jbjd’s CIVICS for CIVILIANS QUIZ (3)

Happy 4th of July, fellow civic civilians!

jbjd’s CIVICS for CIVILIANS QUIZ (3)
Advertisements

9 Responses to jbjd’s CIVICS for CIVILIANS QUIZ (3)

  1. Michelle says:

    jbjd-I got 90/100 I admit some I guessed on, getting better at that too, something good is sinking in. I loved the certificate. I hope that you are saving the quizzes, I like taking them and a refresher course doesn’t hurt.

    Michelle: Good for you! (Do the correct answers show up when you get one wrong? If so, has any of the answers surprised you?) I am really so proud of your efforts. Let me assure you, I did not want to know how the Texas Democratic Party is organized; or who chooses Electors to run in the general election; or whether a particular SoS has the discretion to remove someone from the ballot or, whether the candidate from the major political party is entitled to appear on the ballot in that state. But I realized, if I don’t bother to learn all of this; then people who know more will steal my election, again. ADMINISTRATOR

  2. Al says:

    Hi jbjd,

    Hope you and yours enjoyed a safe and wonderful 4th of July. Yes! There’s a Part 3 challenge on the Civics Quiz–woohoo! Back next week to lurk and learn some more. Have a great day!

    Al: Thank you. We hung low for the 4th; heat wave (95+) and summer school. You (and Michelle) are having so much fun on these quizzes! With her, this joy appears to be as the result of her comprehensive understanding of how our government works, as evidenced by near perfect scores! And, with you…? ADMINISTRATOR

  3. bob strauss says:

    Hello jbjd. I was reading a story about SCOTUS, and the 5 to 4 decision on the second amendment and the court’s conservative stance on the Constitution.

    SCOTUS will return in the fall to start a new session, what can the People do, to see that the issue of Obama’s eligibility is before the court? Is it possible?

    bob strauss: That 5/4 decision reaffirmed the 2nd Amendment bestows individual as opposed to group rights; and that this interpretation of the 2nd Amendment applies to all states by virtue of the 14th Amendment. At this point, pretty settled law. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703964104575335060436777670.html

    The issue of BO’s Constitutional eligibility for POTUS does not present a SCOTUS “case or controversy.” However, as I have said several times, an issue which could reach the high court would be this: a state drafts requirements to get onto the ballot and someone challenges those ballot requirements as conflicting with Constitutional requirements for office. Say, for example, state law says, candidates must be eligible for office to get their names printed on the ballot; and further, that being eligible for POTUS in order to get on the ballot means, having 2 (two) American citizen parents. A political party would challenge this law as being unConstitutional, since nowhere in Article II section 1 does it say anything about the citizenship of one’s parents in related to POTUS qualifications. See what I mean? ADMINISTRATOR

    P.S. I will write more about this in an upcoming article.

  4. TeakWoodKite says:

    LOL 5 out a 10. Best of 20?
    I hope all is well with you and yours thanks jbjd.

    You are a Complacent Citizen. You have no idea how our political system operates and you refuse to find out. You enjoy living in a country where you feel safe and free; but when it comes to maintaining this Constitutional Republic, you rely on the rest of us to do your heavy lifting.

    TWK: Yikes! As you probably assumed, I wrote these grading blurbs. Boy, this one sounds harsh! Do the correct answers appear when you get the answer wrong? If so then, you are still learning the facts! So, if you took the identical quiz again, your score would improve. Besides, there is still time BEFORE the next election to eliminate the information deficit. If you cannot find the answer in the articles/comments on this blog – and everything I ask is on this blog – ask me. Finally, the quizzes remain on-line, so that you can re-take them at any time. ADMINISTRATOR

    • TeakWoodKite says:

      No the quiz was one cup of coffe shy of an answer. (At least I was, LOL)

      The correct answers did appear and it was fun…once I got my brain engaged.

      I got the one about standing wrong… it has to be unique?

      TWK: Know what, maybe I should have added words and phrases like, “particularized harm.” The problem that confronts ‘standing’ is, if the Plaintiff wannabe is similarly situated to dozens of other Plaintiff wannabes then, the harm is too general to bestow standing on that one person. That’s what class action is all about. Think of this more as a housekeeping issue than a justice issue. The courts cannot survive an onslaught of, say, 10,000 cases arguing the same points of law and fact. ADMINISTRATOR

      • TeakWoodKite says:

        Thanks for the learnin,jbjd! No day is complete without some. 🙂

        TWK: You are welcome. As I have said previously, knowing what is going on tends to ease the frustration of knowing only that something is wrong. This ‘standing’ issue has been misplayed in the blogosphere. Where the courts have found no standing to bring cases related to BO’s Constitutional eligibility for office, unsuccessful Plaintiffs have tended to malign the integrity of the court through ridicule – for example, asking ‘how can the court say, the issue of BO’s eligibility to be POTUS does not affect one citizen sufficiently to bring suit just because it affects us all?’ – when the substantive issue, that is, Constitutional eligibility, has never even been reached? No; lawyers knew going in, the rules on standing, however well or ill conceived, are a method by which the court reduces its caseload and ensures no duplication of effort. (Of course, Plaintiffs still failed to satisfy the other barriers to suit, such as stating a claim for which relief could be granted…) ADMINISTRATOR

  5. Kelly Canon says:

    OUCH… Admittedly, I was failing BADLY about 6 questions along, so I aborted the quiz… I didn’t want to get this label: “You enjoy living in a country where you feel safe and free; but when it comes to maintaining this Constitutional Republic, you rely on the rest of us to do your heavy lifting.” By that definition/label, am I to assume that we ALL need to be able to pass the BAR exam, if we are to be considered ‘citizens who care about our country’? 😉 I felt like I’ve been studying all along for the wrong test. Your wording was a bit too “legalezey” for me (and for the common lay-person), and I had a difficult time understanding the questions as they were PHRASED. Maybe I’ll do better next time. RHETORICAL QUESTION: Why must the wording/phrasing of legal and political documents be written to confuse and mis-lead the reader? It almost seems deliberate. Why can’t plain straight-forward English be used? Sorry… I just feel a little dejected right now. I hate doing badly on quizzes. (sigh)

    Kelly Canon: OMG, I am so sorry this quiz has catapulted you into the summer doldrums. (Ha.) But even if you get a question wrong, you can see what is the correct answer! So, you will get it right next time! As for writing “legalezey,” this is not a ploy I engage as the result of my education or training. No; it is intended to mimic the language of the laws that govern your everyday life. Granted, these laws are written in large part by lawyers. But until we pass laws saying, for example, ‘any law published in this state must be linked to a plain language translation for non-lawyers,’ or until cases are brought under those laws and appellate decisions come down with a judicial translation; I am afraid, we will need to understand on our own what these laws mean. Again, keep in mind, the reason we were bamboozled in the last election cycle is that the people who bamboozled us had an advantage in information. Trust me; with practice, one gets used to sorting through the ‘doublespeak’ language. Look at Miri. (I know I sent you this link before, but it bears re-posting. https://jbjd.wordpress.com/2009/08/09/rumors-lies-and-unsubstantiated-facts/#comment-793) ADMINISTRATOR

    • Kelly Canon says:

      Ah yes… Miri! No way I could forget that! 🙂 Thanks for the encouraging (and reassuring) words. I will now continue to wallow in my “summer doldrums”… until the next quiz! Just a suggestion: Perhaps in your next quiz (and I hope there will be several more in the future, because I’m a glutton for punishment), you could skip the clever phrasing, and simply “test our basic knowledge of civics”? Like in quiz #2… I enjoyed that one! I also enjoy your brilliant writings/thoughts. You continue to amaze me!! Thank you for the great inspiration!

      Kelly Canon: I hear you; and thank you for appreciating the work. (After I sent that response, I was thinking, anyway, if people get stuck on interpreting their own laws, now, they can just ask me. As long as I am here.) ADMINISTRATOR

  6. TestTaker Jones says:

    Gettysburg Address? And all these years I thought the Emancipation Proclamation, as well Amendment XIII, freed slaves.
    It seems Q 10 is a trick question, or gives an incorrect result for a correct answer of False. I’ve been called a lotta names but rarely if ever complacent. Especially in regards to current events, politics, and the Constitution.
    In deference to comments previous, I thought the quiz rather lacked a certain precision in wording, legalese is not the term I would describe for the language of the questions. But that may just be sour grapes on receiving a 3/10 8^o
    In re: the inevitable query,
    Yes, the quiz did end showing a proper breakdown of given answers and (nominally?) correct answers.
    Tnx for taking my call from a first time poster and likely long time follower. Wonderful site, can tell you put a lot of thought and effort into the content. But I retain my reservations about the Quiz here.

    TestTaker Jones: Welcome; and I hear you about the quizzes. I need to revisit the whole project; there must be a better way to quantify for people’s own interests, whether they need to bone up on the function of our electoral process. I just want people to know as much about this stuff as those who take advantage of their superior knowledge to steal our power. As for the Gettysburg Address, yeah, studying with a special needs son has taught me a lot I missed when I was in school. President Lincoln essentially freed slaves still behind Confederate lines months after he gave the speech, giving those Confederate states that would be affected time to surrender to the Union.
    http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/cwphtml/tl1863.html
    http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/web/20051118-abraham-lincoln-gettysburg-address-liberty-bell-emancipation-proclamation-constitution-declaration-of-independence-frederick-douglass-confederate-soldiers-abolition.shtml
    jbjd’s CIVICS for CIVILIANS QUIZ (4) is quarantined with the virus. ADMINISTRATOR

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: