19th (Another mass shooting)

[Athos_131]

#Resist

[Athos_131]

#Resist

[Athos_131]

#Resist

[psiberzerker]

 

"Take the guns, then go to court...  There's no Due Process here."  ~D Trump.

Impeaching, and Removing a sitting president can take orders of magnitude longer than getting a Constitutional Amendment passed.  (That requires a majority of the House, the Senate, the Supreme Court, AND the States.)

We're trying to do ^That.  We've finally admitted that, on the floor of the House.  This is an obvious distraction.

[MissBarbara]

Impeaching, and Removing a sitting president is orders of magnitude easier than getting a Constitutional Amendment passed.  (That requires a majority of the House, the Senate, the Supreme Court, AND the States.)

I don't see how you could possibly argue that.

The U.S. Constitution has been amended 27 times, and even if you exclude the Bill of Rights, the U.S. Constitution has been amended 17 times.

A sitting president has been impeached and convicted exactly 0 times. And only once has a president even come close to being convicted as part of the impeachment process. And that president, quite rightly, is almost universally deemed the worst president in U.S. history (present company excluded).

And the U.S. Supreme Court plays no role in the passage and ratification of a Constitutional amendment.

[psiberzerker]

I don't see how you could possibly argue that.

Simply because it takes the House of Representatives to Impeach, then the Senate to Remove a sitting president from office.

It takes the House, the Senate, (Which the President can Veto) the Supreme Court, and then the States to vote, by majority to ratify a new Amendment.

So, let's look at the Historical Precedent, shall we?  The 27th Amendment was passed by Congress, in 1789.  Then, it was Ratified by state Majority, in 1991.

202 years later.  They only have a maximum of 8 years to Impeach, then Remove a president of office.

That's 2 orders of magnitude.  I rest my case.

[Athos_131]

#Resist

[psiberzerker]

I Amended my previous statement:

Impeaching, and Removing a sitting president can take orders of magnitude longer than getting a Constitutional Amendment passed.

Thank you, MB, for checking my work.

[MissBarbara]

Simply because it takes the House of Representatives to Impeach, then the Senate to Remove a sitting president from office.

It takes the House, the Senate, (Which the President can Veto) the Supreme Court, and then the States to vote, by majority to ratify a new Amendment.

So, let's look at the Historical Precedent, shall we?  The 27th Amendment was passed by Congress, in 1789.  Then, it was Ratified by state Majority, in 1991.

202 years later.  They only have a maximum of 8 years to Impeach, then Remove a president of office.

That's 2 orders of magnitude.  I rest my case.

As I stated above, the U.S. Supreme Court plays no role in the passage and ratification of a Constitutional Amendment.

On top of that, the U.S. president plays no role in the passage and ratification of a Constitutional Amendment. More to the point, a president cannot veto an amendment passed by Congress. Some presidents have signed amendments passed by Congress, but that is purely ceremonial.

So, let's look at the Historical Precedent, shall we? The 26th Amendment was passed by Congress on March 23, 1971. Then, it was Ratified by a majority of the states on July 1, 1971 -- barely three months later.

Here's your argument: It takes only two bodies -- the House and Senate -- to impeach and convict a president, yet it takes three bodies -- the House, Senate, and the States -- to ratify a Constitutional Amendment. Two is less than three, so two wins!

I would counter argue that 27 is more than 0, so 27 wins.

You seem to believe, to badly paraphrase that famous like from "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, "When the theory is belied by fact, stick with the theory."

[Athos_131]

Simply because it takes the House of Representatives to Impeach, then the Senate to Remove a sitting president from office.

It takes the House, the Senate, (Which the President can Veto) the Supreme Court, and then the States to vote, by majority to ratify a new Amendment.

So, let's look at the Historical Precedent, shall we?  The 27th Amendment was passed by Congress, in 1789.  Then, it was Ratified by state Majority, in 1991.

202 years later.  They only have a maximum of 8 years to Impeach, then Remove a president of office.

That's 2 orders of magnitude.  I rest my case.

As I stated above, the U.S. Supreme Court plays no role in the passage and ratification of a Constitutional Amendment.

On top of that, the U.S. president plays no role in the passage and ratification of a Constitutional Amendment. More to the point, a president cannot veto an amendment passed by Congress. Some presidents have signed amendments passed by Congress, but that is purely ceremonial.

So, let's look at the Historical Precedent, shall we? The 26th Amendment was passed by Congress on March 23, 1971. Then, it was Ratified by a majority of the states on July 1, 1971 -- barely three months later.

Here's your argument: It takes only two bodies -- the House and Senate -- to impeach and convict a president, yet it takes three bodies -- the House, Senate, and the States -- to ratify a Constitutional Amendment. Two is less than three, so two wins!

I would counter argue that 27 is more than 0, so 27 wins.

You seem to believe, to badly paraphrase that famous like from "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, "When the theory is belied by fact, stick with the theory."

Hello, Kristen's Board Police?

I'd like to report a murder.

#Resist

[IdleBoast]

[psiberzerker]

As I stated above, the U.S. Supreme Court plays no role in the passage and ratification of a Constitutional Amendment.

They have the options of reviewing, the Wording of the proposed Amendment for Constitutionality.  This can delay the proceedings, as many times as they want, but you're right.  They can't overturn it until it becomes Law.

On top of that, the U.S. president plays no role in the passage and ratification of a Constitutional Amendment.

No, but only the States vote on the Ratification.  The president can Veto the Proposed Amendment.

Here's your argument: It takes only two bodies -- the House and Senate -- to impeach and convict a president, yet it takes three bodies -- the House, Senate, and the States -- to ratify a Constitutional Amendment.

No, that part of my argument was that 202 years>8.  2 centuries>a decade, by 2 Orders of Magnitude.  (Give and take 2 years.)  Also, there's no Term Limits for Congress, so they can take decades to go through the entire process of writing, and passing an Amendment (To be ratified by the States.)

Also, it's not 2>3, it's 50 states, 100 Senators, and at the moment, 435 Representatives.  We need an Majority in the Senate, then the House, and Then the States (With options to veto, or edit the wording in there by the other 2 branches.)  So, while you're checking my straw-lawyer's math, it's 3 Stages of ratification, which Multiplies the probability, not a tribunal voting.  

If we had a tribunal, than 2 votes for outweighs 1 vote against.  Which is what you boiled my argument down to.  You're choosing to look at a Quadratic Equation of probability as a simple "2+1=3." as your counter-argument.

If you want my entire argument, in a nutshell, it's: "This is a lot more complicated than that," and the more details we both collectively discuss, the more of that complexity you help me detail.

Your move.  Start with all the times a Bill of Rights (The first 10) Amendment has been overturned, by anyone.

[psiberzerker]

No offense, nor hard feelings intended, nor implied.  This is a great debate, and I'm enjoying it immensely.  Thank you, MB.

[MissBarbara]

As I stated above, the U.S. Supreme Court plays no role in the passage and ratification of a Constitutional Amendment.

They have the options of reviewing, the Wording of the proposed Amendment for Constitutionality.  This can delay the proceedings, as many times as they want, but you're right.  They can't overturn it until it becomes Law.

On top of that, the U.S. president plays no role in the passage and ratification of a Constitutional Amendment.

No, but only the States vote on the Ratification.  The president can Veto the Proposed Amendment.

Here's your argument: It takes only two bodies -- the House and Senate -- to impeach and convict a president, yet it takes three bodies -- the House, Senate, and the States -- to ratify a Constitutional Amendment.

No, that part of my argument was that 202 years>8.  2 centuries>a decade, by 2 Orders of Magnitude.  (Give and take 2 years.)  Also, there's no Term Limits for Congress, so they can take decades to go through the entire process of writing, and passing an Amendment (To be ratified by the States.)

Also, it's not 2>3, it's 50 states, 100 Senators, and at the moment, 435 Representatives.  We need an Majority in the Senate, then the House, and Then the States (With options to veto, or edit the wording in there by the other 2 branches.)  So, while you're checking my straw-lawyer's math, it's 3 Stages of ratification, which Multiplies the probability, not a tribunal voting.  

If we had a tribunal, than 2 votes for outweighs 1 vote against.  Which is what you boiled my argument down to.  You're choosing to look at a Quadratic Equation of probability as a simple "2+1=3." as your counter-argument.

If you want my entire argument, in a nutshell, it's: "This is a lot more complicated than that," and the more details we both collectively discuss, the more of that complexity you help me detail.

Your move.  Start with all the times a Bill of Rights (The first 10) Amendment has been overturned, by anyone.

I'm a pretty smart girl, but I suck at math, and I always have. Thus, I have little idea what "orders of magnitude" means, and I have absolutely no idea what "Quadratic Equation of probability" means.

So, you have me there! Revel in it! Bask in it! Raise your eyebrows in supercilious disdain at my ignorance!

But I do know an awful lot about American History in general, and U.S. Constitutional History in particular. You know, "What Happened."

And that's the source of my argument. I could cite specific passages from the Constitution to demonstrate my assertions (Fun fact: The entirety of Article V of the Constitution, which deals with amending the Constitution, is only one short paragraph).

I could link or guide you to the parts of the Constitution that detail the Supreme Court's role in the amendment process and the president's role in the amendment process.

Oh wait, I can't! And that's because the Constitution is perfectly silent on the roles of the Supreme Court and the president in the amendment process. And that's because the Supreme Court and the president play absolutely no role in the amendment process.

Contrary to your assertion above, this isn't complex at all. Those are very simple and very understandable facts.

Believe me, I get it: A two-step process is simpler than a three-step process. Despite my general mathematical illiteracy, I really do understand that.

But that's aggressively irrelevant to the present discussion.

You can keep responding, and keep embarrassing yourself by repeating aggressively inaccurate statements. But in addition to being a smart girl, I'm also a kind girl. And I feel compelled to try to stop you from making yourself look even more ignorant, and more foolish.

[psiberzerker]

I have little idea what "orders of magnitude" means, and I have absolutely no idea what "Quadratic Equation of probability" means.

Well, I'm an engineer, not a lawyer, but Orders of Magnitude is powers of 10.  Hundreds is 2 orders of magnitude greater than single digits, so the simplest way to check is to count the number of digits past the decimal place.  Quadratic Equations are far too complex for a clumbsy analogy, but basically have the formula of Xa^2+Yb=Z.  Byegones, I'll abandon that line of reasoning, because it only detracts from the discussion (Although it was in my opening statement, and seemed to be the phrase you had an argument with.)

But I do know an awful lot about American History in general, and U.S. Constitutional History in particular.  I could cite specific passages from the Constitution to demonstrate my assertions (Fun fact: The entirety of Article V of the Constitution, which deals with amending the Constitution, is only one short paragraph).  I could link or guide you to the parts of the Constitution that detail the Supreme Court's role in the amendment process and the president's role in the amendment process.[/b]

Please do.  I'd much rather educate myself, with the help of someone who knows more than I in the subjects at hand (Constitutional law, and the History of Amending the Bill of Rights) than agree to both remain ignorant, because we lack the patience to discuss them like civilized adults.

[psiberzerker]

Hello, Kristen's Board Police?

I'd like to report a murder.

You saw this one coming, and once again, you had nothing to contribute.

You had a chance to #resist, and yet again, failed to.

[IdleBoast]

Hundreds is an order of magnitude greater than single digits

*cough*

"Hundreds" are two orders of magnitude greater than single digits...

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

@ MissB, in common use, "orders of magnitude" = "loads more", "several orders of magnitude" = "loads and loads more".

 

[psiberzerker]

"Hundreds" are two orders of magnitude greater than single digits...

 

You already got your credit for today.  And I still owe Athos one for tomorrow!

[Athos_131]

Hello, Kristen's Board Police?

I'd like to report a murder.

You saw this one coming, and once again, you had nothing to contribute.

You had a chance to #resist, and yet again, failed to.

If I had told you to stop, you'd had just gotten mad and continued anyway.

I saw where this was going -most people don't come out of debates winning against MissB.  A few, but not most.

It would have reduced the effect it's having, and my pleasure coming from it.

Someone once used the phrase, "aggressively stupid," and it reminded me of that siuation.

#Resist

[psiberzerker]

If I had told you to stop, you'd had just gotten mad and continued anyway.

Thank God you're here, Hindsight Lad!



Why?  This isn't your trolling thread*.  You're perfectly happy to disrupt every other serious discussion of Politics on this board, so why's this one so special?  You can't have run out of tired recycled image macros so easily.

I saw where this was going -most people don't come out of debates winning against MissB.

Yeah, well if we get an interesting political discussion out of it, than we both win.

It would have reduced the effect it's having, and my pleasure coming from it.

I'll be sure to let you know the moment your pleasure is my concern.

*I'm waiting for my daily ding, to wipe out the fact that I got 2 credits, in 1 page of your pedotrolling thread.  I can even do that better than you, and that's All you can do here.