Cruz Intros 9 word amendment

cycleguy2300

Active Member
Mar 19, 2010
806
93
Austin, Texas
Duh. Tell us something we don't know.

Nowhere were sets referred to at all. Rather the exact number of nine.

Might as well talk about the second law of thermodynamics. Would be just as pertinent as what you posted.
I apologize, I had believed we were discussing the set of nine justices on SCOTUS. I forgot maths don't have real world applications...

Sent from your mom's house using Tapatalk
 

etmo

Active Member
Jan 25, 2020
658
93
Cedar Creek, Tx
I apologize, I had believed we were discussing the set of nine justices on SCOTUS.
It's OK, many people make the same mistake. Legal language is often hard. The proposed amendment does not address the set of Justices, it discusses the number of Justices in the set, which, according to the proposed amendment, shall be 9.

Math is much easier for some reason. It is a mathematical tautology that the number of elements in set A, if different that the number of elements in set B, cannot be the same as the number of elements in set B.
 

cycleguy2300

Active Member
Mar 19, 2010
806
93
Austin, Texas
It's OK, many people make the same mistake. Legal language is often hard. The proposed amendment does not address the set of Justices, it discusses the number of Justices in the set, which, according to the proposed amendment, shall be 9.

Math is much easier for some reason. It is a mathematical tautology that the number of elements in set A, if different that the number of elements in set B, cannot be the same as the number of elements in set B.
I assert the language is ambiguous. The bill should explicitly state no more than nine justices.

Sent from your mom's house using Tapatalk
 

MikeyJ

Active Member
Feb 2, 2016
224
63
Tomball
For context, 28 USC sec. 1 states:
The Supreme Court of the United States shall consist of a Chief Justice of the United States and eight associate justices, any six of whom shall constitute a quorum.
Webster defines "consist" as:
to be composed or made up
So Cruz's use of "composed" in his proposed amendment is consistent with the current statutory language. If the proposed amendment is ambiguous, the current statute is ambiguous as well.
 

cycleguy2300

Active Member
Mar 19, 2010
806
93
Austin, Texas
For context, 28 USC sec. 1 states:

Webster defines "consist" as:

So Cruz's use of "composed" in his proposed amendment is consistent with the current statutory language. If the proposed amendment is ambiguous, the current statute is ambiguous as well.
Again, the court composed or consisting "of 9" is not made false by having a greater number number of justices.

Concrete is composed of sand, no mater how much gravel I add, it is still true there is a sand component.

Sent from your mom's house using Tapatalk
 

oldag

TGT Addict
Feb 19, 2015
10,175
113
Again, the court composed or consisting "of 9" is not made false by having a greater number number of justices.

Concrete is composed of sand, no mater how much gravel I add, it is still true there is a sand component.

Sent from your mom's house using Tapatalk
Give up and stop digging the hole deeper.
 

etmo

Active Member
Jan 25, 2020
658
93
Cedar Creek, Tx
Again, the court composed or consisting "of 9" is not made false by having a greater number number of justices.
Yes, in fact it is demonstrably false. A Court of 10 Justices violates the language in Cruz' proposed amendment.

Not sure, but I think what you're missing is that legal definitions do not have to conform to common use definitions, and legal definitions take precedence over common use definitions.
 

cycleguy2300

Active Member
Mar 19, 2010
806
93
Austin, Texas
Yes, in fact it is demonstrably false. A Court of 10 Justices violates the language in Cruz' proposed amendment.

Not sure, but I think what you're missing is that legal definitions do not have to conform to common use definitions, and legal definitions take precedence over common use definitions.
If you think that is the case, explain the trouble some law makers and courts have with "shall not be infringed". Banning/taxing bump stocks, suppressors, machine guns, +.50cal, grenades, armor piercing pistol ammo, short barreled rifles &c isn't infringement?

As presented, the left would still argue the amendment did not exclude a number greater than nine as it is not explicitly LIMITED to nine, only that the court must be composed of nine, not of only nine.

Look at the difference in these two statements:
1) composed of nine
2) composed of only nine.

#1 can be satisfied by 9 or any number greater than 9.

#2 can is satisfied only by nine and no other number.

Sent from your mom's house using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:

Sponsors

Greeneye Tactical
Texas Gun Forum Ad
silencers
third coast
Ranier
Tyrant Designs
DK Firearms

Forum statistics

Threads
95,448
Messages
2,120,361
Members
30,398
Latest member
mbeard
Top Bottom