|
Senator, you are hardly addressing my contention on the intention of Amendment XVII. You merely sidestep it by pointing to another argument I made previously (An argument which the Supreme Court initially affirmed in Ex Parte YoutubeDizzle100, before the SG who previously refused to defend the US suddenly changed his mind after the fact and the SC opened a case that was already closed) which has a superficial similarity to this one, and as such you basically concede on that point.
I would also like to point out that this amendment was not passed on its own, it was lumped in with the rest of the constitution. Proposing or ratifying the proposal doesn't necessarily mean that the Congress or the Supreme Court (the federal court didn't vote on this matter) completely agreed with everything in it, consider the fact that Congress rushed to immediately make changes to it after proposing it (and the Supreme Court affirmed many of those changes after they had just ratified the proposal).
Amendments don't need such approval (On a side note, Senator, I would like to ask where I implied that only the President's approval suffices when I literally stated that he was one of multiple people?), why shouldn't we require the same standard for them by your logic?
|
|
|
You've flipped the logic on its head, Senator. In a body as large as the Congress, requiring a two-thirds consensus is logical, but due to the size of the Court the difference between a majority and two-thirds would only be one vote. It seems to me that your desire is to make the process more difficult for the sake of making it more difficult, so ## #### ##### why not call for an amendment dictating that three fourths of the Congress is necessary for a new Constitution? Also, as a former Justice of the Court myself, the implication that I would insinuate that a Justice is insignificant is a ridiculous straw-man. |
|
RyphenJoin Date: 2010-10-12
Post Count: 474 |
Abstain
Signed by Lord Ryphen. |
|
|
you're attempting to imply the author's intent so it links back to when you attempted to do that in youtubedizzle v. united states and failed horrible - so i think that sets some precedent that the "intent" is pretty irrelevant nevertheless you cannot prove that was his sole intent with this amendment.
furthermore, it's completely irrelevant if the amendment was passed on it's own or not, we are not held liable if congress or the supreme court did not raise concerns or read this constitution fully, but i can assure you at least the supreme court did and that's probably why it received no nays on the supreme court.
moreover, i've hardly "flipped the logic on its head", i believe it goes without saying that the constitution is the law of the land and most likely the most important document we have, any attempts at making the process of replacing the most important document easier is a completely unfounded one.
like i said before, if your constitution cannot get either the chief justice's, the president's, or the founder's approval, then it shouldn't be our constitution.
and, for the record, yes, i completely support making the process of replacing the constitution more difficult and would definitely be in favor of 3/4ths of congress being required.
|
|
|
Senator, you're taking the standard of determining what the law is and applying it to a debate about what the law should be. Those are two totally different situations, you're comparing apples and oranges right now.
Whether the amendment passed on its own is completely relevant to this discussion, it seems to me you're trying to dance around your previous statement. You're blatantly trying to distract from the fact that you stated that this specific amendment must have been "liked" by the Supreme Court and two thirds of Congress due to it having been ratified, which is where my statement comes in as its point is to refute your aforementioned contention.
In a situation where we are operating under one of the worst possible Constitutions of all time, how is the notion that we ought to put an end to Congress' hands being tied behind its back on this matter unfounded? Regardless, that is not the matter I was referring to. I was referring to the fact that when I asked what the point in changing the requirement to two thirds was when it would result in the difference of one vote, you justified the one vote by saying it would be the difference between a majority and two-thirds, your answer was completely backwards.
The Chief Justice and the President aren't meant to be making the law, and as you yourself said the Constitution is the law of the land.
Lastly I would like to point out that you have completely dodged some questions. I will ask again, do you desire to preserve a terrible document's status as the basis of our Government? Secondly, why should we not apply the requirement of approval (and possibly the other requirements of a new constitution) to all amendments?
|
|
|
When it comes to the Founder's approval, I would contend that the Founder should not be so involved in our law-making process.
|
|
|
firstly, i'm not taking a standard of what the law is and applying it to what the law should be - the seventeenth amendment (my main argument) IS the law sooooo xd
and no it's not relevant because, unless you're implying (which i request you get factual assertions like evidence for) that congress/supreme court did not read the entire constitution and then aye then it's very irrelevant because they presumably read it and understood what it was going to do and still agreed to aye.
whether or not we are operating under one of the worst constitutions is a completely opinionated one but either way, our hands ARENT tied lol because you're acting like night, kot, and rapid are always just going to say no to replacing fruconst lol
the chief justice and the president (don't forget the founder xd) aren't making the law with this, it's simply an added measure to ensure decency in the new constitution and, as i stated before, it's a measure that is liked hence why the amendment proposed by a reformist failed in a reformist supermajority senate (<3)
no, i don't desire to preserve a bad constitution but that doesn't mean make the process of replacing our constitution easier just so you can pass another one? if you actually spoke to rapid or kot or night you'd see that they aren't just going to automatically say no to every constitution that gets proposed to them.
and what do you mean by your last point lol, approving every amendment one by one? i never said we shouldn't do that but you implied that congress just automatically ayed the constitution without reading it to justify you saying that this amendment is bad but clearly that's a bad implication for a useless justification.
i'll say the same thing i've said before, the last thing we should be doing is making the process of replacing our constitution easier: if your constitution cannot attain the approval of either the president, the chief justice, OR the founder, then it shouldn't be our constitution.
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, you are. This is a debate about what the law should be, your contention is the law should be as it is and I contend that it should be changed. This differs from Supreme Court decisions since they, as a judicial body, interpret the law as it is rather than deliberate on how the law should be. In our case, we are members of Congress. We comprise a legislative body, whose duty is to make the law as it should be. As such, it is illogical (as I said) to apply the standards of judicial interpretation to legislative deliberation.
Well I would like to mention that I was on the Supreme Court when the constitution was ratified, and I know that it was rushed through (interestingly, it had been previously denied). As someone who was a member of that body, are you telling me that you have better knowledge of what was going on than I do? The Vice President and former Justice can testify to the fact that he should have thought on things more thoroughly. Regardless, what I said is still relevant and you should stop avoiding your previous comment which I mentioned prior. Even assuming that everybody involved read and contemplated this constitution thoroughly, that doesn't mean they must have agreed with the amendment. Did you ever consider the possibility that they were fine with most of the proposal and simply didn't want to make a big deal out of one amendment? Therefore your contention, that the ratification proves that this specific amendment had broad approval, is what is truly unfounded here. You made the claim and the burden of proof on that matter was upon you, not me.
Our hands are tied, even if the particular people in power now might not be so obstructive (which is speculation), we still have to rely on them to allow us to make such a proposal.
Granting them such power sets a dangerous precedent, these roles shouldn't be so involved in this manner. Regardless, a measure being popular now has no impact on whether it should remain law or not.
It isn't just the permission mandate that's a problem, there's also the fact that any new constitution must be ratified by both the Supreme and Federal Courts. The Judiciary already has involvement with the requirement of one or the other method of ratification, but to force Congress to go through both (along with the permission mandate) is just another unnecessary hoop to jump through.
My point on the amendments wasn't about the ones already in the constitution. My point was that if we should make the process for passing a constitution so rigorous, why should we not according to your logic apply the same standard to any new amendment we propose?
Before the current constitution we did not need to seek the permission of the President, the Chief Justice, or the Founder, why should we now?
|
|
|
firstly, i'm not taking a standard of what the law is and applying it to what the law should be - the seventeenth amendment (my main argument) IS the law sooooo xd
and no it's not relevant because, unless you're implying (which i request you get factual assertions like evidence for) that congress/supreme court did not read the entire constitution and then aye then it's very irrelevant because they presumably read it and understood what it was going to do and still agreed to aye.
whether or not we are operating under one of the worst constitutions is a completely opinionated one but either way, our hands ARENT tied lol because you're acting like night, kot, and rapid are always just going to say no to replacing fruconst lol
the chief justice and the president (don't forget the founder xd) aren't making the law with this, it's simply an added measure to ensure decency in the new constitution and, as i stated before, it's a measure that is liked hence why the amendment proposed by a reformist failed in a reformist supermajority senate (<3)
no, i don't desire to preserve a bad constitution but that doesn't mean make the process of replacing our constitution easier just so you can pass another one? if you actually spoke to rapid or kot or night you'd see that they aren't just going to automatically say no to every constitution that gets proposed to them.
and what do you mean by your last point lol, approving every amendment one by one? i never said we shouldn't do that but you implied that congress just automatically ayed the constitution without reading it to justify you saying that this amendment is bad but clearly that's a bad implication for a useless justification.
i'll say the same thing i've said before, the last thing we should be doing is making the process of replacing our constitution easier: if your constitution cannot attain the approval of either the president, the chief justice, OR the founder, then it shouldn't be our constitution.
Senator Economics_Master |
|
|
OMG THE WORD WALL
also pls nay this representatives i dont want joshcons bc it's bad
ill beat u up 👊👊👊 |
|
|
############# You've flipped the logic on its head, Senator. In a body as large as the Congress, requiring a two-thirds consensus is logical, but due to the size of the Court the difference between a majority and two-thirds would only be one vote. It seems to me that your desire is to make the process more difficult for the sake of making it more difficult, so ## #### ##### why not call for an amendment dictating that three fourths of the Congress is necessary for a new Constitution? Also, as a former Justice of the Court myself, the implication that I would insinuate that a Justice is insignificant is a ridiculous straw-man. Senator Economics_Master |
|
|
i not about to waste another 15m reading and replying and then waiting another 2 hours for you to reply so let me just say it blatantly
it's there for a reason and the congress/sc back then supported it and still support it to date (partially for congress, supreme court still supports)
if a constitution cannot attain the permission of the chief justice, or the president, or the founder then it shouldnt be our constitution, that's plain and simple and has always been plain and simple.
|
|
|
and btw its not just giving the judiciary that power so its hardly another barrier to go through or w/e u said because its giving it to potus/founder as well /shrug
|
|
|
"it's there for a reason and the congress/sc back then supported it and still support it to date"
Your logic in determining that they fully supported this specific amendment is flawed, and you never successfully refuted me on that so I guess I win on this point.
"if a constitution cannot attain the permission of the chief justice, or the president, or the founder then it shouldnt be our constitution"
This notion is absolutely ridiculous, nothing more.
"that's plain and simple and has always been plain and simple."
How has it always been plain and simple when it hasn't always been the way of things?
|
|
|
"and btw its not just giving the judiciary that power so its hardly another barrier to go through or w/e u said because its giving it to potus/founder as well /shrug"
I never stated that it only gave the Judiciary that power, I don't know where you got that idea. Regardless, the fact that it gives it to the judiciary and also the CJ, POTUS, and Founder actually demonstrates that this amendment gives Congress more hurdles to jump than necessary. I have no idea how you made the extrapolation you did from the fact you yourself stated.
|
|
|
Senator,
You have ceased any attempt to refute me on the point of author intent and applying judicial standards to legislative deliberation and thus concede that point,
You have ceased any attempt to refute me on the point of support for Amendment XVII at the time of the constitution's adoption (simply stating your contention without elaboration doesn't count) and thus concede that point,
You have ceased any attempt to refute me on the point of our hands being tied in the amendment process (current officials happening to be open to proposals does not refute the general principle) and thus concede that point,
You have ceased any attempt to refute me on the point of the dangerous precedent set by Amendment XVII and the lack of relevance popularity has on the merit of law and thus concede that point,
You have ceased any attempt to refute me on the point of how Amendment XVII provides the Judicial Branch more involvement than necessary (your comment about how the Judiciary isn't the only entity with a role in the process under Amendment XVII is so irrelevant and illogical that it can't even be counted), thus restricting Congress with another needless hurdle, and thus concede that point,
You have made little to no attempt to answer the question of whether we should apply the same standard to all amendments, and thus failed to answer said question,
Given all the forfeited points of contention, and the ignored question, I think it is safe to conclude that I won this exchange. I ask all my colleagues to consider this exchange when they contemplate their votes on this amendment. I hope my contentions and refutations in this deliberation will have provided some insight. I am willing to answer any questions or settle any concerns that may be had, feel free to contact me with any.
-House Minority Leader YoutubeDizzle100(R)
|
|
IIBenWBJoin Date: 2014-06-30
Post Count: 541 |
Aye,
Rep. IIBenWB |
|
|
no i just made my points and you made yours and ## #### ##### its just down to personal beliefs and has been going back and forth and back and forth so i decided to not waste my time |
|
|
maybe if new points came up and maybe if this wasnt ultimately down to personal belief i'd continue?
|
|
|
What about the question you never answered in the first place, Senator?
|
|
|
Sad. NUSA incompetent congress doesn't even compare with the professionalism of EUSA.
Senator Economics_Master |
|
|
ngl but what question the only questions u've asked have been subtle af
|
|
|
Subtle? Alright then let me put it bluntly.
If we should make the process for proposing a new constitution as difficult as you say, why should we not make all amendments have to go through the same process? Or do you think we should?
|
|