Dave's ESL Cafe's Student Discussion Forums

[ieltsinsider]

FYI Manuel

Ammendment XV of the Constitution of the United States, ratified in 1870.

"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."

[flying_pig319]

[ClarissaMach]

Ieltsinsider, I think we agree more than disagree over this question. Like you, I do believe the world owes a lot to America; but not when it comes to her military actions.

You say:

[Manuel]

It must sound odd to you that we are talking about America in this board and not about another country; this topic is called THE UNITED STATES. Maybe now you will find the answer to this strange coincidence. You can propose a board called "China", "Russia", "Burkina Faso", "Mongolia", and we can talk about those countries, even the bad things of them.

About Flakland/Malvinas, I�m not keen on democracy only when it suits me. I have already said that the territorial conflict is older than the moment when the British settled their colonies. So, giving the islanders the right to vote over this international conflict would be arbitrary, because one of the parts (Argentina) wouldn�t be represented, because all the voters would be British. We were talking about a country taking control of somebody else territory, putting its people there, and making them to decide over a territory in a conflict which involves two countries. You see, I�m defending democracy.

I would love to live in a world in which democracy is everywhere. And in many cases I have to thank the USA for their actions. I also think that a war between two democracies would happen very seldom.
But now I�m talking about USA�s actions in the present. I accept that America has a great amount of oil under its "floor" that will last for many years. Maybe they don�t take a lot of oil from the Middle East. But there�s something called future, and in the future there will be a huge lack of petrol. Don�t you think that it is strange that the countries where America brought democracy are countries with a very big oil potential? If they wanted security to the world, why did they supported Saddam years ago? My point is that if America wants to be the sheriff of the world, then they shouldn�t follow their dirty interests.

And if you read the news, you would find out that America has a law which garantees the right to vote for black people, but it needs to be renovated because if not it expires. Bush decided to extend this law for another 25 years, but he didn�t perpetuate it. That doesn�t sound very good. Are black people considered less citizens than the rest?

I agree in a lot of things with you, but there are certain topics in which I can�t feel the same way. And I have read all of your posts, but they don�t convince me , and that�s why I reply.

[ClarissaMach]

Wait a moment!

I guess I hadn't understood something till this moment:

Is there a law to allow Black people to vote in America? I mean, Black people need to be allowed to vote by a law???

And can this law simply expire?

Please, be honest, is it really true? (By no means I'm suggesting I don't trust you guys; but it's just SO MUCH UNBELIEVABLE. . .)
_________________
Stormy Weather.

[flying_pig319]

[CP]

There is no expiration date on the right to vote, and no law is necessary to ensure it, since the Constitution as amended guarantees that all citizens 18 and over may vote.

I would like to know where Manuel got his strange idea.
_________________
You live a new life for every new language you speak. -Czech proverb

[BourneNOIR]

[ieltsinsider]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the consititution the 'highest' legal document in the USA? So, why can't I quote from it to show that a law exists giving black people the right to vote? I'm getting a little annoyed at people telling me what evidence I can and cannot use. If it's irrelevant, discount it with a sensible argument in a post. Some people here whine on about GWB limiting people's freedoms, when they seem to enjoy doing it themselves.

I will continue to use examples from around the world, Manuel, since my whole argument is that the USA is not a perfect country and GWB is far from being a perfect leader, BUT the USA does a lot better than most other countries and it is at least TRYING to do the right thing, whereas many countries, especially those that criticise the USA, do nothing or simply try to prevent the USA from doing anything. I find it amazing that so many people view the world as black and white. In my experience, people and countries have good and bad points.

Oil. Why hasn't the USA invaded Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, or Canada? I know the answers are obvious, but it will make me feel much better to see the words.

If America shouldn't follow its own 'dirty' interests, whose should it follow?

FYI, Manuel. According to your Falklands/Malvinas argument, descendents of Europeans can't vote in South America. Whoops!!!

Clarissa, thank you, thank you , thank you. "What no one will make me [to] believe ..." You have already closed your mind to all alternative arguments! THIS is the real problem.

The USA certainly backed Saddam - at a time when Saddam wasn't anti-American and was useful to the USA in preventing Iran invading almost the whole Middle East. This is what I've been saying. International politics is a dirty game - but it's a game that everyone plays. At risk of inciting Manuel, France, Germany, Italy, and even the Soviet Union, all backed Saddam. There's nothing 'strange' about why these countries stopped supporting Saddam. He started being anti-Western. He started saying that Iraq should have nuclear weapons. If I understand you, you are suggesting that the USA is responsible for things that other people do. So people aren't responsible for their own actions any more? That's right, blame America for everything!!

[ieltsinsider]

Clarissa - I can't find your solution. Please direct me or post it again.

[flying_pig319]

[ClarissaMach]

Ietsinsider,
No, I haven�t closed my mind yet for new ideas. I�m too Brazilian to do so. I want you to try to convince me that Mr. GWB is fostering the crisis in the Middle East in the name of nothing else but democracy. Please, go ahead, try to convince me.

To be honest with you, I think I haven�t understood your point of view yet. So we should not criticize the American foreign policy because any other country would do the same if it had the possibility of doing so? Please, correct me if I got it wrong. I would criticize any nation doing the same, even if it was my own country.

My point of view is that any strong nation oppressing small ones should be watched close and criticized if it�s necessary to do so. Recently there was a crisis between Brazil and Bolivia concerning Petrobras, the Brazilian Oil and Gas State Company. The Bolivian president, Evo Morales, decided to nationalize his country�s oil and gas reserves. People got mad at him here in Brazil, but you know what? Despite being Brazilian, I think the man had strong reasons to do what he did. He simply did what we, Brazilians, would like to do in other sectors of our economy, if we had the courage to do so.

BourneNoir, thanks for the correct data.



PS.: Ieltsinsider, thanks for correcting the [to]. I know it must be a pain in the neck, but please, if you guys see any crass mistake or confusing phrases/ passages in the texts I write, correct me! I wish I could write as well as you do, but I still have a lot to learn.
_________________
Stormy Weather.

[CP]

To answer Ieltsinsider's question:

"Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the consititution the 'highest' legal document in the USA? So, why can't I quote from it to show that a law exists giving black people the right to vote? I'm getting a little annoyed at people telling me what evidence I can and cannot use. If it's irrelevant, discount it with a sensible argument in a post. Some people here whine on about GWB limiting people's freedoms, when they seem to enjoy doing it themselves."

The Constitution is often called "the law of the land" or "the highest law," and it is the law, in the sense that it is a set of principles and rules that we must follow -- or more exactly, that the government must follow. In theory, we the people all enjoy untrammeled freedom, but the government is allowed to curb it within the confines of the Constitution. The U.S. Constitution and the individual state constitutions are blueprints for restrictions of rights that the people have imposed on themselves.

The actual laws are those passed by the Congress (federal law) and by the various state legislatures (state law) in the form of statutes; and case law, that is, published opinions by the state and federal appellate courts and by the U.S. Supreme Court, the highest court in the land.

It is the trial and appellate courts' job to determine how the statutes and the body of judge-made law (also called the common law) apply to disputes and controversies case by case. If a legislative body passes a law that violates the Constitution, or if a trial court decides a case in such a way as to violate someone's constitutional rights, the matter can be appealed to higher and higher courts until ultimately the U.S. Supreme Court hears it.

The U.S. Supreme Court's (there are also state supreme courts) job is to decide constitutional questions. Does this law violate the separation of powers? Does that court decision impermissibly violate the right of free speech? Did that local ordinance violate someone's right to vote?

Then the U.S. Supreme Court's decision becomes the law of the land. But even those decisions are fair game for future disputes, and they can be overturned or modified by future decisions.

If the president doesn't like a decision, he can ask the Congress to pass a new law, and the Congress may or may not comply. Of course, ordinary voters may also ask Congress to pass new laws, and they do ask every day. If the new law is passed, it might be challenged as unconstitutional by someone whose rights are curtailed by it. The much-maligned ACLU often takes on the cases, challenging the laws that violate the Constitution, whether they favor cute, cuddly kittens or ugly, hate-mongering neo-Nazis -- yes, even Hitler himself would be allowed to express his hateful views here and now -- because the Constitution is more important than today's politics.

It is also true, as Ieltsinsider mentioned, that people are sometimes willing to give up their rights, and certainly presidents -- Bush is a prime example here -- sometimes urge the people to give up their rights, usually in exchange for security, safety. Trust the president and the entire executive branch to make the law (that's the Congress's job) and to interpret and decide whether it is valid (that's the Supreme Court's job).

But that's against the Constitution, violating the separation of powers. The few who are willing to sacrifice freedom for security have no right to decide for everyone else that the Constitution should be changed to impose more restrictions than it already has, and neither does the president.

If the Constitution is to be changed, it is up to the elected members of Congress to do it, hopefully with the backing of the majority of the people, and hopefully on in the very rare occasion that an amendment is actually necessary.
_________________
You live a new life for every new language you speak. -Czech proverb

[Manuel]

Here is the source. The newspaper is in Spanish and is a very reliable source. It gets the information from AP (Associated Press), an international agency. I mention this last thing because "international" seems to be a synonymus of "reliable" for you. I usually trust in Argentina�s newspapers.
Constitution IS the highest law of every democratic country, and that�s why I got shocked when I read this article. I�m happy that it turned out to be incorrect.

Ieltsisinder
About the Falklands/Malvinas forum (something that we shouldn�t be arguing here), you have an incorrect opinion; you see, the European inmigrants are nationalized as Southamericans, so, as citizens, they have the right to vote. If you want to extend this subject, please, let�s continue on the correct board, or send me a pm.

I think that every country should follow a common interest. Or in the worst case, every country should follow their interests in a way which doesn�t affect other nations.

Please, could you cut with your hateful way of writing? I often think that you use this to victimize America. I have already said that I don�t hate America, but I entered this conversation in a moment of confrontation. I�ll be glad to talk about other countries "blacks and whites" and "shades of grey", even of my country.

[ieltsinsider]

Thanks for the (lengthy!) info on the constitution. It's pretty much what I thought was the case.

Manuel, of course you wonder why the USA hasn't invaded Canada, Venezuela and Saudi Arabia. The reason is simple. You think that the USA ONLY invades countries for their oil. These examples prove that that is untrue. Sure, oil is ONE of the reasons that GWB went into Iraq. It is NOT the ONLY reason. People who dumb the whole debate down to a simplistic "No blood for oil" argument are being, well ... dumb and simplistic.

My example of the Falklands IS relevant, as I have said before, because it is an example of a group of people living in a territory who want something and you are arguing that they should be denied that right. My point is that if you create a world with democracy, you will be a lot closer to world peace (no wars between democracies).

Clarissa - I honestly don't know how to make my position clearer. In my posts, I have pointed out that whilst America makes mistakes, so does everyone else. However, people here don't criticise other countries, only America.

Adding to that point, I gave a list of options that GWB had. He chose one. You haven't even said which one you would have chosen. Your criticisms of America/GWB are therefore not constructive, since you do not offer an alternative.

Back to Manuel. "I think that every country should follow a common interest." Countries that have commmon interests DO work together (e.g. the EU, NATO, ASEAN, OPEC, MercoSul), but what happens when their interests are different? Since countries do not usually consider themselves subject to the laws of other countries, this reduces your scope for action quite a lot.

When GWB says that he went into Iraq to spread democracy, you say, "No, you didn't." OK, let's apply this logic to you. You say you believe in democracy. I say "No, you don't." Therefore, Manuel does not believe in democracy. Now let's apply your logic to me. I say America is better than some other countries. Someone says "No, it isn't." They must be right!