🚀 go-pugleaf

malloy@cris.com (Sean Malloy) writes:

>fdp@netcom.com (Ciccio) wrote:
>>malloy@cris.com (Sean Malloy) writes:
>>>Rewriting the laws _can_ change it if the law you rewrite is the one
>>>forbidding double jeopardy.

>Straw man fallacy; your argument is therefore specious.

Not really.  It's a literary device called satire. Perhaps you'll learn
about it in your sophomore year.  I thought you were joking when you suggested
that the bill of rights be amended.  However, I see you do not possess the
requisite sophistication of American government to see why what you suggest 
would be absurd.  If you had sufficient education on the subject, you clearly
would be guilty of violating the primary constraint governing interpolation
of premises...the logical principle of charity.  As when I said "change the
laws"  it should have been understood, by those knowledgeable, that I meant
laws that could be changed within the realm of feasibility.

However, irony aside, you are still wrong.  Even if you did change the 5th 
amendment's prohibition against double jeopardy, that alone could not change 
OJ being found NOT GUILTY! You would also have to amend article 1, section 10 
and perhaps sec. 9, which prohibit Ex Post Facto laws.  Even then it's a maybe,
as there are several other provisions which may not allow it, notwithstanding
changing the prohibition against against double jeopardy. Especially, when
you consider how those provisions interplay with the powers of the courts.

>I made no claims as to whether this was a) likely, b) desirable, or c)
>amusing. 

Well, that was your mistake.

>Get a _life_.

I got one...a good one.  Perhaps you should get an education, or at the 
very least, get some common sense.

Ciccio