The first political parties were the federalists and the anti-federalists. The main ideological difference between the two was who should have the power. The federalists advocated for a strong central government while the anti-federalists wanted to give power to the states.
Answer:
I don't know...call me crazy, but I don't think this would be such a bad idea (at least sometime in the future.) With the advent of the internet, there really is no reason why people can't have more input on legislation. Remember, congressmen act as representatives of the people for logistical reasons. Were voting allowed via internet, mail, or permanent polling places, the logistical roadblocks are reduced.
This country has an annoying quality where senators and representatives are elected and then inject their own personality into their voting. They are supposed to represent the people of their district. If 60% of the people in their district feel a certain way about an issue, why is the congressman/woman allowed to vote a different way? Why do their personal beliefs really matter at all? They are supposed to be voting the way their district wants regardless of what they personally believe.
I know, I know, things can be horribly complicated and the average person can't possibly understand all the issues they are voting on, but last I checked their is no intelligence requirement to be in the government...many people in governement now are dumb as a box of rocks. They don't have to be smart to be elected, they have to be personable and have good advisors working in the background.
Imagine being able to directly vote on education issues, warfare issues, and being able to prioritize budget items. Instead of blaming the morons in congress we would only be able to blame ourselves when things went horribly wrong. Of course, some form of standing governement would still be needed for a lot of reasons.
Again, I know the technology is not hot enough right now to provide the secruity that would be needed, etc, but it won't be long...
This allows the supreme court to interpret the actions of the president and call them unconstitutional.
In Puerto Rico it was useful, in Cuba not so much. Cubans perceived the outcome as occupation and didn't want to have United States occupation in their country. Puerto-Ricans had a form of a civilian government with independence and Puerto-rican citizenship but the country belonged to US.
Answer: I believe they would have to A) amend the constitution
Explanation:
Since burning the flag isn’t based on state law, they would have to alter the constitution. Protesting won’t be effective and electing a president who supports it won’t guarantee anything.
