The one I quoted directly below that statement. Learn to read.
Then you lie to yourself. Nothing in that statement was factually incorrect if you read the entirety of it.. Like I said, if you are too fucking dumb to figure it out, get help.
Um, okaaaay... y u mad, bro? No, seriously, I have no idea what you mean to convey in this nonsensical rant of yours.
Nope, not mad at all. What would ever make you think that. I just think you have to be as direct and as to the point as possible with dumb fucktards and I considered you one.
Of course, I would likely be remiss if I were to take the words of 'sumdumass' seriously. I must admit, from the posts of yours I've seen, you have the most appropriate user name in all of Slashdotland.
Kudos, I guess?
Well, you already demonstrated you have no clue, so I guess what you say after that should be taken in kind- no clue.
You are almost there. Article 1 section 4 provides that
The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators.
So congress can make a law allowing specific watchers to be present at the polls for national elections. They have not done so to date except for the cases of the southern states that seceded. They required the Justice department or federal judicial approval in changes in voter requirements and polling practices in these states to ensure not run foul of the 14th, 15th, and 24th amendments or any of the civil rights laws.
Sigh.. you both are incorrect, well the op sort of is, but you definitely are.
A treaty cannot be unconstitutional. The only way to change the constitution is to amend it and you cannot sidestep that process by creating a treaty.
"all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States" Notice how it says under the authority of the United States and not without regard to the authority of the United States? The very notion of an international agreement that could usurp the restrictions or ad power to the government as defined in the Constitution was a great deal of concern during the drafting and ratification of the Constitution. All laws and treaties must be compatible with the constitution.
If you do not believe me, think about if we made a treaty with bumfuk middle east that says no one can disrespect the prophet Mohamed and all citizens must become Muslims in good standing. Forget that it will never happen by an elected official with the senate approving. Can it ever happen? The answer is a big fat NO because the first amendment forbids it. A treaty simply cannot change the constitution. (note, there is other parts in the constitution that forbid this too)
The problem is the political insanity is creating a REAL problem. People polarize easily.
Yep, and this is the problem with politicising the issue all the way back in 1998 and all through the creation of the Kyoto accords which in the end, only carried the guise of global warming.
The problem is people want to force it down our throats because "we're all going to die!" or something insane. So you have people who are enviro-hippies and people who hate the planet, basically; and the people who hate the planet aren't sinister so much as they don't believe (or don't want to believe) you can hurt it AND they don't want to be hippies so they immediately side against anything that looks like hippie bullshit. Houses underground are hippie bullshit--use of the land above is limited, and the houses are expensive and hard to maintain and really they have a shelf life of 10-15 years. Houses in trees? Dude I could design the city PLANNING for houses in trees, the woods are an excellent place to build! I could even fit it in with red-blooded American lifestyle, with some detail modifications but no massive inconveniences. Durable, cost-efficient, comfortable, an attractive lifestyle for MANY... and total hippie bullshit nobody wants.
And here you lost any credability of having a discussion on this. People who do not believe or do not understand do not by that nature hate the planet. I was skeptical when you started talking about people living in tree house forts but you simply jumped the shark on any credible efforts with ascribing "hate" to anyone who doesn't jump at the end of the world scenarios.
90% of the problem is that people are being forced into something, they aren't free. It costs more then what has worked over the last century or so. If the case was as solid as people pretend, they would move to that conclusion and take steps without being forced. But when the entire movement is politicized from the start, when so called fixes are political wrangling to achieve other rejected political goals like Jubilee2000, don't expect people paying attention to jump on board.
If you do not want someone in office and do not vote for the most likely person to beat them, you are allowing that person to win. You are in essence voting that person into office by not voting against them.
If you vote for third party candidate X in order to teach candidate Y a lesson, you are allowing candidate Z to take or remain in office. The lesson there is you voted to Z because you allowed them to win. If you stayed home, you would be doing the same. So if you don't mind either of the major party candidates winning, then vote Third party.
What phrase? Come on now, spit it out. you made an assertion now be clear about it or crawl back into your hole and troll someone else. Nothing I said was a lie. Just because you can't handle it or it hurt your feelings does not make it so. So stop lieing to yourself.
It seems you are upset over the votes tues and wed. Are you that fucking dumb? It was a joke. If it is is above your head, ask someone with a few more intelligence points to translate it for you.
I guess you can make that argument if you believe the poor and minority population isn't very intelligent. In my area, the state publishes a list of acceptable forms of ID. Its even broadcast on the local news every night along with a reminder that early voting is going on with the locations and times of the early voting places. I hear PSAs on the radio about it too. I don't take the local newspaper, but somehow/i don't think they are neglecting it either.
And then there is all the buzz about it. I mean everyone is making a fuss over it. That's probably why there is so much coverage on it.
If they don't know, I'm not sure i'm comfortable with them voting anyways. They won't know anything about what they are voting for either.
Then I disagree. OpenStack needs marketing beyond what it has had. Of course the marketing I'm talking about is not even in the same building as Linus let alone league so I still think we are talking about separate issues when you think a PR person would need to have the same amount of credentials as Linus.
There is the loss of the right to control the copying and distributing granted by law. So even if there is no $$ amount charged for it, there is a loss that the law supports recovering (statutory damages).
Your not going to be able to justify pirating something as if it is somehow legal. You can't really even make an ethical argument for it unless it's a matter of life and death (drug patents or something). You can however decide you don't care what the law says and pirating it is easier then obtaining it legally, but that is not legal. It's just an action you take.
Oh, i wasn't saying they needed a rock star dev in control of everything. They could benefit from a PR man who can get the message out about the capabilities though. Two separate concepts I think. Linus doesn't really do the Linux marketing, he does the featured attraction.
No, do you? It seems like you have problems with the truth when it doesn't fit your ideology.
No. He talked about how people can vote if they don't have an official voter ID. Using Bills as ID. It's not legal*, and wrong but it isn't stuffing the ballot box.
Read the fucking link. He was caught on video telling someone how to cast a ballot for people the other guy claimed he new was not going to vote. The guy who resigned excused the act as humoring someone.
So you go ahead and lie yourself. All you had to do is follow the fucking link and you wouldn't have made an ass of yourself.
Wrong. Minority's and people in poverty get intimidated all the time. Billboards intimidate people in those areas.
The billboards in question claim voter fraud is illegal. Are you claiming they aren't intelligent enough to understand what that means and somehow mistakes it for they will be arrested? That is the only way you can make sense here. I happen to think they are NOT that freaking stupid. And if they are, I'm not sure I would be happy with them voting anyways as I doubt they would carry any understanding of anything they are voting for.
And since there is almost 0(ZERO) voting fraud in the US, what other reason is there to put billboard in places that will intemedate voters into not voting? what is the purpose of Voter ID laws when 11% of the population doesn't have ID? Why are they also exclusively in dem voting areas?
I'm not sure what that has to do with what I said. Perhaps you are just covering your basis or something. Your links mean nothing because it only counts what was caught not what wasn't. We know that people attempt this from monitoring chat rooms, message boards, and even the campaign workers themselves.
In case you can't bother reading a story hosted at the conservative LA times.. It's about a Virginia candidate's own son having to resign from the campaign for instructing someone how to cast votes for people planning on not voting.
Who's lieing to themselves? I said it should be included in the rant, not that only dems do it. Although there is a large history of graveyards voting highly democrat.
I'm not saying you can't be worried and you can't work to get changes made. I'm saying that it's political now and it isn't irreproachable because something is connected somehow in some shape to science. In fact, even science is not irreproachable.
You cannot lock out political discourse by claiming science or God or race, or terrorist or anything.
Perhaps they are registered political affiliates who spent the time crossing the T's and dotting the I's. Perhaps the tea party being actual citizens of the state, they are expected to know and obey the laws where foreigners wouldn't necessarily know that?
Perhaps you don't know what you are talking about. I'm thinking a little of all of the above.
People seem to forget or simply do not realize that the federal government in the US does not have complete rule over the states within the US. There are a few things spelled out in the constitution giving them jurisdiction and overriding powers and the rest is left to the states. Until Congress acts on this issue by making a law, the OSCE has to follow Texas laws.
I guess you could say that if you think minorities and the poor wouldn't understand what fraud is. I mean, that is really the only way to intimidate them with something like that. In reality, it is no different the placing a sign saying "buckle up, its the law" in the same areas.
I know your getting desperate as time is running low and the numbers are tight, but Bush did not pardon them or anything. If there was legitimate wrong doing, the Obama could prosecute just as easily. No statute of limitations lasts only 2 months.
Maybe your problem is that the complaints weren't credible?
So remember, republican and those with enough sense to know better, vote on Tuesday the 6th. All others vote on Wednesday the 7th. check to make sure you have the right day.
I'm not sure what you are trying to say but there is no excuse to pirate something based on a rights holder's desire to distribute. That's the entire idea behind copyright and is shared to a large degree by every country that observes copyrights- the rights owner has the sole rights to copying and distribution. Even though the laws may be different in different countries, copyright is internationally covered by several treaties that most of the world has committed to following that says the same things. This is how the US was able to get an AU citizen extradited to the US for trial over a criminal copyright violation that was not a criminal act in AU. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hew_Raymond_Griffiths http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_O'Dwyer
However, I think you missed my point in general. It takes different considerations to approve whether or not you will allow your copyright to be subject to the laws of another location that may not be the same as yours. If the copyright holders think this required an increase in royalty payments, or requires extra steps from the distributor or whatever, it is something that happens. This is not something new and ignorance of it does not create a new set of circumstances. Saying company X can sell under these laws is not the same as saying company X can sell under a different set of laws. It may cost more to sell under the other sets of laws. It really is that simple even though you can reach company X from anywhere and under any set of laws.
A large part of the problem is copyright and patents. You actually need to get permission to sell things in different countries even though you might have it already for your country. This is largely because the laws are different in the other countries and the copyright or patent owners has to decide if they will allow their works to be subject to them or not and whether or not they want the hassle of enforcing the rights in the foreign country. Some foreign legal system will require the rights holder to be present to sue, some allow copying in circumstances that aren't in the home state.
You are most likely correct, there will be legislation involved and if getting around this is widespread it will likely be to prevent it.
I don't disagree but I think the bigger issue is that OpenStack probably needs a mouthpiece of sorts. I think this is what is really being asked here.
This mouthpiece should be able to relay.promote what OpenStack is doing and monitor user demands/needs to thin out the wacky unachievable and redundant but said differently so the dev teams can gather a clear focus on feature that need improvement or added. I haven't paid much attention to the project largely because I think the cloud is marketing speak for waste money here for the majority of needs. But it appears that is to my disadvantage as I see at least with the OpenStack software, I can create and administrate an in house private "cloud" consolidating the smaller servers into the same resource pools with the clustering options. Of course this is similar to using a VM but with far better networking support I guess.
The science does not say the world is going to end. The science does not say unless we tax everyone's energy use, the world is going to end. The science does not say we have to implement changes that restrict the freedoms of people while granting the government increasing power over people's lives. The science does not say that we cannot live through any changes. The science does not say we cannot question the motives and the work of people making those claims. Global warming is in the realm of politics whether you think it is or not and being part science does not shield it or the people backing it from criticism no matter how religious you are about science.
Science is not some irreproachable god that a group of people organize around and claim it is written in order to get the masses to do things that everyone else sees as wrong.
This has been a political issue since 1988 when the democrat staffers turned the AC off in the capitol building claiming it was broken on the day that was cherry picked to be historically one of the hottest of the year in Washington D.C. when the Mann graph was first used by the exaggerator James Hansen in his claiming of global warming to a sitting group of politicians.
If your heroes do not live up to your standards, deal with them, not me or anyone who points it out. Global warming was introduced to the public as a political venture. Scientists claim political solutions are needed and they typically claim only certain ones which don't seem to work outside of giving the government more power and spreading wealth around.
Um, yes, if you read further down in the original post that is addressed as a concern.
You should pay attention to the rest of what was in that paragraph. The portion you decided to criticize by basically saying it was redundant, is only the set up to the other.
Those numbers were provided for the sake of example. A more realistic scenario might be that Obama gets 236 electoral voters, Romney gets 235 electoral voters, and Johnson wins New Mexico to get 5 electoral voters.
Incorect numbers to make an example generally results in examples that do not reflect reality. Similarly, I do not believe it is possible for any third party candidate to take an entire state which was why right after what you quoted said "Simply not possible with a third party candidate unless they are a convert from one of the major parties running as a spoiler." No third party will take an entire state for the pick of president. This is because third parties do not have a presence in the state or local government and only hopeless ideologues and idiots will bother voting for them. You are basically wishing that Unicorns are real.
Good point, but it would likely be political suicide for a first term term president with no hope for re-election.
No it wouldn't. Third parties do not bother getting into congress or state and local parties so they will be ignored anyways. However, the elected president will have support in congress and their 4 year record to run off of. The people supporting the third party president will likely reelect the sitting president instead of voting third party because of the threat that the third part would thrown in with a different candidate no like them. They will see their vote as being better used to vote against the other person by voting for a specific person instead of playing five knuckle shuffle with a third party.
Agreed, but the US has been moving more and more away from that model. Senators used to be chosen by the states' governments and not by popular vote within the state. I was just looking at trying to more closely follow that model within the existing framework. Baby steps.
It takes a constitutional amendment or some way of invalidating the constitution to do it. otherwise, prepare to be constantly disappointed when things do not work the way you want them to. Also, if the constitution is removed somehow, do not assume the US will remain 50 states, they will separate into factions each creating their own country. I wouldn't expect anything like the civil war either because the Union that bound us would have been resolved with the dissolution of the constitution.
Slashdot Mirror
Then you lie to yourself. Nothing in that statement was factually incorrect if you read the entirety of it.. Like I said, if you are too fucking dumb to figure it out, get help.
Nope, not mad at all. What would ever make you think that. I just think you have to be as direct and as to the point as possible with dumb fucktards and I considered you one.
Well, you already demonstrated you have no clue, so I guess what you say after that should be taken in kind- no clue.
You are almost there.
Article 1 section 4 provides that
So congress can make a law allowing specific watchers to be present at the polls for national elections. They have not done so to date except for the cases of the southern states that seceded. They required the Justice department or federal judicial approval in changes in voter requirements and polling practices in these states to ensure not run foul of the 14th, 15th, and 24th amendments or any of the civil rights laws.
Sigh.. you both are incorrect, well the op sort of is, but you definitely are.
A treaty cannot be unconstitutional. The only way to change the constitution is to amend it and you cannot sidestep that process by creating a treaty.
"all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States" Notice how it says under the authority of the United States and not without regard to the authority of the United States? The very notion of an international agreement that could usurp the restrictions or ad power to the government as defined in the Constitution was a great deal of concern during the drafting and ratification of the Constitution. All laws and treaties must be compatible with the constitution.
If you do not believe me, think about if we made a treaty with bumfuk middle east that says no one can disrespect the prophet Mohamed and all citizens must become Muslims in good standing. Forget that it will never happen by an elected official with the senate approving. Can it ever happen? The answer is a big fat NO because the first amendment forbids it. A treaty simply cannot change the constitution. (note, there is other parts in the constitution that forbid this too)
Yep, and this is the problem with politicising the issue all the way back in 1998 and all through the creation of the Kyoto accords which in the end, only carried the guise of global warming.
And here you lost any credability of having a discussion on this. People who do not believe or do not understand do not by that nature hate the planet. I was skeptical when you started talking about people living in tree house forts but you simply jumped the shark on any credible efforts with ascribing "hate" to anyone who doesn't jump at the end of the world scenarios.
90% of the problem is that people are being forced into something, they aren't free. It costs more then what has worked over the last century or so. If the case was as solid as people pretend, they would move to that conclusion and take steps without being forced. But when the entire movement is politicized from the start, when so called fixes are political wrangling to achieve other rejected political goals like Jubilee2000, don't expect people paying attention to jump on board.
If you do not want someone in office and do not vote for the most likely person to beat them, you are allowing that person to win. You are in essence voting that person into office by not voting against them.
If you vote for third party candidate X in order to teach candidate Y a lesson, you are allowing candidate Z to take or remain in office. The lesson there is you voted to Z because you allowed them to win. If you stayed home, you would be doing the same. So if you don't mind either of the major party candidates winning, then vote Third party.
What phrase? Come on now, spit it out. you made an assertion now be clear about it or crawl back into your hole and troll someone else. Nothing I said was a lie. Just because you can't handle it or it hurt your feelings does not make it so. So stop lieing to yourself.
It seems you are upset over the votes tues and wed. Are you that fucking dumb? It was a joke. If it is is above your head, ask someone with a few more intelligence points to translate it for you.
I guess you can make that argument if you believe the poor and minority population isn't very intelligent. In my area, the state publishes a list of acceptable forms of ID. Its even broadcast on the local news every night along with a reminder that early voting is going on with the locations and times of the early voting places. I hear PSAs on the radio about it too. I don't take the local newspaper, but somehow /i don't think they are neglecting it either.
And then there is all the buzz about it. I mean everyone is making a fuss over it. That's probably why there is so much coverage on it.
If they don't know, I'm not sure i'm comfortable with them voting anyways. They won't know anything about what they are voting for either.
Then I disagree. OpenStack needs marketing beyond what it has had. Of course the marketing I'm talking about is not even in the same building as Linus let alone league so I still think we are talking about separate issues when you think a PR person would need to have the same amount of credentials as Linus.
There is the loss of the right to control the copying and distributing granted by law. So even if there is no $$ amount charged for it, there is a loss that the law supports recovering (statutory damages).
Your not going to be able to justify pirating something as if it is somehow legal. You can't really even make an ethical argument for it unless it's a matter of life and death (drug patents or something). You can however decide you don't care what the law says and pirating it is easier then obtaining it legally, but that is not legal. It's just an action you take.
Oh, i wasn't saying they needed a rock star dev in control of everything. They could benefit from a PR man who can get the message out about the capabilities though. Two separate concepts I think. Linus doesn't really do the Linux marketing, he does the featured attraction.
No, do you? It seems like you have problems with the truth when it doesn't fit your ideology.
Read the fucking link. He was caught on video telling someone how to cast a ballot for people the other guy claimed he new was not going to vote. The guy who resigned excused the act as humoring someone.
So you go ahead and lie yourself. All you had to do is follow the fucking link and you wouldn't have made an ass of yourself.
The billboards in question claim voter fraud is illegal. Are you claiming they aren't intelligent enough to understand what that means and somehow mistakes it for they will be arrested? That is the only way you can make sense here. I happen to think they are NOT that freaking stupid. And if they are, I'm not sure I would be happy with them voting anyways as I doubt they would carry any understanding of anything they are voting for.
I'm not sure what that has to do with what I said. Perhaps you are just covering your basis or something. Your links mean nothing because it only counts what was caught not what wasn't. We know that people attempt this from monitoring chat rooms, message boards, and even the campaign workers themselves.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-pn-va-undercover-video-20121024,0,2265110.story
In case you can't bother reading a story hosted at the conservative LA times.. It's about a Virginia candidate's own son having to resign from the campaign for instructing someone how to cast votes for people planning on not voting.
Who's lieing to themselves? I said it should be included in the rant, not that only dems do it. Although there is a large history of graveyards voting highly democrat.
I'm not saying you can't be worried and you can't work to get changes made. I'm saying that it's political now and it isn't irreproachable because something is connected somehow in some shape to science. In fact, even science is not irreproachable.
You cannot lock out political discourse by claiming science or God or race, or terrorist or anything.
Perhaps they are registered political affiliates who spent the time crossing the T's and dotting the I's. Perhaps the tea party being actual citizens of the state, they are expected to know and obey the laws where foreigners wouldn't necessarily know that?
Perhaps you don't know what you are talking about. I'm thinking a little of all of the above.
People seem to forget or simply do not realize that the federal government in the US does not have complete rule over the states within the US. There are a few things spelled out in the constitution giving them jurisdiction and overriding powers and the rest is left to the states. Until Congress acts on this issue by making a law, the OSCE has to follow Texas laws.
I guess you could say that if you think minorities and the poor wouldn't understand what fraud is. I mean, that is really the only way to intimidate them with something like that. In reality, it is no different the placing a sign saying "buckle up, its the law" in the same areas.
I know your getting desperate as time is running low and the numbers are tight, but Bush did not pardon them or anything. If there was legitimate wrong doing, the Obama could prosecute just as easily. No statute of limitations lasts only 2 months.
Maybe your problem is that the complaints weren't credible?
Anyways, it seems that your voter rant should include the democrats who in Virginia, just had the son of a democrat resign from the campaign because he was caught telling others how to stuff the ballot by voter fraud.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-pn-va-undercover-video-20121024,0,2265110.story
So remember, republican and those with enough sense to know better, vote on Tuesday the 6th. All others vote on Wednesday the 7th. check to make sure you have the right day.
I'm not sure what you are trying to say but there is no excuse to pirate something based on a rights holder's desire to distribute. That's the entire idea behind copyright and is shared to a large degree by every country that observes copyrights- the rights owner has the sole rights to copying and distribution. Even though the laws may be different in different countries, copyright is internationally covered by several treaties that most of the world has committed to following that says the same things. This is how the US was able to get an AU citizen extradited to the US for trial over a criminal copyright violation that was not a criminal act in AU.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hew_Raymond_Griffiths
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_O'Dwyer
However, I think you missed my point in general. It takes different considerations to approve whether or not you will allow your copyright to be subject to the laws of another location that may not be the same as yours. If the copyright holders think this required an increase in royalty payments, or requires extra steps from the distributor or whatever, it is something that happens. This is not something new and ignorance of it does not create a new set of circumstances. Saying company X can sell under these laws is not the same as saying company X can sell under a different set of laws. It may cost more to sell under the other sets of laws. It really is that simple even though you can reach company X from anywhere and under any set of laws.
A large part of the problem is copyright and patents. You actually need to get permission to sell things in different countries even though you might have it already for your country. This is largely because the laws are different in the other countries and the copyright or patent owners has to decide if they will allow their works to be subject to them or not and whether or not they want the hassle of enforcing the rights in the foreign country. Some foreign legal system will require the rights holder to be present to sue, some allow copying in circumstances that aren't in the home state.
You are most likely correct, there will be legislation involved and if getting around this is widespread it will likely be to prevent it.
This type of thinking is much the same that brought us the dangers of your soda bottle or bottle of water and shampoo on the flights.
A terrorist could just decide not to be a terrorist on that flight and go again.
I don't disagree but I think the bigger issue is that OpenStack probably needs a mouthpiece of sorts. I think this is what is really being asked here.
This mouthpiece should be able to relay.promote what OpenStack is doing and monitor user demands/needs to thin out the wacky unachievable and redundant but said differently so the dev teams can gather a clear focus on feature that need improvement or added. I haven't paid much attention to the project largely because I think the cloud is marketing speak for waste money here for the majority of needs. But it appears that is to my disadvantage as I see at least with the OpenStack software, I can create and administrate an in house private "cloud" consolidating the smaller servers into the same resource pools with the clustering options. Of course this is similar to using a VM but with far better networking support I guess.
The science does not say the world is going to end. The science does not say unless we tax everyone's energy use, the world is going to end. The science does not say we have to implement changes that restrict the freedoms of people while granting the government increasing power over people's lives. The science does not say that we cannot live through any changes. The science does not say we cannot question the motives and the work of people making those claims. Global warming is in the realm of politics whether you think it is or not and being part science does not shield it or the people backing it from criticism no matter how religious you are about science.
Science is not some irreproachable god that a group of people organize around and claim it is written in order to get the masses to do things that everyone else sees as wrong.
This has been a political issue since 1988 when the democrat staffers turned the AC off in the capitol building claiming it was broken on the day that was cherry picked to be historically one of the hottest of the year in Washington D.C. when the Mann graph was first used by the exaggerator James Hansen in his claiming of global warming to a sitting group of politicians.
If your heroes do not live up to your standards, deal with them, not me or anyone who points it out. Global warming was introduced to the public as a political venture. Scientists claim political solutions are needed and they typically claim only certain ones which don't seem to work outside of giving the government more power and spreading wealth around.
You should pay attention to the rest of what was in that paragraph. The portion you decided to criticize by basically saying it was redundant, is only the set up to the other.
Incorect numbers to make an example generally results in examples that do not reflect reality. Similarly, I do not believe it is possible for any third party candidate to take an entire state which was why right after what you quoted said "Simply not possible with a third party candidate unless they are a convert from one of the major parties running as a spoiler." No third party will take an entire state for the pick of president. This is because third parties do not have a presence in the state or local government and only hopeless ideologues and idiots will bother voting for them. You are basically wishing that Unicorns are real.
No it wouldn't. Third parties do not bother getting into congress or state and local parties so they will be ignored anyways. However, the elected president will have support in congress and their 4 year record to run off of. The people supporting the third party president will likely reelect the sitting president instead of voting third party because of the threat that the third part would thrown in with a different candidate no like them. They will see their vote as being better used to vote against the other person by voting for a specific person instead of playing five knuckle shuffle with a third party.
It takes a constitutional amendment or some way of invalidating the constitution to do it. otherwise, prepare to be constantly disappointed when things do not work the way you want them to. Also, if the constitution is removed somehow, do not assume the US will remain 50 states, they will separate into factions each creating their own country. I wouldn't expect anything like the civil war either because the Union that bound us would have been resolved with the dissolution of the constitution.