Questions for our American friends

[bombermouse]

I think the majority of opposition to Obama is ideological rather than racist but there is an element of racism. Though an element of racism doesn't invalidate the opposition, that element must be acknowledged.

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by bombermouse

I think the majority of opposition to Obama is ideological rather than racist but there is an element of racism. Though an element of racism doesn't invalidate the opposition, that element must be acknowledged.

Agree.

One of the things about the Obama Presidency is that its given racists a way of framing their racism as "opposition to Obama", they've taken full advantage of the opportunity.

[awboy33]

Originally Posted by Warren G

They don't like Cain or Thomas, they tolerate them. They are their tokens. After all, they can't appear racist, so guys like Cain and Thomas are acceptable because they are relatively inert.

I do not know why this discussion is in this thread because racism occurs in every culture and every country not just America. To say that Herman Cain, Clarence Thomas, or any other black public figure who has conservative or libertarian beliefs is a "token" demeans them and implies that they can not think for themselves. What about the black people who are not public figures who have a conservative philosophy? Are they also "tokens"?

I personally am not impressed by Herman Cain. I respect his business acumen but I put him in the same boat as Donald Trump. I greatly respect Clarence Thomas because this is a man who grew up with nothing and through a sense of hard work instilled in him by his grandfather he became a supreme court justice. You could say the same for Obama, with his father leaving his mother, Obama overcame many things to be who is now. I respect Obama for what he has accomplished but I still disagree with him politically. I do not consider him a "token" to the liberal left.

Bigotry occurs on both sides. For instance, the only requirements to be a member of the Congressional Black Caucus is to be an elected congressman/woman and be black. However, J.C. Watts, a conservative black congressman from Oklahoma was denied membership because he was a Republican and was conservative. I ask you who is being more bigoted.

[mizlaplan]

I've been reading the recent posts with interest but I have to confess to not knowing much about how the American political system works.
Could anyone recommend a good book or website for a primer on how America governs itself and some of the key people involved.
Cheers.

[Pepper II]

Originally Posted by tygrkhat40

John McCain was not born in the United States. He was born in the Panama Canal zone. Yet there was not talk of McCain being inelligible for the Presidency.

Richard Nixon was born in Mexico. It doesn't matter where they were born; it only matters that both parents are US citizens. This is appropriate since people take vacations, serve in the military, and are stationed in foreign countries by their employers.

[Warren G]

Originally Posted by awboy33

I do not know why this discussion is in this thread because racism occurs in every culture and every country not just America. To say that Herman Cain, Clarence Thomas, or any other black public figure who has conservative or libertarian beliefs is a "token" demeans them and implies that they can not think for themselves. What about the black people who are not public figures who have a conservative philosophy? Are they also "tokens"?

Uh...I wasn't saying they were tokens, awboy, I said the teabaggers considered them tokens.

[awboy33]

Originally Posted by mizlaplan

I've been reading the recent posts with interest but I have to confess to not knowing much about how the American political system works.
Could anyone recommend a good book or website for a primer on how America governs itself and some of the key people involved.
Cheers.

Start with wikipedia, it will give you the basics.

In short, the USA is a Constitutional Republic in which our Constitution establishes the form of government as well as every law must adhere to it. We are a republic in that the citizens elect representatives to govern them according to the constitution. Government's power rests with the people.

There are three branches of government, Executive (the President), Legislative (the Congress), and the Judicial (the Supreme Court). There are also two distinct governments, the Federal and the State. Each State also has the same three branches.

Within the Executive Branch, you have the President who then has cabinet members who manage other various departments. The military is part of the Executive branch since the President is considered the Commander-in-Chief. However the President can not declare war, only Congress can do that. This is one of the aspects of the checks and balances of government.

Congress, made up of the House of Representatives and the Senate, controls the purse strings and makes laws. The President is then tasked with implementing and enforcing the laws passed. The President may veto a law but Congress can always override a veto. Another checks and balances.

The Judicial Branch interprets the law. The Courts can declare any law passed by Congress as unconstitutional thus nullifying the law. No law passed by Congress or the States can supplant the Constitution. Another checks and balances.

One big issue that we in the US deal with is the role of the Federal Government. The Constitution places most authority with the States and it says that any authority not specifically given to the Federal Government reside with the States. This is always a sticking point because each state is different and there are always accusations that the Federal government is overstepping their constitutional authority. For instance the issue with the Healthcare Bill where the Federal Government will provide access to healthcare for everyone comes down to, "Is the Federal Government overstepping their authority by placing this mandate on the States?". People in favor of the bill say it is part of the Federal governments role to regulate interstate commerce. Opponents say that the States have the final say and that the Federal government has no authority to require its citizens to purchase a product. The lower courts have ruled in favor of both positions so now it must be decided by the Supreme Court. Right now the law is in effect because it was passed by Congress and signed by the President. If the Supreme Court rules that the Federal Government exceeded their authority then the law can be declared unconstitutional and nullified.

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by Pepper II

Richard Nixon was born in Mexico. It doesn't matter where they were born; it only matters that both parents are US citizens. This is appropriate since people take vacations, serve in the military, and are stationed in foreign countries by their employers.

Um, no, Richard Nixon was not born in Mexico. He was born in Yorba Linda, California.

The Constitution provides only that the President be a "natural born" American citizen. That has been understood to mean "entitled to citizenship by virtue of being born on American soil", but there's really very little jurisprudence on what the phrase means

Originally Posted by US Constitution, Article I

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;

It is not obvious whether "natural born citizen" means "born on US soil". I would say it means "entitled to US citizenship at birth", but others have argued differently.

The 14th Amendment makes it a little more specific

Originally Posted by 14th Amendment

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

This means that people born in the US are certainly "natural born" citizens, but doesn't really make clear the status of children of US citizens born overseas.

The issue has never come up directly, so we don't have a Supreme Court decision.

There's a discussion of the intersection of the Constitution, the 14th Amendment, Federal Code and court decisions, here:

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html

[maildude]

Funny how this whole thread started with a harmless question about parking and bus tolls.

[tygrkhat40]

Originally Posted by blueballsdc

There is an element of racism in some of the criticism of Obama. Yes, there are some members of the Tea Party that are racist, but that doesn't mean that all members of the Tea Party are racist. But this doesn't mean that all criticism of Obama is racist. Some people, my father for one, didn't support Obama because he didn't think he had enough experience.

Some people are opposed to Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann. Others were opposed to Hillary Clinton. Does this make them misogynists?

You are right that some tea partiers have some racists in their midst, others are not. And those opposed to the women you mention are the same. Some are misogynists, some are not.