Politics & Government - 1 November 2006

2006-11-01 17:08:21 · 1 answers · asked by kishan23fiba 1 in Politics

2006-11-01 17:06:53 · 4 answers · asked by New Jack H 1 in Law & Ethics

2006-11-01 17:06:02 · 5 answers · asked by Lori L 1 in Law Enforcement & Police

To best explain the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and its many connotations, the United States’ concept of “Manifest Destiny” should be covered first. Manifest Destiny was the belief of English-speaking Americans that God had ordained them to take and hold the lands from the Mississippi River to the coast of the Pacific Ocean, much of which was claimed and occupied by Mexicans and Indians. The United States’ people believed its means of fulfilling this destiny were justified, a Machiavellian concept (“the end justifies the means”).

The US found its opportunity to use this concept to obtain a large portion of Mexico when Texas gained independence in 1836. Though Texas had agreed not to annex itself to the United States in exchange for its independence, it did so in 1845. However, at the time of annexation, the southern border of Texas had still not been specified. US President Polk took the position that recognized the Rio Grande as the southern border. In what was later to be considered a deliberate provocation by the United States to begin a conflict with Mexico, US troops entered the area between the Nueces River and the Rio Grande (land believed to belong to the US through annexation). The conflict that occurred between the US military and Mexican military was considered an act of war by the US, even though Mexico had not confirmed whether or not the Rio Grande was the southern border of the Texas territory.

After many unsuccessful peace negotiations (open and secret) and after many military skirmishes, the US military gained occupation of Mexico City in August 1847. It was then that the final peace negotiations began in what would become the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. The treaty demanded a large section of Mexico’s northern territory, with the Rio Grande as the southern border (for to accept the Nueces would be admitting guilt for starting the war). It was signed and sent to Mexico and the United States’ senates to be ratified on February 2, 1848.

In the United States, President Polk only conceded to accept it and send it on to the Senate for ratification after coming to the conclusion that continuing the war would not acquire for the United States a treaty that was any better. However, he recommended to Congress that an amended one be ratified and sent to Mexico for approval, one that did not contain Article X, which guaranteed property rights for Mexicans and Indians living in the ceded territory being. His main reason for this recommendation was that questions over the validity of land grants in Texas would come up on whether or not the treaty would apply to Texas since they had acquired their independence prior to the treaty.

Many factions within Congress were against ratifying the treaty, but for different reasons. The Whig party believed that the treaty would increase the southern states’ power by legalizing slavery within the new territory. Some were opposed because they were “morally against the war.” Others didn’t want it because they were Polk’s rivals, and some like Sam Houston wanted more territory than the treaty claimed. The treaty suffered few changes otherwise due to “each faction’s opposition to the proposals of the others.” The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, without Article X and with changes made to Article IX, passed the Senate and was ratified on March 10, 1848.

In Mexico, a letter of explanation by US Secretary of State James Buchanan followed the amended treaty. His letter included reasons why Article X was stricken and why Article IX was reworded. According to the letter, Article X was deleted because Buchanan firmly believed the US Constitution’s promise to protect a person’s property would be upheld regardless of whether or not the article was included in the treaty. As for Article IX, Buchanan explained that it had been revised as a “result of the Senate’s wish not to violate precedents established in treaties negotiated with France and Spain.” Also, a document known as the Protocol of Querétaro was presented to the Mexican Congress prior to the treaty’s ratification that explained the United States’ reasons for changing the original treaty. It said that the changes to Article IX “did not intend to diminish in any way” the rights that would be given to Mexican citizens becoming US citizens, and that the deletion of Article X “did not intend in any way to annul grants of land made by Mexico in the ceded territories.” However, the protocol’s interpretation of the treaty was never considered by the US government to be obligatory, meaning it had “no legal force.”

Mexico’s handling of the issues that surrounded the ratification of such a treaty went more along the lines of survival. Many factions in Mexico’s political system were against the treaty. One liberal by the name of Manuel Crescencio Rejón argued that the treaty would mean Mexico’s “economic subordination” and that since it had been signed before Congress could discuss this option, the treaty went against the Mexican Constitution. Another against the treaty was José María Cuevas, who spoke about his opposition to the Chamber of Deputies. Some did favor the treaty because it stopped the US from taking more territory and costing Mexico more military funding. One such person was one of the original commissioners, Bernardo Couto, who called the treaty one of “recovery rather than one of alienation.” In a later book about the war, one author called the treaty merely the confirmation that the US had taken land which had little value and was hard to defend. Mexico deemed it wise to choose the “lesser of two evils” and ratified the treaty on May 19, 1848.

It wasn’t long until the United States began a series of treaty violations, which for the most part went unresolved, and some which still are unresolved today. The Land Act of 1851 established a Board of Land Commissioners which required that land-owners “present evidence supporting title within two years, or their property would pass into the public domain.” According to the protocol (earlier noted to be of “no legal force” according to the US government), the property rights of Mexican landowners would be protected. In the fine print, though, the deletion of Article X made it hard for landowners with “imperfect” titles to complete the processes of land confirmation, whether it was via Mexican law or United States law.

Another violation of the treaty was the Foreign Miners’ Tax Law that inadvertently discriminated against those Mexicans who should have been exempted from the tax because of the treaty’s provisions for US citizenship. “Since there was a legal distinction between the Mexicans who had migrated to California after 1848 and those who were there before the gold rush,” outcry over the tax law being enforced on Mexican-Americans could not be justified.

It was violations such as these that inspired the Chicano movement in the 1960s, the same era as the Civil Rights movement. The movement sought to “redefine” the position of Mexican-Americans. To help with that cause, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was used to point out abuses to their human rights, such as the right to property denied those who were kept from completing their land titles, and such as the right to the full enjoyment of US citizenship which was indicated as forthcoming in Article IX of the treaty. Though the movement did not do well at obtaining help from the US government to restore land to Mexican-Americans, a recent move to take the case of the Mexican-American and the Native-American to international courts by the IITC has begun to meet with increasing success.

Since the signing of the treaty, a policy of arbitration has existed between Mexico and the United States, though the US does use it mostly when to its own advantage. However, this policy, the intertwining of the two cultures due to the Mexican influence in the US Southwest, and advances in both countries’ sense of human rights and diplomacy is slowly warming the friendship of the neighboring nations.

2006-11-01 17:03:14 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Immigration

2006-11-01 16:58:35 · 4 answers · asked by *~SoL~ * Pashaa del Ñuñcaa. 4 in Politics

I hope there are serious answers to this, but I know we will get the typical: Bush is a lier, or Clinton is a nympho. Seriously though shouldnt we, both sides of the political aisle, respect the office of the president no matter who holds it? We can disagree with policy while still repecting the blessed instituion that the framers of the Constitution gave us.

2006-11-01 16:55:52 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Other - Politics & Government

2006-11-01 16:55:24 · 11 answers · asked by craig-itm 2 in Elections

If you Republican voters keep it up for much longer,the world will start to truly suffer,due to your negligence.....tom science 3

2006-11-01 16:53:31 · 17 answers · asked by Thomas M 2 in Politics

What states are most illegal mexicans living?

2006-11-01 16:52:17 · 13 answers · asked by Direktor 5 in Immigration

i seem many blaming the immigrants for lowering their wages yet do nothing to help increase it in the first place .

i find it contradictory , yet this is also the excuse from the republicans who denied raising the minimun wage in the first place .

so is there any way to explain this ???

or

is the lack of explanaition caused by their real reasons ???

2006-11-01 16:52:02 · 8 answers · asked by game over loves evanescence 6 in Immigration

Just the arrogant shrill sound of their voice makes me want to kick my TV, dog, radio, or Father-in-law; whichever is closer. It may be a personal problem, but could there be another reason why I am so annoyed?

2006-11-01 16:51:35 · 19 answers · asked by Gary 2 in Politics

Arkansas, cleburne county , July 9 1977, man shot with his own gun while having a party. all party members fingerprints on the gun...said he was showing it off. By the time the cops were called and arrived--body was already in rigormortis(July). People at party were all close relatives to each other not to victim.
None of them got arrested at the time. But 7 years later on practically the same night one brother killed the other with a rock--dead brother left 7 children behind just like the victim, the other went to prison for a long time; the next year, another brother got killed by a train on the same weekend anniversary--the weekend after July 4. the victim had $1200 dollars missing and the woman who he was going to marry was there and just got a huge diamond ring. It was her brothers who did the injustice and they all got their justice without court. Maybe cause the victim's daughter prayed and cried for 7 years for Justice. Who knows?

2006-11-01 16:50:33 · 3 answers · asked by kay w 3 in Law Enforcement & Police

Please note what country you are from.
Do you think that the US's policies make us to be more of a imperial empire than the democratic nation that we clain to be?
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Imperialist

2006-11-01 16:49:47 · 7 answers · asked by Timothy C 5 in Politics

The princess of far right pundits has gotten herself in hot water for voting in the wrong precinct, and refusing to respond to an investigation. This crime is punishable with up to five years in prison.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,226838,00.html

Another republican scandal in the making?

2006-11-01 16:49:15 · 11 answers · asked by notme 5 in Politics

2006-11-01 16:48:23 · 20 answers · asked by ALeX L 1 in Military

...saying that abortion IS Right. They say it is A right, but never Right. Why is this? Am I mistaken? Why do people who are IN THE RIGHT never fear saying that what THEY believe is JUST AND GOOD. Perhaps one of you can tell me abortion IS RIGHT and JUST and GOOD right now. I bet if I was looking into your eyes when you said it you wouldn't be looking back.

2006-11-01 16:47:55 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in Law & Ethics

2006-11-01 16:47:03 · 19 answers · asked by FireKracker187 2 in Other - Politics & Government

This is a two part question. Part two: Who was/is America's greatest leader?

2006-11-01 16:46:45 · 11 answers · asked by Gary 2 in Politics

2006-11-01 16:45:43 · 17 answers · asked by Renegade 411 2 in Other - Politics & Government

2006-11-01 16:43:17 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Other - Politics & Government

do u agree or not that a law like this one would detter criminals from possesing a single weapon in the first place ???

ten years is a long time , do u think they would still risk getting caught with a weapon or that they would think twice before doing so ???

i believe there is some laws which would put anyone in jail if found in possession of an illegal drug yet there is non to stop people from getting weapons which may end up being used against them or may end up in the hands of a child .

2006-11-01 16:42:50 · 19 answers · asked by game over loves evanescence 6 in Law & Ethics

You made it clear - we get it - now go away

2006-11-01 16:42:07 · 9 answers · asked by Genie 3 in Politics

2006-11-01 16:41:57 · 2 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Revolution

At the time Texas its own republic, and fought to free its self from Mexico. This was done before America got involved.

2006-11-01 16:40:13 · 14 answers · asked by clone_marshal_bacara 2 in Immigration

Are there any returned vets who can give me advice. The situation is difficult because the relationship between my brother and I has been frought with much conflict for as many years as I can remember.

He's different since he has come back. The last time I saw him he was so haggard looking. I know for a fact that asking him all kinds of questions about Iraq is not what he needs, and that if he wants to talk about it let him, but don't force him.

But I guess I'm trying to ask if there is any advice on how I can best be there for him. What did you (returned vets) want from your family when you returned?

I can't see treating him like I used to, and I don't think that would be fair. He is a different person. He has visibly changed, and to deny that would be wrong, imo.

I'm not making much sense I realize, but am I making enough?

2006-11-01 16:39:20 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous in Military

Sorry I asked the question about an independant winning a race for you Democrats that know exactly whatI'm sayong but just want to play stupid, replace the word independant with Libritarian

2006-11-01 16:39:00 · 2 answers · asked by ME 3 in Other - Politics & Government

2006-11-01 16:37:16 · 8 answers · asked by ? 3 in Immigration

2006-11-01 16:36:29 · 14 answers · asked by Mr.Death 5 in Military

Ok so I met with my lawyer once who said send him all the bills...he never said anything about paying them he just said send them directly to him..well today I got a letter from collections..I assumed he would take care of bills are something..help?? is this normal?

2006-11-01 16:34:37 · 3 answers · asked by RubiaBonita 2 in Law & Ethics

I'm wondering what the heck is Bush waiting for??? I belive the most important issue in the the war in iraq was the liberation of an opressed people. If Bush wants to show people that people are more important than oil or rumered weapons, he should show some interest in north korea. Do we always have to wait until countries become formabale oponants before we help the people who live in them? Maybe Bush doesnt want to get into wars with three countries before one of them ends. opinions?

2006-11-01 16:33:30 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Military