New Law Taking Effect Today - Civics Exam

[KittySlayer]

https://my.uscis.gov/en/prep/test/civics/view

20/20, 100% on this one.

19/20. Wish my vision was that good.

 

[way2good4u95]

No grading and no requirement to pass it will just mean that most students will blow it off and fail because they don't care. When a majority of them fail, the media will use it to attack our current legal immigration process.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Honestly, I thought I was being generous. Half of INGO thinks that if you are a Republic, you can't be a Democracy too.

.

You can't. The two as forms of government are mutually exclusive. That does not disparage the system we have constitutionally which establishes a republic with its trademark feature of limited government (as opposed to democracy's inherent unlimited government--tyranny by 51% vote, if you will) which has its offices filled through democratic elections. In other words, the election process is democratic. The government itself isn't, or at least isn't supposed to be, even if this distinction is being deliberately blurred by those who wish to draw freehand without being bothered with the Constitution.

 

[IndyDave1776]

1st time 20/20

2nd time 20/20

3rd time 20/20

Starting to see some repetition so I am giving it up.

 

[rob63]

You can't. The two as forms of government are mutually exclusive.

Democracy simply means that power rests with the people, usually exercised through voting.
A Republic is a form of government that doesn't have a monarch.
They are not mutually exclusive.

That does not disparage the system we have constitutionally which establishes a republic with its trademark feature of limited government

Ancient Rome (509BC-27BC) was a republic, it conquered the entire Mediterranean world

Revolutionary France (1789AD-1799AD) was a republic, it was known for the widespread use of the guillotine.

The Soviet Union (1922-1991) was a republic, it was known for the gulag.

History doesn't support the idea that republics have a trademark of limited government.

(as opposed to democracy's inherent unlimited government--tyranny by 51% vote, if you will)

Since the power in a democracy rests with the people, there is nothing stopping them from having a limited government. It is entirely up to them, there is no "inherent unlimited government" in a democracy. It could certainly work out that way, thus the reason we have a constitution that attempts to place other limits upon the power of the government, but history shows that if any form of government can be said to have a "trademark feature of limited government" it is a democracy.

which has its offices filled through democratic elections. In other words, the election process is democratic.

I'm happy that you agree that we have democratic elections, sort of like... a democracy.

The government itself isn't, or at least isn't supposed to be, even if this distinction is being deliberately blurred by those who wish to draw freehand without being bothered with the Constitution.

I agree that someone is blurring distinctions, although I don't assume evil intentions.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Googling definitions is a weak start.

Democracy is by its nature government by majority vote. It is not possible to have inalienable rights within that context. Your argument that a democracy can choose to be limited is inherently nonsensical. Being limited is an externally imposed boundary, not simply choosing to refrain from some actions.

The DPRK calls itself a republic even though it defies credulity to consider that thought
Further, Little Kim is a monarch in practice if not name.

How could you even make that last statement? Under what conceivable circumstances could some people try to convert a government constitutionally limited to a list of enumerated powers and functions into something reminiscent of Tina Turner whipping up the mob screaming "Bust a deal, face the wheel" WITHOUT nefarious motives?

Last but not least, although I am NOT wrong, if for the sake of the argument I am, so was Benjamin Franklin.

 

[JettaKnight]

No grading and no requirement to pass it will just mean that most students will blow it off and fail because they don't care. When a majority of them fail, the media will use it to attack our current legal immigration process.

Like someone else said, it can still be graded as a quiz in a mandatory civics class.

And if you pass that class (which is mandatory) you should be able to easily pass this test.


PS - Hey Sylvain, what'd you score?

I bet he would even do quite well on it. (Is there a French version, I want to that that one.)

 

[rob63]

Googling definitions is a weak start.

However, it sure beats making up your own. I'll stick with Webster.

Democracy is by its nature government by majority vote. It is not possible to have inalienable rights within that context. Your argument that a democracy can choose to be limited is inherently nonsensical.

No, the history of the world has shown repeatedly that democracies consistently choose to have more limited government than what any other form of rule will choose. People inevitably argue about how limited the government should be, but it makes little sense to insist they can't choose whatever they want.

Being limited is an externally imposed boundary, not simply choosing to refrain from some actions.

We agree that the constitution is the external boundary that limits our democracy, however, having a constitution that spells out a list of individual rights doesn't mean that we are no longer a democracy. We still have the power to elect our leaders and we retain the right to change the constitution, thus, the power still resides with the people. I would agree that in practice we seem to like to give up that power, but it doesn't mean we can't reverse direction so long as we still have elections. The history of republics that didn't have democratic elections to choose the leadership is one of unlimited government power.

The DPRK calls itself a republic even though it defies credulity to consider that thought
Further, Little Kim is a monarch in practice if not name.

So what? I haven't used North Korea as an example of a republic. Straw man arguments are far weaker than using Webster for definitions. The examples I used were, in fact, republics. They were used to demonstrate the incorrectness of your previous assertion that limited government is a trademark feature of republics. The DPRK has nothing to do with it.

How could you even make that last statement?

What statement? You begin a new paragraph with a question, so I have no idea what are you referencing? Little Kim? You brought him up, not me. Another straw man if that is what you were talking about.

Under what conceivable circumstances could some people try to convert a government constitutionally limited to a list of enumerated powers and functions into something reminiscent of Tina Turner whipping up the mob screaming "Bust a deal, face the wheel" WITHOUT nefarious motives?

I don't pretend to know what motivates other people, but, in any case, this has nothing to do with whether republic and democracy are mutually exclusive terms. We remain both a republic and a democracy regardless of what Tina Turner is doing. When I said I didn't assume evil intentions for the blurring of distinctions I was talking about you, not Tina Turner.

Last but not least, although I am NOT wrong, if for the sake of the argument I am, so was Benjamin Franklin.

Huh? I assume you are referencing Franklin's comment "A Republic, if you can keep it." Franklin never said that we are a republic and not a democracy, so he wasn't wrong because he wasn't arguing that the terms are mutually exclusive like you are.

 

[IndyDave1776]

However, it sure beats making up your own. I'll stick with Webster.



No, the history of the world has shown repeatedly that democracies consistently choose to have more limited government than what any other form of rule will choose. People inevitably argue about how limited the government should be, but it makes little sense to insist they can't choose whatever they want.



We agree that the constitution is the external boundary that limits our democracy, however, having a constitution that spells out a list of individual rights doesn't mean that we are no longer a democracy. We still have the power to elect our leaders and we retain the right to change the constitution, thus, the power still resides with the people. I would agree that in practice we seem to like to give up that power, but it doesn't mean we can't reverse direction so long as we still have elections. The history of republics that didn't have democratic elections to choose the leadership is one of unlimited government power.



So what? I haven't used North Korea as an example of a republic. Straw man arguments are far weaker than using Webster for definitions. The examples I used were, in fact, republics. They were used to demonstrate the incorrectness of your previous assertion that limited government is a trademark feature of republics. The DPRK has nothing to do with it.


What statement? You begin a new paragraph with a question, so I have no idea what are you referencing? Little Kim? You brought him up, not me. Another straw man if that is what you were talking about.



I don't pretend to know what motivates other people, but, in any case, this has nothing to do with whether republic and democracy are mutually exclusive terms. We remain both a republic and a democracy regardless of what Tina Turner is doing. When I said I didn't assume evil intentions for the blurring of distinctions I was talking about you, not Tina Turner.



Huh? I assume you are referencing Franklin's comment "A Republic, if you can keep it." Franklin never said that we are a republic and not a democracy, so he wasn't wrong because he wasn't arguing that the terms are mutually exclusive like you are.

Try again.

“

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what they are going to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.” ― Benjamin Franklin.

When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” (Benjamin Franklin)

Jefferson and Adams had a little to share as well...

“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51 percent of the people may take away the rights of the other 49 percent.” (Thomas Jefferson)

“Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never a democracy that did not commit suicide.” (John Adams)

 

[rob63]

Try again.

There really isn't any point in arguing with someone that won't admit that the words mean what the dictionary says that they mean, so I'll stop bothering.

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what they are going to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.” ― Benjamin Franklin.

Sorry, but it is a fake quote. It first appeared in print in 1987. Even if it was legit, it still has nothing to do with whether the words Republic and Democracy are mutually exclusive.

https://checkyourfact.com/2019/05/29/fact-check-democracy-jefferson-adams-franklin-hamilton/

When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” (Benjamin Franklin)

Another fake quote. It can only be traced back to a 1951 column by newspaperman Elmer Peterson.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...ocqueville-did-not-call-2012-election/321393/

For the sake of argument, let's assume that Franklin thought it, even if he didn't say it. Again, the fact that he refers to the nation as a republic, does not mean it is not also a democracy. The new nation had just finished fighting a rebellion against a monarch, it would only be natural that the founders might use the word republic when referring to the new nation since the word refers to a nation without a monarch.

However, we are not discussing whether the nation is a republic. We are discussing your assertion that the words republic and democracy are mutually exclusive. It does not matter how many quotes you can find about republics, I have never claimed that we are not a republic. The nation is most certainly a republic, because it doesn't have a monarch, which is the only thing the word refers to.

You, on the other hand, claim the nation is not a democracy, even though you admit that we have democratic elections. Considering that in your quote, Franklin talks about people voting themselves money, he seems to recognize that we are a democracy as well. If only it was a real quote, he would be agreeing with me.

Jefferson and Adams had a little to share as well...

“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51 percent of the people may take away the rights of the other 49 percent.” (Thomas Jefferson)

Another fake quote. Again, even if it were real, it is not germane to whether republics and democracies are mutually exclusive.

https://www.monticello.org/site/res...cracy-nothing-more-mob-rulespurious-quotation

“Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never a democracy that did not commit suicide.” (John Adams)

Whoo hoo, a real quote! 1 for 4 ain't bad in baseball.

Here is the entire quote, from a letter written in 1814:

“Remember Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes exhausts and murders itself. There never was a Democracy Yet, that did not commit suicide. It is in vain to Say that Democracy is less vain, less proud, less selfish, less ambitious or less avaricious than Aristocracy or Monarchy. It is not true in Fact and no where appears in history. Those Passions are the same in all Men under all forms of Simple Government, and when unchecked, produce the same Effects of Fraud Violence and Cruelty.”

He is comparing democracy to aristocracy and monarchy, not saying that democracy and republics are mutually exclusive. He is simply arguing that there needs to be a check on the passions of men "under all forms of Simple Government." That would include republics, as well as democracies. In fact, considering that he doesn't even mention anything about republics in his statement, while he does talk about the potential evils of an unchecked democracy, the quote is actually evidence he understood the country to be a democracy.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

I was always taught that we (the U.S.) are a "representative republic", which is to say that we democratically elect people to represent us in things like making laws, approving SCOTUS appointees, etc.. With the electoral college, we don't even truly "democratically" elect the president, at least not directly. In a true democracy, it seems to me there would be no need for Congress, other than to present "ideas" to the voting population. Every piece of legislation would be on the ballot. Every judge on the Supreme Court (if it even existed) would be put on a ballot. There would be no such thing as the electoral college. The president would be elected on the basis of the popular vote.

 

[rob63]

I was always taught that we (the U.S.) are a "representative republic", which is to say that we democratically elect people to represent us in things like making laws, approving SCOTUS appointees, etc.. With the electoral college, we don't even truly "democratically" elect the president, at least not directly. In a true democracy, it seems to me there would be no need for Congress, other than to present "ideas" to the voting population. Every piece of legislation would be on the ballot. Every judge on the Supreme Court (if it even existed) would be put on a ballot. There would be no such thing as the electoral college. The president would be elected on the basis of the popular vote.

What name best describes our government is another argument. I will offer my thoughts, but then stay out of it.

My entire point in the previous argument was that the word Republic, both by definition and by historical usage, simply means that your government is not led by a monarch. This was a very significant development in the world of 1776. The world was full of kings, and monarchs by a different name; kaiser, czar, sultan. Today it doesn't really carry the same distinction as it once did, very, very few nations still have a monarch.

I was taught "Representative Democracy" in school, and although to say we are a "Representative Republic" would not be incorrect, I do think "Representative Democracy" is more precise. A democracy, by definition, cannot have a monarch, therefore a democracy is always a republic. I think there is value in describing ourselves as a democracy instead of a republic, because it separates us from other forms of government, such as communism, that can also correctly call themselves a republic because they don't have a monarch. I don't see much distinction in saying you are a republic in a world without monarchs.

However, as you point out, we aren't a direct democracy, thus the additional term "representative" to distinguish further. One can also argue that the word "Constitutional" should be added to distinguish the fact that even our representatives have limits placed upon them. "Constitutional Representative Democracy", just rolls right off of the tongue doesn't it!

I have even seen the term "Federal Democratic Republic" used in old documents before, although the last word seems redundant to me if you use Democratic. I'm also not sure what the word "Federal" adds, other than to distinguish it from the states, but that seems obvious if you are talking about the country as a whole. It was likely a result of the attitudes regarding the role of the states versus the federal government in that era that they felt it needed to be specified.

Interestingly, the preamble to the Constitution doesn't include either the word republic or democracy.

I don't know what the truly best word, or combination of words, is to describe our system. I just want people to stop pretending that the word republic means something other than what it actually means just for the purpose of making fun of people that use the word democracy. Yeah, I know, like that's actually going to happen. Anyway, have a happy 4th!

 

[DoggyDaddy]

What name best describes our government is another argument. I will offer my thoughts, but then stay out of it.

My entire point in the previous argument was that the word Republic, both by definition and by historical usage, simply means that your government is not led by a monarch. This was a very significant development in the world of 1776. The world was full of kings, and monarchs by a different name; kaiser, czar, sultan. Today it doesn't really carry the same distinction as it once did, very, very few nations still have a monarch.

I was taught "Representative Democracy" in school, and although to say we are a "Representative Republic" would not be incorrect, I do think "Representative Democracy" is more precise. A democracy, by definition, cannot have a monarch, therefore a democracy is always a republic. I think there is value in describing ourselves as a democracy instead of a republic, because it separates us from other forms of government, such as communism, that can also correctly call themselves a republic because they don't have a monarch. I don't see much distinction in saying you are a republic in a world without monarchs.

However, as you point out, we aren't a direct democracy, thus the additional term "representative" to distinguish further. One can also argue that the word "Constitutional" should be added to distinguish the fact that even our representatives have limits placed upon them. "Constitutional Representative Democracy", just rolls right off of the tongue doesn't it!

I have even seen the term "Federal Democratic Republic" used in old documents before, although the last word seems redundant to me if you use Democratic. I'm also not sure what the word "Federal" adds, other than to distinguish it from the states, but that seems obvious if you are talking about the country as a whole. It was likely a result of the attitudes regarding the role of the states versus the federal government in that era that they felt it needed to be specified.

Interestingly, the preamble to the Constitution doesn't include either the word republic or democracy.

I don't know what the truly best word, or combination of words, is to describe our system. I just want people to stop pretending that the word republic means something other than what it actually means just for the purpose of making fun of people that use the word democracy. Yeah, I know, like that's actually going to happen. Anyway, have a happy 4th!

What about the Pledge of Allegiance?

 

[rob63]

What about the Pledge of Allegiance?

Ha, nice try, but I said I was going to offer my thoughts and stay out of it, and I meant it.

I will add, though, that if anyone has read what I have written and thinks that I have a problem with calling it a republic, then you have serious reading comprehension issues.