Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 747 posts

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#381

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

627467 wrote: post #236
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's a statement about each party's (dis)satisfaction with the current success of their party. This requires clarification. If our government was elected based on a "one person one vote" principle, Republicans would be nearly guaranteed to lose the presidency and Congress. Since 1992 there have been 8 presidential elections. Republicans only won the popular vote once (2004) but also won the presidency in 2000 and 2…

Why is it odd that in a federalized country 1 person is not necessarily 1 vote? Look at the UN general assembly: votes of island nations with few thousand people are worth the same as another nation with 1B people.

If the UN could make decisions with the sorts of impact on ordinary people's lives that the US Senate can, I think we'd see the problems with the UN structure too.

The UN, however, is primarily a venue for the airing of grievances, the distribution of aid, and occasionally the finding of common purpose. It's not much like the US Senate, which consistently blocks legislation supported by a majority of the population.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#382

Post by Empact »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #363
lettergram wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a few reasons this broke down... 1. The 17th amendment (1912) - Electing senators by popular vote broke the state representation in the federal government. States no longer had representation to protect their sovereignty. 2. The federal reserve act (1913) - enables government to self-fund by printing money and enforces everyone onto a single, centrally controlled bank. 3. The 16th amendment (1913) - Federal i…

> States no longer had representation to protect their sovereignty. Huh? Previously, state representatives elected senators; after the 17th, the voters did. How does either of these things end "state representation" ? You're insisting that "state representation" can only mean "representation of the people already elected by the voters", which is unjustifiably narrow. > enforces everyone onto a single, centrally contr…

State reps have a much more informed and salient interest in maintaining their state’s sovereignty, as their power directly derives from it. Much of what the fœderal government does now to usurp state power is to simply bribe the states to change their policies (e.g. the drinking age, but many such examples). Would state reps willingly select senators who would bribe them to change their own policies?

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#383

Post by TEP_Kim_Il_Sung »

StanislavPetrov wrote: post #278
sidewndr46 wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

A conspiracy theory is, by definition, a secret. That the government routinely ignores the Constitution isn't a conspiracy, just a sad fact. How many wars have we been in over the last 70 years? Vietnam? Korea? Iraq? Afghanistan? Just to name a very few. Read Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. How many times has the Congress voted to go to war? Is this just a conspiracy, or another example of our government's d…

A conspiracy is secret. A conspiracy theory is often very public.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#384

Post by vkou »

hardtke wrote: post #366
stale2002 wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If there is a strong enough popular support for taking more extreme actions, then there should be strong enough support to change the constitution the normal way. For people who want the constitution changed, thats the dilemma they have to deal with. If they don't have enough support to do it the regular way, then maybe the more silly and extreme solutions aren't justified either.

The primary flaw in the constitution is that smaller states have disproportionate power (Senate and Electoral College) and will never give up or dilute this power. Even worse, equal representation for each state in the Senate is literally the only part of the constitution that cannot be amended. So even with overwhelming popular support there is an absolute barrier to reform.

On the bright side, senatorial races can't be gerrymandered.

On the less bright side, voter suppression and disenfranchisement can fix them a senate race as well as any other.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#385

Post by cat_plus_plus »

United States unamendable national and state borders are also a factor. Whatever one thinks about Brexit, it allowed EU to continue with countries that are committed to EU and for UK to consider what's best for UK, including welcoming Hong Kong residents not enthusiastic about takeover by China. If California and Texas go their own way and borders between states are adjusted to accommodate red and blue area, maybe current system is all that is needed. CA and TX can be still part of Nato and have a free travel arrangement with each other, changes do not have to be extreme.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#386

Post by bigbacaloa »

The US constitution is an antiquated document written by men who enslaved others. It contains no explicit right to privacy or protection from government surveillance. It does not establish a secular state (only the right to worship as one chooses, which is different) and it features an overly broad freedom of speech that facilitates the spread of misinformation and lies. it chooses the president by an indirect mechanism and it nowhere guarantees the right to vote.

It needs to be rewritten completely but this is impossible because it is treated as a sacred text.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#387

Post by jjtheblunt »

StanislavPetrov wrote: post #278
sidewndr46 wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

A conspiracy theory is, by definition, a secret. That the government routinely ignores the Constitution isn't a conspiracy, just a sad fact. How many wars have we been in over the last 70 years? Vietnam? Korea? Iraq? Afghanistan? Just to name a very few. Read Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. How many times has the Congress voted to go to war? Is this just a conspiracy, or another example of our government's d…

> A conspiracy theory is, by definition, a secret.

conspiracy just means (Latin etymology) breathing together, i.e., being coherent...there's nothing about secret in the general case.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#388

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

anon291 wrote: post #352
HWR_14 wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I have no idea what's going on in the wilds of Wyoming. Wyomingites do. If Californians were represented by population, these lands would be managed by people who do not live there. Given how few people live year-round in Wyoming, but how many Californians own vacation ranches there, that actually might make sense.

People living in a place should have the sole right to determine what happens to that place. Vacation homes don't give you a right to vote, and they shouldn't. This is nuts.

This is a nonsensical idea, at least as stated.

The people who live within 500' of you do not have exclusive control over what happens in that 500' radius circle. Control is ceded to entities like your town, or county, or state, or federal government, in no particular way. The federal government controls, for example, what happens in the air above where you live; your state probably controls the building code for where you live; your town likely controls where you can take a dog for a walk or the intensity of outdoor lighting.

There's no smooth gradient of control dropping off as you get further from where you live. It's messy and it's complicated.

In addition, your stated view of who should have control also acts as a major barrier to people who do not live in a place from ever doing so. I suspect you may have no problem with that, but it's not technically "the American way" (aspirationally, anyway).

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#389

Post by bigbacaloa »

abigail95 wrote: post #157
jaybrendansmith wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. The propaganda of the media, both intentional and accidental, is impacting our Democracy more than I would have thought possible. Being a critical thinker, I made the classic error of assuming that others could not easily be duped, and would actually do their own research on the issues. Boy was I wrong. We are all entitled to our own opinions, but we cannot survive as a Democracy if the citizenry believe they a…

Democracy is majority rule. Democracy is nothing about facts or opinions. You are the one impacting democracy by saying we cannot survive if we keep current democratic rules. You can have the best argument for improving society by limiting who is allowed to vote, what things you're allowed to vote on, and what facts you are allowed to talk about. It can even be a true argument that would make everyone better off. But…

The US is a republic not a democracy. Representation is not proportional.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#390

Post by Dylan16807 »

kepler1 wrote: post #332
voltaireodactyl wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my opinion the unacceptable, repetitive, fundamentalist-led attacks on the very institution of voting itself would take far more precedence than the social issues you listed, although I know social media leans hard on them. If you truly feel those are the most pressing issues in your mind/spheres, I would urge you to remember that social media is largely an echo chamber designed to distract from the actual issues,…

Please say what about voting has been fundamentally attacked at its core that rises to the level of amending the Constitution? That voters are required to (gasp) verify their identification, once every 4 years, if certain conditions aren't met? That drop boxes for ballots were reduced in number? Gerrymandering? Just look at some of the district designs in New York. I might remind you that all the things that are crit…

> That voters are required to (gasp) verify their identification, once every 4 years, if certain conditions aren't met?

Until we give everyone an ID card, yes that is voter suppression because it prevents many citizens from voting.

> That drop boxes for ballots were reduced in number?

Drop boxes and polling locations. It's hard enough that voting day isn't a paid holiday. If it takes hours and hours or goes outside of the range someone can easily travel, that's a big problem.

Post reply on HN