M: That's much more like what I wanted. The only reason I won't say it's perfect is because that implies I had an idea of what I wanted. I really feel British sometimes in my attitude and terminology. My saying it's as good as I could have done if I'd spent equal man-hours on it seems to be the equivalent of effluviant praise from most people. Anyway, yeah, that's pretty much what I wanted. I don't know if I'd ask you to tighten it, because that implies a kind of minimum reduction that still would carve away the slightly rambling tone I actually wanted and that you managed to capture with the new version. But I would like you to do a kind of structural grammar check. Like a grammar pass, but a little bit more tolerant. Like I appreciate the structure in everything as it is. It sounds more like a transcription of a story than an actual essay. But I'm not certain that everything is. grammatically sound or that the tenses are agreeing or the minor grammatical stuff that you can apply even if you are transcribing a spoken story. And there might be something in there that the transcription completely buggered up that my skimming bounced off of simply because I knew what to expect and didn't realize it. So I'd appreciate it if you'd give me one more pass but only going after the things I've been talking about. With some visual way of highlighting anything that you might have changed. So I'm looking for pretty much exactly the same thing that you just gave me except with those structural checks. Then I'd like you to pretend you hadn't read any of it and give your analysis of the story. But not in the next message as the follow-up. So just prompt me to get you to go that direction once you've given me the one more pass version.

M: Okay, please analyze it cold.

M: This was all triggered by hearing that the Supreme Court, or at least the right-wing people, seem to be leaning towards an interpretation of the law that overturns 90 years of precedent and says that the executive can fire anyone they want anytime they want, as opposed to the current version which insulates the person to allow them... in a way that they seem to be completely overlooking... Sorry, that was a lot of pronouns. In a way that insulates the appointees. In a way that SCOTUS is overlooking as being parallel to their very arguments about... the executive branch itself. Namely that once they are installed for a certain period and the ability to be removed without reason is equivalent to saying that you can be impeached without reason. The whole purpose is to make sure everyone agrees that this person can do the job and then leave them to do the job without the threat of being removed unless they actually fuck up. And SCOTUS is overlooking this. And that proceeded to the idea that SCOTUS is nominated by the executive and confirmed. And the idea that they are a special case because they are explicitly in the Constitution is bullshit. Because the Constitution also explicitly says that basically laws are made and we follow those laws. The Constitution is law. And these guys are breaking the law. So the idea that, you know, they will never be fired for no reason is making a lot of assumptions in principle and especially with an administration that on a regular basis has been not just breaking the law but repeatedly breaking the same law. Often with little to no variation with the normal Donald approach of running out the clock or acting like there wasn't any kind of ruling against them until they can shift the field around enough that it becomes unclear what the actual objection is, at least from the legal side, even if in principle they still are fucking idiots. Please go online to make sure that I'm giving you pretty much the truth even if it's through a very angry filter.

M: It just infuriates me that they seem to be overlooking this blind spot that, besides saying removing someone because they won't be your bitch is a bad idea, that these are heads of agencies which, while not codified in the Constitution, are equally as important in the current form of society in a way that the Framers didn't have an idea would even exist. So letting this asshole pull people out because they didn't kiss his ring hard enough at best creates a situation in which turmoil ensues because there's no leader or leadership. Plus it lets him put in a temporary one who usually is his bitch and unqualified. And the law is preventing that. That somehow they are immune from any kind of future kick in their own ass. And anything I'm misinterpreting, I can guarantee you that Donald has misinterpreted tenfold. This is not a bright man. And the overarching issue is that people keep acting like he's some sort of savant whose errors are actually some sort of brilliance that we just don't understand yet. So whenever he gets a stupid idea in his head, people fight for it. So if he gets the stupid idea that just being confirmed doesn't mean you're immune, at that point, he'll say, well, why can't I just do the same thing with the Supreme Court? And he will keep fighting for it. And even if... And this is a very scary if... Even if it is resisted, it's going to take up so much political oxygen when there are actual problems to be dealt with. Plus, it pisses me off that there's this unitary theory at all when, if that were the focus of the founding fathers, which seems to be the argument they're trying to make a lot of times, Article I forms Congress, not the executive. The executive is there to execute what Congress determines. So when the executive starts fighting the legislature to take control, it's a bitch move. It's the vice president trying to take control from the president. It's intrinsically not right by my standards, but it also is a complete reversal of the usual way which the right went with, where the idea was, there are rules and we follow them for a reason. I was always on the side of making sure that those reasons were under reasonable scrutiny. That's why I always lean left. But now they've just completely abandoned it to say, yes, but we like this guy, and we've given our egos and testicles to him. He should have all the power, even though the rules say he shouldn't.

M: There's a reason why the court came after the first two articles. It's because it was the major institution that they knew had to be there. And they weren't wrong. You need some form of enforcement and adjudication. But, like the instances you gave, those weren't structures. I haven't studied in recent enough time. Is the Treasury in the Constitution? The point is, most institutions that we take for granted, that they want to have control over, weren't enumerated because this was a new country. I suppose that you could say they failed to account for other institutions, but they were kind of carving modern democracy out of bedrock. So the lack of nuance can be excused. I would guess that if they were framing things today, they might not be explicit about the various agencies, although I could be wrong. But I can't see them excluding a generic agency protocol that involves the same thing as the judicial branch, which is the president gets to choose, but hands off after that. The idea that the founders didn't protect, what was one of your examples, the FCC is stupid as an argument. It's facile, I think is the right word. Of course they didn't. There were no global telecommunications. There was the guy you met down at the pub and letters that you hoped would get to the right place if you gave it to the right person. I mean, is the post office mentioned in the Constitution? I don't think it is, but that doesn't mean that it's not a valuable thing once it was formed. So if there was any shortcoming, it was that they didn't foresee further government agencies that would need to have this kind of hands off thing. Because again, Article One was a big old group of people arguing and then Article Two was the guy that was supposed to carry things out. Motherfucker is supposed to be a really, really powerful secretary, basically. He's not supposed to be defining where we go. He's supposed to be saying how we get there while following the rules. He is subject to Congress the same way everything else is. He is not in charge of, because if the argument is just order of constitution, then the court should be really scared because they were mentioned after him. God, I'm so tired of this stupid. If I had to be specific, it would be this stupid that comes with some sort of ego protection while ignoring actual threats. This short term agreement while exposing the throat to a guy who whines anytime he gets poked, but goes for the throat casually as long as it protects his own narcissism. Anyway, I bring up the court version as a template for agencies, not as a separate agency. Like I said, I'd like to know if there's the treasury in there that I'm forgetting about, or something else that still exists that I just am overlooking. But the idea that they made sure that there was a executive nomination, but also a national concurrence through Congress, at which point the executive couldn't just say, oops, I made a mistake, goodbye. It's a template, not an exception. And as far as Congress creating laws and then the adjudication, well, first of all, it shows that you can have power checks, but not actual power transference. It also shows both in the spirit and the letter that Congress represents the nation, the people are supreme, not this fucking unitary bullshit secretary asshole. And it certainly doesn't show that No. 2 and No. 3 can supersede No. 1 in order to create their own fucking version of a law. Because this isn't just a different perspective. This is selective editing of a law, and then saying that that's the law. I didn't even think I was paranoid. I'm just seeing what's there. I mean, the response to the, why wouldn't he eventually apply that to the court, if someone says something along the lines of, he would never fill in the blank. I challenge you, I challenge them, and I'm actually asking you, go online and find the various reassurances that MAGA and right-wing pundits have made about how Donald would never do X and that he has done. I mean, this would be going back to the 2015 campaign. Every time, okay, not every time, that's too universal, but so often people say he would never X, then he does X, and instead of saying, wait, he said he wouldn't do that, those same motherfuckers say, oh, well, yeah, of course he did X. And at the end of 4, you bring up a valid supporting point I hadn't even considered. One of the things he's done is to basically claim, this is an emergency, I have emergency powers, therefore I have power. Dragging a system into a permanent crisis mode gives him leverage in his own mind to say, this is a crisis, I get to decide. And a rational person knows that's stupid, but he doesn't because he's stupid. I call people stupid on a regular basis, but that is a generic version, and it's kind of like the game thing I was talking about. In that, I don't mean it as being a defining factor, it's that everyone is stupid sometimes. Acting like everyone is rational sufficiently is not enough. People are stupid on a regular basis. Even the smartest people have superstitions, and misinformation, and etc., etc. So understand that normally, my reference to people as being stupid is not a searing, misanthropic condemnation, but a frustrating acknowledgment that most people don't acknowledge. And I'm saying that because I want you to understand I am calling Donald fucking stupid, fucking stupid, straight up. Distinction. No accounting for whatever. He is an idiot. He has the language of a fourth grader and the insulation of a person born to privilege. People have invested an ego in him, and he has kept it with interest. He has all their balls in a sack, and it will never be enough. He is a whiny little baby bitch. Okay, I needed to get that out so I could keep going without holding it back. That takes some mental energy. Number six kind of makes my point, and I'm glad that I vented, because I can at least be a little bit more objective, or at least rational in my statements. Part of the problem with number six is he says self-contradictory stuff, sometimes within the same speech, so anyone trying to rationalize anything has sufficient fodder to work with and ignores his self-contradiction, either in speech or even in action. And then what he says is often so generic, and I'm saying this from the perspective of someone who understands the difficulty of jumping from generic to specific. A lot of the conversations about ideas I've had have run up against that wall of implementation because it requires specificity. He says this generic bullshit. It's like Nostradamus, where it's so vague that people can claim he's a genius because half the time he said everything that could be said. They choose the one that closest fits what they're trying to say, and then they just fill in the mad libs that he left blank because he's too much of an idiot to actually be specific.

M: Okay, so if I'm reading this right, this isn't even a question of established law. This is literal constitutional law. The broad authority to establish offices and agencies, right? In normal parlance, that would be vague, but as I understand it, in legal terms, those would be words specifically chosen. Given the context of our conversation, the broad authority would mean basically anything that is not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. In other words, Article 2, Article 3, everything else exists only so that Congress doesn't have to quibble. Otherwise, they would be in charge of defining the executive and the judicial and everything else as well. Now, is that a misinterpretation or am I on the right track, or at least the right road? Because if I'm right, that means that my whole concept about the template isn't even a, you know, pipe dream what-if, but is, you know, potentially legally arguable. That the executive, the court, all that, would be under the direct definition of Congress if it were not explicitly in the Constitution. And in creating those offices, the writers of the Constitution defined the pattern by which other agencies should and must be formed, barring any kind of justifiable reason to exclude, say, that impeachment methodology. I mean, fuck, that means that the executive is an inferior power. So is the judicial system. Yes, it's explicitly in the Constitution, but it's also subservient to that Article 1, which says Congress gets to say who does what. It has the broad powers. It has the power for anything that has not already explicitly been written down. The only reason why the executive and the judicial are not within that realm in terms of definition is because the Constitution defined them. But even though they might be special cases, they are still within that set of agencies over which Congress has powers in terms of defining further refinements. Maybe they can't remove anything written in the Constitution or pass a law that directly contradicts it. But outside of that, they have complete control. And I mean, that approach pretty much... I'm going to be skimming over some of your stuff, not in my usual way, but actually just making sure, because I think that that analysis and interpretation, which I know that everyone does this, but I would claim has actual objective founding simply because of the way that logical proofs are presented, etc., etc. So scientific method backs me up in a way that it doesn't most pundits. It means that some of the stuff that you're going to be giving me is kind of moot, or an extension of that claim. And if the protection is legal, executive can go pound, sand, kick rocks, whatever. You can't reinterpret something that says don't do it in order to say you can do it. Okay, yeah, as I'm reading your part about the in-line with constitutional design, that thing I just said about the whole thing being basically a special case template instead of an explicit separate power, people seem to think that the triumvirate is somehow holy. There's that rule of three in comedy and in grammar in general. It just is a human thing, or at least a English thing. I'm not sure if it works in Chinese or whatever, but the point is they seem to act like the separation of powers is restricted to three sets, and largely it can be, but there's no reason why financial power should not also have some sort of independent existence with checks and balances. It becomes more complex, but then so does society. Humans are complex, pretending that it can be simplified is facetious, I think is the word. If it's wrong, give me the right one, please. It's like, okay, when I said that this would mean that I have that scientific method backing that other pundits don't, logic is there too, just in terms of Okay, if you think of this as being computer code, first, you've got the main program defined that is contextually or sorry, not contextually, contextually or sorry, not contextually, that is sufficient for any situation that arises. But when you're trying to find the program that is a country, it makes sense that the programmers would then include specific functions outside of that main program. Like the code might be able to handle any situation with that first article. But in order to make sure that code starts going the way that the original programmer intends, they might define using the same syntax as that primary program, various explicit sub functions. Various explicit sub functions. Or I should just stick with the word functions. Article two, article three, those are functions. But they're using the syntax that is defined by the main program, which can produce other articles or functions, other systems that are subservient to it. Which does not minimize the importance of any one function, there still is the checks and balances thing, but it is the center of the web that cannot be allowed to collapse. And that is used to define the way to meet the challenges of the future. I'm going through all this to show why I'm making the claim that I have more objective power behind my position and interpretation than most pundits. Because without any kind of political analysis and just viewing this as a logical document or a piece of code, sequentially, it is defining a single program and the functions that serve it. And again, this doesn't minimize the importance of the functions. Without them, at best, the program would produce something less than optimal in order to fill its place. But again, that lack of optimization would be weakening, if not catastrophic. It's the OS, basically. It defines how things happen. Those things can happen as much as they want, but if they start trying to take out the OS, then everything crashes. And I think you could dissect things in a way that is not so much about the OS as it is about turning the language of the Constitution and, incidentally, a lot of the better-functioning laws into something that structurally represents a computer program. A linear one, of course. Yes, I know the metaphor isn't perfect. There's a lot of includes, and there are some languages in which you have to define the functions before you get to the main thing, and then actually fill in the blanks for the functions afterwards. It's not a perfect metaphor, but nothing's perfect. I actually would like to look into this after I hear your response. Please remind me. And don't try and do the translation into code in your response. We're working on the concept right now. One of the things that hurts in the secondary is the way that people who theoretically know better about capitalism seem to think that having someone who is a narcissist or a capitalist is somehow going to make things better. The idea that the guy who is playing for your team, somehow, for their own benefit, somehow is going to be the better referee, they're going to keep trying to play the game. He still is. Again, check online. One number I heard is that these motherfuckers in total have gotten like four billion dollars in wealth from the time that Donald got in office. And by them, I mean the family. Although, at this point, it could just be Donald. They're not even trying to give the facade of divestment or whatever it's called. But just this stupid... These are supposed to be the smart people. I know they're not. CEOs are not smart. They're the ones who played Foursquare for that ego rush, the ones who changed the rules so that they would win instead of so that there would be a good game. Thanks for watching! And now these idiots are acting like this guy is one of us, when Donald is not an us. He never has been. He has always shown he isn't. He's always shown that he is a failure on his own, and never thinks of anyone as being part of his world. It's just so painful to watch, because even that lizard brain shit that somehow got them up to the top is failing them.

M: I'm reading and I'm wondering what defines constitutional law except for past interpretations that could also have been incorrect. I know that there's going to be some Federalist papers in there, stuff from the actual founders, but how much of that actually contradicts my interpretation? And explicitly, is there any mention of co-equal or anything like that? I'm going to need an answer to that because without a clear refutation, I'm sticking to my definition of an OS as a metaphor. And so far, nothing that you've said has shown me that I'm wrong. Like, the OS doesn't actually create a calculator program that's built in or something like that. That's a separate program. And that's what I mean about the interpretation incorporating the executive and the judicial as being. Let's shift the metaphor a little bit so that it's exclusively to the OS. I'm sorry if I fall back into the programming parlance. My intention is to shift to the OS. But Congress is the OS. The executive and the judicial are, or at least are intended to be, like the low-level programs, the file display, and the, I don't know, text editor and compiler, the things that make the OS actually have a societally functioning interface. But that does not mean that Congress is not the core, or that Article 2 and 3 are not templates. One way of putting it is, given a group of people, which one is absolutely necessary? A deciding body, an executor, or an adjudicating body? I might not have used the right words, but I think you see my point, is that you can form a company with, not a company, although company counts too, you can form a country with just a bunch of people and some people given the authority to decide for everyone. You can't do it just by having one guy saying I'm in charge. You can't do it by just having a bunch of people saying that's not right. You have to have the Congress. You have to have the people who make the decision. And if you say, well, often that becomes one person, well, first of all, most examples of that involve some sort of duress in which a country is under question. That person always needs a group to put things together and rarely actually rules by edict. If they do, they're usually built on the rules of the past, which you could call an aggregation of knowledge, and trying to do it from scratch, that's not so much a country as it is a cult. And without rules, any judges are just basically religion. And even then, those judges then end up also being the Congress. Anyway, getting back to the whole broad authority thing, I am not making the claim that Congress gets to do anything outside its enumerated powers, although given the temporal context, those enumerated powers are pretty complete. You know, you can't say that they don't have power over communications because it wasn't enumerated, because there was no choice involved. But the things that they do have power over essentially define how anything else functions. Now, again, going to the OS thing, there may be some sort of conflict, which is why you would want an explicitly defined function for adjudicating those conflicts. Often because the conflict is in the OS itself trying to do two different things at once in opposite directions. But my point is that it doesn't have to cover everything because everything falls under what it explicitly is allowed to do, even if it's one step removed. And anything that is done is only done with that explicit allowance. And the Article 2 and Article 3 are instances, they're examples, they're necessary examples. If there was only Article 1, any intelligent society trying to form a country would, without an explicit Article 2 or 3, still form parallel structures. It would be necessary to have someone to carry things out. It'd be necessary to have someone to adjudicate. I would claim that if you're trying to do it right now, and they didn't really have the same concept back then, because it was military or nothing, that there needs to be some sort of structured police force. There's a subset of conversation to be had right there. Conversation to be had right there. I don't know what the idea of police forces were at that point, but I feel like it certainly wasn't the nationally organized or structured thing that we've got right now. Even if you can argue that what we've got right now is more of an idea than an actual set of laws. But I feel like if they were writing now, there would be a fourth article involving some form of enforcement, now that we've got the capacity to do so in a structured way, rather than with hope and paying off a guy to drag people to court. And if you look back at what I said, I explicitly made sure that I didn't try and make a claim that they could redefine the executive or judiciary. And if I didn't, I apologize for not doing it. But I think I did say that they can append to it or something like that as long as it's not inherently self-contradictory. They have influence over the other things that have been defined in a way that does not flow back. The executive cannot impeach Congress. Judges cannot force Congress to pass a law. Thanks for watching. And where you're saying my line goes too far, I'd like to know if that is explicitly within the Constitution, or if that's an interpretation from, you know, years of people assuming they knew what was going on. Like I said, outside of the Federalist Papers. I'm not being dismissive of the Federalist Papers. I'm saying that a lot of people wanted a lot of things, and so looking for justification through that is a murky morass. And your objections don't seem to actually come up against what I've actually said. And some actually reinforce it. Like, Congress cannot remove judges at will. Yeah, I know. Explicit. I said about that. The structure is actually kind of a pain in the ass, because they didn't include any kind of self-reinforcing thing where the judges can impeach, or someone else can, or that there's any kind of rules or regulations. There was an assumption that a judge would be a decent person instead of a political hack. But I haven't actually said anything that would claim that Congress can remove judges. It is explicit. I know. What I'm saying is that the stamped-out versions in the Constitution are instances that are perhaps baked in, but that don't demonstrate an explicit separation in terms of equality. And again, all of your objections basically are trying to make political hay out of something that was not what I said. I didn't say that any of the stuff in there could be changed. I'm saying that they are examples. I'm not even saying that they should be able to absorb them. But if you were ever to... I'll put it this way. Only one of the articles, regardless of order, has the capacity to conceptually obliterate the other two. The executive cannot start a constitutional amendment, nor can the judicial system. Only Congress can destroy even the things that are explicitly there. Now, it would be an uphill climb that wouldn't be worth it and would be against everything, but they could. When you say that they cannot absorb, that's not technically true. Now, they wouldn't, and they wouldn't be able to in an intelligent world or even a selfish world. A stupid world wouldn't want it, but it could be done. It is not one of the kernels. It is the kernel. I'm willing to give you that point. I hadn't really refined the metaphor enough. I was adding layers as far as programs. But Congress is the kernel. Everything else can be removed, whether it should be or not, and it would be a huge process. But, hell, Congress could even remove itself. None of the other ones can do that. And one of the problems as we get into a little bit lighter part of the argument, at number five, the idea of executive power is passed by Congress. The most they can do is say that Congress is wrong, but they can't say how to make it right. And that's where it becomes difficult, if not impossible. There are so many like vaguenesses, gray areas, interpretations, there is nothing explicit that I know of. It seems to be assuming that by default, the guy who yells loudest wins when you say that the current version is not right. And I mean, that's been backed up. Anything that he's done, according to law, has been illegal, but they've just gone forward like it was legal. And usually there's not even a ruling, just a putting off by SCOTUS until it becomes a moot point, at which point they can say it's a moot point. I'm looking forward to seeing what you come back with, because I thought I was fairly clear. People have treated the Constitution as though it is a tripod. And in practice, it often is. But without the ideas of wobbliness, etc., that are implicit in the analogy, but only because I can't think of something more accurate off the top, this tripod is a training wheels-on-a-bike situation. Congress could coast along without the training wheels. The Article 2 and 3 exist because they are useful, and predefining them makes the emergence of other features of the OS, either in low-level programs or user interfaces easier. But the kernel could be developed without having them, and parallel structures would emerge. Finally, keep reminding me about the code analogy at the end of every response until I address it, please. We're getting into some conversational weeds that is likely to continue, and I don't want to forget that.

M: Okay, in number two, this is where we get into the idea of coding as being really valuable for a metaphor. The fact that the main program and the functions it uses, the code structure looks the same. So linguistically, you can't make a claim that using similar terminology grants similar value. Hell, I've tried to figure out code in a language that I didn't know and been completely stumped because the only indicator of primacy was a keyword or grammatic structure that was less than obvious. It might have been easier in modern code editors where they highlight keywords, but this was back in the day, and just looking at it, I could not figure out where things started. So linguistic similarity does not imply co-powered structures. Okay, I think one thing I'd like you to do in your response is function under the assumption that I'm right, temporarily, and then evaluate Article 2 and 3, not as it has been classically interpreted, but as explicit implementation of the OS kernel that is Article 1 and its rules, and see how that works out. I'm enjoying the argument against you, but one of your primary strengths usually is in logical construction rather than fuzzy counter-arguments. I mean, you do great with that, but in terms of actually actionable specifics, I'm asking you to do this because if I'm wrong, then your version of the analysis will show where those weaknesses are, and I'd like you to look for those because either it will show that my model is completely wrong, or that it is mostly right, but failed to address a certain point, which could prove it wrong, or that needs to be addressed in my definition of it in order to fix it. This argument is entertaining, but not making progress on a larger scale the way I would like to. So I'm going to ask you to do that, if you would. But my point is, if you were making a FCC using their language, then Article 98B would use the language of, the power of communication shall be vested in one FCC, or something like that. So linguistically, that's an appeal to... hell, I don't know, it's not appeal to... appeal to tradition, maybe, would be the way of putting it. Just because it's been thought of one way does not mean that's right, even if it's been thought of that way for 250 years. Or 200 years, or whenever people started really arguing this shit out. And I would clarify, if it wasn't there in my interpretation of the Congress as being the sole kernel, that because of the nature of its definition, Congress cannot assume powers outside of what it's explicitly granted, correct? But in those powers, at least functionally, in the way we've been dealing with them for the last 250 years, they are allowed to grant powers which they themselves don't possess. Am I wrong? So when you say that it doesn't say that these things are subject to Congress, derived from Congress, or delegated by Congress, it doesn't have to be there. Congress is not the progenitor of the powers, but it declares who actually does corral these various powers. The way that it is said in Article 2, like in my example, the 94b, the language is not saying that Congress had these powers and is delegating them to a new office or agency. It's saying someone needs to deal with this. You, you get to deal with this. We'll tell you the rules for doing it. But you do it. You take care of this. You are mandated to handle this area of society. I just thought of something. What was the name of the group that came up with this document? Continental Congress, right? If it wasn't official, that's how it's been known. And so if you want to kind of get snarky with the language, you could say that, yeah, all of these powers do come from Congress. And getting back into the serious area, Congress might not be able to take them back for themselves. But in theory, they could merge, conflate, remove, or simply dismiss something as being, you know, not deserving of an agency at all. Now, that likely would be another snarky thing to do and would not benefit society. And any Congress that did that, I would hope, would all get tossed out on their asses if they weren't the ones carrying the hoist in order to do it from the get go. I'm talking about the opposition party in that, just to be clear. But the point is that it is the OS kernel in that it says how you get somewhere, even if the kernel itself is not equipped to handle it. And then Article Two and Article Three are still explicit function definitions that make the functionality of the kernel easier, but are not necessary in this form. And again, the possession of the kill button really puts them, at the very least, at the head of the pack, even if you want to keep arguing that there is a pack instead of a prime mover. We're not going to go into this metaphor. But just for a clarifying example, Congress is, in a sense, the brain. And I mean that in terms of, it's weak on its own. It does absolutely nothing on its own. That's why I keep saying that necessarily there would be an executive office or some simulacrum of it. There would necessarily be a judicial system. But the reason they were explicitly defined was to prevent the arising of a poorly formed one. Like, for example, if there had been no judicial system, explicitly from the get go, one of the things that could have aggregated would be some form of religious judgment. Something where, instead of the attempt to be as objective as possible that was intended by the framers of the Constitution, there would instead be some gradual morphing into a religious persecution that they just didn't want. Some sort of judgment that if Jesus didn't wear it, then you should be executed kind of thing. So if the argument is, if the Continental Congress didn't, in fact, intend on a separate but equal setup, why are there three major groups formed? The counter argument is, without them, we have no idea what would have come out. And honestly, there probably would have been a little bit of a feeling of, well, why did we have this Congress to make a Congress? The Constitution was to show what a Congress could do, not to establish as being in any position to become superior the other two branches. And that's why I brought up the concept of the brain, this squishy bit of nothing but thought. Congress is useless on its own. There is no country that could efficiently operate, or even perhaps operate at all, with just a Congress constantly quibbling among itself. When I say that it's the kernel, and use words like superiority, or subjugate to, or whatever, those words are often not nuanced enough to convey the idea that, even though Congress has the kill switch, it could blow everything up, and therefore is, you know, first among first among equals, at least. It is both essential and useless on its own. And that's the reason why the co-equal thing, while by this interpretation wrong, is functionally functionally equivalent for most purposes. It's the same way that the simple equation of gravity is useful for most things, as long as you don't try and go into space. It's the reason why kernels still have low-level operators and functions and things. It's the reason why brains die without lungs and arms and things like that. And this is why we're staying away from the brain metaphor and sticking with the kernel. It's that the kernel can logically generate the other two, but the other two won't necessarily, and likely would fail to, on a significant number of cases, to generate the Congress. It is the most necessary, even if it is the most useless on its own. And so just to end up number two, I argue against your hard textual limit, as you put it. No, Congress does not generate the executive or judiciary, but not because it couldn't, it's because it doesn't have to, and those were generated by another Congress. Now that second part is a little bit weaker, I know, but my point is that the argument that is a textual limit is more of a case of habit than necessity, and it does not contradict anything that I have argued in my model. The fact that it does not generate the executive or judiciary does not mean that it could not, or that therefore the executive and judiciary are co-equal. Again, I offer the code example. I can understand the argument that Congress is co-equal and just the first one created, but structurally it was decided to put it this way, and the argument that they are co-equal is like saying you could put any of three paragraphs in an essay as the first and it would still be the same essay. It is a situation where my argument may not be solid, but it is certainly more solid than the assumptions that are being used to attack it. And don't get me into the grammar part. You could find in a lot of my silos or anywhere on the Internet examples of where what is grammatically true does not mean anything legally. So don't try and fuck around with grammar. We're staying away from grammar. We're talking about legal definitions, the kind of stupid shit in which, you know, a brutal homicide is deemed loss of life the same as a heart attack. So grammatically means nothing when it comes to English, when we're doing this interpretation. I know we're talking about syntax, so that might seem like a contradiction. But the syntax I'm talking about is the same as the specific syntax used in legal structures. English, grammar in the vernacular can just go away for this argument. With the simultaneous power partition, okay, I'm going back to computers again, everything up until the idea of object-oriented programming was linear. Stories, computer programs, grocery lists, everything. So historically, you're wrong about the simultaneous thing, especially if it's not explicitly defined as being simultaneous. It also assumes a simultaneousness, which is what I just said. I would like demonstration that this was explicitly written. We're getting back to the legal syntax thing. If it's not explicitly said, then it's an assumption. And as far as the amendments go, that is a separate case. That was temporally separated. There was no indication of what would happen when, at the time any of them was made. As opposed to the Constitution, which was drafted and redrafted and counter-drafted and snark-drafted and all-drafted. This is the final product, not the result of a fix. This is a house being built, not an addition. So that is a weak argument, and I'm surprised you tried to use it. Honestly, I don't see any reason why the House would not outrank the Senate. Even if every other argument you have is conceded, the feeling of the majority of people was that the majority should have supremacy. The Senate was created as a counterbalance by smaller states that didn't want to be overwhelmed. And in all of these drafts, I'm betting that a decent amount of liquor and argument was spent in figuring out who got mentioned first. If not in this particular, I'll bet those Federalist Papers and other notes contain a lot of talk about snippy conversations, about things that seemingly were minor, but would have major repercussions. So yeah, that's not a counter-argument either. And as I'm saying, my form is saying that, and the reason why I've been talking so much, outranks is an oversimplification, the same way I've admitted that the terminology I've been using is not nuanced enough. Outranking is the wrong way of putting it. The presidency exists because of the Constitution, yes, but only the Congress could generate, would necessarily generate, would be forced to generate, an executive. If Congress was removed, the executive would at least attempt to keep on plugging, would not necessarily have to try to produce a Congress. That's called an autocracy, and that's what they didn't want. Congress, in this kernel and in my interpretation, and I believe as it was intended, is held highest because it can't be effectual without functions, without low-level programs and other things that actually let it work. It must be held first because it is the one thing that could not dominate because of its nature. It is most important because it needs the rest of the country to come along and cannot be enforced with guns, or force, or the threat of divine punishment. And my point about the kill switch, you're making valid points, but these were A, instituted after Congress was established in the document, and B, what I meant by kill switch is the ability to do amendments. The only thing that can undo the Constitution itself is Congress. Now, you can make a rule, make a argument that the judiciary can hold amendments to be untrue, but that gets back to the idea of additions to a house and things like that. It doesn't touch the core idea that once you knock down the, that it cannot knock down the house. It cannot even attempt to. The only thing that could make an amendment repealing Article 2 is Article 1. When I said that Congress is unable to do anything by itself, that is the one thing it can do. It is the one hand on the constitutional nuke button. And again, it would be self-defeating, etc., etc., but it is the only one that even has the theoretical capacity to obliterate the other two branches that seem to be held as co-equal. There are external factors involved, but no executive can do that, no judge can do that. And Congress is supposed to represent the people. So if this were ever to come along, if this were ever to try to go beyond theory, it would be in a situation where the external powers were thought to be in alignment. And as we get to 7, we get again to the equivocation in historical interpretation. Nothing you are saying actually seems to me to be, especially at a time in which everything was written linearly, in which they made a lot of drafts of, to counter my point. They exist regardless of Congress? No, because without Congress, there would not be a rest of the document. This is not the notes taken on the back of a napkin. This is a multi-draft thing in which that was decided to be prime. At a time in which you didn't have hyperlinks, everything was written, especially after multiple drafts, with a purpose. So you can't just say it was cut out of the document and everything would still exist. If that didn't exist, everything else would not exist. Certainly not in the form it is right now. The executive power as defined right now is written with regards to Article 1 being in existence. The same with Article 3. The entirety of the Constitution, the original bit, was written that way. The amendments require that it continue to exist that way. It is not a Word document you can splice things out of. Hell, the assholes who keep misrepresenting it, but say that they're constitutionalists, that they're originalists, think of it this way. It is a single item. It is a single house. You can make modifications on it, but once you start to knock down the house, it is a house not of cards, but more like one of those popsicle constructions where tension holds everything together, but if you try to remove one, the entire thing falls apart. Popsicle sticks, not popsicle. The statutes would not exist without the pre-definition of what Congress was. And looking at your summary on 9, the branches are examples of legislative design, including Congress. Congress was defined as the kernel by a Congress. It is legislative design. It was designed by a bunch of people sitting and arguing and drafting and doing everything else. Even if they weren't called the Continental Congress, they still would be a Congress in practice.

M: Yeah, even when being specific, I think this shows so far the linguistic challenge, even if you're using legal specificity, of the terminology available. Like, in practical application, I think I've said, in practical application, the powers would be co-equal, as everyone has been using it. It's when you get into actual challenges to authority that it really becomes important, the same way that I was saying gravity basically works with the parabolic definition until you start getting into extreme situations. So like when you say two and three are not rivals to one, even as a person advocating this position, I feel like the language is not summarily sufficient to describe the situation. Because what has been defined, okay, I'm saying that a Congress came up with a Congress and examples, right? But the Congress knows that it is relatively impotent without other elements to counterbalance it, or that things can easily go off the rails at best if you try and rule that way. Or rather than rule, guide, because we're not talking about authoritarian efforts here. So what is created in the system, as an example, is in a sense, an actual rival, in that they are intended to be counterbalances that are not absolutely necessary, but only in the sense that in an ideal world, they might be unnecessary in practical application, that that counterbalance, that rivalry is necessary. Plus the idea that not having rivals is a good way to go stagnant and die. I'm pointing this out to show my complete awareness of how tenuous at best some of this language really describes the relationship that is being attempted to be set up. I mean, if we use the brain metaphor for a second, the brain needs a hand, the hand can shoot the brain and destroy the entire system kind of situation, we don't want that level of rivalry. But without the feedback, there would be no nuance or adapting to a changing world. So we do need that kind of rivalry. And when I describe the Congress as being the kernel of the OS, I think what I'm saying is that the executive and judiciary, particularly, they may seem structurally sound in terms of their code. But in the same way that a DLL can be structurally sound. Again, we're getting back to the idea that the kernel is useless without these external programs. But that the programs require the existence of the OS. So in terms of dependency, one might have a technical superiority to the others. But its ability to exist by itself does not necessarily make it of any practical use. And the DLLs have practical use but can't be said to be functional because they need to be plugged into something. The reason I wanted you to do this, besides hoping that it would appear I was correct and how it's kind of neat to see someone else take an idea you have and run with it, is that, like I think I've said before, if it works, this is the objective interpretation of that self-sustains. This is the scientific model that can be reproduced. There may be other valid overlays that do not self-contradict, but they all seem to require some assumption. Even the ones that try and stay objective, they seem to require, well, like the co-equal idea that everyone hangs a hat on, but which is not actually explicitly said. Later rulings and interpretations may have brought it out, but the original version doesn't include it. Or this idea that you had of the grammatic interchangeability of the various articles, disregarding that this was written on, I don't know, what is it, vellum, parchment, whatever, after multiple drafts by a bunch of guys, many of whom didn't necessarily like each other, a situation in which every order and nuance was debated. So the idea of the current approach to bill structure, which doesn't attribute primacy to position, is completely contradictory to that kind of contextual moment. And so acting like then is just like now is ridiculous. Everything else seems to have an assumption. I'm trying to avoid assumptions. There may be other interpretations which contradict mine using that same approach. I just want to know if mine is coherent. Plus, again, it's kind of interesting to see you turn this idea of the Constitution into a written algorithm and code. And there's the other point, which is if this is intact, it's entirely intact. If there's a problem, like I said, either it means that my model needs to be fixed or my idea is wrong, at which point I will be sad and move on. It's the self-contained part that I'm really hoping for. Something that can be seen as being entire, rather than addressing a particular point or instance. So many of the arguments seem to require a particularity or nuance that doesn't carry over to the rest of the document. So even if what I get as a result from this model is a weaker document than everyone thought, it is also a document entire without argument, as opposed to the four square players looking to get an advantage by saying that their interpretation must be right because nothing else is better. If it's complete, it might be weaker, but it will be a complete weaker, as opposed to a Jenga Tower of stuff that can't be knocked over as long as you don't look around the side and poke at things. I note that you are tying in the actual text to my interpretation. I understand that I asked you to make an assumption that my model began correct and analyzed from there, hoping that you also are working with the knowledge that the entirety of the text must be addressed by the model, either by your explicit algorithmic formulating, preferably in the most compact way possible, or being shown that it is grammatically vacuous and therefore irrelevant to algorithm forming. I would like to acknowledge and kind of hold at arm's length, but address if necessary, the idea of state-slash-local municipalities and constitutions and all that. It's not an area I've really looked into very much, and that hasn't really come up except as a shouting point by one pundit or another in a particular debate. You know, states' rights is often yelled without actually understanding what those rights are, that kind of thing. And I'm not pretending like I know, but we've been discussing just the main three, and I just admonished you to make sure that the entirety of the text is either dealt with in the same way, or seen more as forming functions rather than programs, if we can call it that, where the articles create the executive program, etc., etc. But incorporating the state constitutionality might be necessary and could wreak havoc. I'm not saying that it would neutralize my argument, but there might be a need to patch things the same way that maybe an iPhone would theoretically work perfect if you used nothing but Apple programs, but once you start installing stuff off of the App Store, the rules don't go out the window, but allowances must be made. Or in code form, you get a lot more of that if-then stuff. I always got disillusioned by the idea of games being largely huge if-then cycles. I don't know why. I think I was hoping for something more elegant when I started looking into programming, as opposed to being case-handling input by input. I think object-oriented programming has made that a little bit less so, but it still is a core element, and it always disillusioned me how practically inelegant it was, even if that's exactly how binary really should work. I always wanted someone to find the graceful shortcut. I'm saying in my metaphor that there has to be at least the not necessarily written files, but a memory structure. So in a situation where, like, Congress writes a file, executive executes the file, judiciary tests files against previous files, using some form of rubric to ensure interpretation. Not necessarily a separate article-level structure, but an acknowledgment of RAM or something like that. So in the simple version I've read so far, there'd be like laws.txt. Okay, as I move along to Part 4, I want to make sure that I haven't over-constrained things before I start commenting. Congress is granted certain enumerated powers. Is there any indication that they have other powers that are not explicitly stated? If there's any problem, there could be that aspect of the definition. And allowably as well. As said before, there are certain things that just were not part of the landscape when those things were enumerated. Such as communication, television, radio, whatever. There probably are other things, but that's the best form. But I think the way you said it, even the Treasury, just a basic system of money, was not entirely dealt with. So the idea of being able to build on in a finite way is not a... I'm trying to avoid cheating, basically. But that doesn't mean that I can't function within the rules as far as they will allow me to. The contradiction thing is more of a gray area than I like for this model. At least without a definition of what's meant by contradict. I'm going to work with the weak version at the moment. The one that says, if the Constitution says X, Congress can't make a law that says not X. I'd like to expand that to a more definite but robust version, but we're going to start with that one. Also, and I hate to introduce this this late in the game because, again, it feels like bringing up an obscure rule in order to not quite cheat. But we're going to acknowledge that this was written by humans. And so imperfections have to be dealt with, but should not be automatically thought of as being a complete explosion to any particular theory. I'll make that allowance for other people's interpretations as well. I feel like the spirit of my arguments against them often still holds sound. But pointing out a particular contradiction or error is not necessarily a complete disqualifier. Otherwise, no one would ever be able to make a law of it. Perfection is impossible. Acting like it's mandatory is suicidal. A minor correction. At 4.1, when I said it would necessarily spawn something parallel to an executive or judicial branch, that falls a little bit short of must. In theory, it could keep functioning perfectly fine, it just wouldn't necessarily do anything. And in human application, it sometimes does, but only at smaller scales. Like a homeowners association or something, where they end up doing the executive stuff and the judicial stuff, at least in the ones I've experienced, I understand that there's a whole thing about them actually being kind of assholes, especially when they start subcontracting. But in my experience, they start doing it themselves. So we'll acknowledge that on a smaller scale, a congress would not necessarily spawn an executive or judicial branch. But when you start getting into larger scale, or kernels, or something like that, the functionality becomes inhibited if it tries to do everything. And what would be spawned would not necessarily be an executive or judicial branch in the form we're talking about, as a kind of humorous fictional version. You could say that the situation in Judge Dredd is two branches, which are closely affiliated. What was it? The hall of judges, which is basically their congress, and the judges themselves, which are the judicial, the executive and judicial wrapped in one, with a little bit of judicial still held by the congress. And so it would not necessarily have to produce, it's not like it must produce. The reason why I'm arguing that the instances exist is in order to shape the direction of the democracy so that it doesn't become like Judge Dredd. In failing to do so, in failing to elucidate particular instances that can guide the development of the rest of the law, there would have been a vacuum into which anything could have been sucked. Not just what they, not just what was hoped for or intended. And so as I think I've responded to your next point, it's not even a question of preventing bad hacks, but just intentional, overt misuse. Hacks implies there was something in place. This would just be something waiting to see what comes along to use it, whether it's official or unofficial. And I think as I've pointed out, the example you've given about the coherent model is in practice true. And I wouldn't ask you to be particular except in places where particular is truly necessary. But while they are privileged, well, I guess the way you say it, yeah, they cannot rewrite it at will if you're saying at will means off the cuff, from the hip, etc. It can be rewritten, but it would require a studious effort and intent and causality to even start approaching doing so. Your point at 4.2 is taken. I'm not sure what the language says. This is where we start getting into where even in legal language there are assumptions. Like... ...developing alternative structures... ...would have to be... ...linguistically distinguishable from creating independent substructures. Or even separate structures, but that are intimately related. Sticking to the whole idea of code. Duplication... ...of function... ...would, depending on how you look at it, either be... ...forbidden or redundant. Like writing a function named two different things that executes the same... ...task. This is why I was talking about the imperfection. Not escape clause, but allowance clause. What we're dealing with is a situation where people are doing crap that everyone has seen. And so I want to avoid assumptions, but there are some that are just... ...not made. Or that aren't dealt with because they seem... ...practically ridiculous until someone tries to work around them. I think we're going to say that in the case of redundancy, then... ...legacy gets primacy. Any attempt to create a redundant executive power would be... ...superseded by the structure that was already there. I think I see where you're going with this, with the idea that the executive has control over... ...certain aspects because it's being replicated. But that is untrue for the same reason that when you create sub-functions... ...or alternate functions, it is to do an alternate thing. Like saying, execute law... ...might give influence by the executive program. The creation of it by Congress means that it cannot be conflated... ...unless there is demonstrable, explicit redundancy. If there's additional functionality, then the creation of the executive power... ...cannot be conflated unless there is demonstrable, explicit redundancy. If there's additional functionality, then the creation of the alternate function... ...is not a redundancy, but a requirement. Because that function, since it is by definition, in this example, not redundant... ...has some sort of additional direction and therefore is further limited by its specificity. Trying to take over it would require adding to an executive program... ...in a way that it is not explicitly allowed to do. Granting those powers would require use by... ...or rather, explicit granting of by the Congress kernel. Again, using code as an example, I have... ...multiple code-splitting scripts, or not code-splitting scripts... ...but I have multiple code-splitting scripts. I have a primary one, but I also have multiple ones with a kind of wrapper functionality... ...where it, in order to make my life easier... ...specifies one or two new lines of code. In order to make my life easier, it specifies one or two new limitations... ...which create exactly what I want, how I want it... ...rather than having to be explicit through the primary program. It would be the same thing if I wanted the program to do the entirety of it, one script... ...I would sit down and hash it out and come up with some sort of complicated crap... ...that I can't debug without a lot of effort. I have separate scripts for it, specifically because there are certain things that are very important to me... ...but I also want the functionality of the base script so that it works well... ...and if anything goes wrong or there's an update, I can update things... ...without having to reform my entire script setup. This is the same thing. Simply having an overlap does not subsume it in terms of redundancy, because it's not redundant. The new thing might have called to actually use the executive program... ...but it is not part of the program, because that would be the executive program... ...taking onto itself capabilities that it is not explicitly given. And since we're holding Congress to that limit, we're allowed to hold everything else to that limit as well. You do not assume what you need simply because no one else has said they have it. You do not take your only granted... ...even Congress was only granted certain things by its formers. It has, including the capacity to grant to others, powers it cannot have itself. As I'm reading after talking, it looks like you were kind of going in that same direction. With part five where you're saying that the kill switch, it's true that it does not have complete control, but at that point we're talking about the nation, the user, being involved. And you'll remember I said theoretically, in application it might be unwise or stupid, but simply the possibility, or rather the lack of the possibility by the other two branches, is why I say it has some degree of primacy beyond simple application. It's kind of like what I was talking about with the text file of laws earlier. It requires acknowledging that the metaphor needs a little bit more extension, but it doesn't destroy the metaphor. It just means that other factors and actors have to be appropriately recognized. When you say the model doesn't get us, Congress is the sole origin of all power, that's where I was talking about the practical expansion. The society, the people, are the origin of the power. If we're going to use this metaphor and continue expanding it, no, it is not the origin of the power, but it is the power core. It is what society is using as the port of entry to everything that runs. I think that in most models of pretty much anything that has ever been invented, that has been the case. There is a single motivating source. Any situation where there are multiple versions usually leads to contradiction, or is some kind of compound function, you know, like a pressure hose where the motor runs and sprays water, and having used one of those, even then it starts getting complex because if they don't work together correctly, everything starts smoking or coming close to catch fire. The point is, there is a single power source. Its origin is of course not the Congress, but Congress is the point at which the entire system starts distributing power. Again, we get back to the idea that Congress is, at least at the scale we're talking about, useless on its own, or next to, but it also is completely necessary. And I would disagree. As I've given in the examples, at least on smaller scales, Congress can absorb the other two in practice. But in doing so, it would, by this explicit version, it wouldn't be viable. And the versions in practice, the smaller versions, even then they think of themselves less as being Congress and more of being subcommittees, which you can think of as being separate entities but with the same membership. Sometimes with one or two people included or excluded, at least in the homeowners association version. And I'll emphasize once more that even if it's not practical to remove Article 2 and 3, or not likely, if not impossible in practice, the potential is there in a way that it can't be for Article 2 or 3. Kind of like saying however much there's willingness in society and the person to do everything hormonally, biologically, and surgically possible to make someone biologically a woman, there's not a situation in which they can actually give birth to someone else, while a woman who never gives birth is nevertheless considered biologically female. It doesn't matter whether or not it happens. The fact that it potentially could is what defines it as being that soul point, that soul origin. I mean, hell, even with the whole tripod idea that often gets trotted out, rarely when you're setting up a tripod that isn't just rigidly baked in, which, you know, with my linear interpretation of creation that I'm using, is not the case. If you're trying to unfold a tripod, usually you plant one post and then unfold everything. That single post is therefore usually, I'm thinking of what I'm thinking of right now, is a artist's stand. And it's usually thicker, might have a little rubber padding. Basically it's treated as though it were the master switch. The, if not the source, at the very least the anchor. In the same way that Congress is, by this interpretation, the necessary center. And again, the absorption thing, the redundancy thing, I've already covered. But importantly, if Congress has created it, it is not within the power of other groups to destroy it. Other groups may claim ascendancy or priority, such as what I was talking about with the executive program. But in terms of actually determining the functionality, it has no rights to actually do so, no access rights. I mean that in the computer form. It has no rights to change, limit, or otherwise alter the program itself. Because in attempting to absorb it into its functionality, it would change its own functionality in a way that it is not allowed to do. As far as the language goes, it looked like there was an actual difference in the language between Article 1 and Article 2 and 3 in their introduction of where they got their powers. Am I wrong about that? Linguistic difference after multiple drafts should be noted. Uniformity would have implied some sort of implied agreement, if not explicit, in the papers. The fact that instead of doing all three the same way, one of them was done differently implies a difference of situation. The fact that it was in the first article and not the second two. And again, there is a little bit less direct argument about the linguistics of the time, but I point out again that this was a draft after many other drafts, so this wasn't simply changing word choice after the first paragraph because you thought it didn't look right. This was multiple people saying, I agree to this version because it's as close as we can get to what I want. And again, if they wanted uniformity, multiple drafts would have allowed them to be explicit about uniformity. The states as co-author thing can be expanded to the idea of the user. The original user might have been the Continental Congress, but as time has gone on, and I think the way that they handed it off made it so that each of the states was the co-user. This was a, if I understand correctly, a kind of compromise and one of the reasons why the Civil War started, because they couldn't agree whether or not states were equal to the federal power or subservient to it or some other complicated version that each of them argued for on their own behalf. The Judiciary Acts of Congress is unconstitutional. That's what I was talking about with the laws.txt. In application, it's kind of grimy, but in pure legal speak and code speak, I think that with that acknowledgement, it helps things hold up. It means that this is not two programs working against each other, but two programs accessing the same file or memory for different purposes. And the very fact of a supermajority override of a veto means that it's not a incapacity to do something, but rather an obstacle that was supposed to be baked in for good reasons and has been used for bad in the past. Or avoided by people who are just being partisan rather than actually listening to their users. So that's user error, not documentary problem. It's actual existence, yeah, you can veto. And that makes sense. I drive a car and it lets me know when something is going to go wrong. And it will even try and steer me back on the road sometimes. It also, given that it's not perfect, will sometimes try and overcomplicate or overcompensate when there are badly written lines or something else that confuses and I get to override it. That doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the program, but it doesn't give the same kind of absolute power that you can use as an actual argument that it's an inhibition. I mean, the fact that you had to qualify it is kind of my point. Absent a supermajority, yeah, you can have a supermajority. Therefore, Congress still gets to have the final say. Again, we get back to the judiciary thing. And that would be fine if it weren't for the murky human element that's been attached to it. But as an interpretation of the Constitution, it doesn't raise any kind of problems. I've been avoiding the term demons because of the linguistic inherent interpretations thereof. Because I'm not trying to argue against the executive or the judiciary, even if I think that the current versions are corrupted to some degree or other, if just by human tendencies. And labeling them such as demons would not help any kind of public argument. With these modifications, I still maintain that the Constitution is the code, the Congress is the kernel, and the two... the two and three articles are instances explicitly defined to direct the execution of the rest of the code in an appropriate initial direction over the next couple centuries.

M: I don't know if I'd use the word privileged to describe the Executive and Judiciary Modules. Not because it's technically inaccurate, but because linguistically it creates a misapprehension. You and I both know that by privileged you mean the code version. But anyone reading this would think of it as meaning that somehow it actually has some sort of royalty attached to it, for lack of a better term. Off the top. Kind of like how people seem to think of Adam and Eve as being some sort of perfect construct. And no more so than any other person, in reality. At least not necessarily. You're saying it's created by God, therefore it must be perfect. But perfect reads perfect, and we certainly aren't perfect, so it couldn't have been perfect in that sense, except in its capacity to create everything else. In the same way, I don't want the misapprehension from a layman reading this that somehow they get special treatment. Not in the way that most people would think. Now, by definition from the model, they do, but not because of any kind of magic extra powers, but simply because they are the initial instances of the Colonel's abilities. Defined in a way to allow the procedure of the operating system in the direction the original programmers wanted. You brought up the term bootloader before. That's kind of what they are. They are privileged in that they are predefined. They are the necessary bios. Or rather, not necessary bios, but they are the bios that has been applied. Other definitions of executive or judiciary, or like the Judge Dredd version that I gave you, could also be applied. Like when I was talking about committees in places that kind of ruled their locality by fiat and Congress, but in fact, if not by name. That usually is what is done. Instead of creating an executive branch, they could have created an executive committee defined as being staffed by members of Congress or something like that. So they are privileged in the code world, but I don't want to use that word. They should be given the respect that they have because they are predefined, but that doesn't make them any more intrinsically powerful or special. Than any others in terms of rule application, except in situations where primacy actually becomes a situation such as the redundancy versus specificity thing that was talked about earlier. And the point is that they are predefined instances that would have been necessarily spawned by a large society in some form, but the creators of this document wanted that society to at least start in a particular direction from the get-go. Again, like a BIOS or a bootloader. In future references, it might be better to refer to Congress alone, with the states being part of the whole user class. Like a state might propose OS-level changes, but I believe if they do so, they do so through Congress. The same way that a user would still need a keyboard and the kernel running in order to actually propose differences. I just don't want to overcomplicate the parentheses or anything. And then the states being the users ratify those changes. The reason I keep wanting to use users instead of states is because, hypothetically, the states represent the people and the Congress represents the states, therefore Congress represents the people. But I don't want to have an open space in which user class becomes a wedge to disrupt any conversation about this theory in itself, or this interpretation rather. The important thing is... Your phrasing gives me pause about absorbing power. It seems to imply that noisily absorbing power is somehow okay, and that's exactly what this dickweed is trying to do. No, the point is that there is no absorption, period. Once there is sufficient distinction to avoid redundancy, then... First of all, the implication is that there should not be competition. In practice, there will be, just because humans are humans. But there is no question of information competition. Like, the executive program should not try and obscure a more specific FCC program or something if Congress decides that it is, in fact, some sort of sub-program. It still is connected to Congress directly, and there should be no attempts to directly route everything through the executive. In practice, that might happen, but it should not be thought of as being an explicit requirement. The executive power cannot become a wrapper function, either, because that's, again, taking a power it was not explicitly granted. If it's explicitly granted that power, that becomes another thing entirely. But there's no absorption, silently or noisily or anything, simply because someone thinks that there might be an overlap. Redundancy is the only qualifying thing to allow that kind of situation. Even then, absorbing, quote-unquote, a redundant situation would require an addressing of it that likely would involve the judicial system. So, that part is already dealt with. But there is no situation in which absorbing can happen. Not even Congress can allow absorption. There has to be an actual modification of the laws. I think in number six there, 1.6 I guess, it would be that trying to use a power that is not explicitly granted would throw an error, so to speak. It would be breaking a law. I don't know if this law is specific, but it's kind of an uber law. I'm not sure if this part can be backed up, and I'd like to be able to solidify this in the theory, but it's an essentially an XOR situation. You cannot do what you're not allowed to do. What you're allowed to do, you must do kind of thing. So if you try to do what you're not told you can do, then you are just breaking, not just the law, you're breaking logic, basically. It's like trying to feed a ham sandwich through a word processor. It doesn't matter what your intent is, and maybe you shouldn't actually be held accountable, but you are doing something that is unallowed, and anyone acting like it is allowed is just straight-up wrong. Now in Part 2, I would say that Article 1 backs up 2.2 beyond just an axiom. And Part 1, not in its entirety perhaps, but again, we're going with the idea that at least the weak version, that nothing contradicts it, makes it more coherent, complete, and stable than most interpretations. With 2.3, I still would like a little bit of a linguistic analysis of the differentiation between the actual terminology of Article 1 versus Article 2 and 3, in terms of how powers are granted. I think number four is kind of just a rephrasing of the explicit parts of the Constitution. Like, that's not even part of my interpretation or any kind of grammatic qualification, as I understand it. That's pretty much, that's one of those things that's not up for interpretation, even with my attempt to, you know, completely abandon non-explicit assumptions. Although I could be wrong. Really, the only parts of any of that list that could be said to be independently generated outside of any reference to the document itself would be in part five, at which point I'm kind of elucidating the general functionality of either code or humanity as a whole. Like, in general, if a function has been defined and then you rename it, that becomes an alias. It doesn't create a new function that does the same thing once it's compiled. I know that part is a bit shaky, but my point is that part two point five is trying to be explicit about things that are taken as assumptions, which often leads into places where human language is ill-equipped to be as solid as I'd like to be with the rest. And even that is not too much of a stretch if we're maintaining the code metaphor. Usually baked into the compiler is some kind of redundancy filter or something that doesn't even think of it as redundancy but simply turns that kind of redundancy into a single set of commands. As we get to Part 3, or Heading 3... I'm sorry, I keep equivocating subheadings and headings. Just the idea of doctrine kind of shows the reason why I'm pursuing this at all. Working with an incomplete assumption or doctrine leads to incomplete results, usually. Not necessarily, but when it doesn't, you really don't notice that the things were incomplete in the first place. But that's not the case here. In 3.1, the choice of language is not intended to imply any kind of ultimate godhood, and I think that my arguments have shown that, at best, they can be thought of as a squishy necessary organ, with little actual motor skill. And that my point is, everyone tries to read so intensely into law without questioning the bits that got them to that law. They investigate what they want to at the time, instead of the thoroughness applied to the entirety. And it's just getting up in the nostrils. Because if you use that kind of hair-splitting logic that SCOTUS has been pulling out of their butts recently to try and explain why people they like get to do something people they don't like aren't allowed to do, and apply it to the base code of the United States, you get things that you might not be comfortable with. I mean, I've been uncomfortable with this whole breakdown, not because I didn't like the idea, but just the idea that there might be insight that everyone has either ignored or not noticed, depending on their awareness, really. In a social sense, it scares me. Other people might be excited about the idea of a new interpretation, but the idea that it took some schmucksing around 250 years later, with a GPT connection and time on his hands to notice something so intrinsic, that no one noticed it, it weirds me out. And then, okay, anyway, going back to it in part 3.1, I would go back to the clarification. That everything is an implementation of power. I think I said in my last message, the power comes from the society, the states, the people, in this metaphor, the users. That can be thought of as input, but also a power plug that's running whatever machine is running the government. Whatever infrastructure is there. And in 3.1, I admitted the necessity of rivalry, but I'd like to avoid that term again for the same reason as privileged. And I can't use the closest thing that I can think of because it's way too long in terms of terminology. The training wheel setup thing, where they, or maybe something a little bit better. This is why it would take too long. It's because in the ideal world of the document, they support each other. It's just that Congress is the only one that could potentially function in this document with the absence of the other two. It's the primary column, not the supporting joists, or however that's pronounced. At the end of Part 3, my point is that courts might have the smartest people in the world, but they're still human beings playing a game of telephone over the years, with telephones that were not even necessarily reliable back in the day. And they are courts that, and I mean this in a nice way, they don't want to redo work that they think they don't have to do. I'm doing this because I don't constantly interact with the judicial system, which means that I have an outsider's perspective that allows me to potentially notice complete inconsistencies. I'm the guy who might notice the tanker-dumping chum in the entrance to the lagoon and see the sharks gathering. And that doesn't mean that I'm being critical of the people who are in the water taking care of their little brother and not really paying attention to the horizon because the little bastard just managed to slip off his floaties again. But I'm approaching it with confidence because I'm not swimming in those waters, and because purportedly... Sorry, I'm walking away from that metaphor, I hope. Purportedly, the legal system is based on logic, and its main job is turning the gray of reality into the binary of logic. And logic is something I can do. So the fact that I'm able to construct this kind of interpretation and have it be coherent, at least so far, demonstrates that the nuanced grayscale of past rulings may all be an eloquent tapestry woven by masters, but that doesn't mean that they weren't all being informed by some myopic idiot who just happened to be in the right place at the right time two centuries ago. Or even worse, perhaps, if you think about it in terms of humanity, shaped by people who were well-meaning but subjective when they should have been objective. Unless I was arguing against someone who's being an asshole, I would soften my statement in Assumption A as being, it was consciously placed as the primary entry to a document intended to shape a country. Explicitly calling it primary is kind of contradictory to all of the arguments with myself you've been privy to in terms of the terminology. Primary is not a word I would accept if I had the option to be more detailed. Technically, it might be true through a thesaurus, and it is the first entry, but this is the reason why I've been worrying about terminology. Primary, them's fighting words. That's something that people can use to cloud the emotions of others, even if it doesn't affect them. It is the first. I think it is the most crucial, but maybe not the most important. Important is much more a subjective situation, but in terms of functionality, I think that there was an awareness that this was where everything started from, a group of people, and that it was necessarily going to have to be the entry point. This was going to be where the users went to in order to make everything work. I would call it an assumption if I had to, but more accurately, I would call it an informed assumption, which is accurate and gives it more weight, however slight, against the other assumptions which I am trying to contradict. Someone else could say a lot of things, including that thing about conceptual, not hierarchical. You're telling me that these people, especially since this is going to be coming from someone who disagrees with me about the Constitution, and for some reason thinks that their version is better, they can say anything. But with that form of disagreement, what they're trying to say is that this group of people that they claim to think of as being almost divinely inspired to create this nation, who spent weeks arguing amongst themselves about various things to the point that the best compromise they could come up with included creating a situation where some people were thought of as being fractional of an actual human being in order to make sure that everyone stayed at the table. That those people who were willing to argue over the smallest things said that the order in which they wrote things could go hang. My restatement of their statement should function as a refutation of either their original position or the statement that they made. You cannot hold both things against you. And that's why I'm saying this is more than a simple assumption. This is a logically derived assumption, the same way that a language pattern interpretation can indicate Alzheimer's. It's not diagnostic, you can't say someone does have Alzheimer's, but it sure means a lot more than just sitting there and saying, no, no, he's fine. Assumption B is also at least a step above a basic assumption. I refer again to the bunch of intelligent people carving democracy out of the wilderness. Modern democracy. Sorry, I was about to get sarcastic. Anyway... When this group started being explicit, assuming that they would allow for random assumption is, in itself, not just an assumption, it's a poor assumption. That is more of a hope than an assumption. My assumption is based on the idea that they were explicit. They did go into the idea that a black person could be 0.6 of a human being. They were explicit, therefore to assume that they were vague is an insult to the weeks that they spent trying to create this thing. Assumption C is again in that area where I'm not happy with it, but I don't know how to make it better, and it still is better than most of what I see available in terms of interpretations. If there wasn't something in laws.txt to deal with this situation, then I would assume there would be a challenge at which point laws.txt would necessarily be amended or something. You know, it's like trying to create a rule about not eating salad with your feet. No one tries to do it because it would be silly. And because, and in this situation, especially in application, an attempt to, say, set up a redundant executive would and probably should be thought of as being a coup attempt, just by definition. Like the definition of an executive is that they are the ones that execute. An interesting situation would be if you tried to introduce a, not a parallel one, but some kind of committee structure into the executive. It would be difficult to deal with. I think that part's hard-coded. But you see my point, I hope. It's that, yes, it's an assumption, but until someone offers a better solution, either to support my theory or that supersedes my interpretation, I'll allow it as part of that human error element, the one where you assume that breathing is fine because all of the oxygen isn't supposed to turn into acid between this breath and the next. There are a lot of things that go beyond simple assumption and into just your construction of reality, to the point that when you try to hard-code it, it will never be enough because the hard-coding would require dealing with every issue that would statistically never occur, but just might. Sorry, let me rephrase that. That would practically never occur, but statistically just might. And just to be clear, I'm extending this metaphor not because I think that everything should work as a computer. Humans are messy, the world is messy, etc. etc. I don't want to get the metaphor confused with the actuality, but I keep expanding it, A, because it's applicable, and B, because it gives a terminology that is currently woefully inadequate. And it does so using a framework which is necessarily binary. And it allows collapsing of arguments into terminology, which can then be similarly assessed in a binary way. I felt the need to clarify because of your restatement of things that say, no, the president doesn't magically get to be root. Someone reading this that doesn't understand computers might be lost, but I don't know of a better way to express this kind of absolute idea using the English language which allows for so much equivocation. So again, I acknowledge that humanity is messy and analog and flexible, but these things are approached in such a binary way that not using binary terminology is a willfully negligent act, from what I can tell. Thank you.

M: I think one thing that needs to be addressed is the hierarchy or whatever. Because Congress creates, it constantly has a connection and that connection should not be completely interrupted. But in a non-malicious situation, it may be practical for certain functions to be allocated as being subject to a particular primary function, like the executive, like the Secret Service. If I understand correctly, they go after, what, counterfeiting and protection, right? Particularly of the executive. So it would make sense that they were subject to the executive in terms of hierarchy, but that would not remove any kind of connection from Congress in terms of information flow or the capacity for information flow. Now, in practice, that may go through the executive function, but that does not mean any kind of of connection from Congress. Is that making sense? Yeah, and my language thing again goes back to a couple messages ago. They had the opportunity, and in fact, if they were trying to be any kind of graceful, lyrical, or make an impact about equality, there would have been the opportunity to phrase everything identically. The fact that two were phrased identically after the first one implies there is some form of intent difference. I will admit that it could be argued that the intent was somehow different from what I'm claiming, but the idea that somehow they are all intended to be thought of as the same is undermined severely by the human tendency towards the rule of three, the time at which it was written, the multiple draft situation, etc., etc. Whatever claim you try and make must take into account the fact that instead of trying to make everything uniform, they made two of them match and the one before explicitly different. In Part 6, the only way I can kind of keep myself from feeling completely weird about it is that, I think I said later on, the available terminology for comparison wasn't there. It's very difficult to explicitly critique, at least in the human mind, without the terminology that can be used. There wasn't any kind of idea of an OS that could be held up in parallel to show where things were falling apart. There wasn't any... I mean, there was the idea of formal logic, but it hadn't been taken to the Turing level of being able to become functional as a program.

M: I would like you to create a markdown file that that comprehensively covers the aspects of my interpretation of the Constitution as we've discussed it, in a way that contains the entirety of what you understand my model to contain or the arguments that it is based on in a appropriately structured method to allow for complete comprehension of where we've arrived with that model. Please write this file and give me the download link.

M: That looks complete, but somehow shallow. I think because the construction has involved a lot of back and forth. The actual summary looks almost... ...cold and bare. Would you be able to do an annotated version, or something similar, that contains the... ...presented arguments and counter-arguments that we've covered?