Response to Bardali comment g3plbxp

Comment from discussion Bardali’s comment from discussion "Markey defeats Kennedy III in MA Democratic U.S. Senate primary race".

Remember when you and that other guy were insisting the OAS report proved the Bolivian election was rigged. And then even the NYT admitted it was non-sense 😛
Bardali

Bardali, when exactly did I insist that the OAS report proved that the Bolivian election was rigged and what exactly did I write? Please provide a link.

BTW You wrote: «Yes, but there is nothing in the Consitution [sic] that suggest [sic] an Amendment can repeal another amendment.» (referring to the U.S. Constitution) https://twitter.com/BardaliSays/status/1287430587104538626

That was a very weird argument to make considering that the 21st Amendment has already repealed the 18th Amendment. The fact that one amendment can repeal another comes from the meaning of the word «amendment.» Here is the definition from the 1st edition of Black’s Law dictionary:

In practice. The correction of an error committed in any process, pleading, or proceeding at law, or in equity, and which is done either of course, or by the consent of parties, or upon motion to the court in which the proceeding is pending.
Any writing made or proposed as an improvement of some principal writing.
In legislation. A modification or alteration proposed to be made in a bill on its passage, or an enacted law; also such modification or change when made.

Since the Constitution did not redefine the word amendment, there is no reason to believe that the writers of the Constitution intended any meaning other than a standard definition, such as can be found in a dictionary. Likewise, there is no reason to believe that other words like «we, people, order, to,» etc. that appear in the Constitution mean something other than their standard dictionary definitions.

Here is the definition of «repeal» from the 1st Edition of Black’s Law dictionary: «The abrogation or annulling of a previously existing law by the enactment of a subsequent statute which declares that the former law shall be revoked and abrogated.»

I invite you again to answer the questions you’ve been avoiding at https://worldnews2.news.blog/2020/04/07/constitutional-issues/

Other links everyone should read:

It looks like your response was reported and removed, but I can still see it by visiting your profile.

You wrote:

When exactly did I insist that the OAS report proved that the Bolivian election was rigged and what exactly did I write? Please provide a link.
el_reconocimiento

My apologies, you argued that you were a superior authority on the constitution than the Supreme Tribunal of Justice of Bolivia, and the other clown argued the OAS report proved there was fraud.
Bardali

Comment from discussion el_reconocimiento’s comment from discussion "Argentine President-elect slams U.S. over Bolivia stance – “In my opinion, the United States regressed decades. It returned to the bad times of the 70s,” Fernandez told a local radio, adding that it was “guaranteeing military interventions against popular, democratically elected governments.”".

That was a very weird argument to make considering that the 21st Amendment has already repealed the 18th Amendment.
el_reconocimiento

You realize that the 21st amendment was the first time and you are not actually referring to the constitution of why that was allowed?
Bardali

Here is the definition of «repeal» from the 1st Edition of Black’s Law dictionary
el_reconocimiento

Yet, the 18th amendment is still in the constitution did you not admit it? So you are fighting wind-mills again, because you are sadly not capable of understanding the basic argument
Bardali

On top of it all starting with your insane logic that the Supreme Court in the US nor the Bolivian Supreme Tribunal of Justice are apparently able to judge, but you are the judge of what the constitution is.
Bardali

I believe that «the people» are the source of legitimate authority. I wrote: «But if Bolivians want the president to be able to serve more than 2 consecutive terms, they should amend the Constitution. The referendum to make exactly this kind of amendment was defeated.» The referendum was decided by the Bolivian people.

The reason why the idea of a convention could bring legitimacy to the proposed Constitution and to the Philadelphia Convention’s decision to violate the Articles highlights the first major subject of the volume—a subject that doubles as the architectural foundation of constitutional amendment rules: the constituent power. The theory of constituent power springs from the thought of Emmanuel Joeph Sieyès, an 18th century French theorist who argued that the people were the fountain of legitimate authority. Sieyès distinguished the pouvour constituantfrom the pouvoir constitué, the former referring to the people themselves acting in their constitution-making capacity and the latter to the institutions the people create—institutions that are authorised only to change the Constitution within the constitutional framework created by the people themselves.

– The Foundations and Traditions of Constitutional Amendment edited by Richard Alberi, Xenophon Contiades, and Alkmene Fotiadou

Ultimately, matters in Bolivia will continue to be decided by the people of Bolivia. Take a look athttps://www.reddit.com/r/BOLIVIA/comments/ila00z/un_artículo_de_nyt_por_anatoly_kurmanaev_y_maría/

Here is the top comment:

Voy a repetir las veces que sea necesario cada vez que salga esto. No importa en mi opinión si el informe de la OEA fue erróneo o no. Los zurdos tratan de legitimizar a Evo Morales, cuando éste es un criminal. El no debía ser un candidato en primer lugar. La constitución solo permite una reelección, es decir un 2do mandato. Morales apuntaba a SU CUARTO mandato. Violó la constitución, violó la independencia de poderes, violó el resultado del referéndum que tenía carácter vinculante e hizo lo que le dio la gana. Y luego de eso vino estás acusaciones de fraude electoral? No es de sorprenderse que la población en general pensará eso dado a la reputación que se hizo de violar la ley sin ningún tipo de repercusión.
mindfreak79

Let’s return to one of your questions:

You realize that the 21st amendment was the first time and you are not actually referring to the constitution of why that was allowed?
Bardali

Yes, obviously, that was the first time. Any particular reason to bring up this obvious fact? Also, I referred to the word «amendment» in the Constitution, which it did not redefine, so there is no reason to believe that the writers intended any meaning other than a standard definition, such as can be found in a dictionary. Likewise, there is no reason to believe that other words like «we, people, order, to,» etc. that appear in the Constitution mean something other than their standard dictionary definitions.

Yet, the 18th amendment is still in the constitution did you not admit it?
Bardali

The 18th Amendment is in the Constitution, but it has been repealed by the 21st Amendment. Here is the definition of «repeal» from the 1st Edition of Black’s Law dictionary: «The abrogation or annulling of a previously existing law by the enactment of a subsequent statute which declares that the former law shall be revoked and abrogated.» This statement is wrong (in more than one way): https://twitter.com/BardaliSays/status/1287430587104538626

you are sadly not capable of understanding the basic argument
Bardali

No, you are the one who is sadly not capable of understanding the basic argument. Take note of the fact that your comment was reported and removed. See also:

Compártelo:

Relacionado