Keep this in mind when Comparing the US to other countries.

[The2ndAmendment]

You cannot compare the United States directly to any other country.

We have a reigning governmental structure known as FEDERALISM.

The laws and Constitution of each State is vastly DIFFERENT from the laws and Constitution of every other State.

Also, within each State, the laws of each city and town are moderately DIFFERENT from the laws of every other city and town.

Also, keep in mind, that many federal laws (that are govern the whole nation), are executed differently in different states, especially when significant devolution procedures have been written into that law.

Countries, like the UK, are UNITARY governments. The variance in local laws are microscopic in places like the UK. Moderate differences in law are only seen between rural and urban regions.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This means, when you compare the laws of a UNITARY government, to the laws of the United States, are you no better off comparing Apples to a Smorgasbord.

In order to compare a UNITARY government to the United States, you should only consider Cities and towns that are governed by the same or very similar laws. Sometimes you MIGHT be able to compare them to an entire State, however, you can NEVER compare them to the entire Union.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Enjoy!

 

[Toronado3800]

You cannot compare the United States directly to any other country.

We have a reigning governmental structure known as FEDERALISM.

The laws and Constitution of each State is vastly DIFFERENT from the laws and Constitution of every other State.

Also, within each State, the laws of each city and town are moderately DIFFERENT from the laws of every other city and town.

Also, keep in mind, that many federal laws (that are govern the whole nation), are executed differently in different states, especially when significant devolution procedures have been written into that law.

Countries, like the UK, are UNITARY governments. The variance in local laws are microscopic in places like the UK. Moderate differences in law are only seen between rural and urban regions.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This means, when you compare the laws of a UNITARY government, to the laws of the United States, are you no better off comparing Apples to a Smorgasbord.

In order to compare a UNITARY government to the United States, you should only consider Cities and towns that are governed by the same or very similar laws. Sometimes you MIGHT be able to compare them to an entire State, however, you can NEVER compare them to the entire Union.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Enjoy!

Yeah. Thank goodness them republican govenors and hippies in California keep dragging us towards 21st Century regulations.

I am missing a little of the point unless it is that we should have 50 different laws on small arms. Then yeah, sorta sucks. I was raised as an American not a Missouran or Utahonian or Washingtonian.

Can Colorado charge the big government welfare lovin downstream states for water or are we all in this together like one big country?

 

[The2ndAmendment]

I am missing a little of the point unless it is that we should have 50 different laws on small arms. Then yeah, sorta sucks. I was raised as an American not a Missouran or Utahonian or Washingtonian.

I am not here to debate any policies in this thread. Everything the OP applies to ALL topics that you can possibly imagine.

The OP only states that direct Country to Country comparison is impossible, if one of those countries is the United States. It does not matter what issue you are discussing.

However, if you would like the argue that the United States is NOT a federal system, by all means, enlighten us.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

What about the Swiss Confederation?

 

[The2ndAmendment]

What about the Swiss Confederation?

Since they are NOT a UNITARY form of government, you cannot compare them directly to a UNITARY country either.

Also, it is impossible to compare a FEDERALIST country to ANOTHER federalist country.

Because then it's like comparing a Smorgasbord to Chess Theory (they are two different entities, with unlimited variations each).

Again, you could only compare cities/towns in the US to cities/town in Switz that have the same or nearly the same laws.

Also, I know exactly what trap you were trying to walk me into, especially given my screen name.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

What about the Swiss Confederation?

So, was there an argument you were preparing to make?

EDIT: 30 minutes later

Apparently not, you had prepared some facile argument based on a trap that I successfully observed and avoided. You had nothing to contribute but deception and lies.

True fact: You can neither disprove nor discredit someone who is telling the truth, you can only make them discredit themselves.

 

[JoeB131]

How is this thread labeled "Old" when it's only been here for 10 minutes?

I request a Moderator's attention.

It's only Old to you, because you've already read it.

To the point, though-

The point of comparing the US to the only countries that we should compare it to- is to examine, what are we doing right and wrong.

When I make such comparisons- I try to largely limit myself to G-7 countries - The UK, France, Germany, Japan, Italy and Canada. In terms of technological, economic and cultural advancement, these are our peers.

And we do very badly in the peer group in terms of crime, violence, imprisonment, any health care statistic, we do very badly, and we need to ask ourselves why.

And a good answer is not, "200 years ago, a bunch of dead slave-owners established a system that let Cleetus at the state level make dumb decisions, so we're going with that."

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

What about the Swiss Confederation?

So, was there an argument you were preparing to make?

EDIT: 30 minutes later

Apparently not, you had prepared some facile argument based on a trap that I successfully observed and avoided. You had nothing to contribute but deception and lies.

True fact: You can neither disprove nor discredit someone who is telling the truth, you can only make them discredit themselves.

I was asking your opinion. You don't have to treat every post like it's some kind of conquest or challenge.

 

[editec]

I fear that real political science is way too deep for this place.

Still I applaude your post for attempting to point out what ought to be obvious.

 

[Toronado3800]

I am missing a little of the point unless it is that we should have 50 different laws on small arms. Then yeah, sorta sucks. I was raised as an American not a Missouran or Utahonian or Washingtonian.

I am not here to debate any policies in this thread. Everything the OP applies to ALL topics that you can possibly imagine.

The OP only states that direct Country to Country comparison is impossible, if one of those countries is the United States. It does not matter what issue you are discussing.

However, if you would like the argue that the United States is NOT a federal system, by all means, enlighten us.

Since the day big government Lincoln came by and thanks goodness found SOMEPLACE in the Constitution that States could not leave the Union the effective (if not Constitutional) powers have shifted is all.

Ash John Ashcroft who gets to decide if folks in Oregon have the right to die.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Since the day big government Lincoln came by and thanks goodness found SOMEPLACE in the Constitution that States could not leave the Union the effective (if not Constitutional) powers have shifted is all.

Ash John Ashcroft who gets to decide if folks in Oregon have the right to die.

1) I like Lincoln. He gave the federal government the necessary but evil power it required in order to function for modern purposes. The arguments for the federal government, made in the Federalist Papers by our Founding Fathers, were never realized until after the Civil War.

The problem is that only decades after the Civil War, they passed this thing called the 16 Amendment (income tax) and the 17th Amendment (removed the only bulwark and recourse that States had in Congress against the Federal Government.). Then they made the Federal Reserve and a fiat currency.

2) Are you telling me that the laws in all 50 States and cities/towns within those states are uniform?

Federalism is not dead, yet. It will be if the Democrats keep winning, and the laws will be uniform within the next thirty to fifty years.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Since the day big government Lincoln came by and thanks goodness found SOMEPLACE in the Constitution that States could not leave the Union the effective (if not Constitutional) powers have shifted is all.

Ash John Ashcroft who gets to decide if folks in Oregon have the right to die.

1) I like Lincoln. He gave the federal government the necessary but evil power it required in order to function for modern purposes. The arguments for the federal government, made in the Federalist Papers by our Founding Fathers, were never realized until after the Civil War.

The problem is that only decades after the Civil War, they passed this thing called the 16 Amendment (income tax) and the 17th Amendment (removed the only bulwark and recourse that States had in Congress against the Federal Government.). Then they made the Federal Reserve and a fiat currency.

2) Are you telling me that the laws in all 50 States and cities/towns within those states are uniform?

Federalism is not dead, yet. It will be if the Democrats keep winning, and the laws will be uniform within the next thirty to fifty years.

The arguments made in the Federalist Papers were finally killed by Lincoln and the Civil War.

 

[pinqy]

Countries, like the UK, are UNITARY governments. The variance in local laws are microscopic in places like the UK.

Scotland and Northern Ireland have completely different legal systems than England and Wales (which share a common system). So not just laws...different legal system.

English law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Scots law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Northern Ireland law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The UK is in no way a Unitary government.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

The arguments made in the Federalist Papers were finally killed by Lincoln and the Civil War.

I have a copy and read all of the Federalist Papers, which arguments are these?

 

[Toronado3800]

Since the day big government Lincoln came by and thanks goodness found SOMEPLACE in the Constitution that States could not leave the Union the effective (if not Constitutional) powers have shifted is all.

Ash John Ashcroft who gets to decide if folks in Oregon have the right to die.

1) I like Lincoln. He gave the federal government the necessary but evil power it required in order to function for modern purposes. The arguments for the federal government, made in the Federalist Papers by our Founding Fathers, were never realized until after the Civil War.

The problem is that only decades after the Civil War, they passed this thing called the 16 Amendment (income tax) and the 17th Amendment (removed the only bulwark and recourse that States had in Congress against the Federal Government.). Then they made the Federal Reserve and a fiat currency.

2) Are you telling me that the laws in all 50 States and cities/towns within those states are uniform?

Federalism is not dead, yet. It will be if the Democrats keep winning, and the laws will be uniform within the next thirty to fifty years.

No they are not uniform but they states are also mere zip code collections since 1865. If Washington does not like what they are doing then Washington imposes its will.

See John Ashcroft and that Oregon right to die issue and them folks were supposed to be all for "states rights"

 

[The2ndAmendment]

I requested the arguments made in the Federalist Papers, not your opinion. I have a good track record of recanting my views when I'm proven wrong, since I don't lie on purpose.

For instance, 4 months ago, I was a full out Obama progressive, can you believe that? I voted for him twice. Now I regret it, and everything he's stood for. All my years of far left thinking overturned in just three months. It is very possible that I dismissed important parts of the Federalist Papers in the past because I was on the far left at the time, and I simply cant recall those parts now.

 

[Friends]

How is this thread labeled "Old" when it's only been here for 10 minutes?

I request a Moderator's attention.

It's only Old to you, because you've already read it.

To the point, though-

The point of comparing the US to the only countries that we should compare it to- is to examine, what are we doing right and wrong.

When I make such comparisons- I try to largely limit myself to G-7 countries - The UK, France, Germany, Japan, Italy and Canada. In terms of technological, economic and cultural advancement, these are our peers.

And we do very badly in the peer group in terms of crime, violence, imprisonment, any health care statistic, we do very badly, and we need to ask ourselves why.

And a good answer is not, "200 years ago, a bunch of dead slave-owners established a system that let Cleetus at the state level make dumb decisions, so we're going with that."

When comparing the United States to other affluent democracies one should also compare the racial compositions of those countries. Countries where the vast majority is white or Oriental will nearly always have lower rates of crime and better school performance because whites and Orientals tend to be more intelligent than blacks and Hispanics, and they are less prone to be criminals.

Because there are so many blacks and Hispanics in the United States it is a good thing that there are so many blacks and Hispanics in prison because prison is the only thing that keeps them out of trouble.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The arguments made in the Federalist Papers were finally killed by Lincoln and the Civil War.

I have a copy and read all of the Federalist Papers, which arguments are these?

The idea of federalism itself.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Federalism, as the Founders intended, was that the Federal Government was ONLY sovereign on the powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution, the Tenth Amendment clearly stated the the States were sovereign otherwise.

What happened is that the 16, 17th and Federal Reserve, coupled with the Supreme Court abusing the Commerce Clause, General Welfare Clause and extending unlimited power to the Bureaucracy, completely destroyed Federalism.

However, Federalism is still alive, only because the government permits it. It doesn't want to be bothered with trivial/local issues ... yet. The Supreme Court has been slowing recognizing the 10th Amendment recently, why do you think the Progressives want to control the Court so badly? They know the Supreme Court wants to reestablish federalism without upsetting the economy (taking too much power away from the Federal government too quickly could result in economic failures).

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Federalism, as the Founders intended, was that the Federal Government was ONLY sovereign on the powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution, the Tenth Amendment clearly stated the the States were sovereign otherwise.

What happened is that the 16, 17th and Federal Reserve, coupled with the Supreme Court abusing the Commerce Clause, General Welfare Clause and extending unlimited power to the Bureaucracy, completely destroyed Federalism.

However, Federalism is still alive, only because the government permits it. It doesn't want to be bothered with trivial/local issues ... yet. The Supreme Court has been slowing recognizing the 10th Amendment recently, why do you think the Progressives want to control the Court so badly? They know the Supreme Court wants to reestablish federalism without upsetting the economy (taking too much power away from the Federal government too quickly could result in economic failures).

You think the Supreme Court wants to reestablish federalism? Based on what?