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

301–310 of 747 posts

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#301

Post by onos »

pyuser583 wrote: post #274
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…

> If our government was elected based on a "one person one vote" principle, Republicans would be nearly guaranteed to lose the presidency and Congress. The Republicans are competing under the rules that exist - and they’re very, very good at it. Do you think they would blindly wander from defeat to defeat without seriously changing tactics?

Whatever the rules the parties would evolve to each capture 50/50, seems a likely outcome of basic game theory. These people would still be complaining of course, another universal constant.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#302

Post by WalterBright »

edgecasestdio wrote: post #276
ETH_start wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't compare Constitutions to programming languages in terms of the prevailing consensus on their utility. While the latter has a vast test bed of real world utilization that reveals PL efficacy, the former can only be evaluated from the standpoint of theory, with a heavy heap of ideology.

I'm also wary to use programming languages as a metaphor to advance a view about writing constitutions. I can agree with the broad point that inertia is a major cause for constitutions to stay the same over time. But I disagree with the original commenter's implication that more recently-written constitutions tend to be better than older ones due to lessons from the past, because of the idea (perhaps relating to your…

People don't learn very well from the past.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#303

Post by WalterBright »

Tomte wrote: post #280
WalterBright wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why does all the "nation building" around the world by the United States never result in a US style constitution, but seemingly inevitably in something closer to the German one? I mean, Americans always talk about their Constitution's supremacy, but they never want to give it to others (not even to Puerto Rico).

It's out of copyright, so we don't have to give it to anyone. They can just take it.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#304

Post by WalterBright »

dragonwriter wrote: post #283
Tomte wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does all the "nation building" around the world by the United States never result in a US style constitution, but seemingly inevitably in something closer to the German one? I mean, Americans always talk about their Constitution's supremacy, but they never want to give it to others (not even to Puerto Rico).

> Why does all the "nation building" around the world by the United States never result in a US style constitution, but seemingly inevitably in something closer to the German one? Then again, US nation building tends to be an abysmal failure (though, tbf, constitutional structure is not high on the list of defensible reasons for that.)

The nation building after WW2 for Germany & Japan worked out rather well.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#305

Post by kepler1 »

hedora wrote: post #275
cm2187 wrote: post #222

Author complains these amendments cannot be passed because of political polarisation. That polarisation is the very reason why those amendments shouldn't pass. You can only change the constitution if there is a consensus, by design. If you want to make a change that half the country is dead against, all the systems of balance of power will work against it (two chambers - one by headcount the other by states, filibust…

Population shifts mean an ever-shrinking minority of the population can block changes to the constitution. It’s barely even double digits at this point. Constitutional amendments were supposed to be easier than right to rebellion. That’s not really the case any more. At the same time, the supreme court is just ignoring the law, over the objections of 66-75% of the population (depending on the ruling). These are dark…

No post body was provided.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#306

Post by bitwize »

lettergram wrote: post #272
anonymousiam wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly! In addition, the 10th amendment should prevent, but has not stopped Congress from passing most of the laws it has passed. https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-10/

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…

Name the fucking enemy. Starts with a 'C' and ends in 'apitalism'.

Read Richard Wolff's Democracy at Work. This is the way.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#307

Post by pyuser583 »

onos wrote: post #301
pyuser583 wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If our government was elected based on a "one person one vote" principle, Republicans would be nearly guaranteed to lose the presidency and Congress. The Republicans are competing under the rules that exist - and they’re very, very good at it. Do you think they would blindly wander from defeat to defeat without seriously changing tactics?

Whatever the rules the parties would evolve to each capture 50/50, seems a likely outcome of basic game theory. These people would still be complaining of course, another universal constant.

No post body was provided.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#308

Post by kepler1 »

m-p-3 wrote: post #228
cm2187 wrote: post #222

Author complains these amendments cannot be passed because of political polarisation. That polarisation is the very reason why those amendments shouldn't pass. You can only change the constitution if there is a consensus, by design. If you want to make a change that half the country is dead against, all the systems of balance of power will work against it (two chambers - one by headcount the other by states, filibust…

So one way or another, the population will reach its breaking point, and the Constitution will change.

On what issues are we going to reach a breaking point that calls for Constitutional change?

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#309

Post by jquery »

dahdum wrote: post #79
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…

> If our government was elected based on a "one person one vote" principle, Republicans would be nearly guaranteed to lose the presidency and Congress. True in the very short term, but that's only because neither party really targets the popular vote. Both would realign their platform and bases accordingly, and we'd just end up with a new system with new flaws. However, if you are correct, that would mean a de facto…

>Both would realign their platform and bases accordingly

Don’t threaten me with a good time.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#310

Post by jonnybgood »

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…

Legally speaking, what is a war? Can an event look like a war, but is not a war? What are the thresholds for calling an event a war? Is every event involving military action a war?
Post reply on HN