Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:President Trump (tm) (Score 2) 524

Was he bullshitting then or is he bullshitting now?

Neither. Like Obama & Hillary on the subject of same-sex marriage... he 'evolved' on the issue ;)

Or are the very concepts of logic and consistency rigged?

Ask that once we have a final answer as to why 'dissent is patriotic' 2001-2008, racist from 2009-11/8/16, then back to patriotic come 11/9/16?

Comment Re:First Victory! (Score 1) 355

That whole "elections have consequences, I won" thing doesn't exactly garner much support from the opposition, does it?

And when later you get "I have a pen and a phone" and end up getting rebuked by SCOTUS 9-0 more than any modern President... the effectiveness of the current President quickly ends up in doubt, doubly so when so much of what he 'accomplished' is so easily undone as failures like Obamacare cannot be left to fester as is any longer.

Comment Re: No constitutional crisis at all. (Score 1) 733

Article II Section 4
The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

They have to be in one of those positions when the House impeaches them...

I never said they could impeach Trump on November 9th, or are you assuming my use of 'day one' refers to being president elect and not president is enough? If so, that would be rather silly.

Article I Section 3
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States...

and all you can do is remove them and prevent them from holding another position.

Correct, however that does change criminal/civil liability, the portion of that clause you happened to edit out.

But to prevent them having another position, you have to charge them while they're actually in the old one.

Except A2S4 doesn't end with "committed during the tenure of that particular term in office", nor any mention of a statute of limitations for offenses committed in or out of office which could lead to impeachment.

If what you are saying is true... a sitting vice-president who assassinates the sitting president, they would not be subject to impeachment because the crime occurred in their former office?

You can't do it from hindsight.

Says who? There are different legal theories as to the power to impeach, the meaning of 'high crimes & misdemeanors' as just one major one (ie is it required for congress to pass a law defining impeachable offenses? some say yes). It's hard to call this an ex-post facto issue, and given you forgot about:

Article I, Section V
Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a member.

You know what that means? It is fully within the power of the house to draft & vote on articles of impeachment on a random federal official every week! The reasoning it could simply be "for the fashion crime of wearing white after labor day"... even in the form of white cotton briefs.

Likely? No, but fully within their power.

"But, but, the courts!" some would say, who should then be pointed to

Article I, Section 2
The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

No court would dare touch this matter for fear of being accused of involving themselves in a matter which is rather explicitly enumerated as an exclusive power to the congress, for fear that any judge who did would be the next to be impeached.

Why is that the people most interested in shouting "Constitution!" are the same ones who don't know what it says, and will be first to argue about what it means if you call them on it?

Why is the people who copy & paste bits of the constitution to try to explain their disagreement with someone often don't fully think through their arguments? Yes, some of mine are rather outlandish & unlikely, they do at least test the theories you attempt to raise.

Comment Re: No constitutional crisis at all. (Score 1) 733

They could have impeached her at the time as Secretary of State but that didn't happen.

Where in the constitution does it limit the use of impeachment for things which occurred during the current stretch in the current office?

It doesn't, which is exactly why Trump could be impeached on day one without having done anything.

No impeachment is happening anytime soon though, as it;s unlikely the Senate would have enough votes to remove.

Comment Re:On the plus side nobody's allowing it (Score 1) 248

Not really, no. There's no compulsion to produce a *valid* ballot.

So under your version of compulsory voting... people would be required to show up... but not actually be required cast a valid vote? Why not call it "compulsary show up on election day" instead? What if someone is unable to be at their polling place during early voting or on election day?

There's no compulsion to do any particular thing, just to show up.

Which would seem to be a compulsion... under which enumerated power or court case do you believe the federal or state government has such a power?

Raising an army? Na, that's the justification of the draft.

Establishment of a post office & roads? Not quite.

Punishing of piracy? I dunno.

You mention jury duty... but fail to acknowledge that it, like elections are almost exclusively a state matter.

In order to legally push your compulsory system, you would actually have to pass such a requirement in all 50 states, as again, you are going to have a hard time justifying the compulsion of speech or action under any federal enumerated powers, some states may allow it legally, others not.

Jury duty is little different that conscription for military service (which is constitutional in the US), drafting from a wide range of people so as to attempt to secure the rights of others, and always ideally on a limited basis.

Comment Re:Not a good idea... (Score 1) 248

Just because I take a selfie with a ballot marked for Clinton, #SMOD2016, Trump or Baba Booey doesn't actually show a cast ballot for that name. Easy enough for online virtual signaling or paid for votes to take a ballot, mark it in the desired way, take the photo, then market it again and return to an election official for a new ballot to replace the spoiled one.

Comment Re:On the plus side nobody's allowing it (Score 2) 248

This is why we need mandatory voting.

So you want to amend the first-amendment eh? Good luck with that.

Because that's the only way mandatory voting would be possible in this country, as such a requirement would constitute government compelled speech, something the first amendment and multiple SCOTUS rulings tend to say no to.

Comment Re:96%!? (Score 1) 372

Given at most a woman could be pregnant ~3 times during a particular year (and result in a successful birth), perhaps you should limit the # of women you are with to reduce the likelihood of such a number.

Put a ring on it!

Comment Re:Going by the data in the summary... (Score 1, Interesting) 372

*Posting AC for reasons I don't desire to get into.*


Your average man tend to be physically capable of impregnating a woman from around puberty until death. The average woman is physically able to get pregnant ~25-50% of the month. So while a claimed success rate of of 96% sounds good, there is much to consider.

I'm sad to channel my abstinence only parents (who were right), but the only effective way of preventing pregnancy is abstinence.

Be it condoms, birth control, pulling out early, etc... there is always a failure rate, sometimes due to the mechanism, other times due to failure to use as proscribed... and even if there exists a male 'pill', there will still remain an overlap between failures between male & female birth control takers which will result in kids who grow up to be rather angry about the fact that neither parent wanted to have them, and that one or both had too much heart to abort them early on.

Comment Re:That's OK, Twitter fights back... (Score 3, Insightful) 214

Isn't it's rather silly to take any response off the table ahead of time?

But to those who think a President Trump is actually the sort who might go and say.. order a first strike on Russia for making fun of him... the National Command Authority can still/would prevent such a launch.

Yes, a Saturday Night Massacre is possible, it's inconceivable it would go on to the point that enough of a surviving chain would agree to relay the command.

While I'm not a fan of either, I will at least acknowledge that a President Trump is more check-able than a President Clinton (45)

Slashdot Top Deals

The opossum is a very sophisticated animal. It doesn't even get up until 5 or 6 PM.