Death Of A President (1 Viewer)

[Adeptus]

The Death Penalty is determined on a state by state basis due to the difference in opinion and public sentiment over such a broad socio-political landscape. The total landmass of the UK is not quite as large as the state of Oregon...we have a little more ground to cover.

Australia has a similar land mass to USA (but far less people... I think there's about the same in the whole country as there is in London ), and important issues such as death penalty are decided by the federal government.
State gov has their say in "lesser" issues, and then local council puts its 2 cents in too...

Interestingly, the state of Western Australia almost wasn't included when Australia became a Federation (and then a Nation).

 

[msp]

A question for the US citizens,

if (in theory) the federal government in the US wanted to abolish the death penalty, throughout the states, could it do it, if so how? – would it have to amend the constitution?

 

[Bodisathva]

if (in theory) the federal government in the US wanted to abolish the death penalty, throughout the states, could it do it, if so how? – would it have to amend the constitution?

The general rule concerning Federal Preemption is the Supremacy Clause which essentially allows that in the absence of a Federal Law, State Law rules. The federally mandated 55mph speed limit was repealed, which then placed the onus of speed limit determination on the individual states. If the Federal Government mandates no executions, it is irrelevant what state laws are on the books since they are superceded by federal law.

 

[msp]

The general rule concerning Federal Preemption is the Supremacy Clause which essentially allows that in the absence of a Federal Law, State Law rules. The federally mandated 55mph speed limit was repealed, which then placed the onus of speed limit determination on the individual states. If the Federal Government mandates no executions, it is irrelevant what state laws are on the books since they are superceded by federal law.

So if the federal govement repealed the death penalty the individual states would autmatically not have the option of the death penalty..

 

[Bodisathva]

So if the federal govement repealed the death penalty the individual states would autmatically not have the option of the death penalty..

no, the Federal Government would actually have to enact a law specifically stating no death penalty. In the absence of a Federal Law, State Law rules, so there would actually have to be a Federal Mandate preventing the death penalty.

 

[Kraj]

Brief synopsis

Table 1 Residents born inside and outside the UK by ethnic group
Ethnic group % born in UK % born outside UK
White 87.2 12.8
Black Caribbean 53.2 46.8
Black African 35.7 64.3
Black Other 84.1 15.9
Indian 36.4 63.6
Pakistani 45.1 54.9
Bangladeshi 35.0 65.0
Chinese 25.5 74.4
Other Asian 20.7 79.3
Other 53.3 46.7
All ethnic groups 78.3 21.7

So.... you're making a comparisson between two countries based on numbers from only one country? Hmmmmm....

 

[Matty]

After digging around, here's the closest comparison I could find:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_England_from_the_2001_United_Kingdom_census
This article discusses the Demographics of England as presented by the United Kingdom Census in 2001.

* Ethnicity
o White: 90.9%
o Indian: 2.1%
o Pakistani: 1.4%
o Mixed: 1.4%
o Black Caribbean: 1.1%
o Black African: 0.9%
o Chinese: 0.4%
o Black Other: 0.2%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States
According to the Census Bureau, as of 2005, America's racial composition is:

* White American, 80.4%, or about 238.3 million, (the definition of White includes people of European, North African, West Asian, and Central Asian (e.g., Turkic) ancestry; and Hispanic people who are White or reported "some other race" in the 2000 census)
* Black or African American 12.8% or 37.9 million,
* Asian American 4.2% or 12.4 million,
* American Indian 1% or 2.9 million
* Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 0.2% or 0.6 million,
* Two or more races 1.5% or 4.5 million

The figures above include people who declare mixed race or multiracial ancestry, and/or who identify themselves as Hispanic. As of the 2000 Census, U.S. federal law defines Hispanic to indicate any person with an ancestral connection to Spain (for most Hispanic Americans, the connection is indirect, through Latin America). The category includes Sephardic Jews, and speakers of Ladino are classified with Spanish speakers in the U.S. Census.

* Hispanics of any race 14.1% or about 41.8 million

 

[jsanders]

Josey wake up, we've already concluded that it's the number of different groups and not the total numbers that we're discussing, try and stay with us

A “different” group would consist of less people in the UK. So the stats are off. Obviously you didn't read my post.

 

[jsanders]

After digging around, here's the closest comparison I could find:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_England_from_the_2001_United_Kingdom_census
This article discusses the Demographics of England as presented by the United Kingdom Census in 2001.

* Ethnicity
o White: 90.9%
o Indian: 2.1%
o Pakistani: 1.4%
o Mixed: 1.4%
o Black Caribbean: 1.1%
o Black African: 0.9%
o Chinese: 0.4%
o Black Other: 0.2%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States
According to the Census Bureau, as of 2005, America's racial composition is:

* White American, 80.4%, or about 238.3 million, (the definition of White includes people of European, North African, West Asian, and Central Asian (e.g., Turkic) ancestry; and Hispanic people who are White or reported "some other race" in the 2000 census)
* Black or African American 12.8% or 37.9 million,
* Asian American 4.2% or 12.4 million,
* American Indian 1% or 2.9 million
* Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 0.2% or 0.6 million,
* Two or more races 1.5% or 4.5 million

The figures above include people who declare mixed race or multiracial ancestry, and/or who identify themselves as Hispanic. As of the 2000 Census, U.S. federal law defines Hispanic to indicate any person with an ancestral connection to Spain (for most Hispanic Americans, the connection is indirect, through Latin America). The category includes Sephardic Jews, and speakers of Ladino are classified with Spanish speakers in the U.S. Census.

* Hispanics of any race 14.1% or about 41.8 million

Those are two different charts: one is race the other is race/origin.

I can’t believe this discussion hasn’t been conceded yet (by the British of course). This is so obviously a discussion on the interpretation and corruption of statistics that it surpasses all logic.

 

[nikkypickles]

Statistics can be interpreted to show whatever you want them to show. Any politician (or their spin doctor) can tell you that

 

[jsanders]

Those are two different charts: one is race the other is race/origin.

I can’t believe this discussion hasn’t been conceded yet (by the British of course). This is so obviously a discussion on the interpretation and corruption of statistics that it surpasses all logic.

It reminds me of the war of 1812. They just don't seem to get it.

 

[Bodisathva]

It reminds me of the war of 1812. They just don't seem to get it.

Maybe if they remember that the total composition is more akin to the entirety of Europe...

...and then consider how well that whole EU thing is working for them

 

[Kraj]

Joe, did you just quote and respond to yourself?

 

[Brianwarnock]

It reminds me of the war of 1812. .

We just wanted to give you an excuse to paint the president's office and give it a snappy name.

Brian

 

[msp]

no, the Federal Government would actually have to enact a law specifically stating no death penalty. In the absence of a Federal Law, State Law rules, so there would actually have to be a Federal Mandate preventing the death penalty.

Thanks..
why did Prohibition have to be an amendment to the constitution and not just a law passed banning alcohol?

 

[Bodisathva]

Thanks..
why did Prohibition have to be an amendment to the constitution and not just a law passed banning alcohol?

It is the responsibility of the Federal Courts to interpret the Constitution and thereby make Federal Law. Without a judicial ruling by a Federal Court, there cannot be a Federal Law. Essentially, someone, (in the case of prohibition, the Woman's Christian Temperance Union and/or the Prohibition Party for example) would have to bring action against a manufacturer/distributor of "intoxicating alcoholic beverages" and the Federal Court would have to interpret the Constitution to mean prohibition was the original intent of the system. Since no possible connection could be made, an amendment was necessary to bring prohibition in to being. Even though the 18th amendment enacted prohibition and set precedence, the subsequent repeal by the 21st amendment negates any further interpretations along those same lines.

 

[Kraj]

Thanks..
why did Prohibition have to be an amendment to the constitution and not just a law passed banning alcohol?

That's a good question and I'm having a tough time finding a definitive answer but here's my educated guess: the federal government (ie., Congress) only gets to make laws concerning the topics specifically assigned to it by the Constitution. Everything else is controlled by the individual states. My guess is at the time Congress did not have the power to simply make a law governing the sale and consumption of liquor, so they had to change the Constitution.

As to exactly why a Federal law wouldn't have done the trick, I just don't know.

 

[jsanders]

Joe, did you just quote and respond to yourself?

Yup, I'm trying to mimic reality. One of the voices or another is always answering it self. It gets damned confusing.

 

[Bodisathva]

That's a good question and I'm having a tough time finding a definitive answer but here's my educated guess: the federal government (ie., Congress) only gets to make laws concerning the topics specifically assigned to it by the Constitution. Everything else is controlled by the individual states. My guess is at the time Congress did not have the power to simply make a law governing the sale and consumption of liquor, so they had to change the Constitution.

As to exactly why a Federal law wouldn't have done the trick, I just don't know.

...am I on someone's ignore list

 

[jsanders]

That's a good question and I'm having a tough time finding a definitive answer but here's my educated guess: the federal government (ie., Congress) only gets to make laws concerning the topics specifically assigned to it by the Constitution. Everything else is controlled by the individual states. My guess is at the time Congress did not have the power to simply make a law governing the sale and consumption of liquor, so they had to change the Constitution.

As to exactly why a Federal law wouldn't have done the trick, I just don't know.

I think you and Bodi have it almost correct.

First off I don’t believe the courts have any thing to do with “making” law, they (higher courts) exist to review and interpret its constitutionality.

So congress; in anticipation of a considerable national challenge to the laws associated with prohibition, opted to amend the constitution.

Actually it was quite an amazing feat when you consider that it takes a super majority in congress and ratification by, I believe, 60 percent of the states.