Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[wierd]

Clarification on what I mean in such legislation:

It is NOT this:

"Kicked out of office for daring to oppose the majority."

It is THIS:

Using a tactic to halt the government in a fashion other than what congress or the senate are legally empowered to undertake. (Wherein, things like fillibuster, failure to meet majority in either house or senate, and other above-board methods are explicitly enshrined.) With provisions that since the world changes, law needs to as well, such that new methods may be added to the explicitly exempted list of allowed tactics, as needed, with a full 2/3 majority vote in both house and senate, and with a further requirement that all language used to amend the law must be completely unambiguous in nature or intent.

Yes, that means being specific. Something legislators are terribly bad at.

[Aqizzar]

Yes, that means being specific. Something legislators are terribly bad at.

And which the Constitution itself is pretty bad at, which is why you're basically asking for a Free Icecream law.

[lue]

Using a tactic to halt the government in a fashion other than what congress or the senate are legally empowered to undertake. (Wherein, things like fillibuster, failure to meet majority in either house or senate, and other above-board methods are explicitly enshrined.) With provisions that since the world changes, law needs to as well, such that new methods may be added to the explicitly exempted list of allowed tactics, as needed, with a full 2/3 majority vote in both house and senate, and with a further requirement that all language used to amend the law must be completely unambiguous in nature or intent.

I could get behind something like this. I think we were a bit quick to slide down the slope to the worst incarnation of the law. I'd recommend adding an "appendix" if you will to the legislation that describes precisely what some more volatile* words and phrases in the law mean. I realize you could just use simpler and stabler words, but in case you just can't avoid such a volatile phrase (of which I can conjure zero examples right now, for what it's worth).

It's one of those "do we really need to point this out?" kind of laws, but that tends to happen. But, were I a part of drafting the legislation, I'd be incredibly paranoid in everything the bill says, what it allows, disallows, procedures for kicking someone out, etc.

Well, great. My mind's in one of those states now, where I'm almost giddy thinking of what such a law would say and do. Thanks a lot, wierd .

I was meaning literal. "Mutually Assured Destruction"

A deficit default will assure devestation on both sides. Dem's DO have a considerably significant amount of negative publicity. That they might statistically come out just a molecule on top after the dust settles, does not mean that mutual devestation did not occur.

I don't mean it in the sense that the fear of it will keep them honest; they have clearly spelled out that this is not the case. Instead, they are comitted to mutual destruction as the inevitable conclusion, without seeking alternatives.

Now's the time to invest heavily in vault tec.

No seriously, it is the philosophy that forcing both sides to suffer hugely prevents going over the cliff. Democrats have a 2:1 advantage on this. One does not simply, suffer from a 2:1 advantage. And the Tea-Party is liable to hang themselves with thread.

How about MAUD (Mutually Assured, Unified Destruction) then? The implications of the phrase MAD don't line up, I agree, but the actual words themselves ("destruction which is assured by both sides, i.e. mutually") do.

*volatile as in their susceptibility to their definition changing over time.

[Descan]

Lue, the short definition of "Words that can change over time", is "words".

You ain't gonna make an immutable document that way.

[lue]

Lue, the short definition of "Words that can change over time", is "words".

You ain't gonna make an immutable document that way.

I admit the appendix idea is a bit silly, but allow me to refer you to another part of my post:

But, were I a part of drafting the legislation, I'd be incredibly paranoid in everything the bill says, what it allows, disallows, procedures for kicking someone out, etc.

That paranoia includes a paranoid description of every somewhat-complex legalese word gets used. I was thinking mainly of how dodgy interpreting the Constitution sometimes is. That can be remedied in alternate, and better ways though. Just spitballing on this, what shall we call it, Co-operative and Civil Congressional Procedures Act (CCCP Act ). I said I was in a giddy, idea-filled mood at the sound of the idea.

(I'm joking on the name of this hypothetical law, in case you can't tell.)

[misko27]

Lue, the short definition of "Words that can change over time", is "words".

You ain't gonna make an immutable document that way.

Rhere are entire professions dedicated to the finer points of avoiding ambiguity. But some of them are bad people.

[Lord Shonus]

And twenty, or thirty, or fifty years from now, the meanings of words will have changed, and there will again be ambiguity. This is the entire reason why courts put so much time and effort into reading the diaries and papers of the Founding Fathers, and to a lesser (as there's been less time for linguistic drift) extent those of other influential political figures. They can't rely merely on the written law to be certain that they know what was intended. (The word "militia" is the most infamous example of this, as hundreds of thousands of pages have been written debating precisely what that meant in 1787; and the issue of who, exactly, has the right to suspend habaeus corpus in the event of Invasion or Inssurection a less famous but nasty political fight.) If those in power are looking for an excuse to exploit an ambiguity, then that effort will not be expended.

[wierd]

And twenty, or thirty, or fifty years from now, the meanings of words will have changed, and there will again be ambiguity. This is the entire reason why courts put so much time and effort into reading the diaries and papers of the Founding Fathers, and to a lesser (as there's been less time for linguistic drift) extent those of other influential political figures. They can't rely merely on the written law to be certain that they know what was intended. (The word "militia" is the most infamous example of this, as hundreds of thousands of pages have been written debating precisely what that meant in 1787; and the issue of who, exactly, has the right to suspend habaeus corpus in the event of Invasion or Inssurection a less famous but nasty political fight.) If those in power are looking for an excuse to exploit an ambiguity, then that effort will not be expended.

This is resolvable by asserting in the language exactly how the document is to be interpreted.

Something along the lines of "the wording and intent of this document are to be interpreted using the definitions, meanings, and intentions that they represent as of the time of the authorship of this document, and no other interpretations are to be considered valid. All amendments made to the document through the method proscribed above will also be interpreted using the language, meanings, and intents for the words used at the time of the authoring of such admendments. At no time will any other interpretation ever be used to enforce this law. To clarify what the definitions and intents are for the words used in this document, the following definitions are hereby defined explicitly:...."

[Helgoland]

But that paragraph is open to interpretation as well - it's a classical "Who guards the guardians?"-type problem. Ultimately a law is just a few words written on a scrap of paper; and paper makes for bad fortifications. The only possibility of keeping things the way you want them to be is moulding society to gravitate to that state; America I believe has been very successful at this.

[wierd]

Easy enough. Append a fucking dictionary to the bill, defining each and every word, and further assert that no other definitions not explicitly so defined, are to be used.

If you have to go straight on 100% pedant, so be it.

[kaijyuu]

All of which will be interpreted in a myriad of ways too.

This is a problem inherent to language. We won't be able to fix the problem of interpreting what a dead person meant until we can keep said dead person's head in a jar and ask them what they meant.

[misko27]

We won't be able to fix the problem of interpreting what a dead person meant until we can keep said dead person's head in a jar and ask them what they meant.

I suddenly feel bad for the price of passing legislation in the future, endless life as a head in a jar.

[wierd]

It needn't be alive, just perfectly preserved. Assuming some crazy level of diagnostic scanning technology, able to trace neural circuitry anyway.

[SalmonGod]

All of which will be interpreted in a myriad of ways too.

This is a problem inherent to language. We won't be able to fix the problem of interpreting what a dead person meant until we can keep said dead person's head in a jar and ask them what they meant.

And Thomas Jefferson's head would tell us about militia... and then we'd step over into the next room after hearing him out and still argue over what exactly his words meant.

[freeformschooler]

We won't be able to fix the problem of interpreting what a dead person meant until we can keep said dead person's head in a jar and ask them what they meant.

I suddenly feel bad for the price of passing legislation in the future, endless life as a head in a jar.

Its okay, we'll feed them fish food and they'll be plenty happy.  /futurama