah, that's reliable.

 

[Darat]

Well, 200 years ago or so, democracy was used exclusively to refer to direct democracies, while representative democracies were called republics. Shanek apparently thinks it some sort of crime to use democracy in the modern sense.

But if we're to use terms like that the USA certainly cannot be called a republic.

(I do hope no-one is going to try and say we should use republic in the sense outlined by Aristotle or even a later re-definition by someone like Madison, neither of them represent the original meaning of the system.)

Do I now have to say the USA is undemocratic and is not a republic?

 

[TragicMonkey]

Do I now have to say the USA is undemocratic and is not a republic?

Well, isn't the UK technically a constitutional monarchy still?

edited to add: and Elizabeth seems to still be on Canadian coins as well.

 

[Darat]

Well, isn't the UK technically a constitutional monarchy still?

edited to add: and Elizabeth seems to still be on Canadian coins as well.

I don't think so, I thought we were a representative democracy with a constitutional monarchy.

However after reading this thread and how apparently the USA is not a democratic country perhaps the UK is in fact an aristocracy or even an oligarchy!

But I think must people in the UK would definitely say we are a democracy and feel proud to belong to a tradition that believes everyone (eligible!) can participate.

 

[TragicMonkey]

However after reading this thread and how apparently the USA is not a democratic country perhaps the UK is in fact an aristocracy or even an oligarchy!

But I think must people in the UK would definitely say we are a democracy and feel proud to belong to a tradition that believes everyone (eligible!) can participate.

Lisa: "Would not that which we call a rose smell as sweet by any other name?"

Bart: "Not if you called it a stenchblossom."

 

[shanek]

1) How many articles of amendment were originally proposed in the Bill of Rights?
Many, somewhere around 120.

X

2) How many of these have been ratified into the Constitution?
11

Yes, the 27th Amendment, although not ratified until 1992, was originally part of the Bill of Rights.

3) On what date did Congress sign the Declaration of Independence?
August 2, 1776, but a few signed later

And extra points for the very correct qualifier.

4) On what date was the Constitution ratified?
March 4, 1789

X That's the date it went into effect, not the date it was ratified.

5) What document created the United States of America?
Articles of Confederation

6) Who ORIGINALLY chose the senators?
State Legislatures

7) Who placed his signature on a proposed Constitutional amendment which said, "No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State"?
James Buchanan

Extra credit: What was that amendment called?

8) What document freed the slaves?
13th Amendment

9) In what year did Congress gain the Constitutional authority to levy an Income Tax?
1913, although I guess it was technically possible before that if it could have been done with regard to a census. The Supreme Court's 1895 Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust decision always confuses me. Maybe, if I could actually read it sometime.

Close enough.

10) What is the maximum number of years someone could serve as President?
Unlimited

Given our earlier debate on this issue, I'll give you this.

 

[69dodge]

Originally posted by shanek
ALL your rights come from nature.

Well, ok, let me rephrase my question, then. Is there some sort of scientific experiment I can do that will tell me what my rights are?

There are lots of things I might want to do. According to you, nature has decided that I have the right to do some of them and that I don't have the right to do others. I don't know what that means. What is nature, exactly? And how do I get it to tell me what things I have the right to do?

If no one is applying any sort of force against you in your life, you are free to exercise your rights. It's only when someone else initiates force against you that your rights are violated,

Is this supposed to be a definition of "rights" or a definition of "force"?

If we know what rights are, we can define "force" as "anything anyone does that prevents others from exercising their rights." Or, if we know what force is, we can define someone's "rights" as "anything they are physically able to do if no one else uses force to stop them."

But suppose that I don't know what rights are and that I also don't know what force is. Then, your description doesn't help me much.

re the laws of various countries
No, it just means that people's rights are being violated.

Perhaps. Or it might mean that not everyone agrees with you about what rights people have.

It seems your position is that rights are not a matter of opinion, that people simply have certain rights. That's why I mentioned scientific experiments. If we are talking about objective facts, rather than about subjective opinions, then there ought to be an objective way of arriving at the truth. Is there?

Did the slaves not have rights when they were slaves?

You ask this as if it were as straightforward as "do objects not fall when you drop them?". But it's not the same sort of question at all. Rights are a human construct.

 

[Thumper]

Can I to add to this conversation?

1. The UK is not a republic. It may be a representative democracy, but it is no republic. Neither is Spain or Sweden or Norway or Canada or Australia... The head of government of a republic is not a king/queen.

2. Iraq was a republic before our invasion for the same reason that the above-mentioned countries were not.

3. The US is not a democracy. In the Aristotelian sense, it is a polity.

4. The US is a republic. It is also a representative democracy.

5. Of course, with the changing meanings of words and terms, the US is a democracy, as are the UK, Australia, and Sweden.

6. The US is not a pure democracy (Athenian democracy), but there are some aspects of direct democracy at the state and local levels, although not at the national level.

 

[Darat]

Can I to add to this conversation?

1. The UK is not a republic. It may be a representative democracy, but it is no republic. Neither is Spain or Sweden or Norway or Canada or Australia... The head of government of a republic is not a king/queen.

2. Iraq was a republic before our invasion for the same reason that the above-mentioned countries were not.

3. The US is not a democracy. In the Aristotelian sense, it is a polity.

4. The US is a republic. It is also a representative democracy.

5. Of course, with the changing meanings of words and terms, the US is a democracy, as are the UK, Australia, and Sweden.

6. The US is not a pure democracy (Athenian democracy), but there are some aspects of direct democracy at the state and local levels, although not at the national level.

Nice summary, just a nit-pick. The USA is not a Platonic republic.

 

[shanek]

Well, ok, let me rephrase my question, then. Is there some sort of scientific experiment I can do that will tell me what my rights are?

Well, I guess you could set up a scientifically controlled experiment where it is impossible for people to initiate force against each other, and then see what they can do and what they can't. What you'd learn beyond just thinking about it I have no idea.

There are lots of things I might want to do. According to you, nature has decided that I have the right to do some of them and that I don't have the right to do others.

Nature hasn't "decided" anything. It just is.

What is nature, exactly?

Everything about you; the way you're put together, how tall you are, how strong you are, how smart you are, etc. It's also everything about the world around you. This gives you abilities, things that you can do in the absence of force.

Is this supposed to be a definition of "rights" or a definition of "force"?

Rights. We know what force is.

But suppose that I don't know what rights are and that I also don't know what force is.

So you know what is is? Stop being obtuse. Suppose I don't know what "suppose" means? How can I answer your question? Geez...

Perhaps. Or it might mean that not everyone agrees with you about what rights people have.

It doesn't matter how many people "agree." I can still do the things I can do in the absence of force. Any of those things are, by definition, rights.

 

[Kerberos]

It doesn't matter how many people "agree." I can still do the things I can do in the absence of force. Any of those things are, by definition, rights.

Cool, so I have the right to trespass, pick pockets, piss (literally) on people, steal and possibly breaking and entering (it's only force against people that's forbidden, right). Libertarians sure have a funny idea of rights.

 

[shanek]

Cool, so I have the right to trespass, pick pockets, piss (literally) on people, steal and possibly breaking and entering (it's only force against people that's forbidden, right).

Um, those are all forms of force. I never said force against PEOPLE.

 

[Kerberos]

Um, those are all forms of force. I never said force against PEOPLE.

Except for breaking and entering, none of these are forms of force by any definition of force I've ever heard of. Nor does any of the definitions I've found here http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=force or her http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=force give the results you want. It seems to me that the non-initiation of force principle is incompatible with property rights, unless you use an ad hoc definition of force that is specifically aimed at property rights, which would of course be circular, and thus logically invalid.

 

[shanek]

Except for breaking and entering, none of these are forms of force by any definition of force I've ever heard of.

Trespass is force; you're using someone else's property without their permission, thus limiting their property rights. Picking pockets is force; theft of property is a form of force since you're depriving them of property. Urinating on someone is force and I don't see how even a bigot like you can deny that.

It seems to me that the non-initiation of force principle is incompatible with property rights,

As I keep trying to explain to you, ALL our rights are based on property rights. You own not only your land, your house, your car, and your money, you also own your body and your mind. Force is when people intrude onto your property without permission.

 

[Kerberos]

Trespass is force; you're using someone else's property without their permission, thus limiting their property rights. Picking pockets is force; theft of property is a form of force since you're depriving them of property. Urinating on someone is force and I don't see how even a bigot like you can deny that.

There are lot's of things you don't see, and you generally resort to abuse whenever that happens. Force simply doesn't mean what you say it means, check a dictionary, there are two links to online dictionaries in my previous post and none of them include your personal definition - do you think that the dictionaries are part of some anti-libertarian conspiracy?

As I keep trying to explain to you, ALL our rights are based on property rights. You own not only your land, your house, your car, and your money, you also own your body and your mind. Force is when people intrude onto your property without permission.

No you keep stating it, you never explained or justified it. Saying that you have property rights, because you can excercise them in the absence of force, and then defining force as a violation of property rights is blatantly circular reasoning.

 

[shanek]

There are lot's of things you don't see, and you generally resort to abuse whenever that happens. Force simply doesn't mean what you say it means, check a dictionary, there are two links to online dictionaries in my previous post and none of them include your personal definition

NOT true. "Violence, compulsion, or constraint exerted upon or against a person or thing" fits ALL of the things you claimed weren't force. And how DARE you accuse me of making a circular argument when all I was doing was correcting your insane accusation!