Talk:United States/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Previous archive page is Talk:United States/Archive 4

Next archive page is Talk:United States/Archive 6

1 China is the US's 3rd largest trading partner.
2 federal precedence??
3 Constant Article Problems
4 Some questions about the reversion debate
5 Official Language
6 day begins on Guam?
7 Human rights
8 McDonald's

China is the US's 3rd largest trading partner.

In the economy section a paragraph reads: "The largest trading partner of the United States is its northern neighbor, Canada. Other major partners are Mexico, the European Union and the industrialized nations in Asia, such as Japan, India and South Korea. Trade with China is also significant." This implies that trade with China is less than the others. In fact, China is now the US's 3rd largest trading partner (at least when trade with the EU is broken down by country): http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/top/dst/2004/08/balance.html Suggest the wording is changed to remedy this ambiguity. How about:

"The largest economic trade partners of the United States are: its northern neighbor, Canada; the very worthy whatever-country-is-second and China, which enjoys 'most-favored nation' status with the U.S. Other major partners are Mexico, the European Union and the industrialized nations in Asia, such as Japan, India and South Korea."

Acceptable?Pedant 00:32, 2004 Oct 22 (UTC)

federal precedence??

"The United States of America consists of fifty states with limited autonomy in which federal law takes precedence over state law. "

this is either meaningless, or false. Cite a source or remove it, please. According to whom and in what sense does a State have limits on it's autonomy? In what way does federal law take precedence over State Law. What is meant by State Law? Federal Law?

I would prefer :

"The United States of America is a federation of fifty interdependent States, each with exclusive jurisdiction over all issues, the jurisdiction of which has not been ceded by the State to the Federal government."Pedant 17:31, 2004 Oct 16 (UTC)

"The United States of America is a federation of fifty sovereign states. Federal law takes precedence over state law, but states theoretically have jurisdiction over all issues not specifically addressed in the United States Constitution." - Calmypal 18:16, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)

still not quite.. better, but not quite. It's specifically stated that the states retain control over everything not ceded to the U.S govt...

how about: "The United States of America is a federation of fifty Sovereign States. Federal law takes precedence over State law, with repect to international relations and Interstate commerce. In other matters, States have jurisdiction over matters unless that jurisdiction has been ceded to the United States, a federal action that invades a State's protected interests can be challenged in court".

comment?Pedant 01:00, 2004 Oct 22 (UTC)

It is, I think, inappropriate to declare the states "sovereign," for such a position is at the very least debatable. -- Emsworth 20:29, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think it's more correctly characterized as "wrong" than "debatable". States can't make treaties, alliances, coin money, declare war, or adopt an other-than-republican form of government, which sovereign entities can. - Nunh-huh 01:35, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That's true, in the sense in which "sovereign" is used in international law. The reference to U.S. states as sovereign isn't completely wrong, though -- at least one judge has used the phrase ([1]). (in an offhand manner and not in the process of actually assessing sovernty of a state! --Nunh-huh 05:55, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)) The states have some of the aspects of "the sovereign" under English common law, and they also have some rights that even the federal government can't abridge. On the other hand, Pedant's suggested language conveys a sense of a very limited federal government; the description might have been roughly accurate before the Civil War but gives a misleading picture of the current situation. Another possible version:

"The United States of America is a federation of fifty States. Each state exercises autonomy in some matters but, in the event of a dispute, actions of the federal government can generally override those of a state."

The intricacies of untangling the respects in which the states are sovereign and those in which they aren't is best left to the article on Political divisions of the United States. I would just omit the word "sovereign" from the discussion of the states in the United States article.

As for Pedant's request for a source for the proposition that federal law takes precedence, it's a little late to be arguing the issue of federal supremacy. The basic doctrine was expounded by the Supreme Court in McCulloch v. Maryland in 1819. The only question at this point is drawing the exact boundaries, e.g., can federal minimum-wage legislation be applied to employees of state governments. Here's an example of an analysis of one recent court decision holding that the federal Airline Deregulation Act could prohibit states from applying their tort law to airlines, and a more general discussion of federal supremacy. JamesMLane 03:00, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Addendum: Looking more carefully, I see that the introduction already says, "The country has fifty states, which have a level of local autonomy according to the system of federalism." That's probably enough coverage of the subject for this article. I've added a little more detail to the U.S. state article. JamesMLane 18:24, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Constant Article Problems

This article seems to be locked half of the time. Would it not make sence to permanently lock it? It's a conterversial article no mater how well written it is. Pellaken 20:27, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

A permanent lock goes against the ideals of Wikipedia. Furthermore, to permanently lock it would be an official endorsement by the management of a particular version of the article. --Golbez 21:32, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

Would it not make sence to permanently lock it? I say it should be permanently unlocked. :) jengod 21:34, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

Some questions about the reversion debate

1. So, is the U.S. more fairly called a "capitalist" economy or a "mixed" economy? I think we should say something like:

The economy of the United States is often described as primarily capitalist, while others refer to it as a mixed economy.

2. Is there government regulation in "many industries" or "virtually every industry"? What industries, for example, are not regulated? Not to sound like Ron Paul or anything, but I can't think of any.

3. Does the Constitution "provide extensive rights for their citizens" or "state that citizens are granted the rights of. . ."? A careful reading shows that the Constitution doesn't really give any rights to anyone; it declares that they exist, and forbids the government from abridging them.

Comments? – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 01:55, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

Pedant:points 1,2,3, above:

1:I don't know. seems capitalist to me, not qualified to say...

2:I would compromise by saying "the majority of industries", I don't want to attract the govt's attention to the few unregulated industries there are... and it depends on what you mean by industry, is that a 'term of art' or is that a regular English phrase?

3:the constitution recognises that there are inherent rights, Vested Rights, specifically states that there are more than are listed in the constitution and specifically states that they 'shall not be abridged', I would prefer this wording:

...The Declaration of Independence recognizes many rights as being "unalienable". These rights, known as Vested Rights, with which each Citizen, according to the Declaration, is "Endowed by Our Creator". These rights, (among which) "are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" are not exhaustively listed in either the Declaration or Constitution, furthermore, it is implied that there exist other rights which are not mentioned but which are equally protected. In article 1 through 10 of the US Constitution (also known as the Bill of Rights), some of the more important of these rights are specifically recognised as guaranteed to the Citizen...

I don't have the constitution or declaration in front of me, but I think that's substantially correct... could likely be worded better, if someone likesPedant 01:30, 2004 Oct 22 (UTC)

The Declaration of Independence has no legal force and shouldn't be mentioned in this context. (One of the more detailed articles could note the passages in the Declaration that reflected the Revolutionary leaders' opposition to any governmental intrusion upon basic individual rights.) With regard to the Constitution, one way to reword the current text to take account of the point you make would be:

The United States Constitution includes a Bill of Rights that guarantees certain individual rights, including freedom of speech, freedom of religion, trial by jury, and protection from "cruel and unusual punishment". In addition, courts have recognized some additional rights found within the "penumbra" of the enumerated rights.

My inclination, however, would be to omit the second sentence, relegating the discussion of that concept to the separate article on Human rights in the United States. A better choice for the United States article, which should be just a summary, would be to improve the reference to the Bill of Rights. Points that occur to me are: Trial by jury is important but is only one of a bundle of procedural protections in criminal cases, with the right to counsel and the right to confront the evidence against one (no secret evidence) being more important IMO; trial by jury in civil cases is a separate issue but isn't worth mention in this summary; the summary should include the Due Process Clause, which applies in criminal cases but which also applies in a host of other vital areas, so that, for example, people are entitled to a hearing before their welfare benefits are cut off, because "welfare provides the means to obtain essential food, clothing, housing, and medical care." Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970). JamesMLane 20:14, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

1. I don't see the argument for "mixed economy". If the US has a mixed economy, so does every other country in the world.

2. Why is this even mentioned? There's no country in the world in which industries are totally unregulated.

3. The word "extensive" has to go. It was inserted as a POV device to neutralise factual comments about criticism of the US's record on human rights. There's no evidence that the US in general (to say nothing of its constitution in particular) provides more extensive rights than any number of other countries. Similarly, the claim that the US is extremely liberal about immigration is false. Numerous countries, among them Germany and Canada, are far ahead of the US in immigration per capita. The US is also selective about the immigrants it takes: any number from tiny Ireland, for example, but no more than 20,000 per year from China or India. Again, this comment was inserted for POV reasons and must be removed. Shorne 04:35, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

1. The U.S. has a mixed economy compared with, for example, the much more strictly capitalist economy that the U.S. had in the nineteenth century. On the other hand, the mix in the U.S. tends more toward the capitalistic and free-market than does the mix in many other industrialized countries.

2. Economic regulation is even harder to present succinctly. U.S. regulation varies among industries and, to some extent, among states. An overall "average", even if somehow made meaningful, would show regulation that was more extensive than in some countries but less extensive than in others. I don't know if we can hit the highlights so as to convey important information with burying the reader in details.

This is meaningless if not backed with data. We cannot just assert it. Shorne 11:40, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

3. I agree that "extensive" (about rights) is extremely problematical, but there are some real differences to be noted. Even vis-a-vis the most obvious standards of comparison -- other OECD countries -- there are respects in which governmental power is more restricted in the U.S., such as criminal procedures and freedom of speech and religion. (An example is the recent Muslim head scarf case in France. I think Chirac himself was leading the charge for prohibiting the hijab in public buildings. In the U.S., a school district that tried the same thing had to back down and fork over some cash besides, for violating the student's First Amendment rights. See [2], although that source says that a rule prohibiting all head coverings would have been permissible, which I'm not sure is correct.) As for immigration, what's the basis for your statement that the U.S. will admit "any number from tiny Ireland"? My understanding (which may be out of date) is that: (1) all countries are treated alike for employment-based immigrant visas, so that, currently, anyone qualifying can enter immediately; (2) all countries are treated alike for family-sponsored immigrant visas, with the result that the waiting periods are longer for India, Mexico and the Philippines (because of high demand) but identical for all other countries; and (3) the Diversity Immigrant visa program provides extra visas, by lottery, to facilitate immigration to the U.S. from countries other than the traditional sources of immigration, with a special provision for Nicaragua. I don't know how much of this detail we want to get into, but certainly the article shouldn't convey the impression that the exclusion of Asians, which was established in the 1920s, is still in effect. JamesMLane 05:45, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't want to get into a lengthy argument about the limits on governmental power in various countries, but I think you're going rather far in saying that the US respects the freedom of religion more than other countries do. Such laws and court rulings as do exist (such as the one banning prayers and other Christian proselytising at the high-school graduation ceremonies of public schools) are honoured more in the breach than in the observance. As for immigration, your information is largely correct, but you omit the fact that green cards for people on an H-1B visa are limited to 7% per country of the total (140,000, the last time I checked). That means that a tiny country like Iceland or Luxembourg (populations in the hundreds of thousands) gets the same number of green cards as a huge one like China or India (populations over one billion). Indeed, tens of thousands of green cards go unassigned every year because of these restrictions (not enough people from the smaller countries apply for green cards), while people from China and India are forced to leave the US when their visas expire. No, it's not on a par with the overtly racist exclusion of Asians that existed in law only a few decades ago, but nor is it consistent with the claim that the US is extremely liberal about immigration. Several other countries are ahead of the US in per-capita immigration, and I read not long ago that Germany, despite its much smaller size, is ahead of the US in absolute numbers. Shorne 11:40, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Isn't it true that most countries have quite conservative, explicitly ethnic or nationalist, immigration policies, so that we can at least say that America, along with the EU, Canada, and some similar countries, has a comparatively liberal immigration regime? - Nat Kraus e 13:40, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, this is obviously true. Very few countries have policies of taking non-negligible numbers of immigrants at all. See Immigration. Of them, the U.S. easily takes the largest number. Yet efforts to point this simple fact out are being endlessly reverted. I even toned down the language considerably to make it more "cold", and still the reversions continue. Plus the garbage about McDonald's keeps returning (as I have clearly said before, it is foreign encroachment, not detached opposition to "capitalism" (in France!), that could only reasonably be said to drive opposition). Very Verily 00:06, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sweden has a mixed economy as do Russia, India, and the People's Republic of China. The US with only a few socialized industries such as mail delivery does not. Fred Bauder 13:49, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

Five people are now reverting your POV, VV. Please stop. –Cantus…☎ 16:04, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, VV, five people are against you, so you must be wrong. - Nat Kraus e 03:16, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That's a good point. I've never heard of five people being wrong about anything. Very Verily 03:19, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, how about using some references and focusing on one point at a time rather than a whole package. For example, that McDonald's thing, I don't think the article's language quite reflects whats going on. I ate once at a McDonald's in 1958 and didn't like it so I'm not really up to speed, but its association with the United States, per se, is tenuous. Fred Bauder 11:31, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)

Well, news items about fast food eateries are often best found places other than said eateries. McDonald's certainly is a symbol of America, but to say those that resent their encroachment are against an abstraction such as an economic system (capitalism), practiced of course in their own countries, rather than a foreign culture on their turf is, well, a bit unsubstantiated. (Of course they're everywhere anyway; I've been to several in France, the epicenter of the hate, and they drew crowds.) Do you perhaps have references to show before you go back to reverting me? Very Verily 12:07, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As to 5 people being wrong... Even on articles like this we have a very thin slice of opinion and knowledge represented. Fred Bauder 11:31, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, there was some sarcasm being exchanged, I believe. And the thin slice of knowledge has been well noted. Very Verily 12:07, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Official Language

The previous poster was absolutely correct. Now the info box says "None, several states specify. English de facto nationwide, Spanish spoken by growing minority." The infobox is ONLY ASKING FOR THE OFFICIAL LANGUAGE (if there is one, which there is NOT). The USA never has had an official national language, and every word in the info box besides "None" is completely irrelevant and misplaced. The part about the states is irrelevant because the article refers to the entire country. "De facto" does not equal "Official", so it has no place being there. And the most absurd addition is the part about Spanish being spoken by "a growing minority"; not only does this not have the most miniscule relevance in an article about the official national language of the United States of America, but the same thing could be said about hundreds of languages, like Chinese and Arabic. If you want to discuss the different languages that are spoken within the United States, there is a separate article for that. However, the only thing that should be said next to "Official Language" is "None". It needs to be permanently changed ASAP.

1) Always sign your comments.

2) Please calm down.

3) It's not irrelevant; in some states, there are official languages. Due to the federal system, this is just as relevant as if there were a federal official language. And I do mean official; not merely de facto. Spanish is spoken primarily by a full 10%, and seconarily by many many more. Spanish is becoming a de facto official language, not just in some neighborhoods, but in some states. All I will agree with you is that Spanish might be better removed from the chart; but the fact remains, some states have official languages. I'll try a mix...

4) De Facto DOES belong there; observe other articles. What matters is both what is official, and what is spoken.

5) Permanently? You want us to lock the page?

6) You're welcome to change it yourself. --Golbez 04:16, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

the box should just say none. You are right in that, in my opinion. The official language of California Republic is Spanish., so the thing about spanish is not trivial, however the datum: "The official language of California Republic is Spanish." belongs in the California Republic but apparently the very existence of California Republic is POV.:

from California Republic: "The republic's first and only president was William Brown Ide. Its independence ended on 1846 July 9 when a U.S. Navy battleship, commanded by John D. Sloat, docked in Monterey, routed the detachment of the Mexican Coast Guard garrisoning the port in a minor skirmish (the Battle of Monterey), and alerted Frémont and his men that the Mexican-American War had begun. The "Bear Flaggers" joined the war effort and replaced their flag with the Stars and Stripes. Under the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, Mexico formally surrendered its claim over the territory; the State of California was admitted to the Union two years later."

California Republic still has a constituion, duly ratified, never superseded by the 'later constitution'. I myself am a Sovereign Citizen of California Republic. California Republic and the State of California each exist in a jurisdictional nexus located in geographically similar, possibly identical with the exception of federal lands within California, areas. We can never completely settle the question of 'what the US is and what it's attributes are', without addressing the issue of these "duplicate states" and "duplicate unions". So it will never happen... see how tense just reading THIS makes you? Imagine being a Citizen of a State that "ended" 100 years before you were born. I'm not the only one by any stretch of imagination either.Pedant 16:56, 2004 Oct 16 (UTC)

I'm sure the Soviet Union still has a constitution, but that doesn't mean the Soviet Union still exists. At what point do you consider a particular government entity dead? --Golbez 21:32, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

The Soviet Union was officially dissolved on 26 December 1991 by the last meeting of the Supreme Soviet, by the same authority which established it in the first place. The California Republic has never been dissolved. --xoddam 01:18, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

day begins on Guam?

I'm going to remove "where the day begins on Guam and ends at the International Dateline on Baker and Island south in the Paciffic" because it doesn't make sense to me. Perhaps if this was rephrased?? Millsdavid 13:27, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't like the entire passage, for one thing it includes territories in the country (The sun never set on the British Empire; it did, however, set on Great Britain, every day), and for another, it doesn't mesh with the -5 to -11 timezones in the infobox. --Golbez 17:23, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

I think it's a punny title on Guam's slogan, myself. Guam is known as "Where America's Day Begins." Mike H 19:30, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

Human rights

I've started a section on human rights in the United States. Please feel free to add to it. Shorne 02:44, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

McDonald's

"Social issues" states that there is a McDonald's outlet in every capital city in the world except Pyongyang.

I rather doubt that. There could hardly be one in Havana, for example, owing to the US's embargo against Cuba. And I remember when, about ten years ago, McDonald's announced that it had achieved a presence in one hundred countries. There are about two hundred countries in the world, and some of them (Libya, Liberia, Iran) seem very unlikely to have a McDonald's. (More power to them.) Shorne 02:35, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, according to [3], McDreck is in 119 countries around the world; as for "every capital city" the usual claim is "except Montpelier" :) --66.102.74.57 01:21, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)