1. How many changes or amendments are there to the constitution?
2. What are the three branches of government?
3. How many representatives are there in congress?
4. How many senators are there in congress?
5. For how long do we elect representatives?
6. Who said "give me liberty or give me death?"
7. How many supreme court justices are there?
8. When was the Declaration of Independence adopted?
9. In what year was the Constitution written?
10. Whose rights are guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights?
So... how did you do?
In order to become a citizen of the U.S. non-citizens are given a quiz. You only need to get 6 out of 10 correct in order to pass (try not to start a debate about whether or not that is enough or if it should be harder). Here are a few questions from the U.S. citizenship exam. Don't google them. Try to answer as many as you can.
1. How many changes or amendments are there to the constitution?
2. What are the three branches of government?
3. How many representatives are there in congress?
4. How many senators are there in congress?
5. For how long do we elect representatives?
6. Who said "give me liberty or give me death?"
7. How many supreme court justices are there?
8. When was the Declaration of Independence adopted?
9. In what year was the Constitution written?
10. Whose rights are guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights?
So... how did you do?
1) 23
2) Legislative, Executive, Judicial
3) 435
4) 2/state (currently 100)
5) 2 years
6) Patrick Henry
7) National? 9. States are different (for example, WI only has 7)
8) 1776
9) 1787
10) We the people. (AKA citizens)
Close on 3 but not quite.
Got 4 and 5.
Missed 6.
Got 7.
Missed 8, 9, and 10.
Not that great, I guess.
Show16 amendments?
Legislative, executive, judicial.
438 (with the 3 from Washington DC).
100.
2 years.
Jesus.
9.
1791?
1789?
The rights of US citizens?
1) 23
2) Legislative, Executive, Judicial
3) 435
4) 2/state (currently 100)
5) 2 years
6) Patrick Henry
7) National? 9. States are different (for example, WI only has 7)
8) 1776
9) 1787
10) We the people. (AKA citizens)
Not bad, but you got numbers 1 and 10 wrong. There are 27 amendment, and the Constitution and the Bill of Rights guarantees the rights to both citizens and non-citizens. There are certain rights given only to citizens, such as voting in federal elections.
1. What is the capitol of your state? (You would be amazed... there are people that don't know it)
2. What is one promise you make when you become a United States citizen?
3. What are two ways Americans can participate in their democracy?
I know a few of them off the top of my head, I can reasonably guess at a few more (all of them if it's multiple choice). However, that's not really an accurate representation of how well I would do on the test, seeing how I would probably actually do some quick studying (probably just the night before or maybe the morning of, but that would easily be enough, it's only ten questions after all). I figure if I can CLEP American Government this shouldn't be any more difficult.
The quiz/test is actually not multiple choice. You sit in a room across the desk from an immigration official who asks you the questions. If you get the first 6 correct, they stop asking you. If you don't, they continue asking you until you either get 6 right, or they have asked 10 questions. If you don't get the 6 correct, you fail, and get to reapply and pay the fe that goes along with the citizenship application.
You are right though, answering these questions like this won't show how you would do on the test. You are given the test questions and the answers and given time to study up on the questions before you take the test. There are currently 100 questions on the test.
It's funny though... how many people do you talk to that have strong political feelings about one issue or another, but actually know what they are talking about?
Alright, how about these...
1. What is the capitol of your state? (You would be amazed... there are people that don't know it)
2. What is one promise you make when you become a United States citizen?
3. What are two ways Americans can participate in their democracy?
1) Jefferson City
2) Um... Obey the laws?
3) The ballot box (voting)... and the petition
Alright, how about these...
1. What is the capitol of your state? (You would be amazed... there are people that don't know it)
2. What is one promise you make when you become a United States citizen?
3. What are two ways Americans can participate in their democracy?
1) Jefferson City
2) Um... Obey the laws?
3) The ballot box (voting)... and the petition
The petition? You would have to be a bit more clear on that one buddy.
What happened at the Constitutional Convention?
Read this after you answer
Show
Did you get it right?
Did you hesitate?
I've met people that get it wrong. You would think that it should be self-explanatory...
Did you get it right?
Did you hesitate?
I've met people that get it wrong. You would think that it should be self-explanatory...
( And because I realize that it could be interpreted this way, not H_S, I am not trying to imply anything about you or anybody else in particular.
)What I dislike the most, though, are people who know a lot about this sort of stuff and act like their political opinions are better than everybody else's because of it. Those people are sooo annoying. Almost as annoying as the people that think that knowing a lot about this sort of stuff makes them somehow more American than other people.
( And because I realize that it could be interpreted this way, not H_S, I am not trying to imply anything about you or anybody else in particular.
Stop lying... it's always about me. I am the center of your universe1. Bow down before your Squirrel Master!!!!
________________________________
1 - I'm the center of the universe. When I go to sleep, reality ceases to exist.
You're still high on the rush of buying shoes aren't you? :-p
A little. Why? Does it show?
Stop lying... it's always about me. I am the center of your universe1. Bow down before your Squirrel Master!!!!
You're right. I want you. And your bear feet.
I'm the center of the universe. When I go to sleep, reality ceases to exist.
You're like the opposite of Azathoth.
(I am high on the rush of something to tear a new ****hole, I subbed to STO, and lo and behold their newest update which they have been working on for over a year supposedly, sucks so hard I can't believe they are actually serious about releasing it. And if there's one thing I enjoy, it's tearing **** games new ****holes.)
I knew you liked feet!
Only bear feet!
It's funny though... how many people do you talk to that have strong political feelings about one issue or another, but actually know what they are talking about?
A few, but not nearly enough. Most people I know either don't really give a **** what goes on until it directly affects them, or they are really passionate about something but really know nothing about it.
Suuureee. next you'll be asking for footjobs on street corners ;)
But only from bears. ;)
1. What is the capitol of your state? (You would be amazed... there are people that don't know it)
Admittedly I'm one of them. But in my defense, I've only lived in this state for a little over two years, I've spent about a year of that time elsewhere, I don't really like this state anyway, I have no intention of settling down here, and I do at least know the capital of my home state.
But only from bears. ;)
Yay! Somebody gets it!
IIRC I was one of two students that actually passed.
I knew you liked feet!
Only bear feet!
By the time we are done with you, you will have a foot fetish and a shoe fetish.
It's funny though... how many people do you talk to that have strong political feelings about one issue or another, but actually know what they are talking about?
A few, but not nearly enough. Most people I know either don't really give a **** what goes on until it directly affects them, or they are really passionate about something but really know nothing about it.
That is an excellent description of a good amount of people.
Back in high school, my civics teacher gave everyone the US citizenship test as an actual graded test in class.
IIRC I was one of two students that actually passed.
First... that is really sad. Second... please tell me it was at the start of the year. If it was at the end, that is horrible. What was he/she teaching?
Back in high school, my civics teacher gave everyone the US citizenship test as an actual graded test in class.
IIRC I was one of two students that actually passed.
First... that is really sad. Second... please tell me it was at the start of the year. If it was at the end, that is horrible. What was he/she teaching?
End of the year, and civics.
So I'm curious. What would you say if a new law was passed that required you to take and pass a test similar to the citizenship test in order to vote? What if you had to retake this test every X number of years?
Personally, I'd be ok with that. Then again, I'm also in favor of requiring public service to gain full citizenship (really I'm in favor of military service, but then military service would become a right, much like in Starship Troopers, and they would have to accept you even if you were deaf, dumb, and blind, not to mention some jobs in the military are so close to civilian jobs anyway, but that's another discussion). I think to vote or hold political office (to include certain appointed positions like judges, secretaries over major government departments, etc), one should first have to serve two years in the military or three years of some sort of public service as a civilian.
Practically, it would never happen. It would require changing the Constitution, which already makes it more difficult than just passing a bill, organizations like the NAACP and the ACLU would get involved comparing it to the voting tests designed to exclude black people from voting, and quite a few politicians would be worried that a large bloc of their voters would be unable to support them in future elections.
So I'm curious. What would you say if a new law was passed that required you to take and pass a test similar to the citizenship test in order to vote? What if you had to retake this test every X number of years?
I don't believe that testing is really the answer. It hasn't really worked in education (IMO), to aim to teach to testing. Simply knowing these facts does not make you a more-informed voter, so it won't improve the quality of votes (if that is the intended purpose). Not to mention that it would be relatively easy to disenfranchise voters by requiring testing.
You really have to look at what you want to accomplish with such a requirement. Is it a more informed public? A better civic education? There are better ways to ensure such things, IMO.
By the time we are done with you, you will have a foot fetish and a shoe fetish.
Actually, I'm already cool with shoes, probably because of my intense dislike of feet. Boots are my favorite.
So I'm curious. What would you say if a new law was passed that required you to take and pass a test similar to the citizenship test in order to vote? What if you had to retake this test every X number of years?
It sounds nice in theory, but there are just too many holes that I worry about. It reminds me too much of the idea of the... what's it called, a Geniocracy? It's just too inherently classist for my tastes. The idea that the upper class's vote counts more than the lower class's doesn't sit well with me.
Back in high school, my civics teacher gave everyone the US citizenship test as an actual graded test in class.
IIRC I was one of two students that actually passed.
First... that is really sad. Second... please tell me it was at the start of the year. If it was at the end, that is horrible. What was he/she teaching?
End of the year, and civics.
I know what civics is. I meant "what was he/she teaching?" as in What was he/she doing all year that only two students in his/her class were able to pass this test? Like an algebra teacher who goes the whole year telling stories instead of teaching and at the end of the year has a class full of students that can't do basic math.
So I'm curious. What would you say if a new law was passed that required you to take and pass a test similar to the citizenship test in order to vote? What if you had to retake this test every X number of years?
I don't believe that testing is really the answer. It hasn't really worked in education (IMO), to aim to teach to testing. Simply knowing these facts does not make you a more-informed voter, so it won't improve the quality of votes (if that is the intended purpose). Not to mention that it would be relatively easy to disenfranchise voters by requiring testing.
You really have to look at what you want to accomplish with such a requirement. Is it a more informed public? A better civic education? There are better ways to ensure such things, IMO.
But wouldn't it be beneficial to have a voting public that has at least some minimum knowledge?
Personally, I'd be ok with that. Then again, I'm also in favor of requiring public service to gain full citizenship (really I'm in favor of military service, but then military service would become a right, much like in Starship Troopers, and they would have to accept you even if you were deaf, dumb, and blind, not to mention some jobs in the military are so close to civilian jobs anyway, but that's another discussion). I think to vote or hold political office (to include certain appointed positions like judges, secretaries over major government departments, etc), one should first have to serve two years in the military or three years of some sort of public service as a civilian.
Now that brings up and interesting question. How many politicians have actually served in the military or some sort of public service besides their elected office?
Practically, it would never happen. It would require changing the Constitution, which already makes it more difficult than just passing a bill, organizations like the NAACP and the ACLU would get involved comparing it to the voting tests designed to exclude black people from voting, and quite a few politicians would be worried that a large bloc of their voters would be unable to support them in future elections.
I wonder... would this make politicians more likely to support public education in an effort to gather more voters to their side?
It sounds nice in theory, but there are just too many holes that I worry about. It reminds me too much of the idea of the... what's it called, a Geniocracy? It's just too inherently classist for my tastes. The idea that the upper class's vote counts more than the lower class's doesn't sit well with me.
But would it really be "classist"? All you would need to do is score some minimum on the test. 60% seems to be the magic number for a lot of tests here.
So I'm curious. What would you say if a new law was passed that required you to take and pass a test similar to the citizenship test in order to vote? What if you had to retake this test every X number of years?
I don't believe that testing is really the answer. It hasn't really worked in education (IMO), to aim to teach to testing. Simply knowing these facts does not make you a more-informed voter, so it won't improve the quality of votes (if that is the intended purpose). Not to mention that it would be relatively easy to disenfranchise voters by requiring testing.
You really have to look at what you want to accomplish with such a requirement. Is it a more informed public? A better civic education? There are better ways to ensure such things, IMO.
But wouldn't it be beneficial to have a voting public that has at least some minimum knowledge?
As I said, if that's your goal, there are other ways to go about it. I would rather teach a value of civic knowledge and a concern with what your vote is doing than individual facts on a test (which is what it would end up being).
I believe in having a voting public (or a public in general) with some kind of minimum knowledge - that's what public schooling is for, after all. ;)
It just seems too open to abuse and too narrow in view to be of any use. Why is it important to know these facts for voting? I can understand for citizenship, as many people have been taught these things in school (whether or not they remember them - and whether or not the new citizens will remember them after the test) and it's part of a country's history that you're joining. But to vote after being/becoming a citizen?
I'd rather have a test on the actual ballot measures than our Constitution.
If something like this was implemented, then I would expect the government to be required to provide classes every year for people to take their "right to vote" test every year. If not, then yes, I believe that it would be open too abuse, classism, and all sorts of bad things.
I know what civics is. I meant "what was he/she teaching?" as in What was he/she doing all year that only two students in his/her class were able to pass this test? Like an algebra teacher who goes the whole year telling stories instead of teaching and at the end of the year has a class full of students that can't do basic math.
Oh, hell that was so long ago. I cannot quite remember, but I think he was finishing up teaching about the the naturalization process and everything on that test was covered in class.
But would it really be "classist"? All you would need to do is score some minimum on the test. 60% seems to be the magic number for a lot of tests here.
It has the very real potential to be very classist depending on the types of questions asked and such. And who gets to decide what questions are asked? And what happens when they decide to vote to change the difficulty of the questions? However minor the classism may seem to be at first, it's just too dangerous a road to go down, in my opinion. =/
But would it really be "classist"? All you would need to do is score some minimum on the test. 60% seems to be the magic number for a lot of tests here.
It has the very real potential to be very classist depending on the types of questions asked and such. And who gets to decide what questions are asked? And what happens when they decide to vote to change the difficulty of the questions? However minor the classism may seem to be at first, it's just too dangerous a road to go down, in my opinion. =/
If they can create tests to evaluate students in other subjects, they should be able to create a test that is capable of testing civic knowledge. I don't think people vote on changing the difficulty of questions. That would not be a valid test.
As I said, if that's your goal, there are other ways to go about it. I would rather teach a value of civic knowledge and a concern with what your vote is doing than individual facts on a test (which is what it would end up being).
I believe in having a voting public (or a public in general) with some kind of minimum knowledge - that's what public schooling is for, after all. ;)
True, but has public education met this goal so far?
It just seems too open to abuse and too narrow in view to be of any use. Why is it important to know these facts for voting? I can understand for citizenship, as many people have been taught these things in school (whether or not they remember them - and whether or not the new citizens will remember them after the test) and it's part of a country's history that you're joining. But to vote after being/becoming a citizen?
But wouldn't it be good to have the people voting be able to make informed decisions instead of gut-reactions?
I'd rather have a test on the actual ballot measures than our Constitution.
If something like this was implemented, then I would expect the government to be required to provide classes every year for people to take their "right to vote" test every year. If not, then yes, I believe that it would be open too abuse, classism, and all sorts of bad things.
What if it was a one time test? What if everyone born in the U.S. was given the status of permanent resident and then required to take a citizenship test to earn the rights of citizens?
As I said, if that's your goal, there are other ways to go about it. I would rather teach a value of civic knowledge and a concern with what your vote is doing than individual facts on a test (which is what it would end up being).
I believe in having a voting public (or a public in general) with some kind of minimum knowledge - that's what public schooling is for, after all. ;)
True, but has public education met this goal so far?It just seems too open to abuse and too narrow in view to be of any use. Why is it important to know these facts for voting? I can understand for citizenship, as many people have been taught these things in school (whether or not they remember them - and whether or not the new citizens will remember them after the test) and it's part of a country's history that you're joining. But to vote after being/becoming a citizen?
But wouldn't it be good to have the people voting be able to make informed decisions instead of gut-reactions?I'd rather have a test on the actual ballot measures than our Constitution.
If something like this was implemented, then I would expect the government to be required to provide classes every year for people to take their "right to vote" test every year. If not, then yes, I believe that it would be open too abuse, classism, and all sorts of bad things.
What if it was a one time test? What if everyone born in the U.S. was given the status of permanent resident and then required to take a citizenship test to earn the rights of citizens?
I don't see how the test makes voting any less a gut-reaction. You're testing for some facts, not on whatever they're voting for/on. It does not make a more-informed voting public on whatever they're voting on.
I'm all for an educated public - I'd much rather work on improving the education system than on assigning a test that, in all likelihood, would be abused and/or waste lots of government money.
Even if it's a single test, that's still education for it - and I hate the idea of more education being focused on teaching to a test.
I agree that it's a good idea to have the population of voters to be well-educated and knowledgeable about whatever it is they are voting on, but having a test about our history isn't going to accomplish that.
I just think that kind of test isn't of any real value, in terms of making a well-educated voting public. Sure, people can know facts about our history (which I do value), but it isn't helping them know about the measures, or about the candidates, nor does it stop politicians and organizations from appealing to more gutteral reactions from the voters.
Ideally, they would have learned all that when they went to school and been tested on it. You knock the school system, but as far as I'm concerned that's where the real concern should be - teaching people to think, rather than regurgitate facts.
*shrug* It's just that I don't really see the point of it. Sure, there's a value of knowledge of how our system works, and our history. I just don't agree that it needs to be something to be tested on to vote.
EDIT: What is the actual goal of the test? That's what I'm trying to understand. I think any goal of giving the test (being knowledgeable about the US's system of government and history) would be better served by improving education.
If they can create tests to evaluate students in other subjects, they should be able to create a test that is capable of testing civic knowledge.
Yeah, but tests to evaluate students in other subjects are often classist as well. Not always, but often. Quite a lot of our education system is quite classist when you get down to it, so relying on education or intelligence is going to inherently cause some classism, however minor, because the fact of the matter is that the upper class has better access to education, etc. It may not seem like a big deal, but one of the things that I think is great about everybody getting to vote is that politicians are accountable to the lower class as well as the upper class, and while I admit that can often be a double-edged sword, I just don't think that it's very American to deny somebody their vote, at least not for a reason like this. I very much agree that a better educated voting public would be desirable, but I just disagree that this is the best way to accomplish it. I'd rather fix the source of the problem, our education system.
EDIT: What is the actual goal of the test? That's what I'm trying to understand. I think any goal of giving the test (being knowledgeable about the US's system of government and history) would be better served by improving education.
The point? I was bored and wanted to start a fight. You bunch of hippie peace loving liberals have disappointed me
How dare you suggest such a blatantly discriminatory policy!? Yeah, let's have all the corporate fat cats get more votes than honest workers just trying to get by. Are you even listening to yourself? That is not America! That is some fascist Nazi bull. Your ideas are terrible, and you should feel terrible!
Why limite people ability to vote or participate in society?
Because I know what's good for them better than they do.
Bow before my hairy chest, mortal!
...That can be arranged provided that pics of said hairy chest are provided. ;)
...Quite a lot of our education system is quite classist when you get down to it, so relying on education or intelligence is going to inherently cause some classism, however minor, because the fact of the matter is that the upper class has better access to education, etc. It may not seem like a big deal, but one of the things that I think is great about everybody getting to vote is that politicians are accountable to the lower class as well as the upper class, and while I admit that can often be a double-edged sword, I just don't think that it's very American to deny somebody their vote, at least not for a reason like this. I very much agree that a better educated voting public would be desirable, but I just disagree that this is the best way to accomplish it. I'd rather fix the source of the problem, our education system.
On the other hand, requiring basic skillz for voting (among other things) might, as has already been suggested, improve the quality of our education system. Or at least re-open discussion into school vouchers. Heck, I'd settle for it causing more of a hue and cry from the masses about politicians talking about how public education is good now (it just needs more money to be better) but then send their kids to whitewashed private schools.
Why limite people ability to vote or participate in society?
The real answer is that most of us, no matter where we are on the political spectrum, how informed we are, we usually find other people to be stupid and/or ill-informed.
Basically, this sort of initiative is to limite the participation of people in our democraties, because we do not agree with them, on subjective grounds that we try to justify by masquarading them as arbitrary ones. By using words like education or civil service.
Why not? People are perfectly willing to allow others to choose for them. A few month ago we recalled the county mayor. The voter turnout was ridiculously low.
Why not? People are perfectly willing to allow others to choose for them. A few month ago we recalled the county mayor. The voter turnout was ridiculously low.
Heh. I can beat that story. Ever heard of Bell, CA?
Why not? People are perfectly willing to allow others to choose for them. A few month ago we recalled the county mayor. The voter turnout was ridiculously low.
Heh. I can beat that story. Ever heard of Bell, CA?
I have heard of the city of Bell in California; I'm not sure what exactly you are referring to.
That's just the first link. The city council members (all but 1) were making almost $100,000/year, all based on their charter vote...
As you can see, 400 people of a city population of 40,000 even voted ON (let alone for) the issue that allowed the city officials to circumvent state law.
This.
That's just the first link. The city council members (all but 1) were making almost $100,000/year, all based on their charter vote...
As you can see, 400 people of a city population of 40,000 even voted ON (let alone for) the issue that allowed the city officials to circumvent state law.
Yeah I heard about that. In Dade county's case, the previous mayor raised property taxes, cut services, and raised the salaries of his cronies. People didn't like it and there was a huge turn out to recall him. He got recalled quickly. There was actually a really good voter turnout for that. Then we get a bunch of people running for his vacant seat. Down here in order for someone to get elected mayor, they have to get at least 50% of the votes of registered voters. If none of the candidates get 50% of the registered voters, we have a run-off election between the two with the most votes. During that first election you could have added up all the votes and you wouldn't have gotten 50% of the registered voters. I heard on the news that in the run-off election only about 18% of the registered voters actually voted.
Because we live in societies were we make sure everyone has the same rights and those rights aren't taken away? At least in theory...
In theory True Capitalism works great as thus Communism.
And recalls are retarded.
Why?It allows the public to show the elected official their displeasure. They aren't automatic either. Elected officials have to be in office for 1 year before they can be recalled. You also need to gather signatures from the public. And to top it off, if you want to recall an official, you have to fund it yourself. The government doesn't fund it.
Recalls are just another symptome of citizen's entitlement metality peddled by the losers. They voted for someone and should deal with the politician for the duration of the term, like adults. Not like kids who aren't happy that new daddy doesn't want them to eat cookies before supper.
Recalls are just another symptome of citizen's entitlement metality peddled by the losers. They voted for someone and should deal with the politician for the duration of the term, like adults. Not like kids who aren't happy that new daddy doesn't want them to eat cookies before supper.
Actually... a large portion of the people that originally voted for the Miami Dade Mayor, also voted to recall him. He happens to be a republican who raised taxes to pay higher salaries to his cronies and ticked off the republicans in Miami Dade.
Also, I think there is a minimum percentage of voter signatures required. At the moment I forget what that percentage is. In this case, it was reached rather quickly.
Aren't those percentage very low?
No. They have to be a majority percentage. I'm not sure if it's 50% or 60%. It may even be a bit higher.
[q
At least it is not like 5%. This could be easily fill with people who never voted for said candidate in the first place.
Ain't it pretty low in California? I thought this is how they recalled the governor who was eventually replaced by the GovernatorTM.
The figure I saw was 30% of all adult citizens. Which, IIRC, was still almost 2,000,000 signatures.
--
A quick hunt around the Government of Canada website turned up a list of example questions from our citizenship test. The test itself is apparently multiple choice, although the choices aren't shown in this list of examples, and I didn't see any indication of what % someone needs to achieve.
(I know the answers to all of these off the top of my head except for who La Fontaine was - I'd have to look that one up.)
* Name two key documents that contain our rights and freedoms.
* Identify four (4) rights that Canadians enjoy.
* Name four (4) fundamental freedoms that Canadians enjoy?
* What is meant by the equality of women and men?
* What are some examples of taking responsibility for yourself and your family?
* Who were the founding peoples of Canada?
* Who are the Métis?
* What does the word “Inuit” mean?
* What is meant by the term “responsible government”?
* Who was Sir Louis-Hippolyte La Fontaine?
* What did the Canadian Pacific Railway symbolize?
* What does Confederation mean?
* What is the significance of the discovery of insulin by Sir Frederick Banting and Charles Best?
* What does it mean to say that Canada is a constitutional monarchy?
* What are the three branches of government?
* What is the difference between the role of the Queen and that of the Prime Minister?
* What is the highest honour that Canadians can receive?
* When you go to vote on election day, what do you do?
* Who is entitled to vote in Canadian federal elections?
* In Canada, are you obliged to tell other people how you voted?
* After an election, which party forms the government?
* Who is your Member of Parliament?
* What are the three levels of government?
* What is the role of the courts in Canada?
* In Canada, are you allowed to question the police about their service or conduct?
* Name two Canadian symbols.
* What provinces are sometimes referred to as the Atlantic Provinces?
* What is the capital of the province or territory that you live in?
I know that the Dutch test for immigrants also contains questions about basic laws, acceptable practices in public (two men kissing = acceptable, punching two kissing men in the face = not acceptable) and other things to make sure they're going to be able to get along with people (in addition to testing if they can speak and read Dutch)
(disclaimer: filled in by a european, with no prep what so ever. Many anwsers will probbably be wrong)
(it would help people posted the answers ...)
Show
1. How many changes or amendments are there to the constitution?
2. What are the three branches of government?
3. How many representatives are there in congress?
4. How many senators are there in congress?
5. For how long do we elect representatives?
6. Who said "give me liberty or give me death?"
7. How many supreme court justices are there?
8. When was the Declaration of Independence adopted?
9. In what year was the Constitution written?
10. Whose rights are guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights?
2. What are the three branches of government?
3. How many representatives are there in congress?
4. How many senators are there in congress?
5. For how long do we elect representatives?
6. Who said "give me liberty or give me death?"
7. How many supreme court justices are there?
8. When was the Declaration of Independence adopted?
9. In what year was the Constitution written?
10. Whose rights are guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights?