The Watering Hole

I missed one and surprised the heck out of myself (with a couple of correct guesses along the way).

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25461301/?GT1=43001

I got 19 out of 20--psyched myself out of the preamble to the Constitution and switched it with the preamble to the Declaration.  I was actually surprised--some of those questions were tough.  I flat-out guessed on the original state question.

I can imagine that if you gave that to most born-and-bred citizens, you'd get a C average.

I misread the date of the Constitution question and thought they were talking about the Declaration of Independence so that's the one I missed. :)

I got 12/20

I got 100%

Tripper

"You answered 100% of questions correctly. Here's your rating:"

woo

Trippers a nerd. ;D ;D

17/20

I got 100% today - woo

I didn't think it was THAT bad.  But I did miss two questions.  I couldn't remember the Date of the constitution....knew it was later than the first two given.....so I missed a 50/50.

I couldn't remember who took over after prez and vice prez....I had it down to two....and again missed the 50/50.  Beyond those two questions there were only two that made me guess.

I think 12/20 is pretty good considering I am not a Yank

No doubt.  Imagine our grades if we had to take a British citizenship test.  I don't even begin to understand parliament.

Fenderbender — Jul 10, 2009 I couldn't remember who took over after prez and vice prez....

It should scare the shit out of people that a whack job like Pelosi is only two heartbeats away from being President...  :o

charger — Jul 10, 2009 I don't even begin to understand parliament.

I don't think many people do in detail - in fact I don't think the UK could produce a test like this as it doesn't have anything akin to a written constitution since the magna carta which apart from some
It would be a major history test covering 800 years and I expect I would still get 12/20.

But law is about precedence even constitutions.

The US constitution  effectively codified the English system of government and law into a declarative framework as precedence had it in the late 18th century.
The role of the monarch was tied into the role of president and by 1790's monarchs in the UK did not have any powers that they could actually use without causing a "constitutional crisis" they would lose - the power was entirely ceremonial and was invoked by commoners -i.e. politicians elected to the House of Commons.

I think UK system looks more alien to the US than the US system looks to the UK.

It is basically the same in essence, just the UK tree is covered in redundant baubles of history and the US tree isn't.

I can see how the US system is more explicit in the divisions of power but in reality it is all the same.

for example - that most extreme of power.

The president of the US has the power to declare a war.
But in practice he doesn't, he can only do it if he can carry it politically and legally.

No single person in the UK has the power to declare war, but a prime minister can under the same constraints.

And both ulitmately have to answer to congress/parliament after a period of grace to get full sanction,

Which is why war is seldom declared and some other technical distinction is used.

I haven't checked, but I doubt that war has been declared formallt by either since WWII.

The other important similarity is how they both operate historically outside of their "democracy".
Outside of the "democracy" and different times involved their own disinfranchised citizens who were nothing more than chattels.

Outside of the territory - all bets are off, laws only  apply outside the territory as and when it suited.

Much like a religious book - it is not the laws themselves that are the weakness of the system ethically, it is the universal application of them that was the weakness.

Slavery is an example.

Neither US or UK law allowed for it - it was anethma to the principles or precedence of the laws.


But who gave a shit - only rich landed gentry and later oligarchs of the industrial revolution had access to education to understand the law and the vast masses of humanity were ignorant sheep to be used as a resource.


In summary - the biggest single factor in the emancipation of the vast majority of people has not been the laws but education.
Mass literacy has been the key to western political development in the last 200 years.

Too much credit is given to the architects of the legal frameworks.

The economic developments in the western world for the last 200 years required an increasingly educated workforce for pure economic reasons which lead to a political revolution where the masses were "the worm that turned" and

And for a long period the rest of the world outside the west took on the role of exploitation and serfdom so the slack was more than made up for in colonialism and slavery.

The current period is the completion of this event - the 3rd world is going through these economic events at accelerated pace.

The west is in a "Last days of the Raj" situation.

Going back full circles to constitutions

I doubt that the Chinese government are worried by the power of the US constitution as a document.

They can see by history that it is a small impediment to power by dictat, if your population is kept in ignorance by economics.

They are far more scared by the economic changes than we realise, as the lesson of history is that it is followed by assertive and unstoppable cultural changes.

The US constitution is really the logical conclusion of fair minded people - it could be invented a million times.
Much like the Bible laws "from god"

The most  fair minded biased people in the world are the middle classes as they rely on fairness  to exist.
Either from predation from a feral  underclass or the blunt dictat of an overlord.
And they hold power and ultimately control the economic machine.

Build an economy beyond serfdom and you have to deal with a middle class.

Truly the meek shall inherit the earth.

Actually, the president doesn't have the power to declare war, only congress does.  That presidents have taken us to war so many times without any official declaration is a subject for another discussion...

Yes I am wrong about that that.
It just appears that Presidents have the de-facto power to declare war

They have the power to deploy force and ask congress about it later.
The law allows them 90 days before they are forced to go to congress

CraigBert — Jul 10, 2009[quote author=Fenderbender link=1247091559/0#9 date=1247242230] I couldn't remember who took over after prez and vice prez....

It should scare the shit out of people that a whack job like Pelosi is only two heartbeats away from being President...  :o
Better than one heartbeat away if McCain/Palin had won and the Republicans took Congress...then we'd have a whack job like John Boehner two heartbeats away. Eesh.

All those assholes are fucked in D.C. - we've gotten so far away from how things are supposed to work, and it has just about everything to do with elections becoming fund-raising/popularity contests instead of job interviews and the resulting influx of purchased influence into our government.

And yes, Hook. I am a nerd. I didn't guess once.
Tripper

A British one!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4099770.stm

I got a 9 out of 14 - and I only guessed on two of the ones I got right (most of my other guesses were wrong, though)

I need to get a copy of "Life in the UK"... ;)
Tripper

Wow!  I only missed two on the British one, but only due to a few correct guesses (like the Saint holidays).  I missed the divorce one and thought it was 999 or 111 for the emergency number.  I love how the pub one was a trick question (I answered correctly, being the dart player that I am,  ;) but almost changed it when I read the very next question! ;D ).

Good job, Craig!
Tripper

I didn't get 100% on the second one but, honestly, it was more of a "can you remember what you read on the travel brochure that we didn't provide?" test than anything substantive.

Had it been substantive, I'm sure I would have done much worse! ;)

I got 110% as I put in a liitle more effort than normal.

fingers — Jul 17, 2009I got 110% as I put in a liitle more effort than normal.

Well, then you deserve a reward!  ;)



(I actually had a boss who would give us these pins and she really thought they were meaningful!  What an idiot!  ;D )

Tripper — Jul 16, 2009[quote author=CraigBert link=1247091559/0#12 date=1247254084][quote author=Fenderbender link=1247091559/0#9 date=1247242230] I couldn't remember who took over after prez and vice prez....

It should scare the shit out of people that a whack job like Pelosi is only two heartbeats away from being President...  :o
Better than one heartbeat away if McCain/Palin had won and the Republicans took Congress...then we'd have a whack job like John Boehner two heartbeats away. Eesh.

All those assholes are fucked in D.C. - we've gotten so far away from how things are supposed to work, and it has just about everything to do with elections becoming fund-raising/popularity contests instead of job interviews and the resulting influx of purchased influence into our government.

And yes, Hook. I am a nerd. I didn't guess once.
Tripper

Ahhh, you know I was kidding.

And your middle paragraph is spot fucking on. Since when did our elections feel the need to go hollywood? It is a interview, or use to be anyway.

CraigBert — Jul 18, 2009[quote author=fingers link=1247091559/0#21 date=1247874633]I got 110% as I put in a liitle more effort than normal.

Well, then you deserve a reward!  ;)



(I actually had a boss who would give us these pins and she really thought they were meaningful!  What an idiot!  ;D )


You mean at some point......you had a job? ;D ;D