US Constitution dictatorship

a reply to: daskakik

That is not how an axiomatic system or a legal document work. What they say on line 512 as a generality, holds good both on line 2 and 32768.

("Every order, resolution or vote to which both houses are necessary" is a generality owing to the meaning of "every". Please observe that nowhere are repass votes, which are votes to which both houses are necessary, excepted. The exception is actually stated: any question of adjournment and that is all.)

a reply to: Sheshbazzar
Legal documents are also open to interpretation.

The interpretation you are so dead set against is the one in almost everybody's head, even those sitting on the SCOTUS, so the scenario of a sitting president becoming a dictator is nil.

You can keep rallying for the interpretation given in the OP being the "true" meaning but it is rather pointless.

a reply to: daskakik

It would happen in the blink of an eye. An he has the Const. (and the Army) on his side.

a reply to: Sheshbazzar
That is just your opinion.

If the interpretation that you think is wrong is in almost everybody's head, then he doesn't have the constitution or army.

Also, constitutions come and go. They are just pieces of paper that can be replaced by other legal documents.

a reply to: daskakik

The scheme is very well thought, one has the right to suspect that it was intentional, designed by clever authors, they were Masons I gather. Maybe they did it on purpose, waiting for a Pres. to enact the loophole. It is said that at a higher level, a Mason has to die, killed by the rabble. This is in accordance with at least one mystery doctrine. Here the Const. is suicidal, not unlike their teaching.

A revolution is just that.

a reply to: Sheshbazzar
None of that changes the fact that the interpretation accepted today wouldn't allow for the loophole to be enacted without resistance.

A handful of people believing in Gödel's interpretation isn't going to change that.

a reply to: daskakik

Gödel's loophole is not made public. What is presented here is what I found. The "circularity" made it look, to me at least, somewhat similar to what G. could have discovered.

This argument really does emasculate Congress and the masses: they can neither oust the Pres. nor force the Const.'s leniency towards them.

(And he has the Army.)

originally posted by: Sheshbazzar
This argument really does emasculate Congress and the masses: they can neither oust the Pres. nor force the Const.'s leniency towards them.

The argument doesn't do anything other than propose an interpretation.

(And he has the Army.)

Not if the army doesn't agree with the argument.