A better system? The President can appoint a justice every two years, without the approval of the Senate. Justices would serve for 18 years.
Who gets to pick?
The only political connection is when the Prime Minister takes the recommended name to the King for him to formally make the appointment.
The way it works in the US is so contrary to having an independent judiciary, it beggars belief TBH. That's why decisions like the reversal of Roe vs Wade are so controversial as they have become political rather than ethical decisions.
So they definitely vote on legislation, so that isn't quite fixed. They can't vote on final passage of legislation, though.
I'm not saying I disagree with The Electoral College being the decision-maker, but there HAVE been times when the candidate who wins the *PLURALITY* of the popular vote by no small margin still failed to win the Electoral College. That is not an unimportant distinction.
BUT although Republicans might have come out ahead in the popular vote only 1 time since 1990, they have still won only 3 of 8 of the Presidential elections since then. Also...
People who live in Rural areas might actually understand things that those who live in Urban areas actually don't, generally speaking. They are more likely to be connected to the Earth and perhaps even more conservation-minded and more knowledgeable about wildlife and agriculture.
Hopefully this is my last response.
Believe me, the system needs fixing. And Covid is happening because there is so much wrong with the system. So many people don't get it.
BUT this country could ALWAYS be worse and could ALWAYS have been worse.
Again, I'm not thrilled with the way a lot of things are, but as I've gotten older, I've come to a sort of understanding that this country's REAL history still hasn't really been told. There is something to be said for this country, the USA, being an *EXPERIMENT*. The way I see it, it is an experiment that still has yet to really be borne unto its fruition. When that happens...a lot of people's opinions may change.
Will it happen in my lifetime? (I am 47). I honestly don't know. But I kind of get the feeling that we will start to get more clarity on just what the experiment is about within my lifetime - in the next 10 or 20 years.
We really just might see a much more united country within that time.
Yeah, I've heard California is nuts these days. Its population only grows because of immigration from other countries. Otherwise, its population is a net loss to other states and would probably be net loss without immigration because of a lower birth rate because of the loss of many middle-class emigres.
However, your whole contrasting Socialism vs Free is rather simplistic. I'm a dual citizen (born and raised in the USA, yet immigrated to Canada for where I lived for 5 years), and honestly, there's a lot that many Americans have to learn.
They pay only about half as much per capita for health care and still live slightly longer with comparable rates of disease survival. Their crime is FAR lower, especially violent crime, because their class gap isn't as wide. Their numbers have gotten more like ours (falling) as a result of increased economic integration with us post-NAFTA.
If you really want to educate yourself on this matter, try looking at the statistics. They're pretty obvious, unless you are allergic to United Nations Data. Also try talking to actual Canadians - not just ones that are in your same social circles or professional interests, and not just so many of the "Snowbirds" in Southern and Central Florida ("Snowbird" is actually a pejorative term to a number of year-round Canadians). And not all "Snowbirds" are the same, either.
I am all for Americans' right to choose whatever system they (we) want. But I also think that Americans' choices should be informed ones, and I can tell you from personal experience that this is definitely often not the case.
It's not surprising that those who rely on it as their only way of winning power in the absence of being able to convince a majority of US citizens to vote for them see it as wise and fair and necessary though...
Given that it is matter of controversy, the question should either be modified or removed.
Question 11 - The first Federal income tax on individual people was implemented in 1861. Obviously a Constitutional Amendment wasn't required for such a tax to exist. The Supreme Court later ruled that the taxes on money earned from interest, dividends, and rent were unconstitutional, but never explicitly stated that income tax was unconstitutional. The 16th Amendment widened the channel by clarifying the text of the original Constitution. So, as the question is worded, the answer could be correctly interpreted as any of the three options there.
This basically states that as long as a law can be justified as "necessary and proper" for enacting their defined powers, then that law is constitutional.
Then again, there is also Amendment 10 (from the Bill of Rights), which states that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
This amendment says that the powers not specifically given to the Federal government are then instead reserved to the State governments (unless those are prohibited to the States, in which case those powers are reserved to the people).
It's somewhat ambiguous what "power" the U.S. government actually has due to the elastic clause, however, since that clause only gives power to enforce/enact the other defined "powers" and the 10th amendment grants all powers not defined to other entities, I would say that the Constitution defines the U.S. government's powers and restricts everything else. But, one could argue either way (as we have seen in Supreme Court cases such as McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) and United States v. Lopez (1995)).
Side note: the Bill of Rights is simply the collection of the first 10 Amendments to the U.S. Constitution that were ratified shortly after the Constitution. Legally, the amendments in the Bill of Rights and all other amendments are parts of the Constitution itself. That is to say, there is no legal distinction between Amendments and the Constitution after their ratification.
But, as the saying goes, "give them an inch, and they'll take a yard."
Nice quiz though
Somehow I did get #12 correct; I can't remember what I know it from
Removal from office would be a second and subsequent act. In no way does impeachment actually do anything to remove anyone from office. I believe we have had 3 Presidents impeached. None were removed from office as a result. Nixon would have been, but he resigned before the impeachment hearings took place.
Edit: I now have 15/15. I guess I'm the President then...
Copyright H Brothers Inc, 2008–2023
| Go To Top
| View Mobile Site