Did you know that carbon 14 dating is pretty erratic, and to such an extent that one can interpret the given as he wishes?
`it's proof of science's resilience in that it refuses to call a theory "Fact" without being able to check.': is a modal logical proof of His existence enough of a check?: https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B0Tw1fnDScRsYmM4MmYzMjMtODc2Mi00MTNjLTllYTctNTQwNTYzMmZmYTdk&hl=fr https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B0Tw1fnDScRsM2JkZmJkNTItMzVjYS00YzliLWI2MzYtNzlkMWUzYjhlZDY1&hl=fr
`The simple truth is - if you believe in God, that's your right, but don't mix theology and science because they have NOTHING in common': that's your right.
`To reject a scientific idea on the grounds that it conflicts with religion is hypocrisy unless you are equally willing to reject a religious idea on the grounds that it conflicts with science.': is it not because in your eyes they appears as negated (or unnecessary, and thus Occam's) by today's science, that you don't accept certain existences?
`thinking built on rationality and demand of proof and consistent': is that computer you use not `created'? Also, removing the need for a Creator of Reality makes that Reality uncreated: what occurs in it can be seen as produced by it; is this not Atheists' god?
Much of what happened in Goedel's mind mirrored reality (spatio-temporal, conceptual and not only his own's thoughts): he was a conceptual and mathematical realist.
1. `many scientists today believe this was not required and there are several alternative viable theories': are they really `viable', are todays scientist all that non-error-prone?
2.`For those of us who don't believe now, it will be just further proof that there's nothing we can't adequately explain WITHOUT a creator.': so for you there are things which confirm that last sentence of yours. Are these not, in a weak sense, `co-creators' (causers) of that same sentence's truth?
Moreover, your struggling to make evident that `no Creator is needed' could not be seen as one of its counterexamples? I mean, that you show that one needs to create (construct or prove rather) its truth, itself not being evident, thus at least `no Creator is needed' needs a `creator'.
Thanks for the suggestion (didn't read that).
In any case, bearing in mind that Newton seems not to believe in demons, what one finds here: http://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/newton/mss/norm/ALCH00081 can perhaps be acceptable even to such an un-spiritual generation as ours.
He just put together the right conditions and then left the Laws of Nature - which we cannot change, nor are material - do the rest. Again, this is no news: cf. Isaac Newton's `metallic vegetations'.
The sole fact of things in space, somehow cohering there is hardly explicable by materialism alone. That we distinguish them and are able to follow them in time (sameness) suggests that there's something else - abstract, unchanging - that causes those things' coherence and our distinguishing theme the one from the other. This is one argument for idolatry's being a grave error: one worships a living something not uncreated.
Actually this is likely: Isaac Newton, I am under that impression, studied such things (as metallic vegetations). Moreover Kurt Goedel is recorded as having said `... but an electron or a piece of rock also has experiences.' (cf. Hao Wang's `A logical journey, From Goedel to Philosophy', p. 292 - an excellent book, in my opinion). So, we should not all that fast dismiss this as false or irrelevant. Also, Goedel: `Matter will be spiritualized when the true theory of physics is found.' (p. 292)
`What have you been smoking... I want some.'
Non-western mass-media.
Using one's own intellect helps also.
As to Rebels being decoys (but even what is shown of their `successes' on ground) new developments shall make it abundantly clear (again google a bit).
A widely held prejudice this, that ideas are somehow created by our arrogant selves. There's another side to reality, the inner. Is it all that unbelievable that, being more and more enticed and accustomed to interact one with the other, we leave unexercised that other organ, the one dealing with that other side, the abstract, well structured and beautifully ordered? Again, we should acqaint ourselves with this http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/05/10/1008636108.full.pdf
Have a look at this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/world-war-2/7961211/Hitler-had-Jewish-and-African-roots-DNA-tests-show.html
Note that by Ashkenazi (!) is meant a people of non-semitic ancestry: just like the vast majority of Talmudists and Palestine's post 1948,9 colonizers:
eastern Europe's Khazar descendants, phallus-worshiping mongoloids Talmudized somewhere in the 8th or 9th century after Christ. The anti-Semite myth is quite pervert: the accusers do convict their own self. Ask yourself why on earth the Yiddish tongue has almost nothing in common with Hebrew, except symbols, that is.
Indeed.
Search `Benjamin Freedman Khazars'. By a simple application of empirical induction, one may cast doubts on that rogue state's existence after 2018,19. They dig their own grave, world widely.
Code reviews make truth/right ad-hoc techniques a non-accumulation point for programmers' commits. This, in proportion of how much members of the community look at each others' work. Adding values on top of this is still worse, because that bias only makes the downfall faster. This is another occurrence of that law concerned with the bad effect of horizontal exchanges on the rightness of the whole (cf. also Wikipedia). There is a comment of Ritchie somewhat according to this view, namely the one about his being thankful for not having developed the popular operating system using the advices of an overcrowded horde. Also, consider Perelman's isolation and its good intellectual effects.
...only if that super computing power is used as a substitute for those falsity-mongering monkeys contributing `knowledge' under the egidy of that covetous W(h)ale(s). They actually dumbify the masses by their interactions.
Please, could you precise where I.7.3 even remotely requires that the matter ends once the first two thirds process ends ? (if no return within ten Days after presentation of that Vote, then OK, the Bill becomes an `Active' Law). That the Rule about which we speak is expressed in finitely many words doesn't set upper bounds on the length of all correct instances of its application. Note also that the authors of the Const. where careful to temper the scope of `Every' in I.7.3: they specify its exceptions: `except on a question of Adjournment' But from such an explicit limitation it is rather reasonable to derive an exception-less (as to the things quantified) Law to the effect that `Every `non-Adjournment-oriented-Order, Resolution, or Vote-to which-the-Concurrence-of-the-Senate-and-House-of Representatives-may-be-necessary' shall be presented...' The Votes built up while passing or re-passing are not concerned whith the Congress' Adjournment (i.e., its not being assembled when it should).
What exception are you referring to ?
the limitations in I.7.2 in no way exclude the subjection of re-passing Votes to presentation to the Pres. Not only the making of a re-passed Bill a Law by such two thirds Vote is not enough to make it a Law immediately, worse the fact that it is a Law has consequences which, before that Law be active, must be dealt with; namely: it has to be signed, held unreturned (what seems so far to have happened) within the allocated period or, should the Pres. return it (because such are the limitations in I.7.2 and I.7.3) force the Congress in a further process of re-passing (by two thirds).
I understand that what seems to be intended by the Constitution is just that there is no more than two Considerations by the Congress in such Cases. But look: how is re-passing achieved ? by a Vote (of two thirds): `But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays' as for attention deficit, please observe that somehow, the quoted passage implies that even the re-passing is reached by Votes of both Houses. Because these Votes are subjected to this generality: `Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives' There follows that even that which is achieved by re-passings has to be presented to the Pres. etc.
I am sorry but I will insist.
m(x) = x' : x passed by a majority in both Houses and x' witnesses that.
mm(x) = x' : same as with m but here the majority is greater, two thirds in each House.
l(x) : x shall become a Law or x shall take Effect
p(x) : x presented to Pres.
s(x) : President signs x.
nr(x) : President doesn't return x within ten Days etc.
r(x) : President returns x within ten Days etc., and Congress does not adjourn.
a(x) : President returns x within ten Days etc., but Congress prevent its return by its Adjournment.
`Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question
of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect...'
By def., x' as in m(x) = x' but also in mm(x) = x' is just that: an `Order, Resolution, or [Vote] to which the Concurrence of the
Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary' and regards not `a question of Adjournment'. Therefore:
(m(x) = x' v mm(x) = x') -> {l(x') -> [p(x')...
`...shall be approved by him,...'
(m(x) = x' v mm(x) = x') -> {l(x') -> [p(x') & [s(x') v nr(x')...
`...or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives...'
(m(x) = x' v mm(x) = x') -> {l(x') -> [p(x') & [s(x') v nr(x') v (r(x') -> (Ex'')mm(x') = x'')]]}
`If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law'
mm(x) = x' -> l(x') (this is what is thought to end the story, but it is exactly the opposite)
`If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it'
s(x) v nr(x) -> l(x)
`unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.'
a(x) -> ~l(x)
Note that ~r(x) -> (s(x) v nr(x) v a(x))
Now define the following things:
z(x, y) : m(x) = y v (Et)(z(x, t) & mm(t) = y) i.e., y is a `corresponding Vote' to x
[x, y] : z(x, y) & ~(Et)mm(y) = t That is, y is the last corresponding Vote to x.
Here follows a derivation of (0) below.
[x, y] | z(x, y) & ~(Et)mm(y) = t | [m(x) = y v (Et)(z(x, t) & mm(t) = y)] & ~(Et)mm(y) = t
(Et)(z(x, t) & mm(t) = y) | mm(t) = y | l(y) | [s(y) v nr(y) v (r(y) -> (Et)mm(y) = t)] | s(y) v nr(y) v ~r(y) | s(y) v nr(y)
m(x) = y | {l(y) -> [p(y) & [s(y) v nr(y) v (r(y) -> (Et)mm(y) = t)]]} | l(y) -> (s(y) v nr(y) v ~r(y)]) | l(y) -> (s(y) v nr(y))
l(y) -> [[x, y] -> (s(y) v nr(y))] (0)
What (0) means is that if the sequence of corresponding things to x is finite then, for the last such y to be a Law (or have Effect) it is necessary that the same should be signed or be not returned etc. Now that last corresponding y fulfills at last the pending conditions.
Bearing in mind the fact that requirements should be met chronologically before the beginning of that which requires them, the lawful sequences of events are the prefixes of all those sequences which can be described by ( m ( p r mm )* p ( s + nr ) l ) + ( m p a ~l ): a regular expression where xy means that the event y is not to begin unless x has ended. So for example `m p r mm p r mm p r' or `m p a ~l' are allowed but not `m p r mm p a' because then, both l and ~l should be the case.
...Even then it needs a signature or a non-return within then Days (Sundays excepted): this is because of I.7.3 (but even I.7.2 points to that). I explain: suppose that a House proposed some Bill x0. suppose further that the x0 was then agreed upon by some majority of both Houses. This involves a Vote, let us designate it by x1. this x1 before it be effective (and result in x0 becoming a Law) has to be presented to the U.S. Pres. x1 then can be (0) signed, (1) left unreturned within ten Days (Sundays excepted) (2) returned in time and received by Congress (3) returned in time but not received by Congress because the same has adjourned. (0) or (1) suffice for x1 to take Effect while (3) suffice for x1 to not take Effect (and thus Bill x0 would not be promoted to a Law). Consider now (2), what happens? When returned, the Congress may re-pass x0 (that is pass x1) but now to do so, a greater majority is needed: the matter is settled by a Vote of two thirds, name it x2. The Const. says that then x2 shall take Effect. But note that x2 is a Vote to which a Concurrence of both Houses is necessary: such a thing, `before' its becoming effective (`before' taken logically and chronologically) needs to be presented to the Pres. and so (0), (1) or (2) again. (3) is illegal because then x2 should also not take Effect: a contradiction. if not (0), nor (1), `(0) or (1) or (2)' which is a condition of `x2 shall take Effect' needs, to be met, (2). And (2) leads to a reconsideration of x2 by both Houses which should result in a new x3 also to take Effect (because x3 involves a Vote of two thirds in each House) but, for the very reason of its being a Vote requiring both Houses, must not take Effect before the corresponding `(0) or (1) or (2)' is satisfied. If Pres. should refuse `(0) or (1)' but choose (2), a new x4 has to be produced by Congress, again a thing to which a Concurrence of both Houses is necessary. So, while not `(0) or (1)': xi delayed. What is remarkable is that: No Judgment in Cases of Impeachment can be reached without the leave (i.e., Consent) of the President. For, such Judgments are last in the complex `Indictment, Trial, Conviction'. Now, on the one hand, the Indictment in such Cases is an Order which only the House of Representatives can issue: `The House of Representatives... shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.'. On the other hand `The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments...' and the Conviction needs `the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present': a Resolution or Vote. So because the Concurrence of both Houses is necessary in such Order-Resolution-Vote, the Verdict can't take Effect before the Consent of the President (by I.7.3).
No Amending of this Constitution can be done without the President's allowing it. For, the proposal of Amendments by the Congress supposes that `two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary'. But both Houses need also agree before they `...shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments' `on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States'. Lastly, the very mode of Ratification, since determined by Congress also needs the President to take Effect (all of this because of I.7.3).
You know, I.7.2 and 3 give the Pres. unlimited Veto Power. That is, even when some thing was re-passed by both Houses, he can still return-disapprove that Vote (because the re-passing implies a Vote which requires both Houses, as stated in: `But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses...') and, by doing so, delay its becoming a Law. This is also because of I.7.3. but see: http://kelakais.blogspot.com/
Note that the Pres. may very well never sign-`leave unreturned within ten Days etc.' but upon every re-passing, return what is presented him (and by `presented' I mean as little as `being aware of that re-passing').
Slashdot Mirror
Did you know that carbon 14 dating is pretty erratic, and to such an extent that one can interpret the given as he wishes?
`it's proof of science's resilience in that it refuses to call a theory "Fact" without being able to check.': is a modal logical proof of His existence enough of a check?:
https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B0Tw1fnDScRsYmM4MmYzMjMtODc2Mi00MTNjLTllYTctNTQwNTYzMmZmYTdk&hl=fr
https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B0Tw1fnDScRsM2JkZmJkNTItMzVjYS00YzliLWI2MzYtNzlkMWUzYjhlZDY1&hl=fr
`The simple truth is - if you believe in God, that's your right, but don't mix theology and science because they have NOTHING in common': that's your right.
`To reject a scientific idea on the grounds that it conflicts with religion is hypocrisy unless you are equally willing to reject a religious idea on the grounds that it conflicts with science.': is it not because in your eyes they appears as negated (or unnecessary, and thus Occam's) by today's science, that you don't accept certain existences?
`thinking built on rationality and demand of proof and consistent': is that computer you use not `created'? Also, removing the need for a Creator of Reality makes that Reality uncreated: what occurs in it can be seen as produced by it; is this not Atheists' god?
Much of what happened in Goedel's mind mirrored reality (spatio-temporal, conceptual and not only his own's thoughts): he was a conceptual and mathematical realist.
0. As for evolution, consider this: http://science.slashdot.org/story/09/02/16/0328212/Acquired-Characteristics-May-Be-Inheritable
1. `many scientists today believe this was not required and there are several alternative viable theories': are they really `viable', are todays scientist all that non-error-prone?
2.`For those of us who don't believe now, it will be just further proof that there's nothing we can't adequately explain WITHOUT a creator.': so for you there are things which confirm that last sentence of yours. Are these not, in a weak sense, `co-creators' (causers) of that same sentence's truth? Moreover, your struggling to make evident that `no Creator is needed' could not be seen as one of its counterexamples? I mean, that you show that one needs to create (construct or prove rather) its truth, itself not being evident, thus at least `no Creator is needed' needs a `creator'.
Thanks for the suggestion (didn't read that). In any case, bearing in mind that Newton seems not to believe in demons, what one finds here: http://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/newton/mss/norm/ALCH00081 can perhaps be acceptable even to such an un-spiritual generation as ours.
He just put together the right conditions and then left the Laws of Nature - which we cannot change, nor are material - do the rest. Again, this is no news: cf. Isaac Newton's `metallic vegetations'.
Cf. his work on `rotating universes'.
The sole fact of things in space, somehow cohering there is hardly explicable by materialism alone. That we distinguish them and are able to follow them in time (sameness) suggests that there's something else - abstract, unchanging - that causes those things' coherence and our distinguishing theme the one from the other. This is one argument for idolatry's being a grave error: one worships a living something not uncreated.
Actually this is likely: Isaac Newton, I am under that impression, studied such things (as metallic vegetations). Moreover Kurt Goedel is recorded as having said `... but an electron or a piece of rock also has experiences.' (cf. Hao Wang's `A logical journey, From Goedel to Philosophy', p. 292 - an excellent book, in my opinion). So, we should not all that fast dismiss this as false or irrelevant. Also, Goedel: `Matter will be spiritualized when the true theory of physics is found.' (p. 292)
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=182046211866380&set=a.143311932406475.29932.143308589073476&type=1&theater
`What have you been smoking... I want some.' Non-western mass-media. Using one's own intellect helps also. As to Rebels being decoys (but even what is shown of their `successes' on ground) new developments shall make it abundantly clear (again google a bit).
Do you still take heed of what the usual media report? Tripoli is under government control. Do yourself a favor, stop listening to what CNN, BBC, Al Jazeera and the like say (not to mention the prostitution of The New York Times and practically of all the major newspapers, as far as literature is concerned, publishing Pentagon press releases). But neither do believe your eyes: what is shown isn't Tripoli, as far fetched as is may seem, this is shameless fakery from Qatari sets (google that, and ask yourself why on earth these so-called rebels only say â" as automata â" `Allah u-Akbar'? surely they won't exhibit a libyan accent or dialect). Moreover Saif al Islam and Mohammed Gaddafi were not under arrest (somehow Mohammed just `escaped', Saif appeared even on BBC) and Khamis is alive. How long this full fledged falsification will continue? Rebels are just decoys, what is happening is that German (Grenzschutzgruppe), French (GIGN), British (SAS) and likely U.S. special forces, private armies and légions étrangÃres with Al Qaeda factions are attacking mostly civilians: the 21 August's toll is, more than 1000 deaths, 5000 wounded. They are aided in their progress by NATO bombings of non-military assets. It is time overdue to begin boycotting these bottomless sinkholes and war criminals. Goebbels would not believe how far media lies have reached.
A widely held prejudice this, that ideas are somehow created by our arrogant selves. There's another side to reality, the inner. Is it all that unbelievable that, being more and more enticed and accustomed to interact one with the other, we leave unexercised that other organ, the one dealing with that other side, the abstract, well structured and beautifully ordered? Again, we should acqaint ourselves with this http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/05/10/1008636108.full.pdf
`Except it's not for kicks, and I don't have to boot the thing' Is this some sort of baby-foot apparatus :-) ?
http://abandonware-magazines.org/
Have a look at this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/world-war-2/7961211/Hitler-had-Jewish-and-African-roots-DNA-tests-show.html Note that by Ashkenazi (!) is meant a people of non-semitic ancestry: just like the vast majority of Talmudists and Palestine's post 1948,9 colonizers: eastern Europe's Khazar descendants, phallus-worshiping mongoloids Talmudized somewhere in the 8th or 9th century after Christ. The anti-Semite myth is quite pervert: the accusers do convict their own self. Ask yourself why on earth the Yiddish tongue has almost nothing in common with Hebrew, except symbols, that is.
Indeed. Search `Benjamin Freedman Khazars'. By a simple application of empirical induction, one may cast doubts on that rogue state's existence after 2018,19. They dig their own grave, world widely.
Code reviews make truth/right ad-hoc techniques a non-accumulation point for programmers' commits. This, in proportion of how much members of the community look at each others' work. Adding values on top of this is still worse, because that bias only makes the downfall faster. This is another occurrence of that law concerned with the bad effect of horizontal exchanges on the rightness of the whole (cf. also Wikipedia). There is a comment of Ritchie somewhat according to this view, namely the one about his being thankful for not having developed the popular operating system using the advices of an overcrowded horde. Also, consider Perelman's isolation and its good intellectual effects.
...only if that super computing power is used as a substitute for those falsity-mongering monkeys contributing `knowledge' under the egidy of that covetous W(h)ale(s). They actually dumbify the masses by their interactions.
Sometimes an interesting comment surfaces. Thank you.
Please, could you precise where I.7.3 even remotely requires that the matter ends once the first two thirds process ends ? (if no return within ten Days after presentation of that Vote, then OK, the Bill becomes an `Active' Law). That the Rule about which we speak is expressed in finitely many words doesn't set upper bounds on the length of all correct instances of its application. Note also that the authors of the Const. where careful to temper the scope of `Every' in I.7.3: they specify its exceptions: `except on a question of Adjournment' But from such an explicit limitation it is rather reasonable to derive an exception-less (as to the things quantified) Law to the effect that `Every `non-Adjournment-oriented-Order, Resolution, or Vote-to which-the-Concurrence-of-the-Senate-and-House-of Representatives-may-be-necessary' shall be presented...' The Votes built up while passing or re-passing are not concerned whith the Congress' Adjournment (i.e., its not being assembled when it should).
What exception are you referring to ? the limitations in I.7.2 in no way exclude the subjection of re-passing Votes to presentation to the Pres. Not only the making of a re-passed Bill a Law by such two thirds Vote is not enough to make it a Law immediately, worse the fact that it is a Law has consequences which, before that Law be active, must be dealt with; namely: it has to be signed, held unreturned (what seems so far to have happened) within the allocated period or, should the Pres. return it (because such are the limitations in I.7.2 and I.7.3) force the Congress in a further process of re-passing (by two thirds).
I understand that what seems to be intended by the Constitution is just that there is no more than two Considerations by the Congress in such Cases. But look: how is re-passing achieved ? by a Vote (of two thirds): `But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays' as for attention deficit, please observe that somehow, the quoted passage implies that even the re-passing is reached by Votes of both Houses. Because these Votes are subjected to this generality: `Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives' There follows that even that which is achieved by re-passings has to be presented to the Pres. etc.
I am sorry but I will insist.
m(x) = x' : x passed by a majority in both Houses and x' witnesses that.
mm(x) = x' : same as with m but here the majority is greater, two thirds in each House.
l(x) : x shall become a Law or x shall take Effect
p(x) : x presented to Pres.
s(x) : President signs x.
nr(x) : President doesn't return x within ten Days etc.
r(x) : President returns x within ten Days etc., and Congress does not adjourn.
a(x) : President returns x within ten Days etc., but Congress prevent its return by its Adjournment.
`Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect...'
By def., x' as in m(x) = x' but also in mm(x) = x' is just that: an `Order, Resolution, or [Vote] to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary' and regards not `a question of Adjournment'. Therefore:
(m(x) = x' v mm(x) = x') -> {l(x') -> [p(x')...
`...shall be approved by him,...'
(m(x) = x' v mm(x) = x') -> {l(x') -> [p(x') & [s(x') v nr(x')...
`...or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives...'
(m(x) = x' v mm(x) = x') -> {l(x') -> [p(x') & [s(x') v nr(x') v (r(x') -> (Ex'')mm(x') = x'')]]}
`If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law'
mm(x) = x' -> l(x') (this is what is thought to end the story, but it is exactly the opposite)
`If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it'
s(x) v nr(x) -> l(x)
`unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.'
a(x) -> ~l(x)
Note that ~r(x) -> (s(x) v nr(x) v a(x))
Now define the following things:
z(x, y) : m(x) = y v (Et)(z(x, t) & mm(t) = y) i.e., y is a `corresponding Vote' to x
[x, y] : z(x, y) & ~(Et)mm(y) = t That is, y is the last corresponding Vote to x.
Here follows a derivation of (0) below.
[x, y] | z(x, y) & ~(Et)mm(y) = t | [m(x) = y v (Et)(z(x, t) & mm(t) = y)] & ~(Et)mm(y) = t
(Et)(z(x, t) & mm(t) = y) | mm(t) = y | l(y) | [s(y) v nr(y) v (r(y) -> (Et)mm(y) = t)] | s(y) v nr(y) v ~r(y) | s(y) v nr(y)
m(x) = y | {l(y) -> [p(y) & [s(y) v nr(y) v (r(y) -> (Et)mm(y) = t)]]} | l(y) -> (s(y) v nr(y) v ~r(y)]) | l(y) -> (s(y) v nr(y))
l(y) -> [[x, y] -> (s(y) v nr(y))] (0)
What (0) means is that if the sequence of corresponding things to x is finite then, for the last such y to be a Law (or have Effect) it is necessary that the same should be signed or be not returned etc. Now that last corresponding y fulfills at last the pending conditions.
Bearing in mind the fact that requirements should be met chronologically before the beginning of that which requires them, the lawful sequences of events are the prefixes of all those sequences which can be described by ( m ( p r mm )* p ( s + nr ) l ) + ( m p a ~l ): a regular expression where xy means that the event y is not to begin unless x has ended. So for example `m p r mm p r mm p r' or `m p a ~l' are allowed but not `m p r mm p a' because then, both l and ~l should be the case.
...Even then it needs a signature or a non-return within then Days (Sundays excepted): this is because of I.7.3 (but even I.7.2 points to that). I explain: suppose that a House proposed some Bill x0. suppose further that the x0 was then agreed upon by some majority of both Houses. This involves a Vote, let us designate it by x1. this x1 before it be effective (and result in x0 becoming a Law) has to be presented to the U.S. Pres. x1 then can be (0) signed, (1) left unreturned within ten Days (Sundays excepted) (2) returned in time and received by Congress (3) returned in time but not received by Congress because the same has adjourned. (0) or (1) suffice for x1 to take Effect while (3) suffice for x1 to not take Effect (and thus Bill x0 would not be promoted to a Law). Consider now (2), what happens? When returned, the Congress may re-pass x0 (that is pass x1) but now to do so, a greater majority is needed: the matter is settled by a Vote of two thirds, name it x2. The Const. says that then x2 shall take Effect. But note that x2 is a Vote to which a Concurrence of both Houses is necessary: such a thing, `before' its becoming effective (`before' taken logically and chronologically) needs to be presented to the Pres. and so (0), (1) or (2) again. (3) is illegal because then x2 should also not take Effect: a contradiction. if not (0), nor (1), `(0) or (1) or (2)' which is a condition of `x2 shall take Effect' needs, to be met, (2). And (2) leads to a reconsideration of x2 by both Houses which should result in a new x3 also to take Effect (because x3 involves a Vote of two thirds in each House) but, for the very reason of its being a Vote requiring both Houses, must not take Effect before the corresponding `(0) or (1) or (2)' is satisfied. If Pres. should refuse `(0) or (1)' but choose (2), a new x4 has to be produced by Congress, again a thing to which a Concurrence of both Houses is necessary. So, while not `(0) or (1)': xi delayed. What is remarkable is that: No Judgment in Cases of Impeachment can be reached without the leave (i.e., Consent) of the President. For, such Judgments are last in the complex `Indictment, Trial, Conviction'. Now, on the one hand, the Indictment in such Cases is an Order which only the House of Representatives can issue: `The House of Representatives ... shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.'. On the other hand `The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments...' and the Conviction needs `the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present': a Resolution or Vote. So because the Concurrence of both Houses is necessary in such Order-Resolution-Vote, the Verdict can't take Effect before the Consent of the President (by I.7.3).
No Amending of this Constitution can be done without the President's allowing it. For, the proposal of Amendments by the Congress supposes that `two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary'. But both Houses need also agree before they `...shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments' `on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States'. Lastly, the very mode of Ratification, since determined by Congress also needs the President to take Effect (all of this because of I.7.3).
You know, I.7.2 and 3 give the Pres. unlimited Veto Power. That is, even when some thing was re-passed by both Houses, he can still return-disapprove that Vote (because the re-passing implies a Vote which requires both Houses, as stated in: `But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses...') and, by doing so, delay its becoming a Law. This is also because of I.7.3. but see: http://kelakais.blogspot.com/ Note that the Pres. may very well never sign-`leave unreturned within ten Days etc.' but upon every re-passing, return what is presented him (and by `presented' I mean as little as `being aware of that re-passing').