Jury convicts DeLay in money-laundering case

[goldcatt]

The claim that the amendment process (or the vote) is limited to "repair and fine tune" is nowhere to be found in the constitution.

That's its function, is it not? If something isn't working with the system, change it. Call it fine tuning, correcting, adjusting, whatever you want. If the people running the system aren't doing it to your satisfaction, change them. What's the problem?

No, that is not its' function

If the people decide they want a whole new system, entirely unlike the one we have now, the constitution does not prohibit a wholesale repeal of the entire Constitution. None of the words you listed are accurate

There are no limits on what can be changed or why they are being changed. The only limits the constitution places on changes to the constitution refer to HOW the constitution is changed

Actually, by definition you cannot have a wholesale repeal of the constitution by amending that very same constitution. But I'll leave you to puzzle that one out.

So basically you're going to yap and bite my ankles over uber petty semantics because I agreed with Intense on something so I must be wrong. How lame.

 

[sangha]

That's its function, is it not? If something isn't working with the system, change it. Call it fine tuning, correcting, adjusting, whatever you want. If the people running the system aren't doing it to your satisfaction, change them. What's the problem?

No, that is not its' function

If the people decide they want a whole new system, entirely unlike the one we have now, the constitution does not prohibit a wholesale repeal of the entire Constitution. None of the words you listed are accurate

There are no limits on what can be changed or why they are being changed. The only limits the constitution places on changes to the constitution refer to HOW the constitution is changed

Actually, by definition you cannot have a wholesale repeal of the constitution by amending that very same constitution. But I'll leave you to puzzle that one out.

So basically you're going to yap and bite my ankles over uber petty semantics because I agreed with Intense on something so I must be wrong. How lame.

I have no idea why think my posts, which contained no hostile words or characterizations, was hostile. I suspect it's because you don't like having your mistakes pointed out.

And I would explain why you're wrong about repeal, but I have no desire to engage in the petty yapping and ankle-biting that you seem to be encouraging.

 

[goldcatt]

No, that is not its' function

If the people decide they want a whole new system, entirely unlike the one we have now, the constitution does not prohibit a wholesale repeal of the entire Constitution. None of the words you listed are accurate

There are no limits on what can be changed or why they are being changed. The only limits the constitution places on changes to the constitution refer to HOW the constitution is changed

Actually, by definition you cannot have a wholesale repeal of the constitution by amending that very same constitution. But I'll leave you to puzzle that one out.

So basically you're going to yap and bite my ankles over uber petty semantics because I agreed with Intense on something so I must be wrong. How lame.

I have no idea why think my posts, which contained no hostile words or characterizations, was hostile. I suspect it's because you don't like having your mistakes pointed out.

And I would explain why you're wrong about repeal, but I have no desire to engage in the petty yapping and ankle-biting that you seem to be encouraging.

Amending the original document through its own structured process merges the amendment with the original, sangha. It does not and cannot break the compact or dissolve the constitution. It merely makes a change and the constitution moves on.

Something you should have been able to figure out on your own if you understood the nature of the constitution itself and the amendment process. But forge ahead anyway.

So you chose to start an argument over semantics and back up your "argument" with an impossibility.

What else you got?

 

[sangha]

Actually, by definition you cannot have a wholesale repeal of the constitution by amending that very same constitution. But I'll leave you to puzzle that one out.

So basically you're going to yap and bite my ankles over uber petty semantics because I agreed with Intense on something so I must be wrong. How lame.

I have no idea why think my posts, which contained no hostile words or characterizations, was hostile. I suspect it's because you don't like having your mistakes pointed out.

And I would explain why you're wrong about repeal, but I have no desire to engage in the petty yapping and ankle-biting that you seem to be encouraging.

Amending the original document through its own structured process merges the amendment with the original, sangha. It does not and cannot break the compact or dissolve the constitution. It merely makes a change and the constitution moves on.

Something you should have been able to figure out on your own if you understood the nature of the constitution itself and the amendment process. But forge ahead anyway.

So you chose to start an argument over semantics and back up your "argument" with an impossibility.

What else you got?

I had a suspicion you would continue to ankle-bite

Amendment 28 - Amendments 1 through 27 Repealed.

1. The first 27 articles of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

2. Articles 1 through 7 of the Constitution are Repealed

3. The article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[goldcatt]

I have no idea why think my posts, which contained no hostile words or characterizations, was hostile. I suspect it's because you don't like having your mistakes pointed out.

And I would explain why you're wrong about repeal, but I have no desire to engage in the petty yapping and ankle-biting that you seem to be encouraging.

Amending the original document through its own structured process merges the amendment with the original, sangha. It does not and cannot break the compact or dissolve the constitution. It merely makes a change and the constitution moves on.

Something you should have been able to figure out on your own if you understood the nature of the constitution itself and the amendment process. But forge ahead anyway.

So you chose to start an argument over semantics and back up your "argument" with an impossibility.

What else you got?

I had a suspicion you would continue to ankle-bite

Amendment 28 - Amendments 1 through 27 Repealed.

1. The first 27 articles of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

2. Articles 1 through 7 of the Constitution are Repealed

3. The article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So we would have a constitutional anarchy existing of this one amendment, put in place by a constitutional process among the States forming the compact. /shrug

Your point?

 

[sangha]

Amending the original document through its own structured process merges the amendment with the original, sangha. It does not and cannot break the compact or dissolve the constitution. It merely makes a change and the constitution moves on.

Something you should have been able to figure out on your own if you understood the nature of the constitution itself and the amendment process. But forge ahead anyway.

So you chose to start an argument over semantics and back up your "argument" with an impossibility.

What else you got?

I had a suspicion you would continue to ankle-bite

Amendment 28 - Amendments 1 through 27 Repealed.

1. The first 27 articles of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

2. Articles 1 through 7 of the Constitution are Repealed

3. The article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So we would have a constitutional anarchy existing of this one amendment, put in place by a constitutional process among the States forming the compact. /shrug

Your point?

I'll repeat it but only becuase I know it takes a long time for a thought to sink into a wingnuts mind

The point is that the Constitution contains no limit on what an Amendment can do and your claim that the amendment process is limited to things like "repair" and "fine tuning" is just some wingnut nonsense you made up.

 

[goldcatt]

I had a suspicion you would continue to ankle-bite

So we would have a constitutional anarchy existing of this one amendment, put in place by a constitutional process among the States forming the compact. /shrug

Your point?

I'll repeat it but only becuase I know it takes a long time for a thought to sink into a wingnuts mind

The point is that the Constitution contains no limit on what an Amendment can do and your claim that the amendment process is limited to things like "repair" and "fine tuning" is just some wingnut nonsense you made up.

An anarchist would disagree with you that putting an anarchy in place is not a "repair" or "correction".

What you're missing is that the constitution is not just words on a piece of paper. It is a compact between and among the States, and whatever its contents may be they represent the form of that compact. Any amendment to it, whatever the form of that amendment, merges with the compact and becomes part of it. So an amendment to repeal it in the entirety simply merges with and becomes part of the original, it becomes the entire form of the compact.

Call it whatever you want, words are cheap and plentiful. But don't try to claim the compact itself can be repealed through the amendment process. That can only be done through secession or mutual agreement to dissolve the Union completely, not just changing the form of the legal construct governing it.

 

[sangha]

So we would have a constitutional anarchy existing of this one amendment, put in place by a constitutional process among the States forming the compact. /shrug

Your point?

I'll repeat it but only becuase I know it takes a long time for a thought to sink into a wingnuts mind

The point is that the Constitution contains no limit on what an Amendment can do and your claim that the amendment process is limited to things like "repair" and "fine tuning" is just some wingnut nonsense you made up.

An anarchist would disagree with you that putting an anarchy in place is not a "repair" or "correction".

What you're missing is that the constitution is not just words on a piece of paper. It is a compact between and among the States, and whatever its contents may be they represent the form of that compact. Any amendment to it, whatever the form of that amendment, merges with the compact and becomes part of it. So an amendment to repeal it in the entirety simply merges with and becomes part of the original, it becomes the entire form of the compact.

Call it whatever you want, words are cheap and plentiful. But don't try to claim the compact itself can be repealed through the amendment process. That can only be done through secession or mutual agreement to dissolve the Union completely, not just changing the form of the legal construct governing it.

Now the wingnut is using an anarchists argument.

Wingnuts are so dishonest, they will use arguments that even they don't agree with. There's no way in hell that YOU agree with anarchist, and no way in hell the anarchists opinion matters at all

The only way you can have anything to say is by making stuff up (ex "What you're missing is that the constitution is not just words on a piece of paper.") in order to repeat the same wingnut nonsense

Too bad you can't quote where the Constitution supports your bogus claims.

 

[goldcatt]

I'll repeat it but only becuase I know it takes a long time for a thought to sink into a wingnuts mind

The point is that the Constitution contains no limit on what an Amendment can do and your claim that the amendment process is limited to things like "repair" and "fine tuning" is just some wingnut nonsense you made up.

An anarchist would disagree with you that putting an anarchy in place is not a "repair" or "correction".

What you're missing is that the constitution is not just words on a piece of paper. It is a compact between and among the States, and whatever its contents may be they represent the form of that compact. Any amendment to it, whatever the form of that amendment, merges with the compact and becomes part of it. So an amendment to repeal it in the entirety simply merges with and becomes part of the original, it becomes the entire form of the compact.

Call it whatever you want, words are cheap and plentiful. But don't try to claim the compact itself can be repealed through the amendment process. That can only be done through secession or mutual agreement to dissolve the Union completely, not just changing the form of the legal construct governing it.

Now the wingnut is using an anarchists argument.

Wingnuts are so dishonest, they will use arguments that even they don't agree with. There's no way in hell that YOU agree with anarchist, and no way in hell the anarchists opinion matters at all

The only way you can have anything to say is by making stuff up (ex "What you're missing is that the constitution is not just words on a piece of paper.") in order to repeat the same wingnut nonsense

Too bad you can't quote where the Constitution supports your bogus claims.

You're right, I don't agree with anarchists. Nor would your absurdity ever happen in the real world. My advice to you is to put down the straw and start working on that reading comprehension.

Way cool though. I haven't been called a HuffPo winger and a wingnut by two different morons within ten minutes of each other in a while. Nice to know I'm still making sense.

 

[Intense]

I think I understand what you're getting at here with "protect with impartiality". You're basically describing due process, where everybody is guaranteed treatment under the same procedures, rules and processes regardless of station, and equal protection of the laws for all. If I'm right, then we basically agree as to that part.

Government is not a living breathing thing with its own memory though, it is an institution made up of individual people working within a legal construct. And if the people in government have forgotten what their role should be they can be easily replaced. The government itself is a tool, it can be used for good or bad depending on how the individuals running it choose to use it.

That is why we were given the tool of Amendment, to repair and fine tune, to correct course and bearing.

The amendment process to fine tune the institution and its legal construct, and the vote to fine tune and correct the people running it.

We might not agree on how best to use either of those tools. But that's probably a different discussion.

We might agree on the matter more than you think.

 

[sangha]

An anarchist would disagree with you that putting an anarchy in place is not a "repair" or "correction".

What you're missing is that the constitution is not just words on a piece of paper. It is a compact between and among the States, and whatever its contents may be they represent the form of that compact. Any amendment to it, whatever the form of that amendment, merges with the compact and becomes part of it. So an amendment to repeal it in the entirety simply merges with and becomes part of the original, it becomes the entire form of the compact.

Call it whatever you want, words are cheap and plentiful. But don't try to claim the compact itself can be repealed through the amendment process. That can only be done through secession or mutual agreement to dissolve the Union completely, not just changing the form of the legal construct governing it.

Now the wingnut is using an anarchists argument.

Wingnuts are so dishonest, they will use arguments that even they don't agree with. There's no way in hell that YOU agree with anarchist, and no way in hell the anarchists opinion matters at all

The only way you can have anything to say is by making stuff up (ex "What you're missing is that the constitution is not just words on a piece of paper.") in order to repeat the same wingnut nonsense

Too bad you can't quote where the Constitution supports your bogus claims.

You're right, I don't agree with anarchists. Nor would your absurdity ever happen in the real world. My advice to you is to put down the straw and start working on that reading comprehension.

Way cool though. I haven't been called a HuffPo winger and a wingnut by two different morons within ten minutes of each other in a while. Nice to know I'm still making sense.

Right! You don't agree with the anarchist, but you''re dishonest enough to use an argument even you don't agree with.

And as far as it happening in the real world, it's like I always say

If a wingnut didn't make stuff up, they'd have nothing to say. No one said it was likely. Too bad wingnuts don't know the differnce between "it's possible" and "it's probable"

 

[Intense]

I don't. That is why we establish laws and that is why Governments primary role it to protect, with impartiality, a role which it fails at miserably. The Government does not exist for It's own sake, It exists for our sake, something It too easily forgets.

I think I understand what you're getting at here with "protect with impartiality". You're basically describing due process, where everybody is guaranteed treatment under the same procedures, rules and processes regardless of station, and equal protection of the laws for all. If I'm right, then we basically agree as to that part.

Government is not a living breathing thing with its own memory though, it is an institution made up of individual people working within a legal construct. And if the people in government have forgotten what their role should be they can be easily replaced. The government itself is a tool, it can be used for good or bad depending on how the individuals running it choose to use it.

That is why we were given the tool of Amendment, to repair and fine tune, to correct course and bearing.

GoldCatt, There are People on this Site not able to comprehend what is written, as it is written.

That is why we were given the tool of Amendment, to repair and fine tune, to correct course and bearing.

Where does this statement limit the Power of Amendment? The only limit on the Power of Amendment is the lack of a 75% Majority in passing it. To suggest that repairing, fine tuning, or correcting course or bearing, is limited to what is already written in The Constitution, and would not allow for New Construction, is absurd. The argument is based on a false premise, and it's author beyond reason.

 

[sangha]

I think I understand what you're getting at here with "protect with impartiality". You're basically describing due process, where everybody is guaranteed treatment under the same procedures, rules and processes regardless of station, and equal protection of the laws for all. If I'm right, then we basically agree as to that part.

Government is not a living breathing thing with its own memory though, it is an institution made up of individual people working within a legal construct. And if the people in government have forgotten what their role should be they can be easily replaced. The government itself is a tool, it can be used for good or bad depending on how the individuals running it choose to use it.

That is why we were given the tool of Amendment, to repair and fine tune, to correct course and bearing.

GoldCatt, There are People on this Site not able to comprehend what is written, as it is written.

That is why we were given the tool of Amendment, to repair and fine tune, to correct course and bearing.

Where does this statement limit the Power of Amendment? The only limit on the Power of Amendment is the lack of a 75% Majority in passing it. To suggest that repairing, fine tuning, or correcting course or bearing, is limited to what is already written in The Constitution, and would not allow for New Construction, is absurd. The argument is based on a false premise, and it's author beyond reason.

That's why goldcatt won't quote where the constitution imposes such a limit. Instead, the wingnut wants to portray my posting of accurate information as an attack to hide his embarrassment of making such a bone headed claim

 

[daveman]

The wingnut still can't admit he was wrong. He will "retract" it, but he will never defend his decision to use a claim he could not support with facts.

I guess, then, you'll just have to fuck off.

 

[sangha]

The wingnut still can't admit he was wrong. He will "retract" it, but he will never defend his decision to use a claim he could not support with facts.

I guess, then, you'll just have to fuck off.

You guess wrong.

I'm going to not fuck off, and keep on posting about how you're so dumb, you don't realize the constitution protects the rights of non-citizens

 

[JakeStarkey]

Of course non-citizens are subject to the Constitution when in custody of American law enforcement or military. Nothing in the Constitution permits such a weird interpretation that they are somehow exempt from its obligations and protections.

 

[daveman]

The wingnut still can't admit he was wrong. He will "retract" it, but he will never defend his decision to use a claim he could not support with facts.

I guess, then, you'll just have to fuck off.

You guess wrong.

I'm going to not fuck off, and keep on posting about how you're so dumb, you don't realize the constitution protects the rights of non-citizens

Yay. More lectures by self-important assholes. Just what we needed.

 

[daveman]

Of course non-citizens are subject to the Constitution when in custody of American law enforcement or military. Nothing in the Constitution permits such a weird interpretation that they are somehow exempt from its obligations and protections.

Is Sangha in custody?

 

[uscitizen]

Of course non-citizens are subject to the Constitution when in custody of American law enforcement or military. Nothing in the Constitution permits such a weird interpretation that they are somehow exempt from its obligations and protections.

Is there anything in the constitution that says a US citizen providing they are old enough cannot vote while in prison?

 

[sangha]

I guess, then, you'll just have to fuck off.

You guess wrong.

I'm going to not fuck off, and keep on posting about how you're so dumb, you don't realize the constitution protects the rights of non-citizens

Yay. More lectures by self-important assholes. Just what we needed.

"WE"?

"We" don't need no lectures. YOU do.