Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
timschochet's thread- Mods, please move this thread to the Politics Subforum, thank you (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter timschochet
- Start date
timschochet
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
7. Nbd2
Reginald Cornsilks
Footballguy
otello
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
I saw Unbroken last night.
This was an unabashedly pro-American, pro- religious movie. And I absolutely loved it. Just terrific drama, well told. A throwback to the great days of Hollywood. I highly recommend it to everyone.
This was an unabashedly pro-American, pro- religious movie. And I absolutely loved it. Just terrific drama, well told. A throwback to the great days of Hollywood. I highly recommend it to everyone.
timschochet
Footballguy
8. c3
quickhands
Footballguy
I think I need to find Portis26's madden threads.
otello
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
9. O-O
Todd Andrews
Footballguy
You are mostly a commercial fiction type guy, although Uris and Clavell are better than most. Maybe try some literary fiction some time.
timschochet
Footballguy
I love a lot of literary fiction. But my favorite is commercial, depending on the writer. Incidentally The Caine Mutiny which won the Pulitzer Prize is considered literary to some degree. As are most of Pat Conroy's works.
timschochet
Footballguy
Just to set the record straight, I am trying out this thread and not posting in other threads that have to do with political issues. I will still discuss sports and culture in other threads as well as this one.
Even with regard to politics, I made no promise or vow not to post in other threads. It was something I voluntarily agreed to try for the time being. So far I'm enjoying it very much and have no plans to do otherwise.
Even with regard to politics, I made no promise or vow not to post in other threads. It was something I voluntarily agreed to try for the time being. So far I'm enjoying it very much and have no plans to do otherwise.
Yankee23Fan
Fair Tax!
Ok.
timschochet
Footballguy
10. Ne5
otello
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
11. h3
Reginald Cornsilks
Footballguy
This chess is killing this thread. Just awful. And I'm an avid chess player.
There's an app, that you both use...
There 2 posts with content out of the last 50, the rest are chess moves.
Brutal. Let's get back to good stuff.
There's an app, that you both use...
There 2 posts with content out of the last 50, the rest are chess moves.
Brutal. Let's get back to good stuff.
Ilov80s
Footballguy
Agreed. Someone finally found something more annoying than a poker bad beat story or what do you think of my fantasy football draft?Reginald Cornsilks said:This chess is killing this thread. Just awful. And I'm an avid chess player.
There's an app, that you both use...
There 2 posts with content out of the last 50, the rest are chess moves.
Brutal. Let's get back to good stuff.
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
I ...kind of agree guys. And he's kicking my ### anyway. Otello, let's stop. Feel free to challenge me on the app anytime.
Reginald Cornsilks
Footballguy
Didn't mean for that to come off offensive either.
But ya, that app is awesome.
I logged in 3 times today to your thread to see if anything interested me and passed out after all the chess. Lol.
My area of "expertise" is the Cold War. Any books you've read or questions on the subject Tim?
Have you read Witness by Whittaker Chambers. Would love to talk shop on Russia/The Cold War any time. Obviously, I've humble bragged about visiting there a few times already, but I'm pretty up on its history as well.
Reginald Cornsilks
Footballguy
Actually Tim...
Question for you.
Since, I've posted, I'm listening to the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, I'm still confused about the shenanigans with Papin (sp?) that brought Hitler in as chancellor.
Can you possibly break that down for me? Not the whole build up but the actual move that got Hitler elected chancellor. It's something, through 2 reads I don't really understand. The author is so loquacious but within 2000 words he goes from "Hitler is screwed" to "Hitler is Chancellor"
What was the actual mechanic for bringing him into power there? I think it was 1933
Question for you.
Since, I've posted, I'm listening to the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, I'm still confused about the shenanigans with Papin (sp?) that brought Hitler in as chancellor.
Can you possibly break that down for me? Not the whole build up but the actual move that got Hitler elected chancellor. It's something, through 2 reads I don't really understand. The author is so loquacious but within 2000 words he goes from "Hitler is screwed" to "Hitler is Chancellor"
What was the actual mechanic for bringing him into power there? I think it was 1933
Last edited by a moderator:
Good Posting Judge
Footballguy
Figures.timschochet said:
timschochet
Footballguy
Steelers just playing a miserable game.
krista4
Footballguy
Lots of yelling going on at my house.
krista4
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
Ravens have outplayed the Steelers all night long. They deserve the victory.
I hate this.
I hate this.
timschochet
Footballguy
Reginald, great question and I'll address both of your posts tomorrow. Tonight I must suffer.
Reginald Cornsilks
Footballguy
Ilov80s
Footballguy
Tim will provide more detail, but essentially Papen convinced Hibdenburg that if Hitler was named Chancellor and Papen made vice Chancellor, the NAZI party would be appeased and they could control Hitler's aggression. It's really similar to the way rest of Europe handled him. The idea that giving in would satisfy him. Prior to this, political violence was made illegal due to the SS and SA attacks on political enemies and Jews. However, it didn't stick. This led to the army being organized to confront the brown shirts. This was maybe the right tactic, but I don't believe people had the stomach for a civil war (particularly when that civil war seemed to be fought mainly over treatment of Jews).
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
timschochet said:
How did you guys become Stiller fans way out in Cali?timschochet said:
timschochet
Footballguy
It's interesting that you mention this subject because I just recently finished Ken Follett's trilogy on the 20th Century (Fall of Giants, Winter of the World, Edge of Eternity)- the 3rd novel takes place between 1960 and 1990 and concentrates on the Cold War. The whole thing is a great read, though not quite to the level of Follet's earlier epics (The Pillars of the Earth, World Without End.)
Didn't mean for that to come off offensive either.
But ya, that app is awesome.
I logged in 3 times today to your thread to see if anything interested me and passed out after all the chess. Lol.
My area of "expertise" is the Cold War. Any books you've read or questions on the subject Tim?
Have you read Witness by Whittaker Chambers. Would love to talk shop on Russia/The Cold War any time. Obviously, I've humble bragged about visiting there a few times already, but I'm pretty up on its history as well.
I have not read Witness other than excerpts, but I hold a rather dim view of Chambers, based on two other books I read about the era: The Glory and the Dream by William Manchester, and Nixon Vol. 1 by Stephen Ambrose. Hiss was certainly guilty of being a Communist spy, but Chambers comes off as a highly disreputable character.
The whole Hiss-Chambers incident was highly unfortunate for the United States. It led directly to what Manchester called the "Age of Suspicion" and the McCarthy era. Lots of innocent peoples' lives were ruined during that time.
timschochet
Footballguy
You shouldn't be ashamed of not being able to understand it. It's a highly complicated subject, and despite Shirer's terrific narrative skills I don't think he does a great job of explaining it. I'll try to cut it down to just the very basics, but this post is still going to be rather lengthy:
1. Germany cannot produce enough food to feed it's population. Therefore, to survive, it must manufacture and trade products. This is the absolute key to understanding it's entire modern history as a nation.
2. Germany did not recover from World War I and the debts it owed the Allies. At first Weimar attempted to pay the debts by simply producing more marks, which made the currency worthless and created a depression in the early 1920s. Germany came very close to becoming Communist or Fascist at that time but were saved by the United States. We started loaning the Germans money- enough to help them pay their debts, and to restart their manufacturing, which we traded for, and so saved the Weimar Republic for the remainder of the decade. However, the situation remained very tenuous.
3. After the Wall Street stock market crash of October 1929, American banks ceased loaning Germany money. At the same time, we passed the Smoot-Hawley Act, attempting to protect our own industries from world wide free trade competition These two events brought Germany to it's knees. Suddenly it had no money and no one buying it's products. The Germans faced starvation, an even worse situation than the 1920s. As bad as the Great Depression was in the United States and western Europe, it was far far worse in Germany.
4. As a result of this catastrophe, the 1930 Reichstag election vaulted the Nazi party, previously a fringe group, into the largest political party. Just as significant, the tiny Communist party which had been an offshoot of the Social Democrats suddenly became the 3rd largest party. It seemed to most Germans that given the threat of starvation and economic collapse, there were only two alternatives: the Nazis or the Communists. However, in the Reichstag, the Nazis and the Communists actually worked together to halt all governing. They would overthrow their benches, shout down parliamentary proceedings, start riots and fist fights, and vote against any and all proposals.
5. The leadership of the Social Democrats believed that by working with the Communists they could defeat the rising Nazis. But under orders from Moscow, the Communists refused. Josef Stalin believed firmly in the Marxist doctrine that fascism was the "last gasp" of capitalism, and that a fascist regime in Germany would usher in a Bolshevik regime. Therefore he welcomed the Nazis and ordered the German communists not to stand in their way.
6. The German elites and army detested the Weimar regime and believed it illegitimate. They yearned for a return to the monarchy, but they were also terrified by Communism. So they saw the Nazis as a possible answer- the Nazis could be used to destroy the Communists and the Social Democrats (the elites really didn't distinguish between the two,) and then the conservatives could take over and rule a strong prosperous Germany.
7. However, there were also those among the conservatives and army which feared the Nazis as well. They recognized that Hitler once in power might create a dictatorship. The acts of anti-Semitism were shocking and distasteful, as was Hitler himself- a corporal of no name and no standing. So they hesitated.
You have to understand all 7 of these points before your question is answered. Once you do, then what actually happened becomes a little easier to understand: between the years of 1930 and 1933, there was basically a struggle in Germany between the conservatives who wanted to use Hitler and the conservatives who were afraid of him. (Briefly: Bruening and Hindenberg were afraid of him, Schleicher wanted to use him, Von Papen was on the fence). Meanwhile, the country was starving and in chaos. So what we have during these years in Berlin are these guys all scheming against each other, with machinations and betrayals and complicated maneuvering going on on all sides. People switched sides. It's not that important to remember every detail except that through it all Hitler remained firm: he was offered again and again partial power if he just agreed to have his Nazis in the Reichstag allow government to continue- he refused every time, and insisted on sole power. Finally Von Papen proposed to Hindenburg that they agree to this, but that they would surround Hitler with conservatives in his cabinet, and so prevent a dictatorship. Shirer narrates what happens next: Hitler quickly manipulated his cabinet and created a dictatorship anyhow.
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
Correction from my previous post- I used the name Schussnigg- that's the chancellor of Austria who replaced Dolfuss in 1934. I meant Schleicher, the general who was close to Hindenburg.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
In short, Hindenburg.
Unfortunately Hindenburg was at the forefront of some of the most destructive decisions in 19th and 20th century European history.
timschochet
Footballguy
Excellent general. He might have won World War I if he was in charge at the end instead of Ludendorff. He was pretty senile when he agreed to appoint Hitler chancellor. His most fateful decision might have come even earlier when he refused to go along with Breuning's proposals to establish a new monarchy under the Kaiser's son. Hindenburg considered that disloyal to HIS monarch, Wilhelm, and refused. Breuning was forced to resign as chancellor, and Papen was appointed.
timschochet
Footballguy
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/04/opinion/sunday/playing-dumb-on-climate-change.html?ref=todayspaper&_r=0
SCIENTISTS have often been accused of exaggerating the threat of climate change, but it’s becoming increasingly clear that they ought to be more emphatic about the risk. The year just concluded is about to be declared the hottest one on record, and across the globe climate change is happening faster than scientists predicted.
Science is conservative, and new claims of knowledge are greeted with high degrees of skepticism. When Copernicus said the Earth orbited the sun, when Wegener said the continents drifted, and when Darwin said species evolved by natural selection, the burden of proof was on them to show that it was so. In the 18th and 19th centuries, this conservatism generally took the form of a demand for a large amount of evidence; in the 20th century, it took on the form of a demand for statistical significance.
We’ve all heard the slogan “correlation is not causation,” but that’s a misleading way to think about the issue. It would be better to say that correlation is not necessarily causation, because we need to rule out the possibility that we are just observing a coincidence. Typically, scientists apply a 95 percent confidence limit, meaning that they will accept a causal claim only if they can show that the odds of the relationship’s occurring by chance are no more than one in 20. But it also means that if there’s more than even a scant 5 percent possibility that an event occurred by chance, scientists will reject the causal claim. It’s like not gambling in Las Vegas even though you had a nearly 95 percent chance of winning.
Where does this severe standard come from? The 95 percent confidence level is generally credited to the British statistician R. A. Fisher, who was interested in the problem of how to be sure an observed effect of an experiment was not just the result of chance. While there have been enormous arguments among statisticians about what a 95 percent confidence level really means, working scientists routinely use it.
But the 95 percent level has no actual basis in nature. It is a convention, a value judgment. The value it reflects is one that says that the worst mistake a scientist can make is to think an effect is real when it is not. This is the familiar “Type 1 error.” You can think of it as being gullible, fooling yourself, or having undue faith in your own ideas. To avoid it, scientists place the burden of proof on the person making an affirmative claim. But this means that science is prone to “Type 2 errors”: being too conservative and missing causes and effects that are really there.
Is a Type 1 error worse than a Type 2? It depends on your point of view, and on the risks inherent in getting the answer wrong. The fear of the Type 1 error asks us to play dumb; in effect, to start from scratch and act as if we know nothing. That makes sense when we really don’t know what’s going on, as in the early stages of a scientific investigation. It also makes sense in a court of law, where we presume innocence to protect ourselves from government tyranny and overzealous prosecutors — but there are no doubt prosecutors who would argue for a lower standard to protect society from crime.
When applied to evaluating environmental hazards, the fear of gullibility can lead us to understate threats. It places the burden of proof on the victim rather than, for example, on the manufacturer of a harmful product. The consequence is that we may fail to protect people who are really getting hurt.
And what if we aren’t dumb? What if we have evidence to support a cause-and-effect relationship? Let’s say you know how a particular chemical is harmful; for example, that it has been shown to interfere with cell function in laboratory mice. Then it might be reasonable to accept a lower statistical threshold when examining effects in people, because you already have reason to believe that the observed effect is not just chance.
This is what the United States government argued in the case of secondhand smoke. Since bystanders inhaled the same chemicals as smokers, and those chemicals were known to be carcinogenic, it stood to reason that secondhand smoke would be carcinogenic, too. That is why the Environmental Protection Agency accepted a (slightly) lower burden of proof: 90 percent instead of 95 percent.
In the case of climate change, we are not dumb at all. We know that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, we know that its concentration in the atmosphere has increased by about 40 percent since the industrial revolution, and we know the mechanism by which it warms the planet.
WHY don’t scientists pick the standard that is appropriate to the case at hand, instead of adhering to an absolutist one? The answer can be found in a surprising place: the history of science in relation to religion. The 95 percent confidence limit reflects a long tradition in the history of science that valorizes skepticism as an antidote to religious faith.
Even as scientists consciously rejected religion as a basis of natural knowledge, they held on to certain cultural presumptions about what kind of person had access to reliable knowledge. One of these presumptions involved the value of ascetic practices. Nowadays scientists do not live monastic lives, but they do practice a form of self-denial, denying themselves the right to believe anything that has not passed very high intellectual hurdles.
Moreover, while vigorously denying its relation to religion, modern science retains symbolic vestiges of prophetic tradition, so many scientists bend over backward to avoid these associations. A vast majority of scientists do not speak in public at all, and those who do typically speak in highly guarded, qualified terms. They often refuse to use the language of danger even when danger is precisely what they are talking about.
Years ago, climate scientists offered an increase of 2 degrees Celsius (or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) as the “safe” limit or ceiling for the long-term warming of the planet. We are now seeing dangerous effects worldwide, even as we approach a rise of only 1 degree Celsius. The evidence is mounting that scientists have underpredicted the threat. Perhaps this is another reason — along with our polarized politics and the effect of fossil-fuel lobbying — we have underreacted to the reality, now unfolding before our eyes, of dangerous climate change.
SCIENTISTS have often been accused of exaggerating the threat of climate change, but it’s becoming increasingly clear that they ought to be more emphatic about the risk. The year just concluded is about to be declared the hottest one on record, and across the globe climate change is happening faster than scientists predicted.
Science is conservative, and new claims of knowledge are greeted with high degrees of skepticism. When Copernicus said the Earth orbited the sun, when Wegener said the continents drifted, and when Darwin said species evolved by natural selection, the burden of proof was on them to show that it was so. In the 18th and 19th centuries, this conservatism generally took the form of a demand for a large amount of evidence; in the 20th century, it took on the form of a demand for statistical significance.
We’ve all heard the slogan “correlation is not causation,” but that’s a misleading way to think about the issue. It would be better to say that correlation is not necessarily causation, because we need to rule out the possibility that we are just observing a coincidence. Typically, scientists apply a 95 percent confidence limit, meaning that they will accept a causal claim only if they can show that the odds of the relationship’s occurring by chance are no more than one in 20. But it also means that if there’s more than even a scant 5 percent possibility that an event occurred by chance, scientists will reject the causal claim. It’s like not gambling in Las Vegas even though you had a nearly 95 percent chance of winning.
Where does this severe standard come from? The 95 percent confidence level is generally credited to the British statistician R. A. Fisher, who was interested in the problem of how to be sure an observed effect of an experiment was not just the result of chance. While there have been enormous arguments among statisticians about what a 95 percent confidence level really means, working scientists routinely use it.
But the 95 percent level has no actual basis in nature. It is a convention, a value judgment. The value it reflects is one that says that the worst mistake a scientist can make is to think an effect is real when it is not. This is the familiar “Type 1 error.” You can think of it as being gullible, fooling yourself, or having undue faith in your own ideas. To avoid it, scientists place the burden of proof on the person making an affirmative claim. But this means that science is prone to “Type 2 errors”: being too conservative and missing causes and effects that are really there.
Is a Type 1 error worse than a Type 2? It depends on your point of view, and on the risks inherent in getting the answer wrong. The fear of the Type 1 error asks us to play dumb; in effect, to start from scratch and act as if we know nothing. That makes sense when we really don’t know what’s going on, as in the early stages of a scientific investigation. It also makes sense in a court of law, where we presume innocence to protect ourselves from government tyranny and overzealous prosecutors — but there are no doubt prosecutors who would argue for a lower standard to protect society from crime.
When applied to evaluating environmental hazards, the fear of gullibility can lead us to understate threats. It places the burden of proof on the victim rather than, for example, on the manufacturer of a harmful product. The consequence is that we may fail to protect people who are really getting hurt.
And what if we aren’t dumb? What if we have evidence to support a cause-and-effect relationship? Let’s say you know how a particular chemical is harmful; for example, that it has been shown to interfere with cell function in laboratory mice. Then it might be reasonable to accept a lower statistical threshold when examining effects in people, because you already have reason to believe that the observed effect is not just chance.
This is what the United States government argued in the case of secondhand smoke. Since bystanders inhaled the same chemicals as smokers, and those chemicals were known to be carcinogenic, it stood to reason that secondhand smoke would be carcinogenic, too. That is why the Environmental Protection Agency accepted a (slightly) lower burden of proof: 90 percent instead of 95 percent.
In the case of climate change, we are not dumb at all. We know that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, we know that its concentration in the atmosphere has increased by about 40 percent since the industrial revolution, and we know the mechanism by which it warms the planet.
WHY don’t scientists pick the standard that is appropriate to the case at hand, instead of adhering to an absolutist one? The answer can be found in a surprising place: the history of science in relation to religion. The 95 percent confidence limit reflects a long tradition in the history of science that valorizes skepticism as an antidote to religious faith.
Even as scientists consciously rejected religion as a basis of natural knowledge, they held on to certain cultural presumptions about what kind of person had access to reliable knowledge. One of these presumptions involved the value of ascetic practices. Nowadays scientists do not live monastic lives, but they do practice a form of self-denial, denying themselves the right to believe anything that has not passed very high intellectual hurdles.
Moreover, while vigorously denying its relation to religion, modern science retains symbolic vestiges of prophetic tradition, so many scientists bend over backward to avoid these associations. A vast majority of scientists do not speak in public at all, and those who do typically speak in highly guarded, qualified terms. They often refuse to use the language of danger even when danger is precisely what they are talking about.
Years ago, climate scientists offered an increase of 2 degrees Celsius (or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) as the “safe” limit or ceiling for the long-term warming of the planet. We are now seeing dangerous effects worldwide, even as we approach a rise of only 1 degree Celsius. The evidence is mounting that scientists have underpredicted the threat. Perhaps this is another reason — along with our polarized politics and the effect of fossil-fuel lobbying — we have underreacted to the reality, now unfolding before our eyes, of dangerous climate change.
timschochet
Footballguy
Tea Party wacko Louie Gohmert is going to challenge John Boehner for Speaker. 
timschochet
Footballguy
Good morning. BobbyLayne showing tons of class and good sense in the thread about whether or not the refs deliberately screwed the Lions. Others not so much.
The psychology of sports conspiracies is fascinating, sometimes even more interesting than political conspiracies. The implication always seems to be that when a league desires a certain outcome they order the referees to bring it about. The refs then wait patiently for a couple plays during the game and decide those for the team the league wants to win. This idea is obviously absurd on its face but that never seems to bother most people.
The psychology of sports conspiracies is fascinating, sometimes even more interesting than political conspiracies. The implication always seems to be that when a league desires a certain outcome they order the referees to bring it about. The refs then wait patiently for a couple plays during the game and decide those for the team the league wants to win. This idea is obviously absurd on its face but that never seems to bother most people.
Reginald Cornsilks
Footballguy
The lack
Ken Follett's works are non-fiction? You call them novels which is confusing.It's interesting that you mention this subject because I just recently finished Ken Follett's trilogy on the 20th Century (Fall of Giants, Winter of the World, Edge of Eternity)- the 3rd novel takes place between 1960 and 1990 and concentrates on the Cold War. The whole thing is a great read, though not quite to the level of Follet's earlier epics (The Pillars of the Earth, World Without End.)
Didn't mean for that to come off offensive either.
But ya, that app is awesome.
I logged in 3 times today to your thread to see if anything interested me and passed out after all the chess. Lol.
My area of "expertise" is the Cold War. Any books you've read or questions on the subject Tim?
Have you read Witness by Whittaker Chambers. Would love to talk shop on Russia/The Cold War any time. Obviously, I've humble bragged about visiting there a few times already, but I'm pretty up on its history as well.
I have not read Witness other than excerpts, but I hold a rather dim view of Chambers, based on two other books I read about the era: The Glory and the Dream by William Manchester, and Nixon Vol. 1 by Stephen Ambrose. Hiss was certainly guilty of being a Communist spy, but Chambers comes off as a highly disreputable character.
The whole Hiss-Chambers incident was highly unfortunate for the United States. It led directly to what Manchester called the "Age of Suspicion" and the McCarthy era. Lots of innocent peoples' lives were ruined during that time.
I'm due for a new book on audible after Third Reich, which one of his would you recommend first?
timschochet
Footballguy
They're novels. Try Pillars of the Earth.
timschochet
Footballguy
The little girl survives the plane crash thread is hard to read. As an atheist I obviously don't agree with religious people who thank God whenever good things happen and ignore God's responsibility for bad stuff. Of course it's an illogical and inconsistent attitude. It's also a positive mental attitude to have, an optimistic attitude, and it doesn't annoy me to hear it.
What does annoy me are my fellow atheists who take every opportunity to insult religious people as often as they can. There is no attempt at argument or reasonable discussion, only a series of insults and putdowns. The two guiltiest people in this forum are Matuski and Cliff Clavin.
What does annoy me are my fellow atheists who take every opportunity to insult religious people as often as they can. There is no attempt at argument or reasonable discussion, only a series of insults and putdowns. The two guiltiest people in this forum are Matuski and Cliff Clavin.
timschochet
Footballguy
Moving forward with the Constitution, still on Article 1:
Section. 5.
Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.
Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.
Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal.
Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.
Section. 6.
The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.
Section. 7.
All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.
Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.
Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.
Section. 5.
Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.
Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.
Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal.
Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.
Section. 6.
The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.
Section. 7.
All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.
Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.
Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.
Yankee23Fan
Fair Tax!
All technical stuff really not worthy of a grand debate. What's your question(s)?
timschochet
Footballguy
I combined Sections 5, 6, and 7 together because they don't much interest me. IMO, there are far more intriguing stuff coming up. However, if anyone has a comment or question regarding these sections please be my guest.
Similar threads
