| Author | Message | ||
     Blake |
The Constitution states that the senate must be allowed to amend bills authored by the house (Article I, section 7). The bill we are discussing prohibits any amendment, either by house or senate. So then how is the bill constitutional? | ||
| Blake |
>>> If I'm a Troll, you should ban me. If you are, I or another custodian absolutely will ban you. >>> It is a good way to cut down on views that oppose yours from sneaking in to this little domain of yours. Not so much. Banning trolls helps to maintain the integrity and value of the forum for folks of good character. | ||
| Honolulu_blue_esq |
Well, you called me one, so I must be. From what I've seen in my few months around here, what you say goes. Folks of good character huh? I suppose you are the judge of that. | ||
| Honolulu_blue_esq |
I already answered this question. Maybe you missed it. Here you go: It does prohibit the Senate from proposing amendments (notice the lower case a) to bills which are proposed by the subcommittee. It does not prohibit the Senate from proposing Amendments (notice the upper case A) to the Constitution, which is what your quoted language contemplates. Check out Article V. And around we go and around we go. | ||
| Blake |
Further, "bananas" is not a view, nor is exhorting someone to read text which is unrelated to the specific issue of debate. Those are more akin to the nonsense that trolls like to post. | ||
| Moxnix |
I'm missing our old friend, Hex. | ||
| Blake |
>>> It does prohibit the Senate from proposing amendments to bills which are proposed by the subcommittee. Then it violates Article I, section 7 of the Constitution, which states clearly that the senate must be permitted to amend such legislation. Your claim that Article I, section 7 is about amending the Constitution is false. Article I, section 7 concerns the creation and passing of legislation subordinate to the Constitution; it applies to bills not constitutional amendments. If I'm mistaken, then please show where in Article 1, section 7 the language applies as you claim only to the process of constitutional amendment. (Message edited by blake on August 08, 2011) | ||
| Honolulu_blue_esq |
Do some case law research and answer your own question. Spending so much time going back and forth with Sifo has gotten me behind. Regarding the trolls comment, maybe I am one. If so, you should ban me. I'm not sure how much more needs to be said about that. Unicorns. | ||
| Sifo |
Honolulu, I'm done with the debate at hand. I've said my piece. You are continuing with a very poor debate style though. No doubt that it is up to the side claiming unconstitutionality to make their case. You refuting these point with a simple "you're wrong because I say so" or your above example about the ability to amend the Constitution offers nothing. Following this with go read XXXX, offer nothing to explain what your position is. If you were to offer an opinion as to the interpretation of XXXX and how it refutes the proposed opinion, you might be able to support your position. I hope you're a better lawyer in real life than you portray on the internet. I don't think a judge would be very entertained with that sort of argument. | ||
| Honolulu_blue_esq |
"I hope you're a better lawyer in real life than you portray on the internet. I don't think a judge would be very entertained with that sort of argument." Good thing for me you aren't a judge. | ||
| Sifo |
Good thing for me that you aren't my attorney! | ||
| Honolulu_blue_esq |
You are probably right. You'd obviously be better off pro se than hiring any lawyer to do your bidding. Which is why I can't wait to read Sifo v. United States of America when you challenge this law. Have you filed your action yet? | ||
| Sifo |
I wouldn't have standing. I'm not one of the critters that are affected by this. I would guess that one or more of the Congresscritters will take the challenge though. | ||
| Blake |
Please show where in Article 1, section 7 the language applies as you claim only to the process of constitutional amendment and not to congressional legislation. There is no case law in existence that states so. You are the first to make such a claim as far as I can find. A troll is as a troll does. | ||
| Honolulu_blue_esq |
"There is no case law in existence that states so. You are the first to make such a claim as far as I can find" Then you didnt look very hard. Pick up a con law 1 book. Sifo: If the bill does what you say (creates unequal representation), you certainly would have standing. Unless one of your Senators AND your representative are appointed to the subcommittee (which would be pretty amazing), you are now a citizen who is not adequately represented. Standing satisfied. Proceed with your suit. | ||
| Honolulu_blue_esq |
"A troll is as a troll does." And yet, I'm still able to log in. I must be missing something. I think it is interesting that where you say i'm a troll, I've been contacted by MULTIPLE folks thanking me for standing up to you folks and trying to explain the position, which they perceive as the correct one. Strangely, each conversation ended with something like 'you really can't talk to those guys. The refuse to listen. They make up their mind, and the rest is just conjecture.' I'm finding that to be pretty truthful. A lesson learned I suppose. | ||
| Kenm123t |
Guys I have been reading along this thread. Your arguing with a troll Trolls are not just on the internet. This is a prime example of why lawyers attorneys should be banned from any elected office with a specific ban on any involved in legislature and in the Judicial selection process. Common sense and failure grasp of real world Issues enable the legal weasels to ruin the country. The legal system stretches the law to fit any position they want as long as they get paid. Remember these are the folks that think its a Choice to kill un born babies and ok to strip search Americans getting planes but let Maj Hassan run loose by Threatening lawsuits for those complaining about Hassan's behaviour. Till we get the self serving legal community out of elected office we are in serious trouble. Oh Obama is smart he's a legal prof. My Beagle has better grasp of the economy than this fool does. Shakespeare had it right about handling the legal +++ I will not call it a profession. | ||
| Reindog |
I wouldn't call you a troll but you have definitely lost when you resort to this type of BS. I thought you were better than this. I don't have a dog in this fight and I respected you for sticking to your argument. That respect is now lost on someone who claims to be a lawyer. | ||
| Court |
Ditto. The "my secret friends said" response took me right back to 2nd grade at Randolph Elementary. I've no dog in this fight, not even going to go back and read the details now. Enjoy and have all the fun you want . . . it's the internet. | ||
| Moxnix |
Maybe it was one other troll with multiple personalities. I'm reminded of a little kid who grabs an electric fence, just enough voltage to keep his hand from letting go. | ||
| Kenm123t |
Does H Blue know Rocco and Or that old rope smoker Hex? | ||
| Ulyranger |
"Therein lies a part of your problem, in your country you've always been brought up with a "we're the top dogs, f*** everybody else" attitude, this doesn't endear you a lot of people. If you take his message as being do nothing, you can't have been reading the same one as me, I read it as being more on the lines that your country's problems are of your own making & so should be simple enough to resolve with a collective effort. Personally I couldn't give a rat's what you think of foreigners, but I can assure you that from many people's point of view, you're blessed, but still bitching about the colour scheme in the toilets of paradise. The fact that you don't care says it all. What's on my tube? dust! I can't be arsed to watch it." Grumpy my friend, how the heck did you arrive at that? I don't hate, or even dislike members of foreign nations. But I do not care what they think of our INTERNAL debates. Quite frankly, it's none of their business. Just as their internal debates, policies and such are none of mine. How exactly is this sentiment "we're the top dogs, screw the rest"? This current attention is similar to all the external opinions that floated around telling us dumb Americans that we really needed to join the rest of the civilized world and institute national health care. To me and many other Americans this pressure exerted from outside our borders regarding strictly domestic matters is offensive. I'm not sure what your idea of the "collective" approach is to fixing our problems, but they are far from easy to fix since we've been heading for this cliff for way too long. To fix the entitlement, no responsibility attitudes that have lead us to the this point will literally take generations to undo. Do I think America is great, yes, but it is far from paradise..........fact is can't even see "paradise" in the rear view mirror anymore. Do I think America is the best nation on the planet for me? Yup, probably not for everyone though and that doesn't mean that I wish ill on the rest of the world's inhabitants. Fact is, I wish prosperity, happiness and good health to everyone on the third rock (excepting those that would do us harm of course). If we took this anonymous emailer's advise a bit over 200 years ago and just learned to live with the "paradise" of the colonies, quit the bitchin', where would we be today? Debate and hashing out the details is a good thing. Being a sheep, following the herd no matter where the shepard leads is not. To each their own though. Cheers to you sir. "Fiercely Independent" | ||
| Pwnzor |
Multiple people (that's a lot of people) have contacted me. They are my secret friends. I've never met them, but they are an accurate barometer of the human Psyche as well as public opinion. "If you listen to fools, the mob rules"... | ||
| Honolulu_blue_esq |
LOL. You don't have to believe me if you don't want to. Thats your call. I'm not going to "out" anybody who obviously wanted to remain anon. Otherwise they would have just posted. Take it for what you will. | ||
| Reindog |
You can LOL all you want. We don't need to know about your secret friends as it doesn't add to your arguments. Hearsay detracts from an argument and has no place in a debate. Furthermore, I too, get private emails that support my Conservatism as well as face to face endorsements from Badwebbers who I have met for the first time. Heck, some want me to be President  . I don't use this fact to support my viewpoints like you did. You have lost and you know you have lost credibility. After all, you claim to be a lawyer. If you couldn't see that there was honest debate, then you are not a very good lawyer. (Message edited by reindog on August 09, 2011) | ||
| Honolulu_blue_esq |
Reindog: Perhaps you missed the point of my "secret friends" post. I'll take the heat for not expressing the reasoning behind the post. It was not intended to add to my arguments or their underlying fact. Those have been presented, and I've got no doubt that they won't change your collective minds. Tis the nature of the beast of the internet argument. Instead, the post was meant to counter the statement that I am somehow a troll. Trolls typically spew nonsensical drivel, as I understand them. In my opinion, which doesn't require your blessing, the fact that several folks agree with what I'm saying shows that what I'm saying isn't trolling material. Bottom line is this: You guys believe something, and you hold on to it something fierce. It doesn't matter what others say, unless those others agree with what you believed to begin with. And you are proud of that fact. I get that now, and am grateful for those who have posted here and who have sent me private messages for teaching me that lesson. Just as you've "lost respect" for me, I've lost respect for this forum as a place for open, honest, and meaningful debate. It remains, in my mind, a great place for information about Buell (and is becoming a great place for information about Erik Buell Racing). From a political discussion standpoint, however, it is nothing more than an alarmist conspiracy blog. Those have some use to society, I think, so that isn't an insult. I just happen to believe that the sky is staying put for the time being. Enjoy agreeing with each other, and God help the next person who dares hold a differing opinion. | ||
| Reindog |
I don't view you as a troll. Would you prefer that these debate topics are easily malleable? I don't. The very existence of America is at play. People's minds tend to change at a glacial pace and it matters not about "agreeing with each other". You are too impatient but change does come. It did for me. You will make a fine Conservative some day . | ||
| Moxnix |
>>I've lost respect for this forum as a place for open, honest, and meaningful debate. Hey, no snivelling! Really, search for "The Law of Infinite Cornucopia." At some point, political threads fulfill that doctrine. This one went full tilt several pages back. I still miss Hex. | ||
| Reindog |
Hex was awesome. | ||
| Honolulu_blue_esq |
"The very existence of America is at play." This is what I meant by "From a political discussion standpoint, however, it is nothing more than an alarmist conspiracy blog. Those have some use to society, I think, so that isn't an insult. I just happen to believe that the sky is staying put for the time being." Regarding turning Conservative: My basic view of the conservative/liberal debate is that liberals would rather have government at work than in their bedroom, and conservatives would rather have government in their bedroom than at work. I'd rather Obama see me in my suit than in my boxers, so I'm a liberal. If I change, it will likely be to become a libertarian. No government in my bedroom OR at work. |
