By far, most Presidential elections were won with a majority vote. Your objection is noted, but unlikely. The much, much more likely case is that the majority of people agree with me and want what I offer... your attempt to twist me as some fringe element would be invalidated.
Until you resign
... which we would, as I stated before.
They have already provided for those constitutional provisions.
The Constitution, as both of us quoted, provides that Congress may "by Law" change how this works. That means they can "by Law" require a new election for our replacements.
your replacement can simply change the laws back to the way they were
It would require Congress and the new President to agree to do this, clearly against the will of the people (as we have established although you refuse to acknowledge). Of course that would be political suicide.
That's why I don't run with lefty or righty. I run against both. And I keep running, every election cycle, until I win or until I pass the torch.
It's quite an uphill battle... but if/once it succeeds, there can be very little argument that it wasn't the will of the people. Third party candidates need more than loyalty and luck on their side.
(One of the changes I would make would be to replace the first-past-the-post system... I don't know if I would call it a victory if we just fall back in to the old two-party system.)
Most politicians only talk in vague terms, so when they grab for power they are often not following the direct will of the populous.
My campaign would be clear and unambiguous... my role is solely to provide a very rare path to direct democracy. If you vote me in, you are declaring that you want these laws to be passed. It's hardly tyranny when I'm doing what you want me to do.
they're collectively going to overrule your vetoes
At least then, they will prove that they are unwilling to respect the direct decision of the people.
he can call for that bill to be rescinded (or pass a new one just like the old one)
If the new President calls to reverse a decision made directly by the people, it's instant political suicide.
you should realize there is no provision in the Constitution for holding an election to replace a current, qualified President.
Indeed there is. Article II, Section 1, Clause 6:
In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.
No constitutional amendment is required, and I am certainly not providing them any more power. Congress is already authorized to use law to change the line of succession (other than Vice-President) without the need for a constitutional amendment. This bill would declare a one-time change to the line of succession, as I described.
The whole point is to force Congress to do something they are unwilling to do. It does not (and cannot) provide them any more power.
One more thing: my cabinet would all be like-minded people. And I would sign an executive order to shut down every part of the government I can, immediately upon my taking office.
Congress had better place the bill on the Bible that I swear my oath on, and provide a pen to sign it.
I've had the same idea before, and that doesn't have to be an issue.
My campaign would be simple: "Here are the things that Congress must pass. Until they pass every one of these, no strings attached, I will veto EVERY SINGLE BILL that comes across my desk. That includes budgets and any bill that continues the functioning of our government. By electing me, you are approving of this action and Congress will know precisely what the majority requires of them."
One change: my running mate would not be a traditional candidate, but would be like-minded. One of the bills that must pass would require another election to be held to determine who becomes President and Vice-President immediately after the bill is passed. I don't want the candidacy of my running mate to become an issue.
And, this wasn't the first flight in the area that is within view of the property. FTA:
During its first flight, the Phantom apparently gave an error message and could not fly past this road without a setting change. So, Boggs brought it home, fixed the settings and swapped its battery—giving time for Merideth to go inside, retrieve his shotgun and wait for the drone to return.
But isn't the point that the energy of the collision is being bestowed upon a very small set of subatomic particles?
The earth's core contains an unfathomable amount of energy. To my knowledge, the earth does not launch projectiles into solar escape trajectory. Yet humans have managed to launch such objects (Pioneer 10/11, Voyager 1/2, New Horizons) into solar escape trajectory using a relatively miniscule amount of energy coming from their rockets.
It's about how the energy is concentrated, not the total amount.
Can you ask a drone questions? Can the drone respond? Can you determine the owner of the drone in order to ask the owner directly?
Even if you consider shooting a trespassing person "wrong" because you may kill them, shooting a drone would only result in property damage and not harm to any person.
The folks I feel sorry for are the students - Win 10 is released Friday, all the new computers being bought for Fall term starting will have it, students taking programming courses will often be stuck with the newest of the new since the instructor adopted (or wrote) the latest text book, etc. And, they may be stuck with these versions of various software packages for a few years while they go thru a degree track...
Windows 10 is using the as-a-service model, so any student-owned machines will get new upgrades (for free) as they are released for the lifetime of the device. Campus-owned machines would probably still upgrade at the same pace as normal. In my experience (being in college and working at a university for over a decade) this means security updates may be applied regularly, while feature upgrades happen over the summer. Since many schools are under MSDNAA, their experience with Windows 10 will be almost identical to how it was before, from what I can tell.
Sure, but... I expect an IDE crash to be more difficult than "compile my code then double-click a warning message".
I'm not sure how you qualify expected difficulty of causing a crash. They could have run thousands of unit tests every build, had hundreds of internal testers running every test they could reasonably imagine, and run a large public beta, and still never come across the exact combination of environment and set of inputs that caused your particular crash for your particular project.
Which is why the Republicans absolutely CANNOT put Trump on the ticket. I don't like him, I don't like Hillary, I don't like most of the candidates running but I sure as hell prefer to see the better ones face off (unlike putting Romney up against Obama, that was a done deal before it started).
I'm not even for charging to the industry... I'm for charging the individual entities that are responsible.
An industry charge might look at two power companies and decide, because they both have $5 billion revenue per year and both use coal plants, both should pay $100 million in additional taxes.
An entity charge would look at those, and recognize that the second one is focused on clean energy and produces only 5% of the emissions that the first one does, and adjust the tax bill so that the first pays 20 times as much additional tax as the second.
An interpretation of your idea is to simply have people pay for the services they need when they need them. This is how the court would work; few people would fund it until they had to do so in order to secure the court's services. But such an approach would almost certainly work unfairly against the "little man".
For example, say roads were all toll-based. If both a rich man and a poor man drive 12,000 miles per year on those roads, they would likely be charged the same under such a system. Ok, sounds fair... but now let's turn to military. What does each get charged for their protection? Do they also get charged the same in this case? Probably, but then the rich man has more to protect considering the military is helping secure his $100 million, mansion, ownership in stocks, and so on. By contrast the military is only protecting $100 and a shack for the poor man. Clearly they should be charged differently for military protection, as well as numerous other services that provide more for a rich man than a poor man... which is pretty much why we have a progressive tax system.
Even if you don't agree with that assessment, the tax system is built only to approximate the "fair share" that each person pays into it. It doesn't try to perfectly represent what each person owes the government for the services that have been provided to them. As inefficient as the income tax system feels during the winter/early-spring months, it would be MUCH more inefficient to have everyone calculate and then pay individually for their share of each and every single item in the federal budget.
Slashdot Mirror
By far, most Presidential elections were won with a majority vote. Your objection is noted, but unlikely. The much, much more likely case is that the majority of people agree with me and want what I offer... your attempt to twist me as some fringe element would be invalidated.
Until you resign
... which we would, as I stated before.
They have already provided for those constitutional provisions.
The Constitution, as both of us quoted, provides that Congress may "by Law" change how this works. That means they can "by Law" require a new election for our replacements.
your replacement can simply change the laws back to the way they were
It would require Congress and the new President to agree to do this, clearly against the will of the people (as we have established although you refuse to acknowledge). Of course that would be political suicide.
That's why I don't run with lefty or righty. I run against both. And I keep running, every election cycle, until I win or until I pass the torch.
It's quite an uphill battle... but if/once it succeeds, there can be very little argument that it wasn't the will of the people. Third party candidates need more than loyalty and luck on their side.
(One of the changes I would make would be to replace the first-past-the-post system... I don't know if I would call it a victory if we just fall back in to the old two-party system.)
Most politicians only talk in vague terms, so when they grab for power they are often not following the direct will of the populous.
My campaign would be clear and unambiguous... my role is solely to provide a very rare path to direct democracy. If you vote me in, you are declaring that you want these laws to be passed. It's hardly tyranny when I'm doing what you want me to do.
Resigned
Which is precisely what I said we would do.
they're collectively going to overrule your vetoes
At least then, they will prove that they are unwilling to respect the direct decision of the people.
he can call for that bill to be rescinded (or pass a new one just like the old one)
If the new President calls to reverse a decision made directly by the people, it's instant political suicide.
you should realize there is no provision in the Constitution for holding an election to replace a current, qualified President.
Indeed there is. Article II, Section 1, Clause 6:
In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.
No constitutional amendment is required, and I am certainly not providing them any more power. Congress is already authorized to use law to change the line of succession (other than Vice-President) without the need for a constitutional amendment. This bill would declare a one-time change to the line of succession, as I described.
The whole point is to force Congress to do something they are unwilling to do. It does not (and cannot) provide them any more power.
One more thing: my cabinet would all be like-minded people. And I would sign an executive order to shut down every part of the government I can, immediately upon my taking office.
Congress had better place the bill on the Bible that I swear my oath on, and provide a pen to sign it.
I've had the same idea before, and that doesn't have to be an issue.
My campaign would be simple: "Here are the things that Congress must pass. Until they pass every one of these, no strings attached, I will veto EVERY SINGLE BILL that comes across my desk. That includes budgets and any bill that continues the functioning of our government. By electing me, you are approving of this action and Congress will know precisely what the majority requires of them."
One change: my running mate would not be a traditional candidate, but would be like-minded. One of the bills that must pass would require another election to be held to determine who becomes President and Vice-President immediately after the bill is passed. I don't want the candidacy of my running mate to become an issue.
And, this wasn't the first flight in the area that is within view of the property. FTA:
During its first flight, the Phantom apparently gave an error message and could not fly past this road without a setting change. So, Boggs brought it home, fixed the settings and swapped its battery—giving time for Merideth to go inside, retrieve his shotgun and wait for the drone to return.
Yep.
After last night's Republican debates, I'm thinking Trump won't be running against her.
I was actually kind of impressed... it wasn't nearly the clown show I was expecting.
The sun sets every day by going below the horizon. This text claims it does not. Explain please.
It's pitch black outside my house when I Skype with my friend in Japan. The sun is high in the sky there. Explain please.
One major difference is that insurers are reducing coverage of compounding or compounding ingredients.
But isn't the point that the energy of the collision is being bestowed upon a very small set of subatomic particles?
The earth's core contains an unfathomable amount of energy. To my knowledge, the earth does not launch projectiles into solar escape trajectory. Yet humans have managed to launch such objects (Pioneer 10/11, Voyager 1/2, New Horizons) into solar escape trajectory using a relatively miniscule amount of energy coming from their rockets.
It's about how the energy is concentrated, not the total amount.
"Interested" != Shipping Product.
Exactly my point. Microsoft has not stated that this is ever going to be a product, yet people getting on their case for vaporware.
Windows 10 on a tablet will default to Tablet Mode, but when a keyboard/mouse/trackpad is attached it will switch Tablet Mode off.
The Verge interviewed Phil Spencer yesterday, and asked about streaming PC to Xbox. He replied that they are very interested in it.
That's hardly a "campaign".
Who do you complain against? The drone that will be gone well before the point it can be tracked by police? The owner, who you can't identify?
Can you ask a drone questions? Can the drone respond? Can you determine the owner of the drone in order to ask the owner directly?
Even if you consider shooting a trespassing person "wrong" because you may kill them, shooting a drone would only result in property damage and not harm to any person.
The folks I feel sorry for are the students - Win 10 is released Friday, all the new computers being bought for Fall term starting will have it, students taking programming courses will often be stuck with the newest of the new since the instructor adopted (or wrote) the latest text book, etc. And, they may be stuck with these versions of various software packages for a few years while they go thru a degree track...
Windows 10 is using the as-a-service model, so any student-owned machines will get new upgrades (for free) as they are released for the lifetime of the device. Campus-owned machines would probably still upgrade at the same pace as normal. In my experience (being in college and working at a university for over a decade) this means security updates may be applied regularly, while feature upgrades happen over the summer. Since many schools are under MSDNAA, their experience with Windows 10 will be almost identical to how it was before, from what I can tell.
Sure, but... I expect an IDE crash to be more difficult than "compile my code then double-click a warning message".
I'm not sure how you qualify expected difficulty of causing a crash. They could have run thousands of unit tests every build, had hundreds of internal testers running every test they could reasonably imagine, and run a large public beta, and still never come across the exact combination of environment and set of inputs that caused your particular crash for your particular project.
Which is why the Republicans absolutely CANNOT put Trump on the ticket. I don't like him, I don't like Hillary, I don't like most of the candidates running but I sure as hell prefer to see the better ones face off (unlike putting Romney up against Obama, that was a done deal before it started).
I'm not even for charging to the industry... I'm for charging the individual entities that are responsible.
An industry charge might look at two power companies and decide, because they both have $5 billion revenue per year and both use coal plants, both should pay $100 million in additional taxes.
An entity charge would look at those, and recognize that the second one is focused on clean energy and produces only 5% of the emissions that the first one does, and adjust the tax bill so that the first pays 20 times as much additional tax as the second.
An interpretation of your idea is to simply have people pay for the services they need when they need them. This is how the court would work; few people would fund it until they had to do so in order to secure the court's services. But such an approach would almost certainly work unfairly against the "little man".
For example, say roads were all toll-based. If both a rich man and a poor man drive 12,000 miles per year on those roads, they would likely be charged the same under such a system. Ok, sounds fair... but now let's turn to military. What does each get charged for their protection? Do they also get charged the same in this case? Probably, but then the rich man has more to protect considering the military is helping secure his $100 million, mansion, ownership in stocks, and so on. By contrast the military is only protecting $100 and a shack for the poor man. Clearly they should be charged differently for military protection, as well as numerous other services that provide more for a rich man than a poor man... which is pretty much why we have a progressive tax system.
Even if you don't agree with that assessment, the tax system is built only to approximate the "fair share" that each person pays into it. It doesn't try to perfectly represent what each person owes the government for the services that have been provided to them. As inefficient as the income tax system feels during the winter/early-spring months, it would be MUCH more inefficient to have everyone calculate and then pay individually for their share of each and every single item in the federal budget.