🚀 go-pugleaf

Ahh, I see we've descended all the way to personal attacks. So be it.

fdp@netcom.com (Ciccio) wrote:
>malloy@cris.com (Sean Malloy) writes:
>>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.

Satire is distorting an aspect of something for purposes of ridicule;
a straw man argument is setting up a condition or position that does
not, in fact, exist and attacking that as if it _were_ factual. 

>                                 I thought you were joking when you suggested
>that the bill of rights be amended.

_Read_ what I wrote. I made no suggestion that the Constitution be
amended; I pointed out that _if_ it _were_ amended, then O.J. could be
run back through criminal court. And with the elimination of the
proscription on double jeopardy, you could do it as many times as
necessary to get the verdict you wanted. All the justice you can buy.

>                                      However, I see you do not possess the
>requisite sophistication of American government to see why what you suggest 
>would be absurd.

Of _course_ it's absurd, you self-important git; anyone who could
count the years since 1783 and the number of amendments passed in that
period could see that. However, you made a _flat_ and _absolute_
declaration, to which I presented a counterexample. You came out and
stated _A_ and _B_ and _C_ and _D_ and _E_ and that all _X_ was _Y_; I
presented a case where an _X_ was not _Y_, and you make the assumption
that I _care_ about _A_ and _B_ and _C_ and _D_ and _E_. It is only
necessary to present a single counterexample to refute a premise.

>                 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.

Ahh, I love it when people open the door to let me drag in one of the
thread-killers...

During the debate over the adoption of the amendments in the Bill of
Rights, Alexander Hamilton argued that the 3rd proposed amendment --
later to become the 2nd Amendment (the first proposed amendment being
dropped) -- was unnecessary, because the powers of the Federal
government were limited to those _explicitly_ laid out in the
Constitution; because the Constitution did not specifically grant the
Federal government the power to place any restriction on the ownership
and carriage of firearms, it was powerless to do so. Two hundred years
later, the Federal government has enacted laws that prevent
law-abiding citizens from purchasing dozens of different firearms,
simply because they _look_ like military weapons. This illustrates how
far views toward parts of the Constitution can change.

A procedure exists for amending the Constitution. This procedure does
not restrict what _parts_ of the Constitution may be amended.
Therefore it is _technically_ feasible to amend the Constitution to
eliminate the prohibition on double jeopardy. However, such an
amendment is not _politically_ practical in the current political
climate. And even if it _were_ to be passed, it is a virtual certainty
that you would get the same kind of circus that the trial turned into,
where questions of evidence, fact, and guilt were buried under
snowstorms of innuendo. If you can't contest the evidence, discredit
the person presenting the evidence -- a long-standing tradition in
court cases.

>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.

There is no ex post facto consideration. The ex post facto exclusion
prevents someone for being brought to trial for an action that was not
illegal when the act was committed. Murder was, and would still be, a
criminal offense; Simpson would be brought to trial under the same
laws establishing murder as a criminal offense that were in place at
the time of the murder -- and there is no statute of limitations for
murder. 

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

You're right; I assumed that I was writing to an intelligent audience.
More fool _me_.

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

In my experience, common sense isn't. And you demonstrate that quite
clearly.


-- 
Sean R. Malloy               | American Non Sequitur
    Naval Medical Center     |       Society
    San Diego, CA 92134-5000 |
malloy@cris.com              | "We may not make sense,
srmalloy@snd10.med.navy.mil  |  but we do like pizza"