|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Modern Civics | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3258 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
Er, well, technically it does, but it does so in the same way that the Lily Ledbetter Act does - by not being a law against unlimited detention of anyone suspected of being a terrorist. I thoguht the right of habeas corpus denied this, so anything that as tame as what you're suggesting would either have to be combined with something else denying habeas to warrant the political storm that's been brewing since this provision came to notice. otherwise, people could be saying that it doesn't forbid the summary execution of everyone caught walking on the streets after 8 pm. Again, it's true, but that's already outlawed elsewhere.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Wouldn't it be a shame if he voted incorrectly because the question was worded imperfectly, or referenced something he wasn't sure of? You mean, wouldn't it be a shame if there was some completely preventable error (ass shit language on a ballot) that resulted in Jos voting for the wrong thing? Yeah... I think it would. Which is why I'm all for making the language on the ballots less ass-shit-ish.
And this is all a rather simplified scenario. In the case of voting for a candidate, with all the confusion and inconsistency that a human being entails, it would be nice if Jose decides not to vote for a candidate who wants to do-away with the referendum policy that allows Jose to decide where a dump goes, simply because he's unaware that the candidate has proposed to do so in a single town-hall meeting on the other side of town, but not in the town-hall meeting on Jose's side of town, which he went to as a dutiful and fully informed citizen. Yup, democracy is an imperfect system. But that doesn't mean we need to help it along in that regard by restricting the rights of citizens to participate. JonLove your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Yes, I was just pointing out that citizens don't get many extra rights besides voting. In fact one of the questions on the citizenship test is what's the most important benefit of citizenship? And the official, correct answer is the vote. The Bill of Rights I have already.
I understand, in a democracy, people will be elected that disagreew ith me because I disagree with the people voting, and I'm OK with that. What I have a hard time with is the people who agree with me (or my opponents) and yet vote counter to their interests because they don't take the time to understand that they're voting against their interests. Well, this is true. When I was eighteen I and the other first-time voters in my class were given a quiz on the positions of the major parties. One of the questions was: "Which is the only party that wants to raise the basic rate of income tax?" And I was the only person who got it right. Anyone else basing their vote on that one way or the other would have voted for the wrong party.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3258 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
Yeah... I think it would. Which is why I'm all for making the language on the ballots less ass-shit-ish. I'm all for that too. But for many questions, they need to be phrased for exactly, in legalese, to make sure something voted on isn't beyond the scope of what the person posing the ballot question wants. Besides, as I've said, people can misunderstand even the most carefully worded, simple question.
Yup, democracy is an imperfect system. But that doesn't mean we need to help it along in that regard by restricting the rights of citizens to participate. I don't see it as making the process more imperfect. In fact, our current system already has things in place to keep the ignorant from deciding the most important office in the land. I'm in favor of getting rid of the Electoral College, which I would argue does more to disenfranchise people than simply making sure that everyone who wants to vote is at least minimally informed on what they're voting for.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3258 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
One of the questions was: "Which is the only party that wants to raise the basic rate of income tax?" And I was the only person who got it right. Anyone else basing their vote on that one way or the other would have voted for the wrong party. And this is entirely my point. Taxes just happens to be one of the most widely reported reasons for voting for a candidate, and most people are woefully ignorant about even which party will do what to their taxes, let alone a particular person.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1487 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined:
|
I thoguht the right of habeas corpus denied this Right, and the Constitution prevents Congress from restricting the right of writ of habeas corpus. So a defense authorization could not restrict it. So the NDAA can't do what everyone has been saying it does.
so anything that as tame as what you're suggesting would either have to be combined with something else denying habeas to warrant the political storm that's been brewing since this provision came to notice. Surely this isn't your first experience with an entirely manufactured controversy?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3258 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
Right, and the Constitution prevents Congress from restricting the right of writ of habeas corpus. But not the President. Lincoln did just this during the Civil War. But that was just before this bill was signed, if I remember correctly.
Surely this isn't your first experience with an entirely manufactured controversy? No, it's not, unfortunately. It's my fault for throwing this out there without actually taking the time to understand it myself.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3258 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
Ok, I finally found the time to actually look on Wikipedia: Citizenship of the United States - Wikipedia
wikipedia writes:
Duties U.S. citizens may be summoned to serve on a jury.Jury duty is only imposed upon citizens. Jury duty may be considered the "sole differential obligation" between non-citizens and citizens; the federal and state courts "uniformly exclude non-citizens from jury pools today, and with the exception of a few states in the past, this has always been the case.[10] Today there are indications jury duty is declining;[11] there are fewer trials. Newspaper reports have chronicled the decline of juries, and noted how many people don't get summonses, and how Americans see jury duty as an "inconvenient" chore.[11] Military participation is not currently required in the United States, but a policy of conscription of men has been in place at various times (both in war and in peace) in American history, most recently during the Vietnam War. Currently, the United States armed forces are a professional all-volunteer force, although both male U.S. citizens and male non-citizen permanent residents are required to register with the Selective Service System and may be called up in the event of a future draft. Johns Hopkins University political scientist Benjamin Ginsberg wrote "the professional military has limited the need for citizen soldiers."[2] Rights The U.S. military has been an all-volunteer force since the end of the Vietnam War but male U.S. citizens and non-citizens are still required to register for the military draft within 30 days of their 18th birthday.Freedom to reside and work. United States citizens have the right to reside and work in the United States. Certain non-citizens, such as permanent residents, have similar rights. However, non-citizens, unlike citizens, may have the right taken away: for example, they may be deported if convicted of a serious crime. There are many jobs, opportunities, and educational opportunities. Some immigrants see citizenship as a way of "locking in economic gains that they have made as legal residents."[12] One person said "People don’t feel that being permanent residents is enough to secure their future in this country. They would just feel more secure as citizens."[12]Freedom to enter and leave the United States. United States citizens have the right to enter and leave the United States freely. Certain non-citizens, such as permanent residents, have similar rights. Voting for federal office is restricted to citizens in all fifty states and the District of Columbia. States are not required to extend the franchise to all citizens: for example, several states bar citizen felons from voting, even after they have completed any custodial sentence. The United States Constitution bars states from restricting citizens from voting on grounds of race, color, previous condition of servitude, sex, failure to pay any tax, or age (for citizens who are at least eighteen years old). Historically, many states and local jurisdictions have allowed non-citizens to vote; however, today this is limited to local elections in very few places. Voting is not required, unlike nations such as Australia and Belgium where citizens can be fined for failing to vote. Historically, voting rates in presidential elections by eligible citizens hover around the 50% level, although the recent election of Barack Obama in 2008 saw levels rise over 60%. Legal immigrants are sometimes motivated to become citizens for a chance to exercise voting power.[12] Freedom to stand for public office. The United States Constitution requires that all members of the United States House of Representatives have been citizens for seven years, and that all senators have been citizens for nine years, before taking office. Most states have similar requirements: for example California requires that legislators have been citizens for three years, and the Governor have been a citizen for five years, upon taking office. The U.S. Constitution requires that one be "a natural born Citizen" and a U.S. resident for fourteen years in order to be President of the United States. The Constitution also stipulates that otherwise eligible citizens must be at least 35 years old to be eligible to be president, at least 25 years old to be a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, and at least 30 years old to be a U.S. Senator.
Substantial benefits Consular protection outside the United States. While traveling abroad, if a person is arrested or detained by foreign authorities, the person can request to speak to somebody from the U.S. Embassy or Consulate. Consular officials can provide resources for Americans incarcerated abroad, such as a list of local attorneys who speak English. The U.S. government may even intervene on the person's behalf.[13] For example, an American citizen named William E. Petty, who was jailed by authorities in France in 1854, petitioned U.S. authorities to intervene on his behalf.[14] In a twist of this principle, it's possible for foreign governments to confer citizenship on persons serving in jails in the United States.[15] But it illustrates how citizenship is a way to try to extend the hand of protection to nationals when incarcerated in foreign jails. Access to social services. Many social services in the United States are only[dubious — discuss] eligible to American citizens.[13][not in citation given] Citizens can compete as athletes for the United States Olympics team; President Reagan with Olympian Mary Lou Retton in 1987.Increased ability to sponsor relatives living abroad.[13] Several types of immigrant visas require that the person requesting the visa be directly related to a U.S. citizen. Having U.S. citizenship facilitates the granting of IR and F visas to family members. Protection from deportation.[12][13] Naturalized U.S. citizens are no longer considered aliens and cannot be placed into deportation proceedings. Other benefits. The USCIS sometimes honors the achievements of naturalized U.S. citizens. The 'Outstanding American by Choice Award' was created by the USCIS to recognize the outstanding achievements of naturalized U.S. citizens, and past recipients include author Elie Wiesel who won the Nobel Peace Prize; Indra K. Nooyi who is CEO of PepsiCo; John Shalikashvili who was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; and others.[16] Further, citizenship status can affect which country an athlete can compete as a member of in competitions such as the Olympics.[17]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Er, well, technically it does, but it does so in the same way that the Lily Ledbetter Act does - by not being a law against unlimited detention of anyone suspected of being a terrorist. The NDAA you're referring to is not, actually, a law allowing Obama to detain anyone he wants. Maybe the NDAA deserves its own thread, but I thought the wording says that anyone thought to have committed a 'belligerent act' can be detained 'without trial, until the end of the hostilities authorized by the [AUMF]' Obama said
quote: Which seems to imply that Obama believes the law will give the power to do so, but he will choose not to exercise that power. Which means that other administrations in principle could choose to do so.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
And this is entirely my point. Taxes just happens to be one of the most widely reported reasons for voting for a candidate, and most people are woefully ignorant about even which party will do what to their taxes, let alone a particular person. I guess we could stop teabaggers from voting unless they know whether their taxes have gone up or down since Obama took office. Though this is not as much fun as my other idea of feeding them to giant carnivorous goats.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
If the language on the ballot is difficult to understand, then the language needs to be reworked so that it is easier to understand.
Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 414 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
If it was unintentionally difficult to understand you might be right.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1045 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined: |
The problem with some sort of voting test is that it opens up the possibility, however small, of being abused to prevent people from exercising their vote. We know, from bitter experience, that given the opportunity, people will attempt to disenfranchise those whom they expect to disagree with them. If you're going to make this any easier, you'd better have a damn good reason.
I'm not at all sure that ensuring people know the stated positions of a candidate are a particularly good reason, since it doesn't seem to have much bearing on their behaviour once in office, anyway. ---- On the seperate note of detention without trial - everyone seems to agree that it's forbidden by the constitution. 'Everyone', however, does not seem to include certain members of the government, nor lawyers working for them. And people have been detained without trial in the past - it was unconstitutional then, and yet it happened. I'd be wary of legislation which seems to support the idea that it's possible, regardless of the constitutionality of it all. At the very least consitutional appeals can take time - time during which Joe Suspect is sat in a prison cell or detainment camp.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
. They are easily swayed by campaign ads and news infotainment propaganda. Being easily swayed isn't a condition limited to the uneducated. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. The proper place to-day, the only place which Massachusetts has provided for her freer and less desponding spirits, is in her prisons, to be put out and locked out of the State by her own act, as they have already put themselves out by their principles. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
he uninformed often end up being the swing vote. Especially in WI, which is about as purple as you can get. I have a hard time thinking that an uninformed vote carries as much weight as my informed one. I'm not convinced. I believe you WIians have the government that you collectively wanted. Further, my guess is that your Republican laden legislature was elected for reasons other than for the purpose of passing the spectacularly goofy bills that they worked on last session. In any event, the definition of what constitutes informed is very subjective. Many voters care primarily about only a few criteria that simply are not important to other voters. Some things that you think are important might be issues that other voters don't even believe are likely to come up during the office holder's term.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. The proper place to-day, the only place which Massachusetts has provided for her freer and less desponding spirits, is in her prisons, to be put out and locked out of the State by her own act, as they have already put themselves out by their principles. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024