You guys can have the governator. He's been bad for our state.

This isn't an easy question to answer, because it's so involved.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_government

The Constitution is the law of the land for most people that still believe in it. Other's inject rights that aren't there, but that's another story.

The President is the head of the Executive Branch of the government.
Congress and Senate of parts of the Legislative Branch of the government
The Supreme Court are the ultimate judges of the land, the Judicial Branch.

The government is run on a system of checks and balances between all three branches. The Congress can create a law, the executive approves it, it becomes law, but if the Supreme court rules it unconstitutional, it is repealed.

Similarly, the President can create legislation, but it has to meet with approval from the legislature. If he can't get approval there, then it will most likely die.

In a nut shell, every branch of the national government has a modicum of power over the other, so that you can't get into a situation where one branch can dominate. Now, if a super-majority situation occurs, you've got, what amounts to, 1 party rule, which is definitely not a good thing.

The people elect all the officials in Washington, whether they be President, Senator or Representative. The Supreme Court Justices are appointed by the President and sit for life. These appointments must be approved by Congress.

The national system is basically mimicked on the state level, but instead of President's, we have Governors. And each state has their own Constitution. The basic legal systems runs this way. If a law or right isn't explicitly stated in the US Constitution, it can be "lawified" at the state level. Which means that States can, in a sense, over-ride certain laws that are passed at a federal level.

For instance. By law, Abortion in America is legal. However, if the state of Florida wanted to outlaw it, and the people of the state voted for it, then it could become illegal in the state of Florida. We have our own referendums on the state level that will allow the citizens to modify the State Constitution. To amend the US Constitution, the Amendment has to pass, unanimously by all the states by our Representatives in Congress.

Check out the wiki page, it's pretty informative. Or do some research on your own. It's quite different than the majority of systems throughout the world. We have a Representative Democracy, a Republic.

One last thing, someone said of Mccain that he was born on an airbase in Panana, while that is true, US Military Bases, Consulates, and Embassies are considered US soil by law. Anyone born there is considered a Natural Born US Citizen. Naturalized and Natural Born are two seperate meanings. My mother, who is from Czechoslovakia is a Naturalized Citizen. I am a Natural Born citizen because I was born in the United States. She cannot run for President, but I can. I have yet to see evidence as to where Mr. Obama was born, and it irks me that he refuses to release that information. Something so simple.

The country is going to hell in a handbasket, and has been for the past 200 years. Just ask anybody who was on the losing side of any election since 1788.

As a historian, I see this as an amazing time, one that I wasn't sure would ever come, and am glad to have lived to witness.

I disagree with Obama politically, but I also disagree with McCain, which is why I wrote in a non-candidate of my own choosing. But Clinton didn't destroy the country, and neither did Bush, despite claims to the contrary by opponents of both men. If real evidence comes to light concerning Obama's qualifications, then that will take place in its own time. Meanwhile, all the "not-a-natural-born-citizen" talk is just that, the talk of people who are predisposed to hate the man and are doing everything they can to destroy his presidency before it has a chance to prove itself one way or the other.

I'm willing to give him the chance to show his stuff (not like I have any real choice in the matter) before I change my opinion, which is that things are going to go on pretty much as they always have, with one side trying to convert the country to what they think is best, and the other side doing everything they can to stop it for the very same reason.

Most of what I see here is politics and rhetoric - also pretty much the same as always.

You edited your posts. Didn't you see the button under 'Edit' that says 'Delete'?

I agree, and I don't disparage a man for trying to make things for the better. But the truth is, I can't say I agree with anything Obama stands for, nor his party. I just don't. Nothing wrong with that, that's what makes the country work to a certain extent, the free flow of ideas.

And I don't think to say that just because you're trying to find facts, important facts ,on a person that that is necessarily an avenue to which destroy someone. Hell, being a Natural Born Citizen it's a constitutional pre-requisite for the office of the President of the United States. What pisses me off is how the simple fact of questioning and fact finding has become some sort of hate-crime just because Obama happens to be 1/2 black. God knows we know everything there is to know about Palin, Mccain and Joe the Frickin Plumber, but ask Obama for his birth certificate is tantamount to societal treason!

People need to grow thicker skins, grow up and take off the rose colored glasses. You need to earn my respect, it's not an inherent right and not given up easily.

I fear that Obama's space for action is incredibly small, due to the bad state of the economy, the finacial situation with the stellar debts, and two wars also costing money. This really handcuffs his freedom to act.

There is no guarantee that he will succeed with all that he promised, and in his victory speech you already see that he is aware of problematic situation. but I thzink that MaCCain made a much weaker figure during campaign when it came to economics, and had no clear line, while Obama gives me the impression that he is more thorough and more competent in the matter. Of the two, he has the better chances I think to get some needed things moving (that's why I said as an American I would have preferred him). but a guarantee it is not. the heritage that Bush leaves behind after 8 years, is very, very huge and pressing.

As you said, let's give Obama a fair chance, and I am even willing to accept that europe will need to invest and sacrifice some things as well to assist him, even if it is only to support him, but is not reflecting our view on things. Because it would be better for all of us if he succeeds indeed. Wishing him bad, like some here do, for simple reasons of bipartisanship, is stupid and self-damaging, and - what might be especially important to Americans doing so - it is antipatriotic and puts ideology and party above country. Give the man a fair chance. It can only become better, at worst, things stay as miserable as they are.

You are a historian? Hobby, or professionally? If the latter, where do you work, in what function, and what are your fields of special interest?

Really? Can you come up with a link? I want to see that for myself.

I must say, Obama is one hell of a speaker:yep:

Thanks for the hint, I actually missed that option. http://www.smilies.4-user.de/include...e_verl_027.gif

It shows how crooked your government is to allow Non pureborn americans to run your country.

They have just spit on your constitution and you helped them do it too.:hmm:

Not very promissing future for you guys.:-? What does your constitution mean now? Does it have any worth in the modern America?

The way I see it is that document is just a piece of paper of historical value.. nothing more.:nope:

Real shame.

Perhaps. But you cant say it wouldnt be awesome :p

Problem KP - when he's in an assassination attempt, he'll be blocking the secret service guards, returning fire and going after the assassin himself!:arrgh!:

SEE YOU AT DAH PAHTY RICHTAH!

The reason for the "natural born" clause in the US Constitution is to ensure that the commander-in-chief of our armed forces owes allegience only to the United States, and not to any other country or soveriegn.

The document was authored at a time when a significant proportion of the population still DID feel it owed allegience to European countries (primarily England--I'm sure a number of those "newly minted" US citizens certainly still did feel they were subjects of King George III even after America won it's independence, so the clause was put in there to assuage worries that a newly elected President might secretly want to reunify his new country with England (and might take steps to do so)).

Remember, it was all brand new back then, and our founding fathers were very much "making it all up as they went along."

It's still vitally important today, IMO, for a different reason--the CIC is in control of a nuclear arsenal that could destroy the world.


CS

Periscope Depth:

Thank you. I realize I sound like I've gone half off the deep end, and I'm trying really hard not to send my own little tugboat under, so if I only sound "half crazy," maybe I can stilll rescue the situation after all (I'm still terrified, but I'm battling with it).

To anyone I offended last night, I apologize. I was certainly not in complete control of my emotions (I'm doing only marginally better tonight), and I'm sure I was out of line more than a few times.

Hopefully no one took it too personally.

-----------

I do value the chance to talk to people who are more educated (than most) on military matters, and world history, which is part of why I came in here last night to rage at the walls instead of going somewhere else.

It's pretty hard to explain to average Americans today (particularly those under thirty) that awful things CAN happen in this world, that strong and sustainable forces of terror can be unleashed, and that it can potentially happen even here in this country. Few really understand, for example, that Hitler was actually a "National Socialist," and that he was actually ELECTED into office (admittadly, not by a majority) before he began to consolidate power and kill off dissent.

Yes, some do know he was a "Nazi," but far too few over here realize that the word IS the short form of "National Socialist," and that his politics and economic ideology lay to the far left (or what would be described as far left in US terms).

These days skinheads--"neo-nazis" (and therefore all Nazis in general it seems in the eyes of far too large a portion of the general public) are typically thought of as coming from the far right-wing...from the Republican end of the political spectrum, and not the left at all. A much greater proportion of those in this forum will know that this is completely backwards, but it's difficult to explain to the average "man on the street" in this country (our educators have let us down in a big way on this, IMO).

It might be correct to label those small far-fringe groups as "right-wing" only because their ecomomic ideology is the complete opposite from Hitler's, to the extent they even have one at all--they are really just racists, and not at all the same economic and political "Nazis of old."

I THINK many more of you in here will see the distinction, and will realize that if the "Old Nazism" that swept Europe in the 1930's were to rear its ugly head again (this time in the US), that it would, indeed, come from the political far-left once again (and not from the far right at all), but I'm sure there are some, even in here, who do not understand this truth.

AND THAT POSSIBILITY is what really scares the hell out of me. I think we are closer now, after this election, than at any time since the Great Depression to seeing this happen here in the US.

Thanks for listening.


CS

jbt308 pretty much nails it. We're actually quite different from the Parliamentary systems that most Europeans are used to.

Global Explorer & Neal:

Sorry for the confusion; I meant that as sarcasm. I was trying to show how different Democratic ideology is from Marxism. Believing in raising taxes and increasing government regulation does not a Marxist make.

Global Explorer, in what way is point 2 debatable? I read a fair piece of Marx back in the day, but don't remember much. :nope:

I did not see it last night, no (tunnel vision), but I have tried it twice today, without success.

Probably need to have cookies enabled...or maybe it's because I can only boot my PC using a Linux Live CD.

In any case, it's not working here (but thanks for the tip, just the same).


CS

If Nazism is a left wing phenomenon, how do you explain this chart?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/07/Pru.PNG

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categor...Weimar_Germany

It tracks parliamentary elections in Prussia from 1919 to 1933. The SPD experiences a general decline in seats, the communist KPD remains the same, and the centrist parties essentially remain the same.

The conservative/right wing DNVP, WP and DVP however all lose massive amounts of votes in 1932 and even disappear entirely, almost as if voters from those conservative/right wing parties were flocking to another -the NSDAP.

Why would right wing voters vote for the Nazis, if the Nazis weren't right wing?

Understand that this is the first time I've ever seen the chart, so it will take me some time to come to grips even with the basic "cast of players." If I remember this thread, I willl try to get back with you once I've done so.

Meanwhile...let me postulate that "right and left" in terms of German Politics in the 20's and 30's MIGHT not translate well into US politics in 2008 (as regards definitions of "right" and "left)."

I will also say that, from my US perspective, Socialism and Communism are not terribly dissimilar to one another, in principle. I'm sure you will disagree, but know that this is generally my view. From my perspective, both theologies lie far off to the left...

That's the best I can do for now.


CS