Spectate's brother
-
@morbiuswilters said:
The fifth amendment doesn't say "you don't have to follow the law" it says "you don't have to incriminate yourself to the government". Because filing an income tax return is not illegal, the 5th amendment doesn't protect you from a damn thing.
That's pretty naive. Lawyers can come up with all sorts of arguments about how this or that violates a right. I'm not stating exactly how or what the legal theory would be. I'm just giving one reason why it wouldn't work. I'm not disagreeing with what you're saying about self incrimination. Again, the original point was the claim that the 5th amendment gave an out to filing an income tax. To wit:@anti-tax nut mentioned by OP said:
<font size="3">There is no statute that makes a person liable or responsible to pay the income tax. Individuals only become liable to pay the income tax when they voluntarily file a tax return, or when the IRS follows its assessment procedures as outlined in the Internal Revenue Code.</font>
- <font size="3">If there were a statute which clearly and unequivocally required the filing of tax returns, such a statute would be unconstitutional under the present income tax system to the extent that it would require individuals to give the government information which could be used against them criminally. </font>
We've already shown that bullet #1 is wrong.
Regardless of what bstorer says about the purpose of the amendment--and he's correct--it's immaterial to this argument. The 16th amendment explicitly says that congress can lay and collect taxes. Now, since it was written after the 5th amendment, it's reasonable to assume that the amendment means that when congress goes out to collect its taxes (by requiring you to file), that should not be considered incriminating. So bullet #2 is invalid.
Now I'll let you rant about other stuff, using some of the same words.
-
Really, you guys are arguing the same friggin point. Let it go now please.
-
@boomzilla said:
We've already shown that bullet #1 is wrong.
Regardless of what bstorer says about the purpose of the amendment--and he's correct--it's immaterial to this argument. The 16th amendment explicitly says that congress can lay and collect taxes. Now, since it was written after the 5th amendment, it's reasonable to assume that the amendment means that when congress goes out to collect its taxes (by requiring you to file), that should not be considered incriminating. So bullet #2 is invalid.
Now I'll let you rant about other stuff, using some of the same words.
MPS is right, this is retarded and I'm not going to post anymore. I was the first person to disagree with the crazy guy mentioned in the OP and I still maintain that you are vastly misinterpreting my posts and the law itself, but I don't give a crap. My participation in this thread is complete and you can have as many last words as you desire.
-
@boomzilla said:
Not to mention that 16 > 5. Therefore, whatever the 16th Amendment says will overrule the 5th Amendment.
Ummm... That's not the way that Amendments work. There's no numerical superiority involved. It makes absolutely no difference that 16 > 5.
Are you another of Spectate's brothers?
-
@boomzilla said:
The point is that someone is claiming that the government can't make you file a return because of the 5th Amendment. But the 16th, which supercedes the 5th, says that the government has the power to collect taxes. Part of that is to require you to file a return. They have an enumerated power to make you file your taxes. That's a lot better than umbras and penumbras.
Except that you fail reading comprehension. It was said *very early* in this thread that the 5th had nothing to do with whether or not you had to file income taxes; it was mentioned regarding the fact that you can use it in order not to incriminate yourself regarding the source of the income. So your post is nonsense, because it's premise was refuted roughly 60 posts ago (and several times after that as well).
-
@KenW said:
@boomzilla said:
Not to mention that 16 > 5. Therefore, whatever the 16th Amendment says will overrule the 5th Amendment.
Ummm... That's not the way that Amendments work. There's no numerical superiority involved. It makes absolutely no difference that 16 > 5.
Are you another of Spectate's brothers?
Well, I am not a lawyer, and Wikipedia is not authoritative, and this article is about constitutional amendments in general, not specifically the U.S. Constitution, but:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_amendment#Form_of_changes_to_the_text
Although the wording of the original text is not altered, the doctrine of implied repeal applies. In other words, in the event of conflict, an article of amendment will usually take precedence over the provisions of the original text, <font color="#ff0000">or of an earlier amendment</font>. Nonetheless, there may still be ambiguity as to whether an amendment is intended to supersede an existing article in the text or merely to supplement it. An article of amendment may, however, explicitly express itself as having the effect of repealing a specific existing article [4]. The use of appended articles of amendment is most famous as a feature of the United States Constitution, but it is also the method of amendment in a number of other jurisdictions, such as Venezuela.
(This is not to say that implied repeal either supports or refutes the argument that paying taxes in the U.S. is optional.)
-
@CodeSimian said:
*discussion of the doctrine of implied consent*
I do agree with you that the doctrine of implied consent would seem to apply in such a case, but like just about everything in the US legal system, until it has survived a court test and precedent has been set, it's an iffy claim.
-
@KenW said:
Ummm... That's not the way that Amendments work. There's no numerical superiority involved. It makes absolutely no difference that 16 > 5.
Sorry for not spelling it out for you (see Codesimian's response above). Since 16 > 5, that means that it happened later. In other words, when the 16th was written, the authors must have known about the 5th, and didn't make any special exceptions, so either requiring someone to file wasn't a violation of the 5th before the 16th was ratified, or the 16th changed things so that it wasn't.Suppose, instead, that the language of the 16th were part of the original Constitution. Then, when the 5th was ratified, it could open up anything previously part of the Constitution to reinterpretation, since the document was being modified.
@KenW said:
It was said *very early* in this thread that the 5th had nothing to do with whether or not you had to file income taxes; it was mentioned regarding the fact that you can use it in order not to incriminate yourself regarding the source of the income.
I know that you andmorbiuswilter have been having trouble following two separate arguments. I wasn't arguing with any of them. If anything, it was piling on in agreeing with them, giving other reasons why the 5th can't protect you from filing. </p>
-
@boomzilla said:
IT IS AGAINST THE LAW TO AVOID PAYING TAXES BY NOT FILING A RETURN. YOU CANNOT INVOKE THE 5TH AMENDMENT TO AVOID PAYING TAXES.
And again, you're the one that fails reading comprehension. This was CLEARLY STATED VERY EARLY IN THIS THREAD, LIKE BY THE SECOND OR THIRD POSTER WHO REPLIED TO THE ORIGINAL POSTER! PERHAPS THIS WILL HELP YOU GRASP THAT ONCE AND FOR ALL, YOU'RE ARGUING SOMETHING THAT WAS ALREADY SETTLED A PAGE AND A HALF OF POSTS AGO!
What planet are you from?
-
@CodeSimian said:
Although the wording of the original text is not altered, the doctrine of implied repeal applies. In other words, in the event of conflict, an article of amendment will usually take precedence over the provisions of the original text, <font color="#ff0000">or of an earlier amendment</font>. Nonetheless, there may still be ambiguity as to whether an amendment is intended to supersede an existing article in the text or merely to supplement it. An article of amendment may, however, explicitly express itself as having the effect of repealing a specific existing article [4]. The use of appended articles of amendment is most famous as a feature of the United States Constitution, but it is also the method of amendment in a number of other jurisdictions, such as Venezuela.
Yes, but that would not apply in this case, because the 16th and 5th deal with completely different issues. Implied repeal would generally only come into play if a newer amendment specifically addressed an issue in an older amendment without mentioning the older amendment by name. Due to the fact that implied repeal can be interpreted by the courts in different ways, generally amendments would be worded to specifically repeal previous amendments.
-
@KenW said:
@boomzilla said:
Now I get it. You're trying to cover your earlier nonsense. This was in response to:IT IS AGAINST THE LAW TO AVOID PAYING TAXES BY NOT FILING A RETURN. YOU CANNOT INVOKE THE 5TH AMENDMENT TO AVOID PAYING TAXES.
And again, you're the one that fails reading comprehension. This was CLEARLY STATED VERY EARLY IN THIS THREAD, LIKE BY THE SECOND OR THIRD POSTER WHO REPLIED TO THE ORIGINAL POSTER! PERHAPS THIS WILL HELP YOU GRASP THAT ONCE AND FOR ALL, YOU'RE ARGUING SOMETHING THAT WAS ALREADY SETTLED A PAGE AND A HALF OF POSTS AGO!What planet are you from?
@morbiuswilters said:
@boomzilla said:
It was in response to morbiuswilter misreading (like you apparently did) what I said.Now, if the order of the two were reversed, a case could be made that the 5th altered the 16th such that forcing people to file a return violated their 5th Amendment rights.
No, it couldn't. That's because FILING YOUR INCOME TAXES IS NOT AGAINST THE LAW. OKAY? YOU GOT THAT? Therefore you cannot invoke the fifth amendment to protect you from filing. THERE IS NOTHING TO INCRIMINATE YOU. Therefore, the fifth amendment does not apply.
-
@CodeSimian said:
In other words, in the event of conflict, an article of amendment will usually take precedence over the provisions of the original text, <font color="#ff0000">or of an earlier amendment</font>.
Ok, apparently you have trouble reading too, as you quoted something in response to my post that has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.
I didn't say that an Amendment had no effect on the original text it was amending. If you somehow thought that I did say that, I'd suggest you go to the same reading comprehension classes that boomzilla needs.
What I did say was that the numerical order of unrelated Amendments had no bearing. If the 5th deals with self-incrimination, then the 16th (having to do with distribution of collected taxes) has absolutely no impact or bearing on the meaning of the 5th Amendment simply because it has a higher number. Therefore, as I initially said, 16 > 5 means nothing.
-
@boomzilla said:
ow I get it. You're trying to cover your earlier nonsense.
I think I figured it out. You're the missing link between Spectate and Lysis.
You apparently feel the need to continue to post the same argument over and over well after others have made it, and then using that same argument to justify the fact that you're repeating the same argument over and over. Apparently you not only have trouble with reading comprehension, but seem to be stuck in an endless loop of idiocy.
Perhaps Ctrl+Break will help you. If not, just batter your head against the wall firmly until the hardware resets.
-
@bstorer said:
I do agree with you that the doctrine of implied consent would seem to apply in such a case, but like just about everything in the US legal system, until it has survived a court test and precedent has been set, it's an iffy claim.
It wouldn't apply because the 16th doesn't say anything about self-incrimination. Additionally, it has already been tested several times in the Supreme Court with the result being that you do not have to incriminate yourself on an income tax return.
-
@KenW said:
Ok, apparently you have trouble reading too, as you quoted something in response to my post that has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.
I didn't say that an Amendment had no effect on the original text it was amending. If you somehow thought that I did say that, I'd suggest you go to the same reading comprehension classes that boomzilla needs.
What I did say was that the numerical order of unrelated Amendments had no bearing. If the 5th deals with self-incrimination, then the 16th (having to do with distribution of collected taxes) has absolutely no impact or bearing on the meaning of the 5th Amendment simply because it has a higher number. Therefore, as I initially said, 16 > 5 means nothing.
Yeah, I pretty much give up. He keeps arguing the same point I made way back in the first reply, but acting like he's contradicting me and then bringing up all kinds of unrelated nonsense.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
Yeah, I pretty much give up.
Me too. I decided to quit once I made the missing link ID; at that point you have to know it's a lost cause.
-
@AbbydonKrafts said:
Some people I know purposefully overpay. They do it because they know they'd spend it if they had it. By sending it to the IRS, there's no way to get to it until tax time. My supervisor always gets back $1,000+ when she files, and she uses it for a vacation. I'd do that, but I need the money each paycheck. The only reason I owed so much recently is because of the 1099-MISC from doing housekeeping for the company. Those were around $5,000 each time. Previously, I owed $100-200 tops. We no longer do the housekeeping, though, so next year it will be back to around $200. We only did 2 months this year before they hired a company that would bill them with Net 30.
Investing it would have the same effect of controlling impulse spending, and you'd get better interest on it too... so I don't think this is a particularly genius idea.
-
@Arancaytar said:
Investing it would have the same effect of controlling impulse spending, and you'd get better interest on it too... so I don't think this is a particularly genius idea.
Investing only works if you know what you're doing. Otherwise, it might as well be gambling.
-
@KenW said:
@KenW said:
@boomzilla said:
ow I get it. You're trying to cover your earlier nonsense.
I think I figured it out. You're the missing link between Spectate and Lysis.
You apparently feel the need to continue to post the same argument over and over well after others have made it, and then using that same argument to justify the fact that you're repeating the same argument over and over. Apparently you not only have trouble with reading comprehension, but seem to be stuck in an endless loop of idiocy.
Sorry about the "earlier nonsense" thing. I confused you with another poster. The Ken in both your names threw me off.
No, my argument was slightly different (but with the same ultimate conclusion). There were posts to the effect that I was contradicting that argument, when I explicitly said the opposite. Then you started "me too" posts on a thread that everyone else had agreed to let die. You can disagree with the legal argument (I'm certainly not a lawyer, and I'd agree with bstorer that it's never been tested in the courts) and that's fine. Certainly, the courts have ruled on taxes and the 5th amendment, and that's going to be an easy way to contradict the anti-irs nut. But that's not a very interesting argument, and I was putting together a logical argument about why the 5th shouldn't be a concern here. Supreme court rulings can often be very narrow, hinge on technicalities, and may not settle all questions concerned about an argument.
-
-
@KenW said:
Ok, apparently you have trouble reading too, as you quoted something in response to my post that has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.
I didn't say that an Amendment had no effect on the original text it was amending. If you somehow thought that I did say that, I'd suggest you go to the same reading comprehension classes that boomzilla needs.
I never thought you said that, but thank you for flaming me and putting words in my mouth.
@KenW said:
What I did say was that the numerical order of unrelated Amendments had no bearing.
No you didn't. You made a general statement about amendments:
@KenW said:
Ummm... That's not the way that Amendments work. There's no numerical superiority involved.
I was specifically addressing that general statement you made. According to doctrine of implied repeal, there is numerical (or chronological) superiority, IF a later amendment implicitly supersedes an earlier one.
I guess you did not read my post, either:
@CodeSimian said:
<font size="2"> (This is not to say that implied repeal either supports or refutes the argument that paying taxes in the U.S. is optional.)</font>
I was not addressing the tax issue at all, or the 5th and 16th Amendments. I was simply addressing your statement on "numerical superiority", which is wrong in general.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@KenW said:
Ok, apparently you have trouble reading too, as you quoted something in response to my post that has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.
I didn't say that an Amendment had no effect on the original text it was amending. If you somehow thought that I did say that, I'd suggest you go to the same reading comprehension classes that boomzilla needs.
What I did say was that the numerical order of unrelated Amendments had no bearing. If the 5th deals with self-incrimination, then the 16th (having to do with distribution of collected taxes) has absolutely no impact or bearing on the meaning of the 5th Amendment simply because it has a higher number. Therefore, as I initially said, 16 > 5 means nothing.
Yeah, I pretty much give up. He keeps arguing the same point I made way back in the first reply, but acting like he's contradicting me and then bringing up all kinds of unrelated nonsense.
Uh, who is this "he" you are referring to, in the context of the quote you are replying to? KenW was replying to me, and that was the first post I made in this thread. And I attempted to disclaim that my post makes no statement about the tax issue (or the 5th and 16th amendments), but obviously I failed to do that.
-
@bstorer said:
@CodeSimian said:
*discussion of the doctrine of implied consent*
I do agree with you that the doctrine of implied consent would seem to apply in such a case, but like just about everything in the US legal system, until it has survived a court test and precedent has been set, it's an iffy claim.Just to clarify, I was talking about "implied repeal" not "implied consent" (I believe they are 2 different concepts), and I was specifically trying to refute the statement that "there is no numerical superiority of amendments".
I was not taking a position concerning the 5th and 16 amendments. If anyone explicitly read that in my post, I invite you to point out where I said:
"Implied repeal means that the 16th Amendment supersedes the 5th Amendment and therefore paying taxes [is | is not] optional!"
Really, where did I say that? (This is not directed at bstorer, but at the flames I seem to have attracted.)
In fact, I think I said:
@CodeSimian said:
(This is not to say that implied repeal either supports or refutes the argument that paying taxes in the U.S. is optional.)
-
Wow. When I started the thread, I never expected to get 100 posts in one day. I feel honored. Thank you all.
-
@CodeSimian said:
Uh, who is this "he" you are referring to, in the context of the quote you are replying to? KenW was replying to me, and that was the first post I made in this thread. And I attempted to disclaim that my post makes no statement about the tax issue (or the 5th and 16th amendments), but obviously I failed to do that.
I mean to reply to KenW's reply to boomzilla, not you. That's my second screw-up this morning -- ugh.. Sorry if you thought I was talking about you. Also, I know you never claimed to make a statement about the tax issue.
My reply to you about the whole numerical superiority thing was intentional, though. Amendments only override if they specifically deal with the same issues. I can't think of an example where one amendment overrides an earlier one without specifically mentioning it, either. Implied repeal WRT the U.S. Constitution only applies to the original document at present (i.e. how the 16th overrides the limitation on apportionment without specifically mentioning the original Article but by mentioning precisely the same issue) until somebody uses it to override an amendment.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
My reply to you about the whole numerical superiority thing was intentional, though. Amendments only override if they specifically deal with the same issues.
I can't think of an example where one amendment overrides an earlier one without specifically mentioning it, either. Implied repeal WRT the U.S. Constitution only applies to the original document at present (i.e. how the 16th overrides the limitation on apportionment without specifically mentioning the original Article but by mentioning precisely the same issue) until somebody uses it to override an amendment.
Good point. But KenW made a blanket statement that "numerical superiority" doesn't matter, and I felt the matter could use some clarification. I don't think the issue is as black-and-white as it's made out to be. And he later claimed that my response had nothing to do with his post. Not true. If implied repeal means a later amendment can implicitly repeal part of an earlier amendment, as it generally does (according to Wikipedia) then it is relevant. Since I am admittedly not a lawyer, I have no first-hand method of being sure either way. So as far as I knew, my response was possibly relevant.
I think the main point is that more recent law takes precedence. The question is, does the more recent amendment have to explicitly repeal the earlier amendment? If you say that it does, then I will take your word for it.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
I mean to reply to KenW's reply to boomzilla, not you. That's my second screw-up this morning -- ugh.. Sorry if you thought I was talking about you. Also, I know you never claimed to make a statement about the tax issue.
Cool. No problem.
-
@CodeSimian said:
I think the main point is that more recent law takes precedence.
Yes.
@CodeSimian said:
The question is, does the more recent amendment have to explicitly repeal the earlier amendment?
Nope, that's what implied repeal is, but the newer law must still be specific in regards to what it is mandating. IIRC, no amendments in the U.S. Constitution implicitly repeal earlier amendments, only parts of the main document. Most amendments are going to be worded as unambiguously as possible to avoid interpretation and limitation by the courts, too. I guess a way to put it is, order matters but the law is usually interpreted as conservatively as possible.
The 16th amendment repeals part of the original Constitution, but says nothing about the issues addressed in the 5th amendment. Therefore, no court would interpret the 16th into meaning one would have to incriminate oneself in a tax return by listing illegal sources of income. For example, say an amendment passed tomorrow that stated an officer of the Department of Homeland Security is able to conduct any search or seizure without a warrant without specifically repealing any amendment. This would implicitly repeal the protections of the 4th, 5th and 14th amendments when dealing with DHS officers without mentioning them by name. However, let's say instead an amendment which made puppies illegal were to be passed. This would not imply that officers of the law were able to search your home for puppies without a warrant because this is a standing protection that must be expliticly repealed, even if the amendments that guarantee said protection were not mentioned by name.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
IIRC, no amendments in the U.S. Constitution implicitly repeal earlier amendments, only parts of the main document.
You are of course forgetting the 21st Amendment, which repealed the 18th, and subsequently, Prohibition.
-
@CodeSimian said:
I'm just an idiot who had a disconnect between my hands and brain. I, too, meant implied repeal. And my point was that implied repeal depends heavily on the court system's opinion. Such is the nature of common law.@bstorer said:
@CodeSimian said:
*discussion of the doctrine of implied consent*
I do agree with you that the doctrine of implied consent would seem to apply in such a case, but like just about everything in the US legal system, until it has survived a court test and precedent has been set, it's an iffy claim.Just to clarify, I was talking about "implied repeal" not "implied consent" (I believe they are 2 different concepts), and I was specifically trying to refute the statement that "there is no numerical superiority of amendments".
-
@bstorer said:
You are of course forgetting the 21st Amendment, which repealed the 18th, and subsequently, Prohibition.
The 21st Amendment is amongst one of my favorites. I quote:
Section 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
Section 2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use there in of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.
Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.
Nothing implied there.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
Nothing implied there.
Jeez, I just suck at life today. How did I miss the word "implicit" in your previous post?
-
@KenW said:
Ummm... That's not the way that Amendments work. There's no numerical superiority involved. It makes absolutely no difference that 16 > 5.
That's not entirely true. I'm pretty sure that you can't enact a law which violates an already existing law. So, the fact that the 16th amendment came after the 5th, would mean that the 16th does not violate any provisions of the 5th.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
I guess a way to put it is, order matters but the law is usually interpreted as conservatively as possible.
Yes, that makes perfect sense. And the only point of my original post was that order matters, contrary to KenW's blanket statement that order does not matter.
@morbiuswilters said:
The 16th amendment repeals part of the original Constitution, but says nothing about the issues addressed in the 5th amendment. Therefore, no court would interpret the 16th into meaning one would have to incriminate oneself in a tax return by listing illegal sources of income. For example, say an amendment passed tomorrow that stated an officer of the Department of Homeland Security is able to conduct any search or seizure without a warrant without specifically repealing any amendment. This would implicitly repeal the protections of the 4th, 5th and 14th amendments when dealing with DHS officers without mentioning them by name. However, let's say instead an amendment which made puppies illegal were to be passed. This would not imply that officers of the law were able to search your home for puppies without a warrant because this is a standing protection that must be expliticly repealed, even if the amendments that guarantee said protection were not mentioned by name.
I agree with all of that. I was never making an argument specifically about the 5th and 16th Amendments, though, just amendments in general. So, I guess my post was a bit off-topic.
-
@bstorer said:
Jeez, I just suck at life today. How did I miss the word "implicit" in your previous post?
By cleverly arranging the words in my post I was able to execute an arbitrary mind virus that made the word "implicit" invisible to you until after you posted erroneously.
For my next trick I will be sending you deep into the frozen wasteland of our neighbor to the north. You'd be well-advised to pack in advance. Do not forget to include comfortable dancing shoes.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
Oh, okay. As long as that's all it does... Hey, wait a minute! Why am I signing over my paycheck to you? And where'd my pants go?@bstorer said:
Jeez, I just suck at life today. How did I miss the word "implicit" in your previous post?
By cleverly arranging the words in my post I was able to execute an arbitrary mind virus that made the word "implicit" invisible to you until after you posted erroneously.
@morbiuswilters said:
For my next trick I will be sending you deep into the frozen wasteland of our neighbor to the north. You'd be well-advised to pack in advance. Do not forget to include comfortable dancing shoes.
But how will I get my medicine stones through customs?
-
@bstorer said:
But how will I get my medicine stones through customs?
Medicinie stones, StorerSwamp. Medicinie. Only Spectate gets to have the medicine stones.
-
@CodeSimian said:
I thought the birds were medicinie, and the stones were medicine? Look, I don't care what you call them. The point is, I need to smoke pot out of a rock, and I don't think customs are going to be very helpful on this.@bstorer said:
But how will I get my medicine stones through customs?
Medicinie stones, StorerSwamp. Medicinie. Only Spectate gets to have the medicine stones.
-
@bstorer said:
I thought the birds were medicinie, and the stones were medicine?
No, no, no. Medicinie is only medicine-like. Only Spectate can rock the real medicine ish, got it? Look, maybe this will help you understand: lots of software is shitty, but is SSDS is just pure shit.
http://forums.thedailywtf.com/forums/p/8159/154092.aspx#154092
@SpectateSwamp said:
Nice lava rock. If you have lots of them piled up under your bed then they are pretty Medicinie. Otherwise just rock.
@bstorer said:
The point is, I need to smoke pot out of a rock, and I don't think customs are going to be very helpful on this.
Clearly, Spectate will soon be sending a large shipment of decades-old "Pot Relate" t-shirts to your house.
-
@CodeSimian said:
Clearly, Spectate will soon be sending a large shipment of decades-old "Pot Relate" t-shirts to your house.
That'd be awesome. I'd let MPS raffle them off on the site.
-
@bstorer said:
@CodeSimian said:
Clearly, Spectate will soon be sending a large shipment of decades-old "Pot Relate" t-shirts to your house.
That'd be awesome. I'd let MPS raffle them off on the site.Yeah, but instead of paying Spectate money, you'll have to legally change your name to "StorerSwamp" and spend all your free time doing screen-reshoots of bug videos.
-
@bstorer said:
@CodeSimian said:
Clearly, Spectate will soon be sending a large shipment of decades-old "Pot Relate" t-shirts to your house.
That'd be awesome. I'd let MPS raffle them off on the site.Only if you will do the distribution. I don't those lice ridden things anywhere near me.
-
@CodeSimian said:
If I ever do a screen reshoot of anything, I want you all to promise you'll have me put down like a dog.Yeah, but instead of paying Spectate money, you'll have to legally change your name to "StorerSwamp" and spend all your free time doing screen-reshoots of bug videos.
-
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
How much does UPS charge to handle biohazardous materials?@bstorer said:
@CodeSimian said:
Clearly, Spectate will soon be sending a large shipment of decades-old "Pot Relate" t-shirts to your house.
That'd be awesome. I'd let MPS raffle them off on the site.Only if you will do the distribution. I don't those lice ridden things anywhere near me.
-
@bstorer said:
How much does UPS charge to handle biohazardous materials?
...That reek like pot, failure, and broken dreams...
-
@CodeSimian said:
I was specifically addressing that general statement you made. According to doctrine of implied repeal, there is numerical (or chronological) superiority, IF a later amendment implicitly supersedes an earlier one.
So let me see if I've got this straight. You're saying that my general statement which is much more commonly correct was inappropriate, while your statement which applies only to very specific and limited use was correct. Righhht.
@CodeSimian said:
I was simply addressing your statement on "numerical superiority", which is wrong in general.
Of course, I stand immediately corrected, apologizing humbly for my lack of intelligence. I mean, clearly I should have understood that you meant "in a very small subset of cases, numeric superiority may have meaning, and therefore should always be inferred as being applicable". Thanks for straightening me out on that. I would never have been able to figure that out by myself.
-
@CodeSimian said:
But KenW made a blanket statement that "numerical superiority" doesn't matter
But that's not what I said. I said that in the specific statement that was made (about how the 15th Amendment overrode the original 5th because 16 > 5), numerical superiority didn't matter (and still say it doesn't). You're the one who jumped in to explain a limited subset of cases where it does, and that was the post I replied to in the first place.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
By cleverly arranging the words in my post I was able to execute an arbitrary mind virus that made the word "implicit" invisible to you until after you posted erroneously.
Damn it, morbius! I've asked you on numerous occasions to stop doing that! It's simply not fair to others!
Behave yourself!
-
@KenW said:
You're the one who jumped in to explain a limited subset of cases where it does, and that was the post I replied to in the first place.
This is the problem I still have with your argument. I think I described the general case, where a later amendment can implicitly override an earlier one, assuming that the doctrine of implied repeal as described in Wikipedia holds. You are the one who is describing a specific case, where implied repeal is irrelevant, because the 16th doesn't address the 5th implictly or explicitly.
If the doctrine of implied repeal applies to later amendments overriding earlier amendments in the U.S. constitution, then there is numerical superiority of amendments. Anyone with an ounce of common sense can see that numerical superiority or implicit repeal would be irrelevant for 2 unrelated amendments, so I think it's pretty obvious that boomzilla thinks the 5th and 16th are related.
IMO, the real question is whether they are related (clearly you and boomzilla disagree on this point), not whether numerical superiority is a factor. But I think everyone agrees on that already.
@KenW said:
@CodeSimian said:
But KenW made a blanket statement that "numerical superiority" doesn't matter
But that's not what I said. I said that in the specific statement that was made (about how the 15th Amendment overrode the original 5th because 16 > 5), numerical superiority didn't matter (and still say it doesn't).
Okay, my mistake. Obviously when you said there's no "numerical superiority involved", you meant "numerical superiority is irrelevant in that specific case". I assumed that you meant "numerical superiority is non-existent/invalid", which is a completely different argument. What threw me off was you prefaced your statement with "That's not how Amendments work", which led me to believe you were making a general statement about amendments.
My bad.
-
@CodeSimian said:
Okay, my mistake. Obviously when you said there's no "numerical superiority involved", you meant "numerical superiority is irrelevant in that specific case". I assumed that you meant "numerical superiority is non-existent/invalid", which is a completely different argument. What threw me off was you prefaced your statement with "That's not how Amendments work", which led me to believe you were making a general statement about amendments.
Just to explain how I jumped to that conclusion, imagine we were having a conversation about customizing Windows.
Me: ...if you want to change that behaviour just recompile the Windows kernel.
You: That's not the way operating systems work. You can't just recompile the kernel whenever you want.
In that case, I think you would forgive me for assuming that you were talking about ALL operating systems, not just Windows.
