The United States’ Unamendable Constitution • Hacker News Board

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#291

Post by Turing_Machine » Thu, Oct 27, 2022, 3:33 AM UTC

lupire wrote: post #224

johnnyanmac wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The fact is that our Constitution reduces voting rights for those that live in populous urban areas and gives outsized voting rights to those that live in rural/sparsely populated area yup, that was by intention. That's also exactly why the senate was erected; they didn't want smaller states to be ignored by campaigns that could ultimately just focus on enough electoral votes to win the election. >This rationale/com…

No, it was because the slave states didn't want to lose slavery in a Senate vote. If you think CA is too populous for it's people deserve an equal vote, CA should be 6 states. But the slavers fought that too (Missouri Compromise). State boundaries are legal constructs inherited from obsolete aristocracy, not meaningful cultural boundaries. It makes no sense to solve a hypothetical tyranny of large states by replacing…

> No, it was because the slave states didn't want to lose slavery in a Senate vote.

Sorry, that is simply not true. Virginia, a slave state, was by far the most populous state at the time the Constitution was adopted.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#292

Post by refurb » Thu, Oct 27, 2022, 3:35 AM UTC

germinalphrase wrote: post #231

ern wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No less a jurist than Antonin Scalia (one of the most conservative and intellectually formidable Supreme Court justices, whatever your opinion of his positions) thought that the US Constitution was too hard to amend: "Scalia said fewer than 2 percent of the population could prevent enactment of a constitutional amendment. “It ought to be hard, but not that hard" https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/how_scalia_and_…

The system really should be balanced such that each President gets one nomination per term.

That’s not a terrible idea, but one can imagine both parties would game the change so that it takes effect while they’ve secured a multi-term presidency and a number of justices are retiring.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#293

Post by tdehnel » Thu, Oct 27, 2022, 3:36 AM UTC

jquery wrote: post #254

WalterBright wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's how it works for San Francisco, which is turning out to be not so good for the SF citizens: https://www.wsj.com/articles/san-francisco-to-consider-toler...

Was the WSJ always this bad or did Rupert Murdoch’s purchase take it in a far right direction?

Oh knock it off. Having a conservative opinion =/= “far right”

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#294

Post by jdkee » Thu, Oct 27, 2022, 3:37 AM UTC

lupire wrote: post #224

johnnyanmac wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The fact is that our Constitution reduces voting rights for those that live in populous urban areas and gives outsized voting rights to those that live in rural/sparsely populated area yup, that was by intention. That's also exactly why the senate was erected; they didn't want smaller states to be ignored by campaigns that could ultimately just focus on enough electoral votes to win the election. >This rationale/com…

No, it was because the slave states didn't want to lose slavery in a Senate vote. If you think CA is too populous for it's people deserve an equal vote, CA should be 6 states. But the slavers fought that too (Missouri Compromise). State boundaries are legal constructs inherited from obsolete aristocracy, not meaningful cultural boundaries. It makes no sense to solve a hypothetical tyranny of large states by replacing…

No, the Several States are the Sovereigns. They ceded a small amount of authority to the Federal government in a limited Federal Constitution that outlines the powers of the Federal government. See the 10th Amendment.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#295

Post by dylan604 » Thu, Oct 27, 2022, 3:38 AM UTC

mlindner wrote: post #264

UberFly wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, more like one of the broken parts will create their own Constitution.

The US tried that already in 1861, it didn't go well. Also you're advocating for the idea that Democracy is a bad idea here.

Just because it was tried and "failed" once before doesn't mean that people don't still believe that it can be tried and made to work the next time.

The concept of a split US is not unattractive to a much larger number of people than you might be willing to give credit. There's also the people that will support a movement not because they fully support it, but mainly just because it's screwing the "system" and watching the chaos.

Back in the mid-90s, I was a video journalist covering the Republic of Texas[0] movement to secede (or in their words to recognize the illegality of Texas being annexed into the Union). It was very interesting how it was successfully progressing through the court system, but then went to crazy town with all of the liens, attempting to print their own money, and the kidnappings. However, there were the typical people denouncing their US citizenship and signing up to join to the Republic of Texas. The thing that surprised me was the governments of other countries signed up in recognition of the RoT as a legit government. I get that individual peoples wanting to see the world burn, but seeing governments sign up for it was what got me.

[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_secession_movements#Repu...

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#296

Post by crystalmeph » Thu, Oct 27, 2022, 3:40 AM UTC

jonnycomputer wrote: post #277

If at times the Constitution is not responsive enough, it does have one big benefit: it is almost impossible to change it to do something like, allow a President to serve life tenure, and yet we see a number of places where such constitutional changes were pushed through by those who would be dictators, or sought more powers as executive(Russia's in 2020, China in 2018, Ecuador in 2016, Turkey in 2017, etc.

It does seem silly that someone would advocate making the supreme law of the land easier to change at the same time there is widespread concern about the government becoming more authoritarian, or even tipping into dictatorship. It screams unintended consequences.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#297

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Oct 27, 2022, 3:40 AM UTC

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…

[deleted]

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#298

Post by Regnore » Thu, Oct 27, 2022, 3:41 AM UTC

jquery wrote: post #254

WalterBright wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's how it works for San Francisco, which is turning out to be not so good for the SF citizens: https://www.wsj.com/articles/san-francisco-to-consider-toler...

Was the WSJ always this bad or did Rupert Murdoch’s purchase take it in a far right direction?

The linked article is from their opinion section which is always hit and miss depending on how you lean politically.

The actual reporting done by WSJ is still top tier imo.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#299

Post by jltsiren » Thu, Oct 27, 2022, 3:41 AM UTC

WalterBright wrote: post #174

tptacek wrote: post #33

It's an interesting article and if you bounced off it because you had a visceral reaction to the premise, like I did at first, I'd recommend taking another whack at it. Jill Lepore, if you're not familiar with her work, is a historian with a reputation as a more rigorous version of people like Howard Zinn. I don't think it's a good article though. In particular, I don't think it coheres. It's about how the modern Con…

The US Constitution is still the best one in the world. The 18th Amendment (Prohibition) is an example of what can go wrong with amendments.

The US Constitution is an early prototype for the constitution of a modern republic. Pretty much every other constitution in the world has been written based on US experiences. In almost every case, the newer constitutions have chosen to organize the republic in a fundamentally different way. While you may argue that the values in the US Constitution are the best in the world, it's nowhere near the state of the art in procedural issues.

A key test for a constitution is whether a substantially similar constitution would pass the amendment process today. If it wouldn't, the constitution is obsolete and should be rewritten. If people no longer believe in the spirit of the constitution, they will increasingly try to subvert it. Institutional checks and balances may protect the constitution for a while, but if people don't believe in the constitution, they probably won't believe in the institutions either.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#300

Post by rayiner » Thu, Oct 27, 2022, 3:43 AM UTC

lupire wrote: post #224

johnnyanmac wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The fact is that our Constitution reduces voting rights for those that live in populous urban areas and gives outsized voting rights to those that live in rural/sparsely populated area yup, that was by intention. That's also exactly why the senate was erected; they didn't want smaller states to be ignored by campaigns that could ultimately just focus on enough electoral votes to win the election. >This rationale/com…

No, it was because the slave states didn't want to lose slavery in a Senate vote. If you think CA is too populous for it's people deserve an equal vote, CA should be 6 states. But the slavers fought that too (Missouri Compromise). State boundaries are legal constructs inherited from obsolete aristocracy, not meaningful cultural boundaries. It makes no sense to solve a hypothetical tyranny of large states by replacing…

That’s wildly incorrect.

1) At the time of the founding, the free-state/slave-state dichotomy was almost perfectly orthogonal to the big-state/little-state dichotomy. The plan for proportional representation in both houses was the Virginia Plan.

2) The Missouri Compromise had nothing to do with California being one state. When California was admitted to the union, it had significantly less population than South Dakota and North Dakota did when they were admitted to the union. The subsequent growth of California was an accident of history.

3) State boundaries are absolutely meaningful cultural boundaries. My wife is Oregonian and I’m from Virginia and we’re really different. Even the blue parts of both states are very different.

Also, we have freedom of movement in this country. The precision of the state boundaries doesn’t matter so much given that people can self select to the states that reflect their values.