1166: Overriding the judicial Power

                                                       (Added September 6-13, 2025)

This needs more thinking and I could be wrong below. 

The word "below" above refers to the "First Posting", and after further thinking, I say, first of all, the title should have targeted the supreme court not the judicial power. And because of the prohibition on making ex post facto laws, Congress cannot directly with its legislative power do work involving ruling on past events, which courts can do with its judicial power. But how much need there could be for that when there is something as sufficient as the good Behaviour requirement? For congress also has the power to establish tribunals, and when the supreme court is not satisfying the good Behaviour requirement such court would supersede it. Also, as discussed in the singleness chapter of my book, targeting Congress does not imply targeting congress, and therefore despite the restriction above congress can establish itself as the tribunal (Although I myself usually refer loosely in that regard).

      

                                                                 (First Posting)

 I cannot see it in any way probable that the distinction between legislative and judicial would have been left this loose had it been not intended for congress to have the power to rule overriding the supreme court even at the level of individual cases. Moreover, there is also the support of what the  exclusion for bill of attainder suggests in that regard. But I think that there could be hesitation on this because of unjustifiable fixation on that establishing the judicial power in the writ was to counter congress and not as guidance and/or because of a concern that it may not get involved enough.

1165: The good Behaviour requirement-6: Corrections

                       (Added September 3-?, 2025)

 I revise my argument below to again depend on that entity references target only thought existence and therefore they need a finite verb to extend that target to beyond that. So in the sentence She got this idea watching Tv the only way to have beyond mere thought existence for "watching Tv" is to consider that part as connected to the extended verb ("got this idea") at object role. So this is what all the below follow from, and I no longer stand on that object pronoun cannot serve as subject. For example, because we have additional original verb ("play") in the sentence I watched them play soccer, it, unlike I watched them playing soccer, does convey that the watched was playing soccer.

 

                    (Added August 27-September 2, 2025)

 With regard to "during" being a present participle I want here to answer the objection of the common grammar that this would make sentences in the writ grammatically incorrect for that word being misplaced as a modifier. While I answered the dangling modifier issue in my book depending on structuring the sentence from existence at the mere thought level, this one does not even need any of that. The common grammar takes a sentence like for example She got this idea watching Tv as grammatically incorrect thinking that it technically implies that the idea was watching Tv. That is incorrect, and what is being missed here is to take the verb and object together as constructing another verb. So, here, "got" is a verb and "this idea" is its object and "got this idea" is another verb for which "She" is also the subject. That is good enough to answer the misplaced modifier objection. But I also want to support the notion of liking two actions directly and therefore continue this with the new verb again constructing another verb with "watching Tv" and for this "She" again is the subject. Like I pointed out in my book, while they may get categorized differently for more details, every thing on the object side is an object. 

Also, ever wondered how could it be allowed for an object pronoun to serve as subject? Well, with this way, beside being the more logical, there is no such thing. However, this comes at the cost of having many common sentences being grammatically incorrect for the intended meaning. For example, I watched him playing soccer implies the watcher not the watched was playing soccer (Although if it were "her" it would have, if taken as possessive, referred to the playing of the watched), and I did the repair with him watching implies I not him was watching, and I want them to call implies that I want them so that I call them rather than so that they call me. On the other hand, It is me is the correct one grammatically not It is I/i. 

After writing the above I noticed how taking the sentence through gradually extending the original verb as done above makes it appear as one coherent whole with no loose components. Look at this benefit in for example the sentence I am going to buy the thing in that store. By extending the verb we can be sure that it means I am going to buy the thing [in that store] rather than I am going to buy [the thing in that store]. And with this same technique being applicable to participles I finally found the technical answer to why in "A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who.." Treason, Felony, or other Crime are not descriptions of the State.

                                 (Added August 25-27, 2025)

The discussion below being about removing judges from office should not distract from the other issue which is about  whether a judge gets removed from office or not what is  done through no good Behaviour would not count as valid under the constitution. With regard to the question I brought about having good and no good Behaviour at same time it sounded  big at the time because I mistakenly took the continuity of the effect of a behaviour as equivalent to that of the latter itself, and did not take sufficiently into account how time can continue to be divided cancelling the simultaniuty that appears at the bigger scale. However, it seems that taking "during" as present participle does provide the solution I was seeking for such a probably non existent problem. My mistake earlier was that I tried to do that by arguing for separate time for the participle while what I should have done was to skip time as connection and instead link, as I did in the posting below, one action directly to the other.

I also did not need to seek support from the writ allowing the use of a lower official-office connection than holding office.  

                                  (Added August 21-25, 2025)

Seems like in explaining why below I have gone back again to depending on "during" being a present participle. As present participle, it is only about interacting, actively or passively, with the target, not the time involved in doing that. This was again brought to my attention through something I read today in the writ. In the paragraph above the first target below (writ coincidence?) we read it saying that Senators and Representatives are privileged from being arrested "during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses" rather than just for example during the Session of.. and this supports the position here in that arresting is not part of congress Session. But then we see it continue to also say using "in" rather than "during" that they are privileged from arrest "in going to and returning" from their sessions. The additional benefit provided by "in" here is that it makes the protection applicable while the going and returning actions get paused or briefly interrupted.

In order to focus better on "during" as present participle, I keep coming back to imagining "doing" in its place in the good behaviour clause. And if one cannot with the help of the common grammar decide if doing good behaviour should continue in holding the office or that holding the office should continue in doing good behaviour, then taking things as discussed in my book clearly decides this issue for the former since the verb is what extends entity references in a sentence to targeting beyond mere thought existence.

Just found that while Samuel Johnson DEFINES "during" as preposition but also writes "This word is rather a participle", Noah Webster of 1828 HERE does not categorize it but as present participle. 

                             (Added August 19-20, 2025)

This clause does not require keeping a judge in office as long as that judge is on good Behaviuor. The time of good behaviour belongs to just good behaviour. The word "Term" is itself about time. Still, they did not use it in A1S6P2 for "during the Time for which he was elected" to make it during his Term or at least during the Time of his Term even though they were targeting "Senator or Representative" not person/Person. On the other hand, holding office, a thing that is one of those a Term of an executive official is about, was used in "He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years". Therefore, just like had, for example, "nicely" been used instead of "during good Behaviour", holding office relates to judges only while they are allowed to be in office.

Actually, one could say that the second quoted part above by using "the Term" rather a Term draws attention on its own to this logical restriction. 

I needed this in order to answer the technical issue to which I referred at the beginning of the first posting below. The issue was that under the other understanding a judge can always return to being protected from removal.

The protection against abusing removal of judges does not follow directly from their continuity in doing good but from that such removal would, like any other change to the judiciary, not be valid if it is not good Behaviour from congress which itself when managing the judiciary is required to satisfy the good Behaviour requirement as directly as judges are required to do that in everything they do.

                                                                  

                                                  (First Posting)

 I still need to think more about how things work if the judge's behaviour as whole was determined as not satisfying this requirement, but with regard to the issue of having good and no-good  Behaviours occurring and count separately at the same time where the measure is being good or no-good (which I couldn't solve) there is no such possibility to begin with. That is because such tasks are the negative of each other and therefore unless the choice for one was considered as already taken into account before doing the other, and therefore they would account sequentially, that choice would be cancelling to either of them.

1164: He seems to have done it again

                                               (Added August 22-?, 2025)

How could it be that even after this the situation with this guy continues and has not already ended according to that best potential for me? Actually, one would have wondered this for just one occurring of such clear criminal line- crossing, let alone a series of it like this.

When it happened the first time I posted about it then  deleted the post thinking that should be good enough as a warning. But here are the records I have kept along the events: #1151 and #1151-2 with its multiple entries. So even if one wants to argue not paying attention to the consequences of such a clearly criminal act, does any one need to see him warned more about what this could lead to here while the crimes get repeated and he acts with disregard and  intentionally show challenging those warnings? And now we have the new thing involving the probability that he had made the earlier repair guy set things for the most recent malfunctioning. And with regard to the latter, it would have had occurred earlier had I not put the effort to avoid detecting when I would turn the machine on.          

                             (Added August 20, 2025)

The "I have been living here" in the first posting was a reference to just this house. With regard to this country in general, I have been living here since summer of 92 at the age of 21. 

                                                   (Added August 18, 2025)

The repair guy, a new one who is also from a different company, came and made it work again but told me that aunts are the reason which this corruption guy would be making a big joke of himself on this (even more than what he has already heavily accumulated of that on other issues) if he thinks that the situation makes that in anyway believable.                                     

                                             (First Posting)

.. and made one of those on the sides of my house (in collaboration with others) prevent the airconditioner fan from starting and/or had already made the repair guy who came, whom his connection to this guy was apparent, install an about to fail contactor. I had the temperature set at 75 when I turned on the cooling but it moved from 79 to 80 so I went out to check on the fan and indeed it was not running. 

This time from the start we reached the final stage of the earlier situation: The off-on did not work and I can't hear any sound from the machine when I am near it. 

And by the way, even after that repair the fan did not seem to work as good as it was before this practice of preventing it from spinning had started. 

I have been living here since summer of 2011 and had never experienced this issue from my airconditioner before and in general the only other repair done for it was replacing the capacitor.  

1163:The good Behaviour requirement-5

                                 (Added August 13, 2025)

Seems like all the other days posting below is not needed and at least some of it is wrong. Instead all what I needed to do for what I was arguing for is just to bring the attention to that in "shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour" "good Behaviour" directly applies to "their Offices" not "hold". In other words, one needs to focus on "their Offices during good Behaviour" as one thing. So even had "on" been used instead of "during" and we have at same time good and no good Behaviours this would lead to holding [their Offices on good Behaviour] and at the same time not holding [their Offices on no good Behaviour] which shows no conflict. The same can be said about replacing "during" with a participle, like for example: "doing". Even if we were having "Positions" instead of "Offices" that would still be valid just like how we recognize elsewhere things as subjects even though they just transfer the action.

Therefore whether what follow from a Behaviour would be supported or not supported by the judicial power of the United States would apply the same way regardless of what other Behaviours occur at same time with that Behaviour.

One may look at article 3 and wonder: What is this? Congress is only required to provide a supreme Court? And even this one can be of only one judge? Do or don't they want Congress to  establish a judiciary system? I think that the answer to all that is also in the good Behaviour requirement. In other words, this requirement applies to the judiciary starting from the outside level that is the responsibility of the Congress and that is at least one of the reasons why the clause was worded in the plural form, referring to "Offices", and with "during" rather than, for example, "on" or  anything involving referring to the judges. On the other hand "during" in the following line of the same paragraph has "their" following it in "during their Continuance in Office" even though within that context there seems to be less reason to take continuance in office as related to others than there is such reason for "good Behaviour" above. And while I just said above that all what I have written earlier is not needed, here we can see how taking the clause as order telling the how for the deed rather than being inclusive for the other way around completes this view by making the clause imply obligation rather than choice for Congress to do what good Behaviour require it to do for taking care of the judiciary. Although, as mentioned in my book, while a prepositional phrase starting the sentence is conditional (externally), a prepositional phrase existing at any point in or after the subject would be just like every thing there in the sentence in having the verb establishes beyond mere thought existence for it. Therefore seeing "during good Behaviour" as telling what should occur rather than what may occur is the only way to take it even if we consider "during" as just a preposition.   

   

                                  (Added August 11, 2025)

 It is better to start with saying that rather than thinking of "during good Behaviour" as directly telling the when, one should think of it as telling the how. The when follows depending on complying or not complying with the order or directive. Of course it would have been easier had the present participle been one not that much used for just its prepositional function. Because the prepositional functionality of "during" is secondary to its verbal role, this understanding is the only valid one. In other words, with regard to just the when issue the "doing" equivalent of "during good Behaviour" would be "doing good Behaviour" not " while/when doing good Behaviour"(This should not suggest that I take "...during good Behaviour" as if it were "...during their good Behaviour" ). So,  because "during" is a present participle the good Behaviour would have separate time accountability and therefore whether what follow from a Behaviour would be supported or not supported by the judicial power of the United States would apply the same way regardless of what other Behaviours occur at same time with that Behaviour.

                                  (Added August 9, 2025) 

Rather than the way the middle paragraph below went on, it probably would have been better to just explain the difference by saying that a present participle, an incapsulated verb, occurs in its own time dimension. So had it been for example "..hold their offices on good Behaviour" then  because "on" is just a preposition, we would have not been allowed/required to also take the good and the not good separately as described in the third paragraph below.    

                                        (First Posting)

 Although "during" may elsewhere be used just for conveying what "while" could have conveyed, here one should not miss how it can make holding the office relative to the task. Because a judge, like everybody else in everyday life, could be on good Behaviour with regard to something and not on good Behaviour with regard to something else at the same time.

The word "during", being a participle not a preposition in the first place, does not make direct association with time. So when it connects the doing of two things it associates doing one thing within the time brought to existence because of doing another thing, rather than having time being the original container as it is the case with "while". So unless the association is made directly with time (as done elsewhere in the writ bringing attention this issue), multiple contrary occurring of the former can happen at the same time if multiple occurring of the latter also happen during that time.

So, what follow from good Behaviour would be supported by the judicial Power of the United States and  what follow from not good Behaviour would be not supported by the judicial Power of the United States even if the two kind occur at same time or within a period of time to which one or the other gets attributed as when evaluating the whole performance of a judge with regard to satisfying this requirement.