So now there's speculation that the U.S. Supreme Court might back up Colorado and disqualify Trump, by saying 'it's up to each state.' I am skeptical. In fact, there's just one way that could happen....
... and that would be if Thomas, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch and especially John Roberts get orders to do so, from the oligarchy that they serve.
Why would the oligarch masters order such a hit on Trump, the best asset they ever had? Their greatest tool promoting neo-feudalism vs. against the American Enlightenment Experiment?
Two reasons based on two possibilities.Either way, they lose! So yeah, they are talking about dumping him. But how? His MAGA/confederate/brownshirt popularity means that no pliably-controlled 'mainstream' tool, like Nikki Haley, will come to the rescue.
... what is the consensus aim of the world oligarchic putsch? Is there still a common goal among the casino mafiosi, hedge moguls, carbon lords/sheiks, prepper fetishists, inheritance brats and "ex"-commissar "former"-stalinists in the slightly-relabeled KGB?
Sure, the 'former' commie Putinists look like they are weakening, in Ukraine. Still, they are the ones holding masses of blackmail kompromat on prominent westerners, especially most of the high goppers. So, Putin remains the putative leader of those who want an America in flames. And again... he has the blackmail files on hundreds, including likely Supreme Court 'justices.' (See links* below.)
If that goal truly remains the oligarchy's consensus, then the thing they'll want to do with Trump is obvious!
2. What if the goal is to salvage something of a Republican Party that they can still control, while maintaining a USA that continues to generate wealth and science and new medical advances to save oligarch lives... plus space junkets and all the things that make their wealth worthwhile to any sane person?
True, dumping Trump will incite civil war within the GOP, as ol Don rages against every betrayal by former friends, going third party pyrotechnically. And yes, November 2024 would thus see a huge blue wave, leading to a surge of legislation that's badly needed for the nation's good... including some rise in taxation of the rich. And it's likely many blackmailed goppers will slide into retirement...
...but the saner aristocrats might swallow that. They may realize that being merely very-rich in a vibrant, scientific and free civilization is more fun - and conducive of long life - than trying for feudal lordship amid ashes, hated by all the surviving nerds who know bio, cyber, nuclear, nano and who - volcanically angry - also know the detailed locations of every prepper redoubt.
Anyway, in U.S. politics everything is ephemeral. By 2026, a reformed Republican Party would come roaring back. Count on it. Just - pretty please - make it one with a scintilla of modernity and loyalty and sanity.
Hence, do I think the Supremes will actually disqualify Trump? Even if Thomas, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch and especially John Roberts get orders to do so, from the oligarchy they serve?
Nah. At this point they are far more afraid of MAGA brownshirts than they are of feudal overlords with blackmail kompromat. Roberts & co. will protect Donald. And we'll have to take him out at the ballot box, ourselves.
*Links regarding likely blackmail of the GOP establishment:
*GOP lawmaker says fellow Republicans compromised by sex and drugs.
* Political Blackmail: The Hidden Danger to Public Servants.
* Talking Feds: From Russia with kompromat.
(Side note: by siding with Colorado and dumping Trump, Roberts might thus proclaim: "See? We ARE neutral! So when Dems resume power, please don't reform or expand the Court?")
== The Doctorow Doctrine? ==
Cory Doctorow takes on the “AI Bubble” with his usual fury and indignant panache, blending a very substantial amount of knowledge with equal dollops of tendentious cynicism (his trademark) and – frankly – this time throwing in more outrageously false statements than I have ever seen him issue before. (Especially in the first paragraph!) The result is very much worth reading, for litanies of examples and keen insights, while you should remain wary about those tendentiously compulsive cynical declarations.
Is this whole ‘AI thing’ an overhyped bubble? Sure, as an economic or commercial investment. For one thing, Cory is right about the vast energy requirements of these art-and-language emulators. For another, ‘gollms’ or generative large language models are inherently incapable of sapience! Though they will soon be profoundly good at faking it, passing most Turing tests by simple, brute force sentence-completion. Moreover, efficiencies will arise, as these prematurely labeled ‘intelligences’ focus on optimizations.
Still, none of that truly matters. Because this time success vs failure won’t be measured by investor losses in tens of billions of dollars, but rather in terms of manipulative POWER… the power to spread Turing-passed falsehoods that make today’s disinformation waves seem like Mother Goose.
In fact, the real issue is whether there can be anything like an Enlightenment Civilization issuing forth and surviving and even augmenting, from the arrival of these tools. A civilization in which ‘truth’ and ‘fact’ are still things. One where predatory liars are caught and deterred often enough for us to stumble forward in at least some confidence and overall safety.
That can only happen if we utilize the same tool that enabled the last 200 years of gradually improving civilization to continue our historically miraculous escape from six millennia of brutal, feudal predation.
That tool? It’s called reciprocal accountability amid general transparency. The very same tool that Cory is attempting to apply upon those he deems to be fools or villains… and that I am applying to him, as I type. We both have the same habit, learned from the same civilization, though we differ in awareness of that fact.
There is no other conceivable solution than incentivized reciprocal accountability. In fact there is no other even plausible method in our toolbox. Just as we learned to somewhat tame those hyper-intelligent predators called lawyers, by siccing them upon each other, we desperately need to figure out – quick – how to get AIs holding each other accountable, both on our behalf and for incentive rewards – or else this experiment is done.
I talk about one approach to doing this in my WIRED article.
We have a window of opportunity to get these new entities competing with each other to catch liars on our behalf. And that matters to me, far more than whether the Uber company is commercial toast.
-----
47 comments:
Previous bubbles were driven by engineering and design. This one is driven by... actually we're not entirely sure. If even a modicum of evolution has been sprinkled in, then it could be a long, wild ride.
Your suggestion of reciprocal accountability is a suggestion, but it is also a prediction. Such reciprocity is a logical consequence of GLLMs used by competing factions.
If General Large Language Models are GLLMs, then I'll call them golems. Part of the problem with golems is philosophical. If these golems are just stochastic parrots, and if they sound too much like us, then are we stochastic parrots?
Asimov predicted a "C/Fe Culture", meaning one with a symbiosis of human (= carbon = C) and robot (= iron = Fe). So how about this: everyone gets their own golem, trained on their own statements. Then the human can ask "What would I say?", take in what the golem says, and then say something else.
And as you are about to say the next thing... the GLLM then blurts THAT out!
But sure. Have you read KILN PEOPLE? Not iron. Clay.
You can also pronounce GLLM as "Gollum".
Asimov recommended a C/Fe culture: Iain Banks's "Culture" series is about a C/Fe culture.
Jack Williamson had some thoughts on such a culture...and Herbert's antithetical "Dune" feudal galactic state had the Butlerian Jihad as a precursor event, ensuring no Fe or Si in the equation.
Pappenheimer
I think Doctorow has adopted the values of "left Mastodon" (a community I count myself in) and one of the cultural norms there is the idea that AI grifter is the new crypto(currency) grifter. The anti-Silicon Valley bias is severe there, with a special antipathy for the GAFAMs. There's also an anti-STEM bias.
I hear that a judge asked Trump whether he thought VP Harris had the right to disqualify him if he won in 2024, as he claimed Pence had the right to do with Biden. After several uncharacteristically quiet seconds, he said 'No'.
I suppose his reasoning is that Harris is a fake VP.
----
An aside: AI at the movies recently.
'The Creator' tried tackling the issue head on. It portrayed humans and AI robots trying to live harmoniously in one part of the world, while being pogrommed in another.
An interesting idea, handsomely portrayed... that, IMHO, failed abysmally. I wanted to see an exploration of fundamental points of tension between humans and AI, and how they might be overcome. I got AI as normal/enlightened people with funny heads, being hunted, with lots of explosions, by a deus ex machina device in the sky portrayed as a giant flying Tesla symbol. Maybe that lack of difference was the point? Why are they fighting? Sorry, but AI are going to have more fundamental differences than a new type of head or skin colour.
I haven't seen 'Ex Machina', but I think the idea of a young guy helping a hapless AI because it presents as an attractive female (but turns out not to be) is closer to the mark.
I thought 'Passengers' handled it well. The AI and its subsystems running the colony ship in transit was really no more than a (very) expert chat system that could hold a running conversation, within limits. It took some doing to get Preston's predicament through to the bartender, and it let the cat out of the bag later with no understanding of what it had done.
I watched 'Ex Machina' last July - it was very very good and very "sexy"
The major unrealistic bit was the lone genius doing all the work - in the real world there would have been a huge team
The core - spoiler alert - was what do we do with the early versions of a human level intelligence??
Do we just take them apart and use the bits for the Mk2??
http://freefall.purrsia.com/ff4000/fv03987.htm
Tony Fisk:
I suppose his reasoning is that Harris is a fake VP.
No, I would expect his reasoning is that it is ok to take extraordinary actions in service of having him win, but not against him. I'm thinking of the fact that he insisted during his four years that Congress always raise the debt limit, but last year, he tried to goad them into defaulting. When reporters pointed out that when he was president, he had insisted that the US should never default, his answer (without a hint of irony) was, "I'm not president now."
Frankly, I'm surprised he admitted that.
No surprise: Trump will tack like a sailor.
His reasoning on Harris is that she’s a “broad”, and thus cannot disqualify him.
The name of Trump's game is Calvinball, whose only fixed rule is that Calvin wins.
I'm awate of that, but there is some entertainment to be had in seeing how reality is twisted to fit the rule.
Larry Hart said...
...his answer (without a hint of irony) was, "I'm not president now."
Frankly, I'm surprised he admitted that.
No reason for surprise. Trump has learned that there are no consequences for such overtly biased inconsistency. Indeed, a large number of his supporters like him for it.
Maine has now barred the ex-resident... from the ballot.
Alan Brooks:
His reasoning on Harris is that she’s a “broad”, and thus cannot disqualify him.
On Jan 6, 2017,the vice president who was in the "Mike Pence" position to have refused to certify Trump's election was Joe Biden. Trump would not (retroactively) claim that Biden had the authority to keep him (Trump) out of the White House. It has nothing to do with which minority group the veep belongs to.
His "reasoning" is that the vice president doesn't have the authority to block his election. Only to aid in his election. It's all about him.
Sure, but there’s something else. Trump doesn’t think a great deal of women. The notion that a man could deprive Trump of his destiny is unpalatable to him.
But that a woman could deprive Trump of his destiny, is double-so.
I watched The Creator just the other night. I was severely disappointed. I new it was controversial and was hoping that that was an indication that it would good. Perhaps thought provoking in a bit of an uncomfortable way. But, nope. It just sucked, it just about every way. And I really tried to like it.
Shallow simplistic story, stale tropes, and lots of nonsense. Several key exchanges of dialogue that were just flat out nonsense, as in they made no sense. Not, wow I didn't get that let me rewind and try to figure out what I've missed. Trust me, the movie was not sophisticated enough for that. I mean silly non-sequiturs of the sort, . . .
"Okay, what's the plan!"
"Squirrel!"
Piss poor writing like that tends to make me feel that the movie makers think I'm an idiot.
Darrell E: :Piss poor writing
I get into conversations with SF film/TV creators through friends and family connections. I'm usually dismayed by how low writing ranks in the mix. MOBY DICK and FORBIDDEN PLANET (both 1956), Star Trek TOS, and a few modern flicks are great mainly because of the writing.
@scidata, Moby Dick is SF?
An epic tale of human-alien struggle, that does a deep dive :) into psychology and the human condition isn't SF. But a paper-thin romp of princesses and knights through a goofy medieval space forest is??
scidata:
FORBIDDEN PLANET
"The number ten raised almost literally to the power of infinity!"
That's not a complaint. It's one of my favorite movie lines. Allowances made for its time.
Also, the only pre-Naked Gun appearance I'm aware of in which Leslie Nielsen isn't a villain.
Re: FORBIDDEN PLANET
In high school, after reading "The Tempest", I suggested to the teacher that we watch this movie. Request denied. I suspect that Anne Francis' outfit nixed it :)
LH:
There's also Captain Kirk amplifying a sound by a factor of ten to the power zero.
Paradoctor:
There's also Captain Kirk amplifying a sound by a factor of ten to the power zero.
Wasn't there a Spock line like that too? I seem to remember something about "...times one to the fourth power."
MOBY DICK screenplay was written by Ray Bradbury!
--
Murders fell sharply across the U.S. in 2023, according to the F.B.I. Detroit is on track to record its fewest homicides since the 1960s. Oh but those are things called 'facts', of little interest to the far-left or today's mad ENTIRE US right.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/homicide-numbers-poised-hit-record-decline-nationwide-americans/story?id=105556400
LH:
Oops, you're right. 1^4 rather than 10^0.
Paradoctor:
1^4 rather than 10^0.
A distinction without a difference, though.
The Creator promised much, but delivered nothing.
No conversation about great(?) lines in SF is complete without 'Robot Monster':
"I must... but I cannot!"
In terms of AI, I am reminded of your alien race Jophur/Traeki from the Uplift series. They are built up of semi-autonomous rings which have a sort of consensus individuality. This is (as I understand it) the current view of human consciousness - a consensus viewpoint arising from competing neural influences.
While existing AI (GLLMS) cannot be truly intelligent in themselves, I wonder about the possibility of emergent behaviour once various types of AI start interacting/competing/collaborating with each other.
@peter, before Skynet, a collaboration of supercomputers (that happened to be managing the US and Soviet strategic defence systems) becoming self-aware was the idea underpinning The Forbin Project.
Greetings from middle America, and an early wish for a felicitous New Year.
Every few weeks I have been meandering over to see what's going on among the Contrarians and Brinites. So far.....eeeeehhhh.
But I distribute kudos where I can.
It looks as if the consensus is that removing Trump from the ballot in the year ahead is a bad idea. Seems just a little anti Democracy and all. I have seen commentary that says the last time this was done was when the states of the (Actual) Confederacy removed Abe Lincoln back in 1860.
This is a horrible concept, one so bad that I hope and pray that the people behind it are smugly certain that it is all just Virtue Signaling and that the SC will say "knock it off".
You don't take away people's right to vote for who they chose based on an expansive, novel interpretation of an Amendment designed to keep former officials of the (Actual) Confederacy from being an option.
I'm not a fan of the current administration, but to declare Biden and Harris ineligible for public office would be equally bad. But if this - surely one of the last solid barriers - is breached there would be tit for tat saying that Biden clearly accepted bribes and that Harris certainly supported bail for BLM rioters who were involved in anti government actions. Not that they've been convicted or even formally charged with doing so, but whatevs....
I wish, heck many of you probably agree in private, that we had better options in the upcoming election. But we are getting out there to Chiquita Banana land when the Secretary of State of Maine can, just because, say "Orange Man Bad and you can't vote for him". To their credit I understand that Gavin Newsome in California and a Maine congressman who voted to impeach have both expressed similar sentiments.
Cheers,
See you now and again.
Tacitus
Tacitus you remain welcome here, even though you always (nowadays) begin with a snide (defensive) insult. I’d be curious if you know another place where the discussions are 90% elevated, informed, diverse and polite, as they (90%) are here.
Yes, the ‘off-the-ballot’ maneuver is not a good idea. (1) Trump should be convicted of the crime before being punished for it. (2) It looks terrible, like avoiding a fair fight. (3) Yes, it should be decided at the ballot box.
But of course the complaints are mealy-mouth hypocrisy, in light of the utter, utter sewer spew of cheating engaged-in by the GOP confederacy.
Already super-empowered by the built-in cheat of small state citizens getting 20x voting power in the Senate and Electoral College, Republicans use gerrymandering to disenfranchise further tens of millions in the House and in state legislatures.
That is utterly indefensible cheating and it makes anyone complaining about this ‘insurrection’ mess a hypocrite of volcanic magnitude.
You want decision at the Ballot Box? The GOP has won the US nationwide popular vote ONCE in 30 years. Only cheats have kept in power a party whose only legislative agenda is to preserve tax cheats of the rich and prevent actions to save the planet… and then to do less work than any other congresses in US history.
Yeah yeah we’ve all heard the cult answer to losing the popular vote – yet justifying cheats to seize power. “We’re a republic, not a democracy!”
Blah blah. `Fear of ‘mob rule’ is kinda rich, now that the average education levels of MAGA voters are FAR lower than Democratic ones. (The GOP used to be PROUD of being higher educated. Now Universities are eeeeevil!)
Now throw in the stunning way the GOP took control of the Supreme Court… and leave aside the blatant corruption and blackmailed status of three members… and you are content with this?
You can ignore two young GOP Congressmen, who have openly declared their colleagues are a fester of blackmail?
“there would be tit for tat saying that Biden clearly accepted bribes and that Harris certainly supported bail for BLM rioters who were involved in anti government actions”
Prove any of these outright lies, sir. Have your atty contact me when you have escrowed $$$ stakes to take these masturbatory assertions before a panel of senior retired military officers.
And while we have that panel, let’s compare Hunter Biden’s entire life to any Randomly Chosen week of D Trump Junior. Whole life vs any RANDOM week of the most corrupt family of Kremlin agent traitors that even the totally suborned GOP ever produced.
Why – I ask in genuine curiosity – are you not eager for a bipartisan bill to end all NDAs and get release of all Trumpian business records and hush arrangements, the way that has happened with the Bidens?
Leaving aside the political BS,
"US officials who take an oath to uphold the Constitution are disqualified from holding future office if they “engaged in insurrection” or have “given aid or comfort” to insurrectionists."
Seems pretty clear to me. Nothing in there about the Confederacy.
At least one federal judge, IIRC, has already ruled TFG engaged in insurrection. Should we wait for a Supreme ruling? With the corrupted SC we have, containing 3 justices appointed by the same guy? Who will, I suspect, refuse to recuse?
Please note that if Biden loses in 2024 and tells his followers to assemble at the capitol, and does not lift a finger while they storm the place and try to hang the vice president, all in hopes of overturning a presidential election, then I would have no hesitation in stating the 14th ALSO applies to the candidate I had hitherto preferred.
Pappenheimer
SCOTUS will feel compelled to affirm all three of these propositions:
1. That Trump is an insurrectionist.
2. That no insurrectionist may be on the ballot.
3. That Trump may be on the ballot.
Those are the rulings that SCOTUS would take comfort in. Alas, these three statements are mutually inconsistent. How will SCOTUS achieve this trilemma?
Maybe this way: by saying that the CO lower court ruling that Trump insurrected wasn't good enough. They'll need proof that's bigger, longer, harder. So they may send it back with instructions to throw a proof-of-insurrection trial that'll splash all over the Net.
But note that Amendment 14, section 3, does not specify balloting; it could be applied post-election, in an impeachment trial, or a stand-alone trial.
The biggest damage to Don's teflon comes from civil cases - feminine disgust and financial ruin. And the latest, yet decades old, threat to his cultish appeal is the #Trumpstinks tag. Scatological zingers swarm and multiply in an Idiocracy. Discarded lackeys like Michael Cohen are turning rabidly scornful; 'Donald von Shitzinpants' and 'Shitler', while crude and childish, are effective. Retribution is a door that swings both ways.
The narrative on the gone-mad US right is always "DON'T LOOK!"
The whole "Steeele Dossier" rage at the FBI's Russia investigation started it, by proclaiming that a tainted squealer meant there should be no investigation, a principle of stunningly bizarre nionsense, especially after Manafort, Flynn etc were convicted of being outright Kremlin agents.
"Don't Look!" has been they key narrative ever since, from Trump Org business records to NDAs to CLarence Thomas's lies about bribes... and refusing offers from dems to end all the NDA and hush deals with "We'll show all of ours if you show yours."
Of course the confeds/trumpists refuse. Because most dems have already shown theirs. And - frustratingly - there's almost never anything.
Tacitus, what is your explanation for the following?
That almost 100x as many high republicans as high dems have been indicted by diverse grand juries (GJ) of random citizens (mostly white retirees) all across the nation. Many of these GJs were in red-run states where Republicans hold every lever of power and controlled elections, yet yammered then about a ‘steal’ (with zero evidence. Three possibilities
1- a CONSPIRACY executed with superhuman timing & skill without a single leak or mistake that includes all those average folk, plus all election workers, civil servants plus all the FBI/Intel heroes who won the Cold War & the War on Terror…or else…
2- that today's GOP is a criminal gang run by Kremlin "ex" commissars, casino mafiosi, murder sheiks, hedge parasites, inheritance brats etc.
Alas. They always choose #1, rather than face the obviously true #2.
Nor do the cowards ever accept cash wagers – the way actual men would – over their counterfactual claims re: climate crises, appraising any RANDOM 10 of Trump's 150,000 registered lies. Or evidence of any election 'steal.' Or name 1 fact-profession NOT hated-on by Fox?
* Or which party is ALWAYS more fiscally responsible?
* Or whether Red-run States (except Utah) average higher on EVERY turpitude!
No MAGA/Putinist EVER shows manly guts to back up their blab, as grampa would've. Blowhards flee, amid the ruins of their macho.
Paradoctor:
But note that Amendment 14, section 3, does not specify balloting; it could be applied post-election, in an impeachment trial, or a stand-alone trial.
That's what I was going to say. The primary ballot is a bad place to make a stand, because there is nothing in the amendment which says an insurrectionist can't run for office. Just that he can't occupy the office.
* * *
I refused to respond this morning because I didn't want to be the one piling on Tacitus. I try to remain on friendly terms with the guy. However, Dr Brin voiced my thought that the fact that anti-Trump forces (I'm not sure they're all specifically "Democrats") occasionally cross a line is no reason to give succor to their opponents, who cross red lines so often that we've normalized their doing so. "Democrats do something that should draw criticism across the board," is "Man Bites Dog", whereas "Republicans do something that should draw criticism across the board," is so "Dog Bites Man" that it is considered impolite to draw attention to it--like staring at a drunk pissing behind the bushes.
And the whole tit-for-tat thing, that treating Trump as an insurrectionist will just empower Republicans to accuse Biden of misdeeds--is a willful misunderstanding of the current state of play. That argument asserts that our only option when Republicans misbehave is to let them do whatever they want, because otherwise they'll be angry and act out, and the law won't stop or penalize them for it. This little misquoted vignette is appropriate:
"Let him have it. It's not wise to upset a Republican."
"But sir, no one worries about upsetting a Democrat."
"That's because Democrats doesn't pull people's arms out of their sockets when they lose. Republicans have been known to do that."
"I see your point, sir. I suggest a new strategy, R2. Let the Republican win."
Paradoctor:
SCOTUS will feel compelled to affirm all three of these propositions:
1. That Trump is an insurrectionist.
2. That no insurrectionist may be on the ballot.
3. That Trump may be on the ballot.
Back to this for a bit.
Your 2) is simply false. The amendment says an insurrectionist may not hold office. It doesn't say anything about being able to run for office, let alone merely for a party's nomination. Ideally, state level Republicans would remove an ineligible candidate from their ballot themselves, not want a nominee who couldn't take the office. But that's their business, not the feds'.
It is also possible that the court would rule that the 14th amendment doesn't apply to the presidency. While that feels illogical, the fact is that the text mentions other offices specifically, but conspicuously does not mention the president.
At this point we might be saved from a return of Trump by $2.79 gas and a $1.79 dozen eggs--the prices I bought those things for just today. Also by Republican overreach on abortion and being mean to vulnerable people. Trump's forced removal from the ballot may come back to bite us if he would lose fair and square, but we've handed them an excuse to claim the election was RIGGED! It's almost like the Republicans might have instigated the ballot fight themselves. (After "Defund the police", I really believe they pull that sort of crap).
Dr Brin:
"Don't Look!" has been they key narrative ever since,
Not a scream of "Don't look!" the way you'd cover your young child's eyes during a horror movie. More of an "It's extremely impolite to look, and if you do so, you're committing a worse offense than the thing you're not supposed to look at."
LH the MAGA narrative is "Don't look at MEEEEEEE!"
In my main posting I talk about what reasons the oligarchy might have, to ORDER the thoroughly suborned Roberts majority to side with Colorado and ban DT. There are many reasons either way and the result will offer clues to their motives.
They can't want him around. If he's nominated and loses, he torches the Republican machine that protects oligarchy rape of the Republic and economy.
If he wins, he's made it clear he will go fully brownshirt and no combination of money plus blackmail will prevent him from reaming the oligarchs with equal ferocity as the commies and lib'ruls and woke-ists and immigrants and (especially) all the nerds. Anyone who knows a thing about 1933 to 1936 can see the danger the aristocrats are in, from the forces they fostered.
Hence, my guess is they'll choose to get rid of the no-longer controllable and electorally toxic Trump in other ways. Most likely martyrdom.
“The primary ballot is a bad place to make a stand”
Yes indeed, in fact the CO GOP is talking about switching to a caucus, which bypasses the primary and will exponentiate the already powerful sway of their fanatics.
onward
onward
Tacitus -
"You don't take away people's right to vote for who they chose based on an expansive, novel interpretation of an Amendment designed to keep former officials of the (Actual) Confederacy from being an option."
No, you take away the right to hold office by a constitutional amendment. Then no reasonable state or party will place that person on the ballot. Presidents are limited to two terms by such an amendment. Do you think taking away the right to vote for the third term is a problem? Seems like an expansive, novel interpretation to me and so far the Supremes have not had to rule on this one as far as I know.
Kal Kallevig
onward
onward
Post a Comment