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

101–110 of 747 posts

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#101

Post by sokoloff »

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #9
giantg2 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mostly agree. At this point though, each side tries to circumvent it anyways by at least stretching "interpretations", and the courts tend to allow it.

I'd rather have that than have the constitution easier to amend. Otherwise the whipping back-and-forth on constitutional issues as each party takes power would be extremely destabilizing and legally chaotic. It already is; don't make it worse.

I don't see how the abuses in the current system make it less chaotic. Regardless of whether I like or hate the specifics of a topic where a legally dubious mechanism was used to accomplish it, I hate the concept that both parties abuse and mis-use the governmental mechanisms to accomplish what they want.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#102

Post by advisedwang »

OrvalWintermute wrote: post #60

I consider myself a patriotic American, but I don't know that the government even follows the Constitution in the first place. NSA has been hoovering up data of innocent Americans, and the IC in general, works with foreign ICs, to target Americans without reasonable cause, just blanket vacuuming. Much of the govt, including federal, state, and local, has been purchasing private data without a warrant signed by a judg…

In reality the US Constitution [as practiced] = US Constitution [the words] + Supreme court decisions + Legislature rules + enforcement + de facto practice/assumptions*.

This article focuses just on the first, but we can tackle the others too

Supreme court decisions -> discussions of court reform

Legislature rules -> e.g. discussions of ending filibuster

Enforcement -> Reducing secrecy in government (most places where the US government is just outright ignoring the constitution depends on secrecy)

de facto practice -> all this hand-wringing about "norm breaking" really boils down to some assumptions. We don't have a well developed conversation here, but generally these things should be codified.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#103

Post by colinmhayes »

tastyfreeze wrote: post #81
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…

Senators were meant to represent each state's government not the people directly. The Senate, by being once removed from the people, was supposed to take a longer more measured view on issues. The 17th Amendment[1] broke that and made senators elected by the people. The people have the House. The House has also been broken over time. In 1929 the House was capped at 435 members. Since then the number of people that a…

literally no one is suggesting a direct democracy. The question is whether the constituents of this country are people or states, and I suppose the answer probably depends on whether you live in a populated or unpopulated state.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#104

Post by ausbah »

cvwright wrote: post #14
jeffbee wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No rational person gives a damn what some guys who died 200 years ago would have thought about our present.

No intelligent person thinks that we got 250 years of relative peace and prosperity by random luck.

the US has been at war in some shape for form for 90% of its history, hard to call that "peaceful". a good chunk of American prosperity you can chalk up to the random luck of geography; abundant natural resources, two oceans separating from rest of the world, lack of many close neighbors, etc.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#105

Post by colinmhayes »

prottog wrote: post #63
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…

The cap on the size of the House should be lifted, so that an approximately equal number of people are represented by each representative, no matter what state you live in. I don't see the problem in both California and Wyoming getting two senators, since that's (as you mention) precisely the point of the Senate. It's very deliberately built in to the American political system that the will of the half-plus-one major…

No post body was provided.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#106

Post by ausbah »

prottog wrote: post #93
jfengel wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Equal Rights Amendment would have been nice. A Supreme Court member did say that without it, the Constitution does not prohibit discrimination based on sex. There are certain rights that are broadly popular, such as the right to birth control and the right to be gay, which are currently only protected by Supreme Court judgment. A member of that court explicitly called for reconsidering them. They are so broadly a…

You don't need a constitutional amendment -- just pass a law. If they're so broadly accepted, it shouldn't be difficult. > the right to birth control You mean the right to contraceptives paid for by the public, covered by insurance, or administered by people who may have sincerely-held religious beliefs against contraception? No state, Supreme Court judgments aside, forbids an adult from paying for birth control pill…

inalienable rights shouldn't be subject to the whims of what most people want. sure that kicks the fan down the road by having to define what is an "inalienable right", but "mob rulel, "tyranny of the majority" whatever you like to call it shouldn't be a basis to deprive certain peoples of basic rights

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#107

Post by prottog »

colinmhayes wrote: post #105
prottog wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The cap on the size of the House should be lifted, so that an approximately equal number of people are represented by each representative, no matter what state you live in. I don't see the problem in both California and Wyoming getting two senators, since that's (as you mention) precisely the point of the Senate. It's very deliberately built in to the American political system that the will of the half-plus-one major…

Quoted post unavailable.

That's glib. Do you know much about Mississippi? Do you live there, or have close friends who do?

I live in a neighboring state and it's unthinkable that the people of this state would bring back slavery or segregation. In fact, a much bigger portion of the population here lives amidst people of other races -- break bread with them, celebrate each others' big life events -- compared to certain other states where an attitude like yours about Mississippi is common.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#108

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

tastyfreeze wrote: post #81
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…

Senators were meant to represent each state's government not the people directly. The Senate, by being once removed from the people, was supposed to take a longer more measured view on issues. The 17th Amendment[1] broke that and made senators elected by the people. The people have the House. The House has also been broken over time. In 1929 the House was capped at 435 members. Since then the number of people that a…

> Doing away with the Electoral College and going for a direct democracy is a recipe for disaster. Direct democracy does not work on a large scale.

This is a talking point that doesn't make any sense. Electing the president and vice president by popular vote is not "direct democracy". It is how virtually every other representative democracy with a presidential system elects their executive leaders.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#109

Post by jfengel »

prottog wrote: post #93
jfengel wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Equal Rights Amendment would have been nice. A Supreme Court member did say that without it, the Constitution does not prohibit discrimination based on sex. There are certain rights that are broadly popular, such as the right to birth control and the right to be gay, which are currently only protected by Supreme Court judgment. A member of that court explicitly called for reconsidering them. They are so broadly a…

You don't need a constitutional amendment -- just pass a law. If they're so broadly accepted, it shouldn't be difficult. > the right to birth control You mean the right to contraceptives paid for by the public, covered by insurance, or administered by people who may have sincerely-held religious beliefs against contraception? No state, Supreme Court judgments aside, forbids an adult from paying for birth control pill…

Thomas didn't just single out Obergefell. He also mentioned Lawrence v Texas, which overturned sodomy laws.

And Griswold, which lets you pay for birth control with your own money. It says nothing about the public paying for it.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#110

Post by dragonwriter »

tastyfreeze wrote: post #81
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…

Senators were meant to represent each state's government not the people directly. The Senate, by being once removed from the people, was supposed to take a longer more measured view on issues. The 17th Amendment[1] broke that and made senators elected by the people. The people have the House. The House has also been broken over time. In 1929 the House was capped at 435 members. Since then the number of people that a…

> Direct democracy does not work on a large scale.

It maybe could with smart use of modern technologies, revocable proxies, and..., but that’s irrelevant because “adopt direct democracy for the US” is not even among the top 10 proposed alternatives to the current setup of the Electoral College.

Post reply on HN