I see a connection…
Yes, it’s a bit complicated because none of the positions match exactly. The general distinction is that the President of the Bundestag is a position within his chamber of parliament. He (or one of his deputies) presides over the sessions and has various other procedural duties (e.g. he formally accepts draft legislation and petitions.) He has no executive role except for the administration of Bundestag-internal affairs. This position has always been held by a member of the largest faction in the Bundestag but not the overall leader of that party.
The Chancellor OTOH is the head of Government, appoints the cabinet (without parliamentary approval) and this way she controls the the federal government agencies. In wartime she would be Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. Her legislative role is very limited. She is answerable to parliament, she can introduce draft legislation and in practice she is also a regular member of parliament.
Well, the German guy was from Bavaria, and we were in Denmark. He’d been there over 20 years and still hated the flies. 
(I guess Germany is in Northern Europe…but Bavaria is south, so…)
Uh…that’s enough.
Then you seem to be a bit over sensitive to having a few insects in your house. They don’t bother me.
Shout out to my peeps in the Iberian Peninsula. I love you folks, but you really have to get with the street signs. No, it’s not enough to have one at the beginning and the end of a really long street. You really do have to have them at every street corner. Especially with all those tangling, windy streets. Yes, I know this would cause Lisbon’s signage budget to quintuple when you got to the Alfama; suck it up, buttercup.
Even if 3 of them only last for a month? (I’m from Cleveland originally)
Gah! what a monster (the thread)
I’ll throw in my two øre.
-
Comparing “America” to “Europe” is rather absurd. Europe is not one country. A rape ruling in Italy has nothing whatever to to with Finland, Latvia or Portugal, while stuff happening in an American state has the potential to affect the entire nation (or have i missed something?)
Because Germany for decades has tried to forget the nazis, not turn them into bigger monsters then they were. Many germans alive today had grandfathers and great-grandfathers who fought for Hitler, and while very few of them are anything but ashamed by this, and no-one in their right mind blames them for it, it turns your question into somewhat of a no-brainer. Would you enjoy a game that demonized your grandfather? Would you enjoy seing your grandchildren playing a game that demonized you? In fact, its only in recent years, three generations after the war, that germans as a whole feel that they are allowed to display any national pride without an implicit apology for what happened under Hitler. It’s a national trauma. Would a game that featured viet-cong snipers as heroes, killing evil american troopers, have much succes in the US without controversy, do you think? Same think. only multiplied by a thousand.
Europe leads the world in terms of having a free press. So much for the much vaunted first amendment.
Europe leads the US in protecting the rights of children - only the US and Somalia have failed to ratify the UN charter on the rights of the child. Presumably this is due to the US’s insistence on being allowed to execute children. Why the Somalis are holding out, I could only guess.
mm
Well yes, I think you have a bit: the states’ legislatures are much stronger that we Yoorpeans usually give them credit for. A rape ruling in Florida may indeed have nothing whatever to do with Montana. While they might not be anywhere near as independent of each other as European countries are, they are certainly much more independent than our provinces, departements, etc. Federal rulings may exist but they are not universal, and can be overthrown at state level.
(Septics please correct me if this is inaccurate.)
Oh no… not at all. Federal laws always trump state laws, in every circumstance, and apply universally.
Here’s the relevant part of the Constitution:
And, to add a comment, this is the reason for a lot of the political wrangling in US history, such as the Civil War, Roe vs. Wade, etc…
The issue of whether it is a Federal issue or state issue is a big one.
I have screens on my house in Southern Italy (all the houses in that part of Italy have them) and boy do we need them.
I don’t - and would never consider - having them on my house in England. Absolutedly no need.
Well, a butterfly flapping his wings and all.
Well, let’s see- there are some 42 Nations in Europe. And that rather biased list puts 19 of them above the USA. Thus, 23 are below the USA, some very low indeed (Russia and Ukraine for example). So, the USA ranks slightly above the mean and well above average compared to all Europe. Thus, you’re wrong.
Next- the USA often doesn’t bother with meaningless & toothless UN resolutions. The “UN charter on the rights of the child” sound all very nice and all, but several of the worlds worst offenders (China, several sub-saharan nations, and so forth) have 'ratified" said “charter” without any changes in the way their children are being treated. Although the USA certainly has room to improve (as does nearly every nation), we hardly ever send out kids out to act as human minesweepers or lop their arms off as they belong to the wrong tribe.
These are in europe now? I know I’ve said that europe has no clearly defined borders, but still…
mamboman brought up Somalia. But we can also go to the fairly recent “ethnic cleansings” in the Balkans, which are in Europe.
The Balkans, sure, geographically atleast. Culturally? I don’t know. Nobody knows. The Balkans just exploded. It says a lot about the difficulties of discussing “europe” as a whole when no european that I’ve ever met could ever begin to understand why that happened. The history of the Balkans is scizofrenic at best. Using this tragic disaster as a basis for discussing the morality of europe as a whole? You wont get anything usefull.
I was considering saying the opposite - but I wasn’t sure if I wanted to create a generic gun control debate. I think your gun laws, and more generally, the way you regard self defense is far more backwards, and reflects back to the fuedal days in which subjects were deliberately disarmed to keep them dependent, passive, and subservient on their masters. I consider the arming of the populace to be a great political advancement in the grand scheme of thing, reflecting their empowerment as citizens rather than subjects.
But more generally, every story I hear out of Europe, mostly the UK, about anyone using force to defend themselves or their family is a criminal, worthy of scorn - that the only proper way to respond to threats and force is to be as passive as possible and hope the good guys show up - that if you take proactive steps in defending yourself, you’re as bad as they are, and you’re going to jail. This, to me, is extremely backwards.
That only states that the Constitution trumps any state law - has that been construed to extend to any federal law whatsoever?
I’ve heard people make the argument that the US takes it’s treaty obligations very seriously, and hence, is very selective about what its a signatory to - while other nations routinely sign stuff that they have no intention of following or caring about. I don’t know enough about international affairs to really know if it’s true, but it seems reasonable.
The ultimate source of legal authority for ALL Federal laws is the Constitution, so yeah, it trumps Federal law as well.
For the times when it’s in dispute, that’s what the Supreme Court is for.