The trial

Discussion in 'Politics' started by sculptor, Feb 9, 2021.

  1. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    35,782
    What amendment would you like to see?

    ---
    Here's the process for amending the Constitution:
    1. Congress may submit a proposed constitutional amendment to the states, if the proposed amendment language is approved by a two-thirds vote of both houses.
    2. Congress must call a convention for proposing amendments upon application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the states (i.e., 34 of 50 states).
    3. Amendments proposed by Congress or convention become valid only when ratified by the legislatures of, or conventions in, three-fourths of the states (i.e., 38 of 50 states).
    Those are very high hurdles.

    Do you see why it is difficult to change the Constitution?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,537
    um
    NO
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    35,782
    There's no problem with the constitution. A clear procedure to impeach and try Trump exists, whose steps are unambiguous.

    If Trump is acquitted, the blame will lie entirely with Republican senators who are more concerned about being re-elected than they are about upholding the constitution in accordance with their oaths of office. History will judge them harshly.

    And many others will cheer as Trump walks away scott free from his second impeachment.

    Something is screwy with your numbers. Trump won 46.8% of the popular vote in the 2020 election - that is, 46.8% of those who actually came out to vote voted for Trump. You can't assume that all the eligible voters who chose to stay at home would have voted for Biden. They didn't vote for Biden. They stayed at home. You don't know what their views on Trump's impeachment are.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    35,782
    Okay. Thanks for the correction. I should have said that the President is voted for directly by the American people. The electoral college system obviously gets in the way of making the election of the president a fair process. That would be a good thing to get rid of if we're talking about constitutional amendments.
     
  8. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 71 years old Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,634
    So all those News broadcasters need not bother with their alleged word in their reporting? Feel free to say it's obvious the person they have in custody did it

    Nice to know

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  9. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,537
    We have a constitution that clearly supports the concept of sovereign states joined together in a union.
    We ain't a democracy.
    We ain't even a republic.
    The Constitution reserves the choice of the precise manner for selecting electors to the will of the state legislatures. It does not define or delimit what process a state legislature may use to create its state college of electors.
     
  10. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 71 years old Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,634
    No problem with understanding the difficulty in updating a document a few hundred years old which, as I noted, has reached mythical status

    Should have been undated incrementally from the get go

    No use operating a fleet of Flyers for a 100 years before deciding you really need a fleet of 737's

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,046
    Given an error margin of 1% or so no they are right on the mark.
    perhaps... but I am discussing eligible voters not those that voted only... perhaps you could re- read my post and confirm that to be the case?
     
  12. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    23,728
    Perhaps you should have kept reading the rest of his paragraph..
     
  13. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,437
    I guess some people DO have trouble with that!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Let's take an example. Kyle Rittenhouse shot three people; two of them died. Those facts are not in dispute. Even his attorneys agree.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Is he guilty of murder? Manslaughter? Negligent homicide? Is he an unsung hero for plugging those filthy BLM types?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    THAT is for the court to decide.

    So to sum up:
    Rittenhouse shot three people and killed two. Not alleged, it happened

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Rittenhouse may be guilty of murder. A jury will decide that.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  14. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 71 years old Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,634
    And saying

    It's fairly obvious by his actions - or I should say, his inaction.

    or some such without a qualifying ALLEGED is called poisoning the well

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  15. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,437
    Not at all. That person made it clear that it is fairly (i.e. not 100%) obvious that his actions indicated it. Not even that he did it, just that his actions likely indicated he did. That makes it clear that the person is NOT claiming reliable knowledge!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  16. parmalee peripatetic artisan Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,141
    Huh?

    The "actions" in this instance would be incitement and the "inaction" would be making no efforts toward de escalation. While definitively establishing whether or not Trump truly "want(ed) to stop the riot" may be nearly impossible, Trump's actions and inactions with respect to such very strongly suggest that he did not.
     
  17. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    35,782
    Yes.

    You're not a direct democracy. The people do get to vote, however.

    How so?

    republic (n.): a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.​

    Sounds like America would fit the bill, to me.

    Yes.

    It sounds like you approve of the current arrangement with the electoral college etc. Is that correct? Why?
     
  18. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    35,782
    It's not the age or the mythical status that is the problem. As I indicated, the problem is in getting enough people - and the right people - to agree to amend it.

    From the get go, the same obstacle was in place.

    The framers deliberately made it hard to change, by the way. They didn't have to make it hard. They wanted it hard.
     
  19. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    35,782
    Perhaps you could re-read my post and confirm that I already addressed that.
     
  20. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    35,782
    I would add that courts and juries regularly infer states of mind from evidence of how people acted.

    Murder, for instance, requires intent to kill. Following Michael's line of reasoning, it could be argued that there's no way anybody can ever know anybody's intent; that would require the ability to read minds. In that case, nobody could ever be convicted of murder. In practice, though, judges and juries infer intent from the evidence of actions before them. For instance, if there's evidence that a killer bought a gun, went to the victim's house, stayed there lying in wait for the victim to turn up, then shot at the victim's head with the gun the killer had acquired, loaded and aimed, and the killer had told his best friend "I'm going around to that guy's house to kill him", and so on, then it would be reasonable to conclude, beyond reasonable doubt, that the killer had intent to murder the victim. No mind reading required.
     
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2021
  21. parmalee peripatetic artisan Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,141
    The fascinating thing about Trump is that he not only commits crimes openly, he plans his crimes openly--he, quite literally, broadcasts his intentions to the entire world! While an impeachment trial is quite different from a criminal proceeding, this is the rare instance wherein even entertaining the idea of "reasonable doubt" seems utterly preposterous. There's simply a staggering amount of documented evidence establishing intent.
     
  22. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 71 years old Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,634
    Even a small amount of poison in the well is enough

    Saying

    It's fairly obvious by his actions - or I should say, his inaction.

    without a qualifying ALLEGEDLY would poison the well, even as above, only a small amount of poison. The legal department of any broadcaster would be asked questions like, who elected your organisation judge, jury and determiner of the verdict?

    What if a news agency of any sort put out a story "Trump during the period of about a few months before the events in question was in a mental condition and not respond for his actions", suddenly realised oops we didn't say ALLEGEDLY?

    It happens and you can see it frequently in TV broadcasting where the public member being interviewed makes some sort of statement and the interviewer jumps in with ALLEGEDLY

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  23. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 71 years old Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,634
    I thought the name for the American system was

    America is a Constitutional Democracy

    But doing my 10 second Google to make me 60% smarter I found

    *
    While often categorized as a democracy, the United States is more accurately defined as a constitutional federal republic.

    https://ar.usembassy.gov/education-culture/irc/u-s-government/
    *

    Live and learn even if not understand the pretzel mix

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     

Share This Page