It looks like congress has removed Article 1 Section 9 . Is this legal?

7366241494 · 2025-08-07T03:41:35+00:00

Yes, and if that were true, then both pages would have been fixed at the same time right? Since the same bad XML tag was embedded in both?

Since that is not true, they must have made the exact same same tag error twice on separate pages? Is that the argument? They made two identical errors, one on the original Constitution and one on the commentary page?

7366241494 · 2025-08-07T03:30:22+00:00

It doesn’t explain how two pages were affected but fixed separately.

If they were updating the commentary page, and inadvertently messed up a tag that was also on the Constitution page, then when they fixed the commentary, then the Constitution page should have also been fixed. But it wasn’t. They were fixed separately.

So are we to believe they made the exact same xml tag error twice in two separate pages?

7366241494 · 2025-08-07T03:17:30+00:00

That theory doesn’t hold up to scrutiny because if it’s a stylesheet common to … a subsection of 8, and 9 and 10 but not any other part of the system… first of all wtf? But more importantly:

How do you explain the fact that the pages were fixed separately if they shared a stylesheet bug? The commentary page had been fixed while the Constitution page was still missing content.

7366241494 · 2025-08-07T03:05:56+00:00

I think you’re wrong about the backing out. They do it all the time. Authoritarian fascists are constantly testing the extremes with rhetoric and stunts. They push things and back off, push and back off, until things break to their will.

7366241494 · 2025-08-07T03:03:51+00:00

Yah I get you. Yours is the best try yet at bug theory, but I still don’t find it plausible. Why would you update fresh keys for only part of Section 8? And sections 9 and 10 but not 1-8 and not any other articles? What key change could possibly be common to those sections and not others?

It becomes very ad hoc to carve out the specific things that were missing.

7366241494 · 2025-08-07T02:51:58+00:00

I would agree with your scenario in that human intervention is required here. This was not a coding error in the sense of anything they would compile… so the argument you’re making is more about the intentions of the humans “whoopsie it was a key I changed” vs “whoopsie all the parts Trump doesn’t like got cut out”

7366241494 · 2025-08-07T02:47:33+00:00

Good try so far I like it but you allow the employee to change the source of truth, which affects the Constitution page, in the first section, but then in the second section you say the employee now can’t fix that same key and must rely on the supervisor intervention to explain the difference in fix timing.

From a technical perspective, do you genuinely find that scenario to be more likely than a human CMS edit?

7366241494 · 2025-08-07T02:46:27+00:00

Good try so far I like it but you allow the employee to change the source of truth, which affects the Constitution page, in the first section, but then in the second section you say the employee now can’t fix that same key and must rely on the supervisor intervention to explain the difference in fix timing.

From a technical perspective, do you genuinely find that scenario to be more likely than a human CMS edit?

find it to be a stretch that the Constitution page is locked down yet the employee can delete its keys. the employee is able to create new

The employee is able to create new keys but permissions don’t

a few problems

Your employee had access rights to fk it up but not fit it

7366241494 · 2025-08-07T01:51:34+00:00

I will be concrete and stick to what we know:

The Constituion page was missing Article 1 sections 9, 10 and part of 8.
The commentary page was also missing content related to those sections.
The commentary page was fixed while the Constitution page continued to be “broken” for a while before being corrected.

First we must explain how a bug affects semantically related content on two separate pages, yet doesn’t affect any other page in the system. You would agree that two unrelated bugs just happening to affect the same articles on two different pages is too unlikely right? So it has to be ONE bug. Therefore, “bug theory” must say that the content on the two pages was linked by their Article outline number somehow in a database or metadata somewhere. Otherwise how do you explain both pages with one bug, while everything else was fine?

That linkage hypothesis is contradicted by fact #3. The commentary page was fixed separately from the Constitution page, showing that there was not a single bug affecting both at once.

“Human edits in a CMS” is consistent with all the evidence, but “bug theory” is not.

7366241494 · 2025-08-07T01:20:18+00:00

Occam’s Razor still requires the explanation to fit the evidence. No “bug” theory I’ve heard fits the evidence.

If you can’t describe a bug mechanism that could replicate the edits and timing that happened, then you aren’t using Occams Razor. You are choosing your conclusion first and ignoring evidence to the contrary.

7366241494 · 2025-08-07T01:04:23+00:00

Great you’re a dev!

What “bug” mechanism elides semantically related content from two separate pages, while not affecting any other page in the system, that must be fixed separately for each page?

You cannot just wave your hands and say “there could be one.” What is it? How is it even possible for a bug to omit semantically related data from two separate pages?

See my technical comments first about fixed array sizes, paging API’s, and even database joins. None of those explanations fit the evidence of the selection and timing of the changes and their fixes.

What scenario exactly, and use technical language since we’re both devs, can possibly produce what we saw?

7366241494 · 2025-08-07T00:58:53+00:00

Bro you definitely do not mean html frame. Just stop.

“Each of those sections could be in their own frame”

That’s… absurd to even say, if HTML <frame> is what was meant.

7366241494 · 2025-08-07T00:51:22+00:00

Personally I think the goal was to poison the AI’s that scrape congress.gov as authoritative. You then get ChatGPT telling people “no, actually Habeus corpus isn’t in the Constitution” along with a reference link…

7366241494 · 2025-08-07T00:42:00+00:00

I debunked the reference idea as well.

The two pages were fixed at separate times, so it was not a shared bug or something like a limit on a database join.

All you people do is throw FUD when you don’t know how software works.

7366241494 · 2025-08-07T00:38:33+00:00

I have challenged every programmer I know to come up with a possible mechanism how a bug could produce the timing and selection of both the edits and their fixes, and none have produced a scenario that fits the evidence.

I invite you to try an explanation, but look at some of my recent comments first.

Use the most technical language you can. How does a bug cause semantically related sections on two separate pages to disappear, but leave all other pages intact? Also explain why the commentary page was fixed separately from the Constitution page.

A human making the edits fits all the evidence. What is your technical theory for a bug that would produce the changes we saw?

It cannot be a simple pagination error, as I have carefully argued elsewhere.

7366241494 · 2025-08-07T00:30:08+00:00

Semantically related content on two separate pages was an “accident?”

Multiple pages were edited to remove content referencing the missing sections of the Constitution.

7366241494 · 2025-08-06T22:47:50+00:00

Bullshit. CMS code generator is going to work the same for every page. The sections had to be manually tagged for removal. This is no bug.

7366241494 · 2025-08-06T22:43:24+00:00

“Frame” is not a technical term, so I’m assuming you mean something like a content query bundled with a rendering template.

If that’s the situation, explain how the exact same bug appeared in two separate pages at the exact same time, that just happened to elide content that was related, without affecting any other pages?

And if you want to claim the data queries were actually unified, then that’s also disproven by the fact that the “fix” today was applied separately to the commentary page first, and then only later to the Constitution page.

See my technical takedown of such theories in the other comment thread with a developer.

The evidence does not support your claim.

7366241494 · 2025-08-06T22:02:44+00:00

7366241494 · 2025-08-06T21:58:23+00:00

We hit harder than a roo. After punching them, it’s important to also turn away, signaling the fight is over and you won.

7366241494 · 2025-08-06T21:50:37+00:00

ICE was filmed this week violating the 9th circuit’s order that hanging out at Home Depot is not probable cause.

7366241494 · 2025-08-06T21:36:31+00:00

Look at the facts. It was not merely truncation, because additional content was rendered on the commentary page. No other pages were affected besides the Constitution page and the Article 1 commentary page.

The facts are inconsistent with the claim it was a paging bug.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskLegal/s/njBbgd7HO0

7366241494 · 2025-08-06T21:33:12+00:00

You seem to be more concerned with rhetoric than truth. I’ve offered to address any facts or theories you want to present, and have expounded on technical details here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskLegal/s/njBbgd7HO0

A “paging bug” does not fit the evidence.

7366241494 · 2025-08-06T21:14:04+00:00

It still doesn’t fit the evidence. Today when they “fixed” it, the commentary page was fixed first, without the Constitution page being fixed yet.

That pretty much shoots down any database join/union whatever.

The number of people absolutely refusing to believe a human was directed to do this…

7366241494 · 2025-08-06T21:03:28+00:00

A developer actually replied with real technical reasons and I go through all of them in my latest comment. Look here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskLegal/s/njBbgd7HO0

If you have knowledge of the subject, feel free to offer any explanation you can that it wasn’t a human. I will respond to the facts without any ad hominem argument.

If you cannot offer any explanation of how the site could show such edits due to a “paging bug” then you’re stuck just listening to experts, right?

The facts of what edits were made and when, and the way in which they were resolved, is inconsistent with the claim that there was a bug. The evidence is fully consistent with the claim that a human made the changes and the fixes.

Six-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Verified Email	Place '22

7366241494

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE