AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

American citizens did not exist prior to March 4, 1789, because the United States of America did not exist prior to March 4, 1789.

Quinnipiac: Obama Hits 50% Approval | The RCP Blog Home Page
August 6th, 2009
After 6 Months, More View Obama's Presidency as a 'Failure' Than Bush's
Posted by Tom Bevan

A rather surprising finding from the newly released CNN poll. Question three on the national survey of 1,136 adults (which includes an oversample of African-Americans) asks, "Do you consider the first six months of the Obama administration to be a success or a failure?"

Thirty-seven percent (37%) said they believe the Obama administration is a "failure," while 51% consider it a "success" and 11% say it's still "too soon to tell."

An identical question was asked of the Bush administration in an August 2001 CNN/Gallup/USA Today survey. At the time, 56% said the Bush administration was a "success" while only 32% considered it a "failure."
http://realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com/2009/08/06/after-6-months-more-view-obamas-presidency-as-a-failure-than-bushs/

No, I think the Constitution created the nation. The Declaration of Independence was the document declaring intent to do so. A war had to be fought and won to wrest the country away from England. Until that was accomplished, we were an English territory, and even after England gave up, until the Constitution was ratified, there was no official central government but only a group of unaffiliated states.

The Constitution was ratified on March 4, 1789, and we were then officially the United States of America.

No, I think the Constitution created the nation.

However, you must concede that Obama sold the Stimulus bill under the pretext that unemployment would not pass 8%, but only if Congress acted immediately and therefore Congress pushed the bill thru with little to no deliberation. Now the unemployment figures are approaching 10%. So that claim is bust and clearly he failed there

In January, the incoming administration predicted in a white paper study that without a huge stimulus package, unemployment would reach just over 8%, and would be contained at under 8% with a stimulus package.

(When asked about this discrepancy, one of the authors of the study " Jared Bernstein, the top economic adviser to Vice President Biden " recently said that “when we made our initial estimates, that was before we had fourth-quarter results on GDP, which we later found out was contracting at an annual rate of 6 percent, far worse than we expected at that time.” The bottom line, Bernstein said, is that without the stimulus the unemployment rate “would have been between 1.5 and 2 points higher than it otherwise will be.”)

When it became apparent that government under the Articles of Confederation was, in the words of George Washington, little more than the shadow without the substance, agitation for a stronger federal government began. This agitation resulted in the Annapolis Convention of 1786 and the Federal Constitutional Convention of 1787, which drafted the Constitution of the United States. Perhaps the most significant event of the Confederation period was the adoption of the Ordinance of 1787 concerning the Northwest Territory.
http://www.referencecenter.com/ref/reference/ConfederAr/Articles_of_Confederation?invocationType=ar1clk&flv=1

On September 17, 1787, the Constitution was completed in Philadelphia at the Federal Convention, followed by a speech given by Benjamin Franklin who urged unanimity, although they decided only nine states were needed to ratify the constitution for it to go into effect. The Convention submitted the Constitution to the Congress of the Confederation, where it received approval according to Article 13 of the Articles of Confederation.[10]

Once the Congress of the Confederation received word of New Hampshire's ratification, it set a timetable for the start of operations under the Constitution, and on March 4, 1789, the government under the Constitution began operations.

Democrats face hostile homecomings from health care reform critics
(By Janet Hook, Tribune Newspapers, August 6, 2009)

An effigy of Rep. Frank Kratovil was hung outside his office on the Eastern Shore of Maryland. Rep. Steve Kagen of Wisconsin was shouted down by angry constituents. Rep. Tim Bishop of New York had such a raucous experience with critics on Long Island that he is avoiding town hall meetings for more manageable settings.

The spark for the political firestorm surrounding these lawmakers has been President Barack Obama's effort to overhaul the health care system. The debate has gotten especially ugly now that Congress has adjourned for a monthlong summer recess, and critics have mobilized in force.

The intensity of the opposition is a pointed reminder of how hard it will be for Democrats to sell voters on a broad reworking of the health care system, even though they hold commanding majorities in Congress.

At the same time that Democrats are trying to show the need for change, powerful special interests are deep into a campaign to portray the legislation, which is still being written, as a government takeover of health care that will disrupt voters' established relationships with doctors.

Democrats say the disruption of lawmakers' meetings does not reflect broad public opposition to their health care plans. Rather, they say, it is arising from an orchestrated effort by conservative groups, GOP leaders and "astroturf" organizations that claim to represent grass-roots voters but are backed by special interests.

This is hardly the first time that lawmakers' town hall meetings have been swamped with emotional outpourings during a congressional recess. In past years, lawmakers got an earful about cracking down on illegal Immigration and on former President George W. Bush's plan for overhauling Social Security.

Still, the rancor this year is noteworthy.

Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Texas, ran into a group opposed to the Democrats' proposed health care plan Saturday when he tried to hold a constituent meeting at a grocery in Austin. Protesters surrounded him and followed him into the parking lot chanting, "Just say no!"

Protest signs included one with a picture of Doggett sporting devil's horns.

When Sen. Arlen Specter, D-Pa., appeared in Philadelphia on Sunday with Kathleen Sebelius, the Health and Human Services secretary, the pair were heckled by people accusing Specter of not reading the legislation.

When the senator explained that Congress sometimes has to make judgments "very fast," the crowd erupted with derision. Sebelius was hooted down when she tried to defend members of Congress as hardworking.

Americans for Prosperity, a free-market advocacy group, has been leading a conservative coalition that has urged people to confront lawmakers at meetings with questions, such as whether they have read all 1,000-plus pages of the bill.

Kagen, the Wisconsin lawmaker, could hardly get a word in edgewise when he tried to talk about health reform at a constituent meeting. Bishop, of New York, faced such an unruly crowd at a town hall gathering that he has since sought alternative settings to talk to constituents.

Some groups who oppose the Democratic legislation say they want their members to attend the lawmakers' district meetings, but not as a disruptive force.

"We never condone disruptive behavior," said Amy Menefee, spokeswoman for Americans for Prosperity, which claims 700,000 members. "We always tell people to be civil and respectful."

Democratic leaders are warning rank-and-file members of Congress to beware of such efforts; Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., warned his colleagues against getting a "sucker punch" on the issue.

"These are screamers, not rational debaters," said Brendan Daly, spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. "Regular constituents are not getting heard. They shut down any other voice than their own."

Still, there is evidence of genuine public opposition to the Democrats' health plans.

Leslie Kirkeide, a sales representative in Lake Forest, Ill., said in an interview that the concern about the legislation -- and the uncertainty about what it will entail -- is not just a manufactured political force. "People are very upset," she said. "This is the biggest thing Congress has ever tackled."

Organizers of the opposition have "touched a nerve" as the public has started focusing on the potential impact on lives and pocketbooks, said Robert Blendon, a professor of public policy at the Harvard School of Public Health.

"Over time, will my family be better off or worse off?" Blendon said people are asking. "Will it be helping me as well as helping uninsured people?"

A late-July Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll found that support for Obama's health plan had dropped: 42 percent called it a bad idea, while 36 percent said it was a good idea. In mid-June, opinion had been about evenly divided.

You would agree though wouldn't you, that the Articles of Confederation were more like a planning committee or central clearing house rather than having much enforceable authority?

And, in the category of the devil is in the details, I should amend my previous statement to say that we officially began operations as the United States of America under our ratified Constitution on March 4, 1789. (And it wasn't entirely correct of you to say that nothing happened on that date.)

Generally spoken, a nation is group or race of people that share history, traditions and culture, a distinct society.

A nation is not identical to a state.

Nation-state (as in use since French revolution) is used quite commonly, with different meanings, though.

Many states were formed at a point in time when a people sharing a common history, culture, and language discovered a sense of identity and so on. Examples are England and France (being the first nation-states in modern history), or Italy and Germany (only established in 19th century).

To answer your question: a nation are people with common history, culture, language, ethnic origin who live in a particular country or territory.

Foxfyre wrote:

No, I think the Constitution created the nation.

Interesting legal opinion. Certainly not shared by many.

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

No, I think the Constitution created the nation.

Interesting legal opinion. Certainly not shared by many.

What this is based on is ican's statement that Americans didn't exist until the creation of the USA. The Constitution may have created the country we have now but it didn't create America. That is the name of the continent and existed prior to the creation of the US.