USA: time to split up?

[Brainteaserfan]

Do Americans among each other share more similarities than people in - for example - the UK and the USA?

 

I mean, as humans, we agree on a lot of issues already. As Western people, we agree on even more. And as English speaking people, we agree on even more. If you set aside all those things, is there anything left that's typical for only Americans? What I'm trying to get at perhaps (I'm not really sure) is: What makes an American an American? And is that common thing strong enough to form a bridge between the political (and cultural?) differences between the different parts of the USA?

America is supposed to be a diverse melting pot. We have that in common and are proud of it. We do not want to split, although I'd like to see stronger state's rights.

Let's turn the question around. Whatever country you are from, what do all your citizens have in common that is typical for just the inhabitants of your country? Should your country split up?

 

Do Americans among each other share more similarities than people in - for example - the UK and the USA?

 

I mean, as humans, we agree on a lot of issues already. As Western people, we agree on even more. And as English speaking people, we agree on even more. If you set aside all those things, is there anything left that's typical for only Americans? What I'm trying to get at perhaps (I'm not really sure) is: What makes an American an American? And is that common thing strong enough to form a bridge between the political (and cultural?) differences between the different parts of the USA?

America is supposed to be a diverse melting pot. We have that in common and are proud of it. We do not want to split, although I'd like to see stronger state governments.

Let's turn the question around. Whatever country you are from, what do all your citizens have in common that is typical for just the inhabitants of your country? Should your country split up?

[jackson33]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

 

What are Arms? Sidearms? Cannons? Suitcase nukes? Just exactly how clear cut is the intended meaning of this word in the context used by the framers? BTW, do we even still have or need a well regulated Militia? I favor the right to keep and bear small arms but I'm not convinced we need a Militia in the current age.[/Quote]

 

doG; Whatever arms it takes to secure the State, should be held by the State and whatever Arms are required for security of a person, held by him/her/them. I would think bombs ("suitcase nukes") or bomb making material are covered by law, which every State has and Federal Courts would be forced to uphold.

 

Well, apparently many agree with the need for a militia, since it proved a bad idea during the 1898 Spanish/American War, in 1903 it was effectively abolished.

 

The Militia Act of 1903 was initiated by United States Secretary of War Elihu Root following the Spanish-American War of 1898, after the war demonstrated weaknesses in the militia, and in the entire U.S. military. The act gave Federal status to the militia and required the organized militia of the States to conform to Regular Army organization and standards.[1] It dramatically increased the federal funding of the militia: between 1903 and 1916, the Federal government spent $53 million on the Guard, more than the total of the previous hundred years.[/Quote]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_Bureau#Militia_Act_of_1903

 

You avoided the key question there. Is the meaning of that clause debatable or not? [/Quote]

 

Everything in law, including the Constitution is debatable. I'll admit many things were intentionally vague in the "Supreme Law", but to try and clarify by today's needs, would require changes tomorrow and the next day, which is the purpose for the third branch of Government, the Supreme Court and if needed the Congress can establish new law, legislation or my preference an Amendment.

[doG]

doG; Whatever arms it takes to secure the State, should be held by the State and whatever Arms are required for security of a person, held by him/her/them.

 

Ummmm....no. That's not what the Constitution says. It says nothing about what arms the State may or may not keep, only the people. Not exactly what arms do the people have a right to that shall not be infringed? This was easy to answer back in 1791 but what about now?

 

Everything in law, including the Constitution is debatable. I'll admit many things were intentionally vague in the "Supreme Law", but to try and clarify by today's needs, would require changes tomorrow and the next day, which is the purpose for the third branch of Government, the Supreme Court and if needed the Congress can establish new law, legislation or my preference an Amendment.

 

Bad answer, that's what causes the Judicial branch to write legislation via judicial fiat. It was the intent that the judicial branch interpret law, not write it and since the language has changed from then to now so has the meaning and that's what causes living document interpretation. The system is broken and it needs to be fixed, not patched but fixed.

[CaptainPanic]

Actually CP, your being quite perceptive, but are you considering that's the reason our Constitution reads the way it does because even then, people from NY and Virginia had different life styles, no less than today. Said another way people living in NY, today or then, didn't question what or how folks Virginia lived, with regards to most issues, expecting the same respect from Virginian's toward them...Any divisive perception has come from an intrusive Federal saying one States people, now must act more like another States people, loosely stated.

Then also 100 years ago, people utterly dispised the politicians from 'the other (political) side'? Did they paint some insulting demonic horns or something on the faces of James A. Garfield or Woodrow Wilson, like they do with portraits of Bush or Obama?

Are you suggesting that the country has always been as divided as it is today, and that this has always been as explicitely expressed in the politics as today?

 

Think about this CP, if you walk up to 20 people today and ask "where are you from", most are going to name a State or maybe a town, not America. It's not difficult for any older person to tell you what being American has meant to us and to probably 60-80% of the educated people on this planet, could give you an instant answer, many of which would be here in a flash if permitted. The the freedoms and opportunities that this country offered people around the world, that made it great, where they settled melding into some local culture only existed, maybe still does, only because the collective majority has lived and played by the rules, THEY and their ancestors set up...

Ok, so you say that the federal state isn't very important, and that the individual city or state government is more important to people than the federal government.

But that's more an argument why people just don't care about federal politics. It's not an argument to stay together.

 

The national pride that you describe however is a very (very!) good reason to stay together. Whether it's true that people would be in the US in a flash if permitted, I don't know. I think at least Europe is equally popular (yes, I am also proud).

 

America is supposed to be a diverse melting pot. We have that in common and are proud of it. We do not want to split, although I'd like to see stronger state's rights.

Let's turn the question around. Whatever country you are from, what do all your citizens have in common that is typical for just the inhabitants of your country? Should your country split up?

I'm from the Netherlands, and if you split that up into even smaller countries, individual streets would become nations.

 

But I don't understand why you turn the question around (in fact, I think you avoid my question - but maybe I am asking something very sensitive). My proposal to split up the USA stems from an idea that the country is divided, and that this divide is visible in the way people vote in the American two-party system.

The Netherlands is quite different: our government is traditionally a coalition of usually 2-3 parties with different political ideologies, and an opposition of another 5-10 parties. Voters regularly switch parties, and not many voters are truly faithful to their party.

 

Back on topic: is that melting pot a good enough reason to stay united? I think there are parts of the US who (and I generalize and sterotype now) do not like outsiders. Those are typically in the 'red' states. Those don't really seem to fit in the melting pot you describe.

[swansont]

But I don't understand why you turn the question around (in fact, I think you avoid my question - but maybe I am asking something very sensitive). My proposal to split up the USA stems from an idea that the country is divided, and that this divide is visible in the way people vote in the American two-party system.

The Netherlands is quite different: our government is traditionally a coalition of usually 2-3 parties with different political ideologies, and an opposition of another 5-10 parties. Voters regularly switch parties, and not many voters are truly faithful to their party.

I think what you're seeing is the reaction to the need to be in a coalition; for at least the last few decades the GOP has been pretty monolithic and now there's the tea party, which has broken away. Now the rest of the republicans fear disagreeing and losing seats to them in the next election, so basically the tea party is exerting a large amount of control. So there's pressure from the center and the right, and since they have no experience with the situation, they don't know how to react to that.

[Brainteaserfan]

Then also 100 years ago, people utterly dispised the politicians from 'the other (political) side'? Did they paint some insulting demonic horns or something on the faces of James A. Garfield or Woodrow Wilson, like they do with portraits of Bush or Obama?

Are you suggesting that the country has always been as divided as it is today, and that this has always been as explicitely expressed in the politics as today?

 

 

Ok, so you say that the federal state isn't very important, and that the individual city or state government is more important to people than the federal government.

But that's more an argument why people just don't care about federal politics. It's not an argument to stay together.

 

The national pride that you describe however is a very (very!) good reason to stay together. Whether it's true that people would be in the US in a flash if permitted, I don't know. I think at least Europe is equally popular (yes, I am also proud).

 

 

I'm from the Netherlands, and if you split that up into even smaller countries, individual streets would become nations.

 

But I don't understand why you turn the question around (in fact, I think you avoid my question - but maybe I am asking something very sensitive). My proposal to split up the USA stems from an idea that the country is divided, and that this divide is visible in the way people vote in the American two-party system.

The Netherlands is quite different: our government is traditionally a coalition of usually 2-3 parties with different political ideologies, and an opposition of another 5-10 parties. Voters regularly switch parties, and not many voters are truly faithful to their party.

 

Back on topic: is that melting pot a good enough reason to stay united? I think there are parts of the US who (and I generalize and sterotype now) do not like outsiders. Those are typically in the 'red' states. Those don't really seem to fit in the melting pot you describe.

I don't think that there is quite as big a divide as you think. Perhaps we are portrayed that way in other countries. As another poster pointed out, we would need to splinter into several countries. Besides, the two parties aren't usually that different. (The primaries are what count, and allow for far more than two people two be chosen. Year to year people may vote for different people there, and although they may continue voting for the same party, their party may have changed a good deal. )

 

What do you mean by, do not like outsiders?

[CaptainPanic]

I don't think that there is quite as big a divide as you think. Perhaps we are portrayed that way in other countries. As another poster pointed out, we would need to splinter into several countries. Besides, the two parties aren't usually that different. (The primaries are what count, and allow for far more than two people two be chosen. Year to year people may vote for different people there, and although they may continue voting for the same party, their party may have changed a good deal. )

 

What do you mean by, do not like outsiders?

Multiple times in this thread I have already written that I might stereotype/generalize, and this seems like a good time to do that again. Sorry if I do.

Top Gear shot an episode in Alabama (youtube) which explains (in extreme) what I meant by "not liking outsiders".

 

It being Top Gear, it might all be fake, but this is something which I believe can be real too.

 

If this is real, then it seems that you can only keep the peace in those parts by not saying what you stand for.

[jackson33]

Then also 100 years ago, people utterly dispised the politicians from 'the other (political) side'? Did they paint some insulting demonic horns or something on the faces of James A. Garfield or Woodrow Wilson, like they do with portraits of Bush or Obama?[/Quote]

 

Yes...and it goes back to the Adam/Jefferson 1800 Campaign according to last week-ends Stossel Documentary. The main difference in recent times are those voters involved, now 18yo, breathing and media, as it has evolved.

 

In 1800, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson tore each other to shreds. What if they had TV attack ads? This ad used actual quotes from the time. Jefferson and his supporters called Adams a, "blind, bald, crippled, toothless man," while Jefferson was referred to as a, "mean-spirited, low-lived fellow, the son of a half-breed Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father."[/Quote]

 

Read more: http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/stossel/blog/2011/07/21/most-vicious-ever#ixzz1TPh9ZvKE

 

Are you suggesting that the country has always been as divided as it is today, and that this has always been as explicitely expressed in the politics as today? [/Quote]

 

Yes and much more so, think the US Civil War pretty well explains this issue, not to forget prohibition or maybe a thousand issues that divided political factions in the US. As for life styles, you might not understand the differences, but in Alabama it almost a different planet, than living in Southern California, Montana or Alaska.

 

Ok, so you say that the federal state isn't very important, and that the individual city or state government is more important to people than the federal government.[/Quote]

 

Correct, but I'm going at this a little differently. Even though Europeans are involved as a group on many issues, with the EU, NATO, IMF or specific agreements, do you think the folks in Germany or England will appreciate paying for the problems created by, say Greece. The US Constitution was designed to protect or promote only the issues they agreed on in 1789 or later agreed to through amendments.

 

 

The national pride that you describe however is a very (very!) good reason to stay together. Whether it's true that people would be in the US in a flash if permitted, I don't know. I think at least Europe is equally popular (yes, I am also proud.)[/Quote]

 

Your correct, I definitely concur people of any Nation should be proud of their heritage and the point of my even being involved with politics for many years. This includes Islamic States, Communist Dictatorships and Monarchies. I also agree Europeans are proud of their heritage and never forget, Americans for the most part, have come from someplace else. BUT, in modern times (about 1850) the US, had been the place to go for opportunity, for many and all I said.

 

 

Ummmm....no. That's not what the Constitution says. It says nothing about what arms the State may or may not keep, only the people. Not exactly what arms do the people have a right to that shall not be infringed? This was easy to answer back in 1791 but what about now?[/Quote]

 

doG; The Militia was the States responsibility and the people was an after thought (separate). Never the less, what you seem to be wanting are what the Courts WERE intended to do, interpret according to the sentiments at a given time in the future. You mentioned cannons and there were already many kinds of explosives on those days and were not mentioned. A simple match could cause more harm than a gun, especially near a gas line today or on an airplane, but would you expect a general outline for governing to mention a match?

 

Bad answer, that's what causes the Judicial branch to write legislation via judicial fiat. It was the intent that the judicial branch interpret law, not write it and since the language has changed from then to now so has the meaning and that's what causes living document interpretation. The system is broken and it needs to be fixed, not patched but fixed. [/Quote]

 

IMO, you have just mentioned the problem and the solution, but to rewrite that outline will not solve the problem. Judicial activism, is most certainly a problem and I'm beginning to question the jury system, but it's the system we use. However it remains a relatively small problems in a society of 310M people. Even here when applicable, State and Federal appeals courts can and often do correct any seemingly injustices.

 

For the record, I would like to see 34 States call for a Convention, based on specific issues (not a rewrite and that's not even possible) and add a few Amendments to either justify or squash many programs that have been enacted without amendments, but that's really for another thread.

[Dekan]

self-deleted as exasperated at US failure

Edited July 28, 2011 by Dekan

[Moontanman]

Damn, maybe John Titor was real.....

[Brainteaserfan]

self-deleted as exasperated at US failure

You would call a country that went from wilderness to superpower in less than 200 years a failure?

[CaptainPanic]

jackson33, Let me first thank you for the elaborate answer in your post. I never knew that historically the US politics has always been so hard... The main lesson I've learned is that the US politics apparently hasn't changed much... but the coverage of it has. Politics in the Netherlands must seem extremely boring for an American.

 

As far as I'm concerned, this thread has been very educational and it probably changed my opinion about the situation in the US... it put it in a historical perspective.

 

Correct, but I'm going at this a little differently. Even though Europeans are involved as a group on many issues, with the EU, NATO, IMF or specific agreements, do you think the folks in Germany or England will appreciate paying for the problems created by, say Greece. The US Constitution was designed to protect or promote only the issues they agreed on in 1789 or later agreed to through amendments.

Going off topic now:

Firstly, it's the United Kingdom (UK) that's a member of the EU, btw, and England is a part of the UK. It's like the USA being part of NATO, and Pennsylvania being a part of the USA... but Pennsylvania isn't an independent NATO member, and England isn't a EU member. Many people confuse england with the UK, because England is by far larger than Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland (which confusingly are individually also called 'countries').

 

Back to your remark:

You pick a very tricky example of Germany and the UK to pay for the problems of Greece. Over the last couple of decades, the richer EU member states have always paid the poorer ones. For example, a lot of infrastructure in Eastern Europe has been built with EU money, paid mostly by Western EU member states. And not many objected, because these were useful projects.

 

The situation in Greece however seems to many people like throwing money away. And there is a lot of criticism, because the Greeks could have seen this problem coming (just like the US could see a (federal) financial problem coming because they spend significantly more than they get).

So, it's not a matter of not wanting to pay other countries... it's not wanting to pay for mismanagement.

 

Sorry for going totally off topic... but as I hinted on in the first lines, as far as I'm concerned my questions have been answered already.