myata Posted August 31, 2024 Report Posted August 31, 2024 The proposition that the meaning of the Constitution was intended to be literal, fixed in time and has to be interpreted as such is based on two assumptions that are entertained by the judges and pundits who adopt and promote it today: First, that formulation of general foundational principles guiding the evolution of the legal framework of the society isn't possible. This postulate is overturned by logic and the factual record in the history: it is obvious to any intelligent being that the state of a society cannot be captured and frozen in time; it changes continuously and so should be any literal and frozen constitutional framework. Then, the US constitution has survived for over two centuries, based mostly on the general principles coined centuries back so an expression of general norms and principles guiding the society was possible back then. So, what the proponents of this idea want to tell us, we are less smart, regressing in time relative to the democracy and constitutional thought of our ancestors and founders: while they, back then, dared to think and form general foundations and principles, we here can only think of coining, copy-pasting them in fixed and literal terms. What would be the point of codifying a rule or precept that is specifically related to a certain unique event that may not happen again, ever? No, doesn't make any sense: if someone, anyone would be non-smart enough (is there a better word?) to think that, they would be saying that our ancestors, the creators of this system that we used for centuries, were no smarter than them. Wrong. Not true. They were intelligent, daring and willing to think and create and history itself is the proof and testament of that. But then, one cannot escape the conclusion that in this interpretation, of narrow, literal, coined meaning of the Constitution there has to be a functional, efficient process of changing an updating it as and when needed. Disagreeing with it would imply that a society can be frozen in time: and how non-smart would that be? One couldn't logically avoid this double dumb dead end: if the founding fathers were no smarter than us, then we have to assume that society doesn't and shouldn't change. Back to horsepower. What is electricity? What Internet? That this non-starter idea could capture such a following itself can be an indication, a symptom of intellectual degradation, regress. Why and how not? Quote If it's you or them, the truth is equidistant
Rebound Posted August 31, 2024 Report Posted August 31, 2024 Originalism is nonsense, because it’s just a way for judges to apply their political opinions to the law. Besides that, America is an infinitely different nation than it was in 1787. What kind of fool thinks we should manage the existence of the Internet and air travel the way they did in 1787? What would that even mean? Interstate commerce was done over horse cart, not via instantaneous electronic transactions. Quote @reason10: “Hitler had very little to do with the Holocaust.”
gatomontes99 Posted August 31, 2024 Report Posted August 31, 2024 On 8/31/2024 at 12:12 PM, myata said: The proposition that the meaning of the Constitution was intended to be literal, fixed in time and has to be interpreted as such is based on two assumptions that are entertained by the judges and pundits who adopt and promote it today: First, that formulation of general foundational principles guiding the evolution of the legal framework of the society isn't possible. This postulate is overturned by logic and the factual record in the history: it is obvious to any intelligent being that the state of a society cannot be captured and frozen in time; it changes continuously and so should be any literal and frozen constitutional framework. Then, the US constitution has survived for over two centuries, based mostly on the general principles coined centuries back so an expression of general norms and principles guiding the society was possible back then. So, what the proponents of this idea want to tell us, we are less smart, regressing in time relative to the democracy and constitutional thought of our ancestors and founders: while they, back then, dared to think and form general foundations and principles, we here can only think of coining, copy-pasting them in fixed and literal terms. What would be the point of codifying a rule or precept that is specifically related to a certain unique event that may not happen again, ever? No, doesn't make any sense: if someone, anyone would be non-smart enough (is there a better word?) to think that, they would be saying that our ancestors, the creators of this system that we used for centuries, were no smarter than them. Wrong. Not true. They were intelligent, daring and willing to think and create and history itself is the proof and testament of that. But then, one cannot escape the conclusion that in this interpretation, of narrow, literal, coined meaning of the Constitution there has to be a functional, efficient process of changing an updating it as and when needed. Disagreeing with it would imply that a society can be frozen in time: and how non-smart would that be? One couldn't logically avoid this double dumb dead end: if the founding fathers were no smarter than us, then we have to assume that society doesn't and shouldn't change. Back to horsepower. What is electricity? What Internet? That this non-starter idea could capture such a following itself can be an indication, a symptom of intellectual degradation, regress. Why and how not? Expand I can see why you would view the Constitution as an impediment. After all, it declares rights are held by the people and not given to them. What can a liberal/socialist/communist do to them if they have rights? Nothing really. So you need to undercut the Constituion to make any real progress. Case in point, England. People in England are being arrested just for putting something on social media that the government disagrees with. That is a violation of our First Amendment. An ammendment that was adopted over 200 years ago. I'd say it is still relevant. Another example of how the Constitution is still relevant is the Electoral College. The framers of the Constituion recognized that states that are smaller, or have a less dense populous, have different needs than bigger, more populous states. So they created two halves to the legislative branch, one that favors big and one that favors small so that they had to work together. Then, they weighted the votes to prevent smaller states from getting railroaded in the POTUS election. The end result is an election process that swings back and forth and leaves the entire country represented in some way. It was genius really and it still works beautifully. What you are truly lamenting is not that the Constittion is out dated or doesn't work. You are lamenting that it is preventing you from achieving your goals without opposition. You don't respect or honor opposing views. You never have. If you had your way, we would have people getting arrested for stating their opinions in an open forum. Quote
myata Posted August 31, 2024 Author Report Posted August 31, 2024 On 8/31/2024 at 2:41 PM, Rebound said: What kind of fool thinks we should manage the existence of the Internet and air travel the way they did in 1787? Expand That or a liar in essence there are many synonyms. Not many other options. Any reasonably intelligent person, regardless of any stripe has to admit that there can be two rational approaches: to define broad and general principles and foundations that can be reinterpreted within specific context that is bound to change with time; or update it regularly and routinely to codify any and all significant new changes. That one could write a complete scripture of rules at one point in time and then apply them literally and for the eternity is beyond credible - it has to be either of the two, utter cluelessness or a lie. What else, really? Quote If it's you or them, the truth is equidistant
myata Posted August 31, 2024 Author Report Posted August 31, 2024 On 8/31/2024 at 3:50 PM, gatomontes99 said: I can see why you would view the Constitution as an impediment. Expand You begin with a misinterpretation and I can't care at this time is it genuine misunderstanding or another ideologically driven twist. The OP is stated clear enough: - Broad general principles that need to be interpreted in the contemporary context, not literally - Regular and ongoing updating based on each new development Otherwise you've got to choose between ridiculous and lying. Try to write some rules now up to 2254 (optimistically), and insist that people read and followed them literally. No one just can't be serious arguing that. Quote If it's you or them, the truth is equidistant
gatomontes99 Posted August 31, 2024 Report Posted August 31, 2024 On 8/31/2024 at 5:24 PM, myata said: You begin with a misinterpretation and I can't care at this time is it genuine misunderstanding or another ideologically driven twist. The OP is stated clear enough: - Broad general principles that need to be interpreted in the contemporary context, not literally - Regular and ongoing updating based on each new development Otherwise you've got to choose between ridiculous and lying. Try to write some rules now up to 2254 (optimistically), and insist that people read and followed them literally. No one just can't be serious arguing that. Expand Oh, ok, the goal posts are over there now. Fine. Reinterpretation is a tool the left has been using for nearly a century now. You may not remember this (or maybe you weren't taught it) but racism used to mean hatred based on race. And truly, it still does. But the scope of hatred was changed. The evolution of racism, via the redefining of hatred, started by using indicators or discrimination. Someone that was racist, would harm or discriminate against people of a different race. Those actions resulted in unequal opportunities, unequal law enforcement, unequal whatever. Eventually, unequal was applied to all situations as racism. However, unequal doesn't mean racism is the cause. Surely, racism causes unequal treatment but unequal treatment isn't always racism. Today, anything that is considered unequal is considered racist. Thus, racism is redefined from hatred of another race to unequal treatment, regardless of the reason. Reinterpreting or redefining the Constitution is untenable because the Constituion doesn't contain period concepts. It contains basic truths of humanity. The Bill of Rights was written to specifically protect rights that are both natural and essential to maintaining the republic. A republic that was defined by self governance and employed with the tools to adjust to changing times. Further, each of the articles define a federal government with limited power that protects people from a government that would control them, like the English government that is jailing people for their opinions. Our Constitution does not need reinterpretation, redefining or revamping. If it did, you would be able to get the populous to make the changes. Since you can't, you have to work within the system. If you can't do that, it's because we are protected from you. Quote
myata Posted August 31, 2024 Author Report Posted August 31, 2024 On 8/31/2024 at 5:58 PM, gatomontes99 said: Oh, ok, the goal posts are over there now. Fine. Expand Why are you choosing to lie? Or are you illiterate to read the OP before commenting? Until and unless you decide to follow the practices of an honest discussion there's no point in wasting time on anything you have to say as there's literally unbounded, endless amount of verbal junk on the net. Let me know if and when you're ready to discuss and dispute in good faith. Quote If it's you or them, the truth is equidistant
gatomontes99 Posted August 31, 2024 Report Posted August 31, 2024 On 8/31/2024 at 6:06 PM, myata said: Why are you choosing to lie? Or are you illiterate to read the OP before commenting? Until and unless you decide to follow the practices of an honest discussion there's no point in wasting time on anything you have to say as there's literally unbounded, endless amount of verbal junk on the net. Let me know if and when you're ready to discuss and dispute in good faith. Expand If you could defend your thesis, you wouldn't be attacking me. Quote
myata Posted August 31, 2024 Author Report Posted August 31, 2024 On 8/31/2024 at 6:09 PM, gatomontes99 said: If you could defend your thesis Expand There's no obligation nor point in responding to bullsh*t non-theses. When and if you're ready and would like to discuss issues in good faith let me know (but I can't commit to being interested). Quote If it's you or them, the truth is equidistant
User Posted August 31, 2024 Report Posted August 31, 2024 On 8/31/2024 at 2:41 PM, Rebound said: Originalism is nonsense, because it’s just a way for judges to apply their political opinions to the law. Expand How can you not see how backwards this is, or is it that you know and don't care? Originalism is the exact opposite of being able to apply political opinions, it is something you must adhere to. What you want is the exact opposite, if there is no foundation to hold to, then judges can do whatever they think... Quote LOL, when people have to tell you they are ignoring you... From Robosmith: "IGNORE AWARDED DUE TO WORTHLESS POSTS. BYE."
gatomontes99 Posted August 31, 2024 Report Posted August 31, 2024 On 8/31/2024 at 7:13 PM, myata said: There's no obligation nor point in responding to bullsh*t non-theses. When and if you're ready and would like to discuss issues in good faith let me know (but I can't commit to being interested). Expand You lack self-awareness. You are the one that wanted to redefine what the Constitution means and does. I called out the obvious motivation for wanting to do that, pointed to the current consequences of not having the protections of our constituion and proposed that there should be no changes. So you moved the goal posts to say you wanted to change it through reinterpretation rather than following the proper procedure. So I brought up an example of when the left has dine that and how that was detrimental to our society. So, now, you have resorted to attacking me and pretending you have justification to ignore me. The reality, and why I say you lack self-awareness, is that you've been back tracking from your original thesis to typical forum behavior. Don't pretend you are superior if you can't intelligently defend your own thoughts (or thoughts you copied and didn't fully understand when you restated them). And I'm the one that didn't discuss in good faith? Quote
CdnFox Posted August 31, 2024 Report Posted August 31, 2024 Oh look, the crackpot woke lefty who can't even use his own words to clearly articulate his own thoughts doesn't believe in the constitution. Quelle suprise. Yawn. Spam spam spam spam.... Quote
Rebound Posted August 31, 2024 Report Posted August 31, 2024 On 8/31/2024 at 5:58 PM, gatomontes99 said: Oh, ok, the goal posts are over there now. Fine. Reinterpretation is a tool the left has been using for nearly a century now. You may not remember this (or maybe you weren't taught it) but racism used to mean hatred based on race. And truly, it still does. But the scope of hatred was changed. The evolution of racism, via the redefining of hatred, started by using indicators or discrimination. Someone that was racist, would harm or discriminate against people of a different race. Those actions resulted in unequal opportunities, unequal law enforcement, unequal whatever. Eventually, unequal was applied to all situations as racism. However, unequal doesn't mean racism is the cause. Surely, racism causes unequal treatment but unequal treatment isn't always racism. Today, anything that is considered unequal is considered racist. Thus, racism is redefined from hatred of another race to unequal treatment, regardless of the reason. Reinterpreting or redefining the Constitution is untenable because the Constituion doesn't contain period concepts. It contains basic truths of humanity. The Bill of Rights was written to specifically protect rights that are both natural and essential to maintaining the republic. A republic that was defined by self governance and employed with the tools to adjust to changing times. Further, each of the articles define a federal government with limited power that protects people from a government that would control them, like the English government that is jailing people for their opinions. Our Constitution does not need reinterpretation, redefining or revamping. If it did, you would be able to get the populous to make the changes. Since you can't, you have to work within the system. If you can't do that, it's because we are protected from you. Expand EXPLAIN then…. What words of the Constitution say that the President is allowed to break as many laws as he wants, with complete immunity from prosecution? What words say THAT? Quote @reason10: “Hitler had very little to do with the Holocaust.”
myata Posted August 31, 2024 Author Report Posted August 31, 2024 On 8/31/2024 at 7:26 PM, gatomontes99 said: You are the one that wanted to redefine what the Constitution means and does. Expand That is a meaningless statement. Means to who, when? 300 years ago or now or in two centuries? The question is simple and for some reason you want to twist it into some ideological perspective to use in your narrative guessing about unknown motivations for the point you created yourself. It isn't about redefining or rewriting. It is of actuality and relevance in a changing and evolving society. It's simple really: you have a rule, a line of text written three centuries back or five millennia and should we read and follow it literally, word by word, in our world, today? You have to either admit that we have to read and apply it literally (and that would mean that the founding fathers thought themselves the kind of Moses that they were clearly not) or explain what makes you insist on the idea that is both impossible and impractical in any living human society. One cannot write a rule that is both literal and (virtually) immutable to be applied in a modern society. Will you argue that? On 8/31/2024 at 7:26 PM, gatomontes99 said: So you moved the goal posts to say you wanted to change it through reinterpretation rather than following the proper procedure. Expand For some reason you are failing to read what was said earlier in clear text, here the quote: On 8/31/2024 at 5:17 PM, myata said: or update it regularly and routinely to codify any and all significant new changes. Expand If you have a code that is interpreted literally then you should be able to change it as and when needed without overwhelming effort. This is not the case though. This is not how the Constitution was written originally and no such processes are in place. So in fact, it's you who want to redefine the Constitution from what it was intended to be: a logical system of broad principles of freedoms, rights and democracy that can be interpreted by a living and growing society based on its reality into something that it never was and never intended to be: a literal code, scripture written in a different age to be applied literally word by word today. Absolutely a boneheaded idea that can't coexist with a modern society. Quote If it's you or them, the truth is equidistant
CdnFox Posted August 31, 2024 Report Posted August 31, 2024 On 8/31/2024 at 8:27 PM, Rebound said: EXPLAIN then…. What words of the Constitution say that the President is allowed to break as many laws as he wants, with complete immunity from prosecution? What words say THAT? Expand Sigh. This has been gone over about a billion times. Nobody anywhere ever has claimed the president is immune. What was noted is the venue. The president must be impeached rather than tried in a court of law. And it says taht right where the supreme court justices say it did. If you're going to have a hysterical freak out could you at least do it about something that's real? Quote
gatomontes99 Posted August 31, 2024 Report Posted August 31, 2024 On 8/31/2024 at 8:27 PM, Rebound said: EXPLAIN then…. What words of the Constitution say that the President is allowed to break as many laws as he wants, with complete immunity from prosecution? What words say THAT? Expand Lmao...none. And no Supreme Court ruling said that either. What the SCOTUS ruling said was that the POTUS cannot be prosecuted for exercising official duties with the caveat that if the POTUS is impeached than he can be prosecuted. Quote
Rebound Posted August 31, 2024 Report Posted August 31, 2024 On 8/31/2024 at 8:42 PM, gatomontes99 said: Lmao...none. And no Supreme Court ruling said that either. What the SCOTUS ruling said was that the POTUS cannot be prosecuted for exercising official duties with the caveat that if the POTUS is impeached than he can be prosecuted. Expand Where in the Constitution does it say this? You know that it absolutely doesn’t. The impeachment clause says the President CAN be held criminally liable and it does not say that impeachment is a prerequisite to criminal prosecution. It’s also not clear at all what an “official duty” is. Is paying off a porn star from your personal business account an “official duty”? Quote @reason10: “Hitler had very little to do with the Holocaust.”
myata Posted August 31, 2024 Author Report Posted August 31, 2024 On 8/31/2024 at 8:47 PM, Rebound said: Is paying off a porn star from your personal business account an “official duty”? Expand That was before he was elected, or am I missing something? Quote If it's you or them, the truth is equidistant
myata Posted August 31, 2024 Author Report Posted August 31, 2024 Maybe this question important as it is, does not belong to a small group of old people free to unwind their ideas, beliefs and fancies? What if it can and should be decided by the society itself, the public, the citizens? First, have a public discussion including experts and citizens without distinction of ideology or stripe. Explain the matter, general principles and freedoms or literal scripture and code. Then have a plebiscite where citizens will say how it should be interpreted applied. What could be wrong with that? The Constitution it belongs and is owned by the citizens not any one closed group. Quote If it's you or them, the truth is equidistant
gatomontes99 Posted August 31, 2024 Report Posted August 31, 2024 On 8/31/2024 at 8:27 PM, myata said: That is a meaningless statement. Means to who, when? 300 years ago or now or in two centuries? The question is simple and for some reason you want to twist it into some ideological perspective to use in your narrative guessing about unknown motivations for the point you created yourself. It isn't about redefining or rewriting. It is of actuality and relevance in a changing and evolving society. Expand You do know we have the federalist papers that describe the intent of everything in the constitution? Further, there are very few words or phrases in the Constituion whose meaning have changed even slightly, much less significantly. Unless you have a specific example, I don't know how you come to this conclusion other than to assume that you want to change the Constituion and are looking for a way to bypass the process. Quote It's simple really: you have a rule, a line of text written three centuries back or five millennia and should we read and follow it literally, word by word, in our world, today? You have to either admit that we have to read and apply it literally (and that would mean that the founding fathers thought themselves the kind of Moses that they were clearly not) or explain what makes you insist on the idea that is both impossible and impractical in any living human society. One cannot write a rule that is both literal and (virtually) immutable to be applied in a modern society. Will you argue that? Expand That's a heck of a word salad. I reject the premise. It can only be interpreted literally. Quote For some reason you are failing to read what was said earlier in clear text, here the quote: If you have a code that is interpreted literally then you should be able to change it as and when needed without overwhelming effort. This is not the case though. This is not how the Constitution was written originally and no such processes are in place. Expand I reject this premise as well. If you have codes that can be changed easily, there is an increased liklihood of using changes in the law to maintain power. For example, in Russia Putin changed the rules so he could maintain power. Imagine if that were the case here. Would you be OK with Trump making himself POTUS for life with his kids as heirs? That is an obviously extreme example. It does highlight how easy changes can easily lead to undesirable and even oppressive regines. Quote So in fact, it's you who want to redefine the Constitution from what it was intended to be: a logical system of broad principles of freedoms, rights and democracy that can be interpreted by a living and growing society based on its reality into something that it never was and never intended to be: a literal code, scripture written in a different age to be applied literally word by word today. Absolutely a boneheaded idea that can't coexist with a modern society. Expand It was never intended to be that way. Who told you it was? Quote
gatomontes99 Posted August 31, 2024 Report Posted August 31, 2024 On 8/31/2024 at 9:04 PM, myata said: Maybe this question important as it is, does not belong to a small group of old people free to unwind their ideas, beliefs and fancies? What if it can and should be decided by the society itself, the public, the citizens? First, have a public discussion including experts and citizens without distinction of ideology or stripe. Explain the matter, general principles and freedoms or literal scripture and code. Then have a plebiscite where citizens will say how it should be interpreted applied. What could be wrong with that? The Constitution it belongs and is owned by the citizens not any one closed group. Expand Yeah, that is called a constitutional convention. Set one up. Quote
gatomontes99 Posted August 31, 2024 Report Posted August 31, 2024 On 8/31/2024 at 8:47 PM, Rebound said: Where in the Constitution does it say this? You know that it absolutely doesn’t. The impeachment clause says the President CAN be held criminally liable and it does not say that impeachment is a prerequisite to criminal prosecution. It’s also not clear at all what an “official duty” is. Is paying off a porn star from your personal business account an “official duty”? Expand For crying out loud. Really? Ok Why would the House and Senate have impeachment power if the DOJ or a state could prosecute the POTUS? You wouldn't need the power of impeachment if that was the case. So, yes, it is in there. Second: "Section. 2. The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment. He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments. The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session. Section. 3. He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States. " Those are the President's duties in the Constitution. If the Constitution gives the President those powers, how could any entity under the Constitution prosecute the President, even if the powers were abused? They can't. That is why we have impeachment. If the POTUS is impeached, then, by definition of impeachment, he us in violation of the Constituion and can be prosecuted. Quote
CdnFox Posted August 31, 2024 Report Posted August 31, 2024 On 8/31/2024 at 8:47 PM, Rebound said: Where in the Constitution does it say this? You know that it absolutely doesn’t. Expand Of course it does. Read the decision. Quote
myata Posted August 31, 2024 Author Report Posted August 31, 2024 On 8/31/2024 at 9:11 PM, gatomontes99 said: It can only be interpreted literally. Expand Then, it has to be the scripture because the process for reasonably efficient current updates is non-existent. You're stuck with a bunch of text for eternity, good luck. But then, you have this, do read it literally "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability." We are talking about applicability at this point, nothing else. Either you say that it only applies to one specific event in the history and what would be the point of adding it - nonsense. Or now you insist on changing the meaning of it, because it clearly reads as such a person must be first determined as such (presumably, legally), then prevented from running for office on that basis according to the clause, and only after that, the Congress may decide to overturn it, and not the other way around. So you're talking from the both sides of your mouth: you want to have it literally when it suits your interests, and ignore it as irrelevant when it doesn't. Why and how not? Quote If it's you or them, the truth is equidistant
gatomontes99 Posted August 31, 2024 Report Posted August 31, 2024 On 8/31/2024 at 10:41 PM, myata said: Then, it has to be the scripture because the process for reasonably efficient current updates is non-existent. You're stuck with a bunch of text for eternity, good luck. But then, you have this, do read it literally "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability." We are talking about applicability at this point, nothing else. Either you say that it only applies to one specific event in the history and what would be the point of adding it - nonsense. Or now you insist on changing the meaning of it, because it clearly reads as such a person must be first determined as such (presumably, legally), then prevented from running for office on that basis according to the clause, and only after that, the Congress may decide to overturn it, and not the other way around. So you're talking from the both sides of your mouth: you want to have it literally when it suits your interests, and ignore it as irrelevant when it doesn't. Why and how not? Expand Scripture? Your dismissal of the possibility to make changes is laughable. Twenty seven times laughable. The last amendment was as recently as 1992. It isn't set in stone, but it must be universally accepted. What makes you think we can't achieve that any more? As for the clause you quoted, it was written for a specific set of circumstances. Those circumstances must be present for it to apply and are specifically listed in the clause. It was also written for a specific set of people. I know you think President Trump, while President, led an insurrection. For one, he didn't. That just is fact. However, he was never convicted of insurrection, despite the Democrats' attempt to portray that falsehood as reality. Therefore, unless a second impeachment proceeding is brought, and he is convicted, it wouldn't apply. Even then, the Office of the President is not listed. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.