It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US Constitution dictatorship

page: 2
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 15 2021 @ 06:41 PM
link   
Congress sends a bill to the president with a simple majority.
President can veto the bill.
Congress can over-ride the president's veto with a supermajority.



posted on Feb, 15 2021 @ 06:49 PM
link   
The only time it doesn't work as intended is when it goes single party, like it is right now.

Democrats have a majority in Congress and Senate, and have the presidency.

They can pass anything they want with a simple majority. All the republicans can do is try to filibuster and slow it down.

The democrats gleefully used the "nuclear option" under Harry Reid to both overcome filibusters and change a supermajority vote to a simple majority vote.

If the democrats want anything right now, they can have it. All the GOP could do is throw a tantrum and whine about it.



posted on Feb, 15 2021 @ 08:15 PM
link   
a reply to: peskyhumans

Lucky us.



posted on Feb, 15 2021 @ 10:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: dug88
a reply to: Dalamax

I tried clicking the link thinking it would help that all make some kind of sense. Now i'm even more confused...


Lol. I’m going to lay it on the next boffin I meet in the street
get their juices flowing and eyes a Criss crossing. Jump, jump.
edit on 15-2-2021 by Dalamax because: I’m is not in



posted on Feb, 16 2021 @ 02:13 AM
link   
Back in 2011 I wrote to the late Solomon Feferman, who had unrestricted access to Goedel's Nachlass, asking him if what is descibed here was what Goedel had found.

He replied, angrily it appeared to me, that he was not going to comment on this.

The OP is not nonsense.



posted on Feb, 16 2021 @ 03:00 PM
link   
a reply to: peskyhumans

They can't, unless the president relinquishes (willingly or out of ignorance) his right to return the vote. One time, two times, three times, ad mortis.

What confuses the reader into believing that repassing once suffices to force an order, resolution or vote into effect is:

"If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law."

One neglects that reconsiderations are themselves votes to which both houses are necessary, and thus, before the reconsideration vote, call it V1, takes effect, it must be approved by the president. Please notice the "shall become a Law", not "shall be a Law". Now since the reconsidered order, resolution or vote "X" "shall become a Law" because of the mere existence of V1, the reconsideration vote V1 itself must come to effect. If the Congress doesn't repass the returned reconsideration vote V1, the reconsideration vote V1 shall not take effect and thus neither the reconsidered order, resolution or vote X (V1's existence only starts "the becoming a Law" of X, to reach X's being an actual Law, V1 must take effect.) (To say that X "be a Law" is to say that V1 has been successful i.e., has taken effect.) And here we get a contradiction. Please stop and think.

To avoid said contradiction, Congress must repass the reconsideration vote V1, thereby creating a new reconsideration vote V2, which by its mere existence causes the previous vote V1 to "become a Law" (not be). V2 can only "be a Law"/come into effect if first presented to President. But he, again, can return V2, and woe to Congress if it weren't to repass V2 creating a further V3, for then it would break the Const. The Pres., owing to his oath, would have to promptly retaliate against the congressional conspirators (Pres. would have to prove that Congress will never repass V2).

Read, reread, reread, ... USC I.7.

edit on 16-2-2021 by Sheshbazzar because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2021 @ 03:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sheshbazzar
One neglects that reconsiderations are themselves votes to which both houses are necessary, and thus, before the reconsideration vote, call it V1, takes effect, it must be approved by the president.

No, the 2/3 vote is to surpass the president and put into effect V0.


Please notice the "shall become a Law", not "shall be a Law".

Given the context of the article this means "if this happens, it will be a law" implying that no other approvals are needed.

Sounds good and all but it isn't as solid an arguments as Mr. Gödel thought, if he did in fact think it.



edit on 16-2-2021 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2021 @ 01:45 AM
link   
a reply to: daskakik



No, the 2/3 vote is to surpass the president and put into effect V0.


The "surpassing" is in your head, not in the Const. A repass vote is a joint vote, involving both houses, "***Every*** Order, Resolution, or ***Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him***" (USC I.7)

The Const. say "shall become a Law" not "shall be a Law", but it even does not matter in fact, whether it "be" or "becomes a Law" won't change the fact that it still is a matter of joint voting by both houses and every such vote shall be presented to the president of the US, and ***before the same shall take effect, shall be approved by him.***

Repass votes are nowhere excepted, the only exception is clearly stated in the USC, viz. "except on a question of Adjournment".

That repassing a returned order, resolution or vote is in fact a joint vote is explained in the OP toward the end.

edit on 17-2-2021 by Sheshbazzar because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2021 @ 01:54 AM
link   
I have to edit a previous post.

One neglects that reconsiderations are themselves votes to which both houses are necessary, and thus, before the reconsideration vote, call it V1, takes effect, it must be approved by the president. Please notice the "shall become a Law", not "shall be a Law". Now since the reconsidered order, resolution or vote "X" "shall become a Law" because of the mere existence of V1, the reconsideration vote V1 itself must come to effect. If [the Pres. returns this V1 (he can return it as per USC I.7.3) and] the Congress doesn't repass the returned reconsideration vote V1, the reconsideration vote V1 shall not take effect and thus neither the reconsidered order, resolution or vote X (V1's existence only starts "the becoming a Law" of X, to reach X's being an actual Law, V1 must take effect.) (To say that X "be a Law" is to say that V1 has been successful i.e., has taken effect.) And here we get a contradiction. Please stop and think.

To avoid said contradiction, Congress must repass the [ returned by Pres.] reconsideration vote V1, thereby creating a new reconsideration vote V2, which by its mere existence causes the previous vote V1 to "become a Law" (not be). V2 can only "be a Law"/come into effect if first presented to President. But he, again, can return V2, and woe to Congress if it weren't to repass V2 creating a further V3, for then it would break the Const. The Pres., owing to his oath, would have to promptly retaliate against the congressional conspirators (Pres. would have to prove that Congress will never repass V2).



posted on Feb, 17 2021 @ 02:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Sheshbazzar
It would only be V1 if changes are made to the original bill. If they vote on the original bill it is a revote on V0 and it passes by 2/3 it becomes a law. It isn't V1, having to go back to the president for approval.

They are not passing a vote, they are voting on the passing of a bill.

The insistence on calling it by a different name, implying that it is a different bill that would have to be approved by the president is the flaw in the argument.



posted on Feb, 17 2021 @ 02:40 AM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

Look what the const. says:

" If he ap-prove he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. ***But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively" (I.7.2)

Here again: "But in all such Cases ***the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays***, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively"

Repassing a bill, order, resolution or ***vote*** is a new vote. After all the repassing vote may well fail, contrary to the previous one, so they are not the same.



posted on Feb, 17 2021 @ 02:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Sheshbazzar
Of course the vote isn't the same but the bill can be, so a new vote on the same bill can be called V1 (to try and make the argument work), but that isn't what "shall become a law", what that would be is what is being voted on and if it is the original bill, disregarding the objections with which it was returned, it means the president's veto is surpassed.

ETA: By the way, even if the president stalled some bills in this way, it still would not make him a dictator.


edit on 17-2-2021 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2021 @ 03:05 AM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

The repass vote is still a joint vote i.e., involving both houses, as such, before it shall take effect, must be sent and approved by Pres.

Nowhere are repass votes excepted from "Every Order, Resolution, or ***Vote*** to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect shall be approved by him".

The passage explicitly applies to votes, not only bills etc. but mere votes to which both houses participated, including repass votes.

This makes him a dictator, because he is commander in chief. He won't be kicked out of office, nor the Const. amended unless he agrees (cf. the opening posts of this thread).

I believe that this was intentional, hints like for instance "except on a question of adjournement", "shall become [not be] a law", or the anticonstitutionality of failed suicide, arouse suspicion, and authors of the Const., at least Jefferson, held the doctrine of permanent revolution, before Trotsky. The Const. is self-defeating, inconsistent if republic and dictatorship cannot both be true.
edit on 17-2-2021 by Sheshbazzar because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2021 @ 03:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sheshbazzar
The repass vote is still a joint vote i.e., involving both houses, as such, before it shall take effect, must be sent and approved by pres.

The original text reads:

Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.


The bolded part is the exception (emphasis on the "or") and it reaffirms the earlier statement that:

If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law.


If the president vetos a bill and congress, in a joint vote, repass the same bill by 2/3 vote, it shall become law.
edit on 17-2-2021 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2021 @ 03:40 AM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

"...or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, ***according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.***"

And what are these rules and limitations?

"Every Bill [vote in our case] which ***shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States;***"

A repass vote results from "repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives", i.e., both houses are involved. What happens to such joint votes? These, before they take effect, must be sent to Pres. who is totally free to return them to the house in which they have originated.

The mere existence of a repass vote (ironically enough, this very existence of repass votes, that repassing an order, resolution etc. is actually a vote and one involving both houses, has so far escaped notice) starts the "becoming of effect" of the the repassed bill, order etc., but this becoming will not reach its goal if the repass vote has not been made effective. Existence and efficacy are not the same thing here.

The exception is a figment of the reader's imagination. The framers of the Const. did it on purpose.
edit on 17-2-2021 by Sheshbazzar because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2021 @ 03:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Sheshbazzar
No, what you are looking at happens in the case before the "or" (I should have emphasized "or being disapproved by him"). Every Order, Resolution, or Vote...goes before him for approval but if he doesn't approve (vetos it) then you have the "or" case.


And what are these rules and limitations?

This article is only a little bit of text. The rules and limitations set forth are:

If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law.


So, in the case that the president vetos a bill, if both houses choose to repass the bill by a 2/3 vote, "it shall become a Law".



posted on Feb, 17 2021 @ 04:23 AM
link   
When Congress repasses a bill, an order, a resolution or a vote, what does it actually do?

Isn't Congress voting? It is: "But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined etc."

That is all, they generate a new joint vote. As any such vote, before reaching its effect, it must be approved by Pres.

When this joint repass vote has been made, showing the Congress' determination to enact the repassed bill, order etc., that repassed bill, order etc. shall only become, not be, a law. For it to actually be a law, the repassing vote must take effect, but being the joint vote that it is, it won't have effect before its having been itself sent to Pres. who may very well return it to Congress.

The repass votes are joint votes. Joint votes must be sent to Pres. for them to be effective. Pres. can reject/return them.

Nowhere repass votes are excepted from having to be sent to Pres., being joint votes, for their effect. The only exception is clearly stated, namely Congress needs no presidential approval to adjourn its session.


edit on 17-2-2021 by Sheshbazzar because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2021 @ 04:52 AM
link   
But let us suppose that instead of shall "become a law/of effect" it were "be a law/of effect".

Congress repasses X. This means a repass vote V has been made. X is now a law/has taken effect. But then V must have been effective, for the object of V, its raison d'etre, is for X to be a law, which according to your reading X indeed is.

V still, no matter what, is a joint vote, both houses were involved in it. But see, V has alreading taken effect and yet Const. says that such votes, before they take effect, must be sent to Pres etc.

So you will have to point out that "before" is to be understood as logical precedence, not as a chronological one i.e., that x is before y need only mean that a necessary condition for y is x, wich can be fulfilled after y. See discussion in the OP for why it makes things much worse.

In this case Congress still would have to send V to Pres.
edit on 17-2-2021 by Sheshbazzar because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2021 @ 06:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Sheshbazzar

I used to live in an actual dictatorship. A communist on to boot. One of the nasty ones that built prison camps and had people going around shooting people for having the wrong politics. One of those.

So trust me when I say that America isn't even remotely comparable.

What you are experiencing is known as "voting for the other guy". Liberals felt this when Trump was elected, now you feel it.

Democracy has spoken, and what it said was that more people voted blue than red. This doesn't mean that you're in a dictatorship, it means that you lost the election.

Now, wake me up when Biden sends the secret police around to arrest your family simply because they are related to you. Because that's what a lot of people out here in the real world get when they live in a real dictatorship.



posted on Feb, 17 2021 @ 11:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sheshbazzar
In this case Congress still would have to send V to Pres.

What you are missing is that it is a chronological process and the "or" I have mentioned creates an "if - then - else" conditional.

You insist on looping back to the point in the process when it is stated that "every" vote must be approved by the president but the if - then - else resolves without going back to that point.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join