 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 16:08:43 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
>Stephen wrote:
>> I did not look it up. I do not understand the question. What does the term "the
>> supreme law of the land" mean?
>
>Oh. The Constitution says in the text that it is the supreme law of the
>land. If other laws are made that are in conflict with the Constitution, the
>Constitution wins. If the Constitution says "You may not keep women from
>voting", and some state passes a law that says women may not vote, that
>state law is overruled by the supreme law of the land and is unenforcible.
>
OK, thanks. We're probably not used to that idea as we don't have a written
Constitution. (Yet! :)
>> Yes the English Bill of Rights 1689 (An Act Declaring the Rights and Liberties
>> of the Subject and Settling the Succession of the Crown) and the Scottish Bill
>> of Rights (Claim of Right Act 1689) existed 100 years before yours :P
>
>Cool. See what I meant? ;-)
>
Yes but I couldn't resist it :)
We just talk about consumer rights.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
>> I did not look it up. I do not understand the question. What does the
>> term "the
>> supreme law of the land" mean?
>
> Oh. The Constitution says in the text that it is the supreme law of the
> land. If other laws are made that are in conflict with the Constitution,
> the Constitution wins. If the Constitution says "You may not keep women
> from voting", and some state passes a law that says women may not vote,
> that state law is overruled by the supreme law of the land and is
> unenforcible.
>
My first reaction was to just shake my head in wonderment about how only
28% could get that right. Then I checked the Supremacy Clause of the
Constitution. It isn't just the Constitution, but also Federal Statutes
and Treaties.
Given recent history, I would not have remembered the last part.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
4ab30128@news.povray.org...
> Darren New wrote:
>> http://www.news9.com/global/story.asp?s=11141949
>>
>> Summary: At least some places in America, children are utterly unworthy
>> of living here. Ten US Citizenship questions at the bottom.
>>
>> I'm honestly curious how many people from Africa, Europe, and whatever
>> else is represented here could answer the questions at the bottom. Only
>> one did I even have to hesitate and think about, and that's probably due
>> to the current level of booze here.
>>
> 39% don't know what ocean is the US eastern seaboard? ROFL!
>
> I would have passed barely. 6 correct
> My wife, an actual American, got 7.
> My daughter, a high schooler and fresh from civics class got 9. (Thought
> there were 8 justices.)
I got 6 correct but...
was is "US"?
Marc
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> If there's only one side to the world, does that mean that it's a giant
> Mobious strip? :)
I would think it would be a klein bottle.
Actually, wouldn't there be something between a mobeus strip and a klein
bottle? It seems like there should be. Or is the surface of a klein bottle
a 3-D surface twisted thru 4D, just like a mobeus is a 2-D surface twisted
in 3D?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> My first reaction was to just shake my head in wonderment about how only
> 28% could get that right. Then I checked the Supremacy Clause of the
> Constitution. It isn't just the Constitution, but also Federal Statutes
> and Treaties.
I don't believe it has been interpreted that way. Certainly federal statues
are secondary to the constitution in practice, and I believe the question of
treaties is still somewhat open to argument. There are regularly federal
statues struck down as unconstitutional, and I think the argument is that
since the president can't make a treaty without the congress approving it
later, it's also subject to constitutional limits.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> Or the fact that they keep adding Justices? At least, that's the one I
> got wrong.
It's been nine for as long as I can remember. Occasionally you have
situations where one or more have left and new ones haven't taken their
place, but nine is normal?
Thinking on it, I think they added some way back in the first half of the
1900's or so, maybe? FDR stacking the deck or something?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Sabrina Kilian wrote:
>> My first reaction was to just shake my head in wonderment about how only
>> 28% could get that right. Then I checked the Supremacy Clause of the
>> Constitution. It isn't just the Constitution, but also Federal Statutes
>> and Treaties.
>
> I don't believe it has been interpreted that way. Certainly federal
> statues are secondary to the constitution in practice, and I believe the
> question of treaties is still somewhat open to argument. There are
> regularly federal statues struck down as unconstitutional, and I think
> the argument is that since the president can't make a treaty without the
> congress approving it later, it's also subject to constitutional limits.
>
Yes, the Constitution overrides the others. But the clause in the
Constitution (Article 6 paragraph 2) says that the "Supreme Law of the
Land" is made up of those three things.
I was more bashing the test than anything else. The question was vague
enough, and I didn't see the link at the bottom providing the answers
that they wanted. I can still hold some hope for humanity, and just wish
that 30% of the students just told the inquisitive folks to buzz off.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I wonder how elementary school, say 5th & 6th grade, children in the
same school system would do. Sometimes it seem that people in high
school forget a lot they learned earlier.
David
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 09:33:17 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>
>> High school is grade 10, 11, and 12, so age 15 thru 17.
>
> 15 thorough 18. Some of us were not fortunate enough to be born before
> the cutoff and started a year later than others our age. But also these
> days, "High school" tends to be grades 9-12 rather than 10-12...
>
> Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 13:28:57 -0500, David H. Burns wrote:
> I wonder how elementary school, say 5th & 6th grade, children in the
> same school system would do. Sometimes it seem that people in high
> school forget a lot they learned earlier.
That would be interesting (though elementary typically is K-5 now, 6-8 is
middle, 9-12 is high, at least here and where I grew up).
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Chambers wrote:
>> Or the fact that they keep adding Justices? At least, that's the one
>> I got wrong.
>
> It's been nine for as long as I can remember. Occasionally you have
> situations where one or more have left and new ones haven't taken their
> place, but nine is normal?
I thought it was 7. Looking it up, though, it's been 9 since 1869.
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
