Posted on 07/03/2003 11:49:21 AM PDT by Lurking Libertarian
A) Congress had no way to impose taxes and raise money. B) There was nothing that compelled the members of Congress to show up for work. C) The states had far too much power. D) All of the above.
Answer: D
I take offense at this answer... why is Congress having "no way to impose taxes" a "problem"?
A) Congress had no way to impose taxes and raise money. B) There was nothing that compelled the members of Congress to show up for work. C) The states had far too much power. D) All of the above."
What exactly was the problem there?
A) Ivy League college. B) State. C) Party. D) Sexual orientation.
None of the above!
From the 12th ammendment:
The electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves;
The electors from a state cannot vote for both President and VP from their own state. That means that if VP Cheney had been a Texas resident, Texas' electors could have voted for Bush to be president, but they would have selected another person to be VP. Then because of the tight election, the Senate would have ended up picking the VP.
A) A bunch of rich white guys. B) The people. C) State legislatures. D) A and C.
Answer: D
Just because the state legislatures were comprised of "rich white guys" doesn't mean that was part of the debate. The state legislatures elected the Senators, if a state decided to have only poor black women in the legislature, then they would elect the senators.
It amazes me, ok it doesn't really, how they manage to interject their liberal leaning, anti-American, Founding Fathers are evil mentality into something as begien as a simple otherwise factual quiz.
A) Congress had no way to impose taxes and raise money. B) There was nothing that compelled the members of Congress to show up for work. C) The states had far too much power. D) All of the above."
What exactly was the problem there?
Are you implying that the Constitution was unnecessary? Keep in mind that the primary issue behind the Constitution was maintaing the Union while protecting the rights of citizens. It was clear that the Articles of Confederation were not going to do that. The biggest failures of the Articles were that they ultimatly had no authority over the states. The states were not compelled to listen to anything the central government called for; including recongizing the rights of citizens of other states, allow trade between states, ensuring the rights of citizens, etc.
In order to improve this system they had to have a stronger central government, that could compel the states on certain issues, but would remain subservant on others. In order to have a government capable of action they have to have money, thus they must have a way to tax. But the writers of the Constitution were wearing of direct taxes upon the people and preferred taxation of the states, according to population size.
Obviously, the Constition (as it was orignally written) was a much better system, that does address points A and C, without falling into the pit of unreasonable taxation or overwhelming central power. Of course, it has been preturbed, amended (16th), twisted and re-interpreted over the years so that it has swung too far the other direction, but A and C are absolutly correct.
As for choice B...
I see how that could have been an issue under the old system. But with the central government having some real influnce it would not be in anyone's interest to just not send representatives to Congress. The state governments and the people would not tolerate a congressman the just blew off his responsiblity and his tenure in Congress would be short lived.
Of course, given the way things are today, I agree with you and don't see a problem with any of these things.
It doesn't amaze me but it saddens me. I usually print interesting historical quizzes out and bring them to the local tavern to educate and enlighten the sheeple, but this piece of garbage is going right into the trashbin where it belongs.
Anwer #76 tells you all you need to know about liberal rags. Why isn't this paper celebrating what actually happened in 1776 (hint-in Philadelphia) on July 4th, instead of the Constitution? DUH.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.