After watching both the Republican and Democrat convention speeches I have some questions that searches on Google don't seem to answer. I'm a Canadian so bear with my confusion....
1) "Voter I.D. discriminates against minorities." If you are going to vote - don't you have to prove that you are eligible to vote? I.e. that you are an american citizen? Or can non-citizens vote? How does a voter I.D. discriminate against minorities?
In the past, following the American Civil War. people were discriminated against at the polls. Now we had passed the 15th amendment to our constitution that gave voting rights to men regardless of race. However, people found ways around this through poll taxes, grandfather clauses, and literacy tests. These all effectively excluded minority groups without actually restricting their right to vote. The argument against requiring ID's is that it might do that again. ID's cost money and time, these are things that the very bottom of society don't have. This means that they might not be able to obtain an ID and therefore their vote would be unjustly denied. It's an argument against classism because the wealthier are not effected, but the poor are. The argument in favor of ID's is very obvious; it helps ensure that the person voting is a citizen and who they say they are. With photo ID's you cannot get someone voting in the place of someone else and you cannot get any unregistered people voting when they shouldn't.
2) Immigration. From what I can understand, Americans confuse legal immigration with illegal immigration according to whatever POV is being argued. So, it seems that however you manage to get into the the US - once you're in you are entitled to all the benefits of citizenship. If not you, then your children. So why would anyone bother to try and become a US citizen legally?
Immigration, while still an issue, has taken a backseat to the economy. However, I don't know if you are right in saying that Americans confuse legal and illegal immigration. Once in you are not entitled to all the benefits of citizenship. You can finagle your way into beating the system, but if you want to live here legitimately and not be on the fringes of society you need to be here legally. The benefits of citizenship is not that much greater than legal immigration. One major advantage is that you never run the risk of being kicked out, if you are a citizen you can be in the U.S. for as long as you like and go where ever you like. Also citizenship grants you access to safety nets like welfare or social security. Basically citizenship is more of a matter of convenience than necessity, but if you want to integrate into American society and stop avoiding the rules then you need to be a citizen or have legal status.
3) Gay marriage. How can one's marital status be determined by what state one resides in? Isn't marriage for straights nation-wide? And if so, why would it be different for gay marriage?
The U.S. has a long and strong tradition of states rights. The original constitution of the US was actually the Articles of Confederation which granted almost no power to the federal government and allowed the states to do as they please. Obviously this failed and the US has a stronger central government now. However, the notions of state's rights is still strong and America does not want too much power in the central government. Marriage is not in fact nation wide. Each state determines it for themselves and has certain rules and regulations regarding marriage.
4) Abortion. Roe v Wade was a supreme court ruling. Isn't that the final argument? Or does the Federal government have the right to overturn Supreme court judgements?
Yep. I don't get why the argument rages on. A lot of it is again the state's rights thing, but honestly I don't see how it could ever be banned.
5) Obamacare...The argument that private vs government medical insurance encourages competition and hence lower costs. But isn't the current medical insurance system private? And has that not resulted in increased premium cost rather than lowering it?
America has an innate fear of socialism. A lot of Americans would rather pay more and maintain capitalism than save some and have a governmental system. You see, we have a fear of government and a general distrust of it, people don't want to put money into their hands and would rather do it themselves. Also, the medical insurance companies are a huge industry in America. There is a lot of fear that government will make them fail and cost thousands of jobs and lead to a bit of a collapse.
6) Iran... Iran (unlike Israel) is a signatory to the Nuclear non-proliferation treaty which states that members agree never to acquire nuclear weapons and in exchange agree to share the benefits of peaceful nuclear technology and to pursue nuclear disarmament aimed at the ultimate elimination of their nuclear arsenals. Indeed, under the treaty the US is required to aide Iran in its development of nuclear energy. However, as of 2005, it is estimated that the United States (a signatory) still provides about 180 tactical B61 nuclear bombs for use by Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey and it is argued that this violates Articles I and II of the treaty. And it appears that Iran's nuclear energy activities may be an excuse for US (or Israeli) military action. This is very confusing.
This can be attributed to American's general sentiment towards the middle east. There has been a lot of hype about how dangerous Iran is, and most people don't know about the treaty. Honestly, those kinds of treaties are nearly impossible to enforce, so if we don't want to do it, then it won't happen. Sad, but true.
7) Guns...The second amendment to the US constitution states: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Does this mean that you can bear arms only if you are a member of a militia? Should the term "arms" be unlimited? E.g. do the people have the right to own nuclear arms? On has the right to free speech, however, for example, one cannot falsely scream "Fire" in a movie theatre as this is not protected by the First Amendment and goes beyond the rights guaranteed by free speech. So, why shouldn't the right to bear arms restrict the nature of the arms a citizen has a right to bear?
Americans have a fascination with guns. The idea of the well regulated militia can be interpreted as in the event that a militia is needed you should already have a gun so you can come fight. Think about it this way, by the time you were raising a militia to rise against an unjust government it probably wouldn't matter if you had a "right" to bear arms for that purpose because the government wouldn't allow it. Therefore, you should be able to have a gun at any time. The restrictions on what guns you can have deal with the notion of public safety and necessity. Just because you have the right to bear arms, does not mean you have the right to kill people. A nuclear bomb when detonated over the ocean might not kill someone. However, you cannot control where they will detonate it and it is too much of a clear danger to have that be available to anyone who wants it.
8) Religion...This seemed to be a much bigger issue with the Republicans than with the Democrats since the Republicans had religious leaders give presentations while the Democrats did not. Also Romney constantly mentioned his faith in his talks. Is religious affiliation a criteria for presidency? I.e. if you're not a "Christian" (I understand that Mormons are not viewed by all as Christians) you cannot be a presidential candidate?
America was founded by protestants, led by protestants and many many protestant ideals still exist today. Also, most Americans come from some sort of christian base and are concerned with maintaining certain morals in society. While religion is obviously not a part of their policy it helps them to connect with the voters and assure them that they have a good moral character.
