Is President Obama the least respected president ever?
I feel like there is very little respect for Obama. Now and through his whole presidency. He is clearly not the worst president of all time that dubious distinction goes to his predecessor but he sure as hell is treated as such. I don't think he is great by any means but it is sad to see the lack of respect people have for him. Honestly I think it is 100% because he is black. I think that after years of slavery, prejudices, racism and bias it is only natural for many people to maybe inherently view him as less of a man or a person or leader. I mean just look how aggressive people are being with him. Romney literally approaches him as an equal there is 0 sign of respect. Remember the senator who was up in the presidents face. Absolutely no respect. America clearly and truly was not ready for a minority president.
How would the Founding Fathers react to the last three presidents (Trump, Obama, Bush)?
They would be shocked by a black guy being president first and for most: Lets be honest with ourselves, many founding fathers were progressive FOR THEIR TIME, but expecting them to comprehend black people being put into a position of power would be mind boggling. Hamilton might nod in approval, Jefferson might smile sheepishly, but also deeply embarrassed, but they would all be shocked.They would be disappointing by some of Trumps for authoritarian leanings, and the level of corruption and nepotism involved. They would be deeply concerned with his demenor, but probably not shocked; Those founding fathers could be jackasses, Trumps game isn’t anything new. Adams would say that Trump acts like any of those populist Democratic Republican, Monroe would say he is definitely one of those elitist Federalists, but when they were honest with themselves, they would admit that too much has changed to make a fair comparison.They would see the 2 party system, and feel sad, because they totally predicted it, but couldn’t figure out how to avoid it.Above all though, they would react by wanting to know more. They would take one look at a world utterly foreign and alien to them, and immediately realize that they have no idea how there worldview squares with this strange new reality. They will be grateful they they wanted the constitution to be a living, evolving document, because no way what they wrote in the 1700’s could possibly apply to this modern world without drastic alterations.End of the day, they would realize that they have been brought to a world that exists heavily because of them, and be proud of that fact, but also they are in a world where they are history, and new challenges will take ideas that arn’t their own. And within the context of their own time, they don’t have the ability to properly judge these men.
Why was the Constitution undemocratic? (Check my answer please!)?
So this is for a debate for history in school. The prompt is "the founding fathers wrote a constitution that was primarily undemocratic." I'm on the pro side and want to know if these answers I put in my debate statement are right because I'm kinda lost. I basically said: -Constitution didn't uphold social equality b/c lack of African-American rights. Abolishing slave trade was put off for 20 years. freed African-Americans were discriminated against, and the Constitution did nothing to help them. Also, they hurt their rights because of the 3/5 rule (every African-American counts for 3/5 of a person when totaling populations.) -Didn't help women either, they still couldn't vote and couldn't join the military. -Legislature and government wasn't very democratic b/c of one vote per state rule, regardless of size. ^ I think I need more for this last point! HELP!
Is the Arizona Immigration law constitutional?
There are actually several different arguments about it being unconstitutional. It seems to violate the 4th amendment protection against 'unreasonable search and seizure'. The idea that someone can be stopped and questioned perhaps only because he has dark skin or speaks with an accent (or doesn't speak English at all). These things are not actual evidence of having broken the law, so there is no 'probable cause'. It also seems to violate the 14th amendment clause guaranteeing 'equal protection under the law' if people of one race are treated differently than people of another race. Finally, as you say, 'federal supremacy'. Immigration policy is made by the Federal Govt. so there is one policy for all states. Individual states can't make their own immigration policy. There has always been tension in this country between federal and state powers, and often the Supreme Court has to walk a tightrope on these issues. The way things work, the Supreme Court doesn't review laws after they are passed and decide whether or not they're constitutional. The Court only looks at laws in the context of an actual test case. So someone will have to bring a case up to the Supreme Court, to find someone who they claim was mistreated by this law, who was denied his rights as an American citizen. And then the Court will decide whether to let the law stand or to overturn it. Perhaps the ACLU will get involved. That's what they do! They find cases where they think a law is unconstitutional and bring them to courts for a test. Until then, nobody can say for sure, they can only give their opinions. My own opinion is politically neutral, based on a few classes I took on the Constitution many years ago, so take it for what it's worth.
If PETA is against animal testing than why does their president take insulin?
The PETA leaders are against any confinement of pets including ownership in anyway. Most members don't agree with this, but PETA's official stance on a lot of subjects is hypocritical. The president (can't remember her name) takes insulin, which is clearly against their principals of not using any products used on or tested on animals. Seems like it would be beneficial if this person stopped taking the insulin, went into a diabetic coma and died. Maybe whatever new leader they represent would actually represent the members.
Do you think the american president has too much power?
No, there are supposed to be checks and balances but under Bush the supreme court and the justice department have certainly seen to that. It's a pity that this democracy is hardly better than the military junta in Myanmar. They can and have violated our laws with impunity because of the say so of the justice department and the activist judges that Bush put on the supreme court. According to this justice department Bush is not answerable to anyone or any body be it the American people or the rest of the world during "war" time. Conveniently we call the police action in Iraq a "war". What a joke. Who is the enemy. Ah, we invaded Iraq to set a trap for the absent al Qaeda to come in so the "war" could really begin. WMD's were just a clever smoke screen.