Round 25 Results

[The Beatles]

To an American I'm sure the differences between Indiana and Georgia loom large. To someone who is not, they shrink very small indeed.

[Gen. Volkov]

Well, they aren't as big as between two countries in Europe, but then that's only right that they shouldn't be, after all, they are states in the same country, not two different countries. But I would compare the differences between Indiana and Georgia favorably with the differences between say, Wales and England.

[Devari]

I'd say, from an international perspective, there's a damn big difference between the example of Indiana and Georgia and Wales and England. A lot of people think of Wales, Scotland, and England as somewhat separate entities... Whereas Indiana and Georgia just are part of the US. I'm sure the view of Canada is not dissimilar to the view of the US, in that I doubt our provinces are that distinguished to a foreigner. Perhaps slightly more so than the US, though, since we have far fewer (10 provinces and 3 territories), and we also have the rather significant cultural distinction between Quebec and English Canada. 'course, I can't give an unbiased perspective on Canada, because I live here... As for the states of the US, however, I can quite confidently state that most foreigners probably view the individual states as not that different. In Canada, simply because of our proximity, we probably have a bit more distinguishing view. In Europe, I doubt it.

[Gen. Volkov]

Well I don't care what the rest of the world thinks in this instance. I'm talking straight cultural differences. The perspective of the rest of the world is not a factor. I would certainly say there's as big a difference between Ontario and British Columbia as there is between Indiana and Georgia. Quebec... well the French practically recognize it as it's own country anyway, so I'm not sure how relevant it is.

[The Beatles]

after all, they are states in the same country, not two different countries.

But I would compare the differences between Indiana and Georgia favorably with the differences between say, Wales and England.

That's just my point. They were originally separate nations that joined together for protection. This has completely eroded away.

Oh yeah, or words to that effect? You'd be wrong. Even more so in the case of Scotland (the obvious choice, of course). Or Ireland, part of which broke away. American states have relatively homogeneous education systems and legal systems; nations in the UK do not. Nations of the USSR did -- the Russian ones -- but anyway, that dissolved.

Reading some of the posts above, I see Devari has made a similar point. Or something. Anyway there's no denying it has eroded away, but partly because there was never much of a cultural background to start with -- I mean the colonies can't have been more than a century old at the time of their founding, and most states are younger than that.

[Gen. Volkov]

Umm no, actually several were nearly 200 years old at the time of the founding of the US, Beatles. Besides, lack of history doesn't mean lack of culture. There were much bigger cultural differences in the past.

That's just my point. They were originally separate nations that joined together for protection. This has completely eroded away.

Oh yeah, or words to that effect? You'd be wrong. Even more so in the case of Scotland (the obvious choice, of course). Or Ireland, part of which broke away. American states have relatively homogeneous education systems and legal systems; nations in the UK do not. Nations of the USSR did -- the Russian ones -- but anyway, that dissolved

And the colonies were originally separate entities that joined together for protection as well, I will agree that the cultural differences have eroded significantly, but to say that they are not there, or too small to be noticed is just ridiculous. If you were to say that to a Georgian and a Hoosier, they would be just as offended as if you told an Irishman and Scotsman that there wasn't much difference between their cultures.

[The Beatles]

Too small to be noticed for someone to be external to them. The kind of joke that begins with "An Englishman, a Scotsman, and an Irishman went into a bar..." is well-known around the world. Unlike the classic "A Michiganer, a Wisconsiner, and a Coloradoer went into a bar..."

Just exaggerating, obviously, and I never said there were no differences. Merely that they were not noticeable outside the US, and hence much the same as regional variations within a homogeneous country such as Hungary -- only Hungarians would notice.

[Gen. Volkov]

Well, it's certainly noticeable to me. Maybe the outside world doesn't notice these things, and TV is certainly homogenizing our country to a large extent, but I still notice the culture differences between my hometown and New Orleans, it was much more pronounced than the differences between my town and the places I have been in Canada. I bet you would notice if you went from the West Coast to New York, or to the South.

[The Beatles]

You're American, so obviously it is visible to you. But before I came here, at most I would have been able to tell the difference between Louisiana and New York. Point is, if the difference is only visible to their own countrymen -- outsiders don't think of the states as different classes -- then it's homogeneous. Just as differences between Hungarian regions are noticeable only to a Hungarian.

[Gen. Volkov]

Aha! But you would have been able tell the difference between Louisana and New York! I could not tell the differences between ANY parts of Hungary. So the US must not be quite as homogenized as you claim.

[The Beatles]

That's only because I grew up with an American teacher. An average Hungarian wouldn't have been able to. Half a century ago, California was recognized as an entity of sorts; today it's mostly homogeneous. And don't forget the US is in the media spotlight much more than Hungary is.

[Gen. Volkov]

Well, just from that media spotlight, I would say that people are aware of the cultural differences between different parts of our country, it's just not that homogenized.

[The Beatles]

That's fallacious. If A and B have some property to the same degree, but it's more exposed in A, then somehow A has that property more? Not at all.

[Gen. Volkov]

You are basing your whole argument on how aware the outside world is of US cultural differences. So if my argument is fallacious so is yours.

[Nuclear Raunch]

Not really, the Articles of Confederation gave very little power to the president and congress. The Constitution was desigend to take away some of the power of the states and give more to the central government. 5 currently used presidential powers.. hmmm. Well, control of the armed forces, appointment of cabinet members and various diplomatic/political posts, bill vetoing, introduction of new bills to congress, signing bills into laws. All of those are constitutional. As for congress, the power to write and pass laws, right to declare war, power to increase/decrease size of the armed forces, power to create a central bank and print money, power to create new federal bureaus. Those are all constitutional as well. The Civil War had many other causes than just states rights, and you very well know it. They have taken some more of the states rights than the constitution strictly says, but certainly not all of them, the states still have many rights. But the losses of state rights are the price we've paid in order to have a unified country, which I much prefer to two separate countries.

Presidential powers:

1) Mostly correct. Training and designating officers is up to the states, but telling each officer what to do is his responsibility.

2) Only with Congress' consent

3) Correct

4) He can introduce but Congress is under no obligation to even consider it.

5) He can sign them only. The signing statements that have been added to damn near every bill Bush has signed (not that nobody else before him has dont it, just on a smaller scale) are unconstitutional.

Congressional powers:

You didn't list any Congress enacted laws, but since you listed Congressional powers instead I'll address those. Try to think of legal Congressional laws, those are probably the hardest things to find.

1) Congress can write and pass laws on very, very few things. Off the top of my head I'd say less than 10% of all laws Congress has passed in the last 20 years were Constitutionally allowed.

2) Correct

3) Correct

4) Incorrect. Congress has made a privately owned central bank (Federal Reserve) but it's not Constitutional. As an aside, anyone who says Bill Gates is the richest man in the world needs to study the Federal Reserve a lot more closely. As a point of reference they could lose every penny they had and in a matter of months they could completely buy out Bill Gates.

5) I had thought that Congress could create bureaus to enforce the laws it has enacted, but the only thing I see in the Congressional section of the Constitution providing for bureaus is one provision allowing for the USPS.

As we discussed before the Civil War like every conflict had a number of causes, but states rights was by far and away the most dominant one. I'm not sure how exactly loss of states rights was a price we paid for a unified country. A more accurate statement would be to say that 2 seperate countries was nearly the price we had to pay for losing state's rights, not the other way around.