True or false? The U.S. Constitution refers to God. (HInt: False)
Why do you hate America?
Seriously, I don't think you'll ever get to "broad agreement" that this question can be asked. A large fraction of Americans are going to feel that it's attacking their personal beliefs and that the only reason to ask it is that you have an agenda.
I completely disagree with them, of course, but I don't see a way around it.
And even these straightforward questions aren't straightforward -- there's been at least a century of debate over the "subject to its jurisdiction" part of the citizenship clause. (Wikipedia tells me I am thinking of Elk v. Wilkins.)
Here is another question for you. Name the first president of the United State who was born in the United States.
While I'm all in favour of civic education, given the well known and powerful psychological effects of priming, I think this implementation is a spectacularly bad idea.
Q1 is actually "False". The US constitution says that to be president you have to either be a natural born citizen or a citizen at the time of the constitution's ratification. Otherwise George Washington, frex, couldn't have been president because he wasn't born a US citizen. He was born a British subject.
Now, as far as we know, there are no US citizens still alive who were US citizens in 1789, but were one to be discovered he or she would be entitled to be president despite not being born a US citizen.
One need only look at Politifact and the like to imagine how this would proceed.
2 -- Yep. See also 8 C.F.R. section 101.3(a).
Seriously, I don't think you'll ever get to "broad agreement" that this question can be asked.
My grandmother remembered when, "under god" was added to the pledge of allegiance, and definitely thought of that as a time when there was a lot of pressure for people to conform to a narrow vision of public behavior.
(I also remember her saying, at one point, about the 50s, "I tried to read the Communist manifesto at one point [because I was curious], and got together with a couple of people to talk about it. Did that make us a cell?" Her tone of voice when she said that was restrained rather than defiant. It was very endearing, but it sounded like she (a) didn't think there was anything wrong with that (b) still vaguely worried, forty years later, that it could have had the potential to cause a lot of problems and (c) (I think) knew that she had enough social standing in the community that she was probably safe but was still a little embarrassed to think that it was still a bit scary.)
Name the first president of the United State who was born in the United States.
Van Buren.
The U.S. Constitution explicitly gives the federal government the right to impose an income tax.
This is actually false because Ohio wasn't a state until the 1950s. Also, because there is gold fringe on the flag.
Reading the Constitution isn't easy. That wouldn't do any good.
11 - Zip codes are a tool of the ZOG.
Now, as far as we know, there are no US citizens still alive who were US citizens in 1789, but were one to be discovered he or she would be entitled to be president despite not being born a US citizen.
I thought the birds versus dinosaurs thread was over.
In the Constitution it states
I'm consistently amazed at the people who get all exercised about what the Constitution says and yet obviously haven't the faintest goddamned idea what the Constitution says. Same goes for the Bible. I do not respond to such people gracefully.
The Constitution is overrated anyway. Rather than recognizing it as a strong, but flawed, early attempt at codifying the rules of a republican government, people think it was handed down from Jesus and represents the One True Way of Liberty and Justice and the Gold Standard For All. I don't think we should be encouraging these fetishist even more than we already do.
The U.S. Constitution refers to God. (HInt: False)
I can tell you the wingnut response already: "Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven", you commie Muslim.
It is an index of everything that is wrong with the entire world that, on reading ajay's post, I spent several minutes checking whether either Le Comte de St Germain or Lestat de Lionheart could legally become president.
(Ans = no in both cases. At least not legally, though I'm not sure this could cause a problem to either.)
"True or false: at the time the Constitution was written, several of the Founding Fathers believed it was perfectly reasonable for one person to own another person."
This would function very poorly as a filter for stupid political views. It might even be slightly more effective at filtering out the poor.
I categorically disapprove of any and all restrictions on the right to vote, including age, felony convictions, citizenship, residency. There is a little theory behind this involving efficient markets, the residency and idiocy of crowds and large numbers, and a presumption that if the inhabitants of Ankara, Turkey were allowed to vote for the mayor of Boulder, Colorado that ignorance or random affects (they would vote for the candidate with a Turkic name knowing nothing of her policies) would all balance out.
I refuse, in principle or matter of policy, to make a judgement as to anyone else's reasons for their vote. Although of course, I do judge considered well-reasoned justifications much more harshly than arbitrary, whimsical, or random reasons. I am more offended by the person who votes on anti-choice grounds than someone who chooses candidates based on the number of letters in their first name. How about you?
I am open to lottery systems for filling offices.
I don't expect elites to really approve of democracy.
LB frequently uses literacy tests for voting as an example of something that sounds good in principle, but is really only advocated by people who are racist or astonishingly ignorant of history. To this, I might add, people who are trolling their own blog.
Now, as far as we know, there are no US citizens still alive who were US citizens in 1789....
For some reason this reminds me of this trashy but enjoyable series* about a Civil War-vintage vampire who serves the President of the U.S. pursuant to a hex hooked on the bullet that killed Abraham Lincoln.
* I've only listened to the audiobooks at the gym, where my demands w/r/t style and usage are relaxed in favor of violence plot and incident.
s/b in 21.1
"efficient markets, wisdom and idiocy of crowds"
16 gets it right. The Constitution needs changing anyway.
Although the interpretation enacted by Congress is, I think, a good one, "natural-born citizen" doesn't have an unambiguous meaning, unfortunately. I'm not sure what the convention notes and so forth say.
whether either Le Comte de St Germain or Lestat de Lionheart could legally become president.
Lestat is a vampire, therefore not alive, therefore not eligible for election.
The arguments for democracy and equality should not be consequentialist, at least in the sense that democracy creates the wisest, most efficient, most just governance, which, Churchill be damned, is not well supported by the evidence, completely inverts the purpose of democracy and equality, and will invariably lead to oligarchy and tyranny.
He may not be alive NOW, but he was born. Did he live in America at the time of the Constitution's ratification?
Lestat is a vampire, therefore not alive, therefore not eligible for election.
Christ, next you'll be saying Stephen Byerley is ineligible.
therefore not alive: insert Calvin Coolidge joke here.
5.2 is wrong. Such a person would be eligible to become present, but not entitled. Maybe things are different on ajay's side of the pond, but in America, you can't become president without being elected.
Seriously, and I am pretty serious, what do you think the consequences, effects, and results would be if I and every other American were able, say for the price of postage, to vote for the next French President? I have thought about it.
Well, who knows, likely I and J/osh Tr/evi/no would cancel each other, but I and the others who bothered, would feel more involved and responsible for French policies, and gain a more cosmopolitan attitude.
Lestat arrived in New Orleans in the 1790s if I remember correctly. St Germain's whereabouts on this plane at any given moment are actually harder to determine: an adept of his degree is unbound by ordered time or mere singularity of place. But his wikipedia entry says he was in Paris, then Schleswig.
(Or being in the line of succession.)
Maybe things are different on ajay's side of the pond, but in America, you can't become president without being elected.
And sometimes not even then!
Christ, next you'll be saying Stephen Byerley is ineligible.
Oh, man, how did I go through four years of reading about the Birthers without making that connection?
This just infuriates me, people who don't like politics.
"All those other 'people who are wrong' will tip elections and policies in ways I don't like."
Well, that's what democracy and politics mean, the "smart people" don't get to make the decisions, the elites have to hit the fucking street and listen to and influence the hoi polloi. And everything is at stake.
Seriously, and I am pretty serious, what do you think the consequences, effects, and results would be if I and every other American were able, say for the price of postage, to vote for the next French President? I have thought about it.
Irish people can vote for the UK's prime minister (if they live in his constituency). And all resident EU citizens can vote in local elections in the UK.
Huh. It looks like the first time I commented was in March 2008 (I'd been reading the blog for at least 4 years previously). In my first comment, I insulted the British commenters, wasn't funny, and commented in the wrong thread. And I've never looked back.
Oh my fucking God. I just commented in the wrong thread again.
As a British commenter, I find that insulting.
re: 38
Commonwealth citizens can also vote in UK parliamentary elections (if resident in the UK at the time).
I still think my set of proposals for better elections deserves more attention:
1. Make Election Day a Federal holiday, on a Wednesday in November.
2. Require all broadcasters (including cable & satellite stations) to simultaneously present several half-hour PSAs outlining how elections work (e.g. how a primary works, how the electoral college works, HS civics refresher-type stuff) in the month leading up to the election.
3. Make election judge duty (and training, obviously) mandatory, like jury duty.
4. And of course all the stuff about not disenfranchising felons, people with mental illnesses, etc.
If you were going to do this silly thing, you should at least rotate the oder of the questions on each ballot.
As a non-US-citizen I'd like a constitutional amendment to make it fucking illegal to even MENTION the election until a month or so before. Not only does election season last 2 years for you lot, it lasts 2 fucking years for us, too, given the relentless omnipresent nature of it on the internet, and in our print and TV media.
And to save all the hassle of primaries, you can just select the candidate for each party with the most money. Candidates with similar war chests to be selected by height.
Candidates with similar war chests to be selected by height.
Sexist! But also part of the reason I knew McCain wasn't going to win.
9) The atmosphere Joseph McCarthy farted out was around for all of the Fifties and "Communist" was more scary than "Muslim" is today. Grandma's reaction isn't all that surprising.
Just to pile on, and in addition to discriminating primarily against poor people, why on earth would it matter if a citizen knew or didn't know the answers to these questions? Why is knowledge that the income tax power comes from the 16th amendment and not as part of some other enumerated power under the Constitution (of course, the 16th amendment would have been completely unnecessary, but for the incredibly stupid Supreme Court decision in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan) important? Why do people need to know about the constitutional requirements for the Presidency? What does this have to do with selecting individual candidates?
Honestly, I think an actual literacy test (which, to be clear, I also oppose) would be preferable.
Make Election Day a Federal holiday, on a Wednesday in November.
Better a Monday, then we can have a three-day weekend. Or they could make it the day after Armistice Day, so we have a four day weekend.
Or they could make it the day after Armistice Day, so we have a four day weekend.
YES. But, Veterans' Day, no?
Is the goal to make the populace better-informed about political process or is it to increase participation by a populace like today's American Idol-loving tabloid-reading rabble?
If the former, I gotta say, knowledge of boundaries and rules in a founding document seems less important than say knowing that the military budget is about 40x the USAID budget, which in turn is 80% IL+EG. I say Harpers index style trivia, random selection of factoid questions from those selected by the green party and by some televangelist.
If the goal is more people voting, I don't see the point.
If the goal is more people voting, I don't see the point.
What if the goal is a four-day weekend?
I wholeheartedly endorse all of the proposals in 44. (3 or 4 day weekend planning is MISSING THE POINT, PEOPLE.)
Also, Lestat de Lionheart?!? Was she fucking on crack? That is the worst last name I have ever heard.
de Lioncourt, according to wiki. But yes, re: the crack.*
* I liked the first couple of those, fwiw. But they are mental.
(3 or 4 day weekend planning is MISSING THE POINT, PEOPLE.)
You got your priorities, I got mine.
I would be willing to make it a Monday or a Friday if there was some requirement that anyone who was taking any additional time off from work had to fill out an absentee ballot.
From the OP:
8. Failure to answer the questions or incorrect answers have no effect on a ballot's validity.
This reminds me of an argument I've been in since yesterday on Facebook with a friend of a relative about a voter ID requirement. I pointed out that it's unnecessary (twice) and unconstitutional. Last I heard, he said that he is proud to prove his residency when he votes. Not sure if there's any point in responding to that.
I think it shows we can't accuse Heebie of trolling her own blog or advocating for a literacy test.
heebie didn't write this post.
44: 3.2: Make election day voter assistance duties (driving people who don't have transportation to the polls, helping people with disabilities, etc.) a duty like jury duty.
I am open to lottery systems for filling offices.
I'd prefer it. Currently we get weird candidates because they're the only ones who are willing to go through the process. A lottery couldn't produce worse.
Haha sorry yes, Lioncourt not Lionheart. I was at primary school with two kids called Pa/ris and La/nce Leon/hart: I think this got into my head. The way they sparkled in the playground...
All right, all right, I know it wouldn't really work, for all the reasons above, but would it be okay if I smacked people who say, "the Constitution says" when it doesn't upside the head?
65: OK with me. However, sometimes I use "unconstitutional" as a shorthand for "the Supreme Court has ruled that you can't". Would I get slapped for that?
62: The government should do that kind of thing its own damn self. Wouldn't be that hard either, just have the school bus drivers all work their own precincts. (Plus, I don't know, their managers or somebody with a government job that lived where there weren't many school bus drivers.)
in addition to discriminating primarily against poor people
But my scheme doesn't, because you don't actually have to answer the questions in order to vote. Which makes it kind of pointless, I realize.
But would it be okay if I smacked people who say, "the Constitution says" when it doesn't upside the head?
Go forth and smack, with my blessing.
Make election day voter assistance duties (driving people who don't have transportation to the polls, helping people with disabilities, etc.) a duty like jury duty.
IME, there are 5 times as many volunteers to drive people to the polls as there are people who need to be driven. I'm sure there are areas where it's a bigger problem, but I'd rather we focus on other things to make voting easier -- federal holiday, more early voting, etc.
60-- You can point out that Republican legislatures' insistence in intentionally disenfranchising whole swathes of people -- and lying about their motives for doing so -- provides strong incentive to vote for a Democratic president in whom one is otherwise quite disappointed.
But would it be okay if I smacked people who say, "the Constitution says" when it doesn't upside the head?
Only if it's not Mitch. Btw. what does 'upside' come from in this expression?
(Because, other disappointments aside, at least the DOJ is taking action under the Voting Rights Act.)
66: If you correctly identify the key points of the majority and dissenting opinions and set them to music, no.
||
The Obama campaign finally seems to be closing the gap between ACA and the ol' heartstrings.
Very significant that the converted skeptic refers to the PCIP as "not a handout" - obviously it's helpful to public acceptance that people pay premiums into it, but is she under the illusion that those premiums represent the full cost of her care? Or is it just "not a handout" in the sense that she's partially contributing?
|>
65: Yes, but if you try it while they're actually on the bench the security officers get agitated.
Btw. what does 'upside' come from in this expression?
I would say it that way too, but I have no idea where it comes from. Perhaps a combination of 'smack up' and smacking in the side of the head, i.e., intensity (if you smack someone up, you've hit/beat them pretty hard) plus location.
Part of what drives my theoretical desire for this non-test is hearing ignorant bullshit about what the Constitution/Founding FathersTM supposedly says from the "OMG, brown people are coming to our country and voting for Shari'ah law!!" crowd who couldn't pass the test for naturalized citizenship if their lives depended on it.
Not an original thought nor a reason to make everyone take the test, I know.
Maybe it means the top of the head - "on the up-side."
5: I know. I skipped over the detail about pre-revolutionary citizenship in order to make the language as plain as possible but in so doing committed the very sin for which I am outraged. Oh, the irony of being hoist on my own petard while the pot calls the kettle a racist.
A lottery couldn't produce worse.
It is like you don't even read newspaper comments.
My coworker just passed the naturalization test. One of the questions she answered correctly was: "What is the name of the ocean on the left of the United States?"
And, no, I am not making that up.
etymonline.com sez: 1610s, "upper side or surface," from up + side. Phrase upside (someone's) head in reference to a blow to the head is recorded from 1970, U.S. black slang.
81: Newspaper commenters are not chosen by lottery.
70: I'm with you on Federal holiday, but I'm dead set against anything that compromises the secret ballot and I haven't seen any early voting proposals that preserve it. I think just having a holiday would make a massive difference.
84: A lottery system would almost certainly be an improvement there.
82: I'd bet a lot of people get that one wrong because they confuse "West" with "Left".
What are those kinds of riddles doing on the naturalization test?
I voted early in the California recall election. They were using voting machines and I remember it took 8 screens to list all the candidates for Governor.
We should just all vote through Facebook.
"OMG, brown people are coming to our country and voting for Shari'ah law!!"
Voting for Shariah, bad, imposing compliance with Shariah on your employees, good.
90 last -- That's what the Founders intended religious freedom to mean.
I recall when Thomas Jefferson wrote of the Mohammadeans who were coming to pick his pocket and break his leg.
I recall this because I, Snarkout de Lionheart, have been alive since the 18th century.
@Eggplant, re: 21: I like it. My preference is to allow citizens of other countries to select our representatives. Only seems fair, as we're always mucking around in other folks' business. And so on.
Honestly, I'm still marveling at my student who thought the "give a man a fish...teach a man to fish" proverb was from the Bible.
"Give a man a law and he will enforce, follow, ignore, or break that law. Give a man a Constitution and he can come up with all sorts of crazy laws." - Jesus
(If font colors were enabled, the part between the quotes would be in red.)
Give the right man a fish and some bread and he'll feed a crowd of hundreds. Because he's a socialist.
It takes a village to feed a fish.
Leviticus, I think.
Is there a Paleo-diet version of the Bible where the offensive loaves are replaced with bison hearts or something?
Give a man a hooker and some meth and he'll get robbed by the hooker's biker pimp and end up wandering a motel parking lot wearing nothing but a towel, begging motel staff not to call the cops.(seriously, the last call of my shift yesterday)
I thought this was going to end with, "Teach a man how to cook meth..."
If you're going to rob someone the least you can do is properly robe them before sending them out.
96: I know it's not from the Jible, but I don't know where it comes from. Do you (or anyone else) know the origin of the proverb?
105:
Regrettably, the origin of this quote is unknown, although it is generally cited as being Chinese. Over the years, the quote has been misattributed to Confucius, Lao Tzu, Laozi, and Guan Zhong.
the Jible
Is that the version they give the Jews?
Okay, I googled a little, and it appears I showed up here maybe summer 2005. I already had a big blog reputation, kinda following Katherine (2003?) around from Trevino's old place (?), ObsWing, CT, Drum.
Legendary comment after abu Ghraib at Obsidian Wings tossed in Moe Lane's direction, something like:"They should hand out naked brown men with dog collars and leashes as party favors at the upcoming Republican Presidential Convention."
I've started eating more eggs. Maybe I'm heading for a paleo diet (unlikely).
I know I got into the blogosphere via NPR. I think I heard about Volokh conspiracy on the radio (they were always having Eugene on to argue with Erwin Chemerinsky (duel of the nasal guys)). That lead to Yglesias to here. I remember thinking Emerson must have been a group persona because he was goddamn everywhere on Yglesias' threads, kicking "Al's" ass.
http://www.theonion.com/video/romney-santorum-supporters-to-beat-living-shit-out,27633/
111 -- My brother.
112 -- My brother, and Bob's brother.
||
Another brilliant intellectual property strategy: after allowing people in Canada to watch the NCAA tournament freely using the March Madness on Demand service for the past two years, they are now not allowing people in Canada even to pay for the new pay service instituted for this year.
|>
115: I figured you guys got the NC-Double-Eh games up there instead.
"What is the name of the ocean on the left of the United States?"
followed by
82: I'd bet a lot of people get that one wrong because they confuse "West" with "Left".
I am totally confused. The question couldn't possibly be asking "If the US had hands, which ocean would its left hand be dangling in?" It's clearly "When you look at a map, what's the ocean on the left?"
But is the US lying face-down or face-up?
Well, was it visiting Mexico or Canada?
117: There's still the problem of the viewer's orientation relative to the map, you North Hemisphere Chauvinist.
118: Face up, of course, to avoid SIDS.
I can't believe nobody has yet pointed out the glaring typo in the post.
The insult in 120 is poorly worded since I didn't like tonight's wine, so I had to have a rye old fashioned and some scotch to wash the bad taste out of my mouth.
And like 8 genuine hamantaschen. (Though that's not strictly apropos.)
I'm dead set against anything that compromises the secret ballot and I haven't seen any early voting proposals that preserve it.
I was thinking about early voting at the polls, not internet voting. Here we've been able to vote early at any location or at your polling place on Election Day, but they've changed it so now we can vote anywhere on Election Day. (Though we're encouraged to vote at our regular place if possible.)
122: Which one? I count 2:
seekrit
HInt
3 if you count Kraab, but I think that's a proper name. Not that I bother to distinguish between Sir Kraab, Mister Smearcase, and Mister Blandings anyhow...
123 - You found four poor schmucks named Haman and ate their ears? I believe a nice Chianti, rather than a rye old-fashioned, is what's prescribed to go with that meal.
126: No, just their hats, filled with poppyseeds.
Sorry to disappoint.
Bashar al-Assad listens to Chris Brown and New Order.
etymonline.com sez: 1610s, "upper side or surface," from up + side. Phrase upside (someone's) head in reference to a blow to the head is recorded from 1970, U.S. black slang.
So it's "I am going to smack you on the surface of your head". Better than smacking the inside of someone's head.
15: I do not respond to such people gracefully.
"Your mother referred to God. Repeatedly and breathlessly."
||
My bostoniangirl yahoo account seems to have been hacked. It send my own address some kind of spam ad e-mail.
Does anyone know if I'm supposed to let yahoo know? Should I shut down the account and get a new gmail one?
|>
124: Ok, got it. In that case count me in. I rather like "vote anywhere."
133: Change your password. Don't bother letting yahoo know.
Better than smacking the inside of someone's head.
Exception: zombies.
I love this idea. And I love Sir Kraab. I am not afraid to admit it.
118: Face up, of course, to avoid SIDS.
Away from Glasgow, to avoid Neds.
OK, now I'm actually asking for advice about the situation in 60.last.
As tempting as it is to always get the last word, I figured out that I should let the other guy have it if all he has to say is a pointless, fallacious non-argument, right? Moral victory, and third parties can make up their own minds. I mean, even I can tell that if I keep this up too long it'll eventually be pretty dickish of me.
So I hadn't said anything since his reply described above. However, my relative (my mother's cousin's wife, more specifically) stepped in, agreeing with him. No new argument or facts introduced, just basically repeating him.
Can anyone think of any polite way at all to say "I already tried to explain why this is a bad idea twice, what part was unclear?" Because I can't.
I have no idea who this guy is and his Facebook page is hidden. Maybe arguing at all pissed off people I wouldn't want to piss off, I don't know. I think I've never talked politics with the relevant relative before. However, the whole thing began when she linked approvingly to an article at breitbart.com that uses James O'Keefe's latest felony as a primary source, so I almost feel duty-bound to correct them.
Unfortunately, since I can't get Facebook at work and don't have cell phone reception at my desk, I can't quote the argument more exactly than this. Regardless of anything else all I can do about this conversation is stew and second-guess it until around 8 tonight at the earliest.
My advice is that any follow-up you make will needlessly prolong the stewing.
I fear you may be entering "someone is wrong on the internet" territory if you pursue it further. Giving a reasoned explanation and letting it lie is probably the best bet. You won't convince anyone who is sufficiently motivated and sure of their 'facts' to comment, but you might convince someone who's on the fence and just reading along at home.