The United States’ Unamendable Constitution • Hacker News Board

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#341

Post by whatthesmack » Thu, Oct 27, 2022, 4:35 AM UTC

jquery wrote: post #250

lupire wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Well said. Thank you. As a disenfranchised Californian I will bang this gavel until I die. The loss of the SALT deduction hit our finances tremendously. 1. Direct impact via higher taxes. 2. People fleeing the state for lower tax states because without the SALT deduction, we have a race to the bottom infrastructure-wise (not that we didn’t already, but the SALT deduction dampened the effect somewhat). This is the kin…

Why should the rest of the country subsidize your state's more burdensome tax regime? Removal of the SALT deduction just brings the federal tax code a bit closer to neutrality. If you choose to live in a place with high taxes, that's fine, but don't expect everyone else to help subsidize it.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#342

Post by pasquinelli » Thu, Oct 27, 2022, 4:36 AM UTC

nyokodo wrote: post #326

hedora wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> These are dark times for US democracy The US system has little d democratic aspects but it is not a democracy. It was intentionally setup to protect the minority from the majority in critical respects like constitutional amendments. Also, population shifts are ongoing and the coastal blue populations are the most rapidly aging in the country and the increasingly red US born Hispanic populations are the most rapidly…

> It was intentionally setup to protect the minority...

...of the opulent, is the quote.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#343

Post by fuoqi » Thu, Oct 27, 2022, 4:38 AM UTC

pyuser583 wrote: post #288

fuoqi wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are factually wrong about Russia. The new constitution removes the loophole used by Putin which restricted presidency of a single person by two consecutive terms. Thus in past he has used Medvedev as a seat warmer for one term, while holding most of the real power. Because it's a new constitution, his old terms got "reset" (it's quite debatable whether such reset is legitimate or not). In theory, after the new tw…

When Putin is ineligible for reelection, he’ll be 84 year old.

And? It does not change that the OP is factually wrong. Also, compare the Putin's age with Biden who wants to run for presidency at 82.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#344

Post by jessaustin » Thu, Oct 27, 2022, 4:41 AM UTC

One had high hopes for TFA, only to discover another tired hagiography of wise "Framers" whose perfect work (which mentions, let us recall, both "free Persons" and "other Persons") has been failed by its stupid unworthy subjects.

Bullshit. The constitution was a conspiracy of rich assholes who were tired of state legislatures occasionally favoring the interests of poor farmers, workmen, and merchants over those of rich assholes. They rammed through the constitution, and never again had to worry about legislatures cancelling debts owed to them.

Forget amendments. The whole rotten thing should have been thrown out in 1790, and in every year since then. If we have ever made any progress, it has been in spite of the constitution, not because of it.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#345

Post by wincy » Thu, Oct 27, 2022, 4:42 AM UTC

dylan604 wrote: post #295

mlindner wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 watchi…

Could a state democratically elect to secede from the union? What if a National vote was held and a majority agreed to split up the USA? At what point could we democratically all agree we think the other side is crazy, and ask to peacefully take our ball and go home?

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#346

Post by tastyfreeze » Thu, Oct 27, 2022, 4:42 AM UTC

int_19h wrote: post #131

tastyfreeze wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The Articles of Confederation were 1-state-1-vote, and we've seen how that ended. The Founders explicitly rejected that approach when drafting the Constitution, and documented their reasons: https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed22.asp "The right of equal suffrage among the States is another exceptionable part of the Confederation. Every idea of proportion and every rule of fair representation conspire to conde…

Under the Articles of Confederation all decisions were made by a vote of the states. The Constitution has a very different structure. Most of the power resides in Congress that the people control. The Electoral College is solely selecting the executive not deciding Constitutional questions.

The people are represented by the House and assert their will that way. The apportionment of representatives should be changed so the same number of people are represented by each representative. That alone would alleviate most of the complaints of unequal representation. Being stuck with 435 representatives really skews the power distribution. Returning the Senate to selection by state legislature also solves the complaint of unequal representation in the senate. Representing the people isn't supposed to be the purpose of the senate.

However, for electing an executive, what is wrong with one vote per state? The states are selecting their international representative that Constitutionally has little power.

The mess we have was made incrementally over time. It doesn't make sense to give states one vote in presidential elections without fixing representation of the people and of the state governments. Fixing the house should be the first step so the people feel like they are being represented equally. Then fix the Senate so state governments have a voice. The maybe we address changes to the Electoral College.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#347

Post by fuoqi » Thu, Oct 27, 2022, 4:42 AM UTC

anikan_vader wrote: post #257

fuoqi wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are factually wrong about Russia. The new constitution removes the loophole used by Putin which restricted presidency of a single person by two consecutive terms. Thus in past he has used Medvedev as a seat warmer for one term, while holding most of the real power. Because it's a new constitution, his old terms got "reset" (it's quite debatable whether such reset is legitimate or not). In theory, after the new tw…

> and ending with the creation of the central banking system, which arguably goes against the spirit of the Constitution. I see you're not a fan of Alexander Hamilton. The (first) US bank predates the other items in your list, though.

Are you unable to see the difference between the first and second national banks and the Fed behemoth which was created in 1900s and got only fatter (in the sense of power it holds over the national economy) ever since?

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#348

Post by HWR_14 » Thu, Oct 27, 2022, 4:44 AM UTC

anon291 wrote: post #209

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…

It's a great thing because where you live matters. 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. That is terrible. IMO, the main thing wrong with us federalism is that the western states ought to be broken up

> 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.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#349

Post by jessaustin » Thu, Oct 27, 2022, 4:44 AM UTC

ralph84 wrote: post #221

crazygringo wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually it's not. Constitution design is an academic field, a very niche area of political science, and nobody would ever implement anything like the US Constitution today. It would be like using ALGOL for a new project today instead of Python or Java. The US Constitution was very much a version 1.0 project, written before people even knew political parties would be a design constraint. Constitutions are on like ver…

If the newer versions are better why do they end up being so short-lived?

That's a feature, not a bug.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#350

Post by lettergram » Thu, Oct 27, 2022, 4:46 AM UTC

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #336

lettergram wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO "amendments" are made and also "ignored" via an unofficial process. For example, I can read the second amendment -- > A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. It is clear the national firearms act is outright unconstitutional by any sane reading, yet it was deemed "okay" by SCOTUS and passed by congress. The a…

The Supreme Court didn’t nullify the first clause of the second amendment until 2012. The thought that the right to bear arms was completely unrestricted didn’t exist for the first 200 years of the USA’s existence (including when the people who wrote it were still alive). That the Supreme Court was able to change the meaning of the amendment over time is a clear indication that literal interpretations of it really do…

^ clearly making my point that cultural opinions dictate more than amendments (particularly ones held by SCOTUS).

Just to be clear, you're incorrect. The bill of rights was extremely clear, the intent was that every citizen should be armed. Recall at the time, the states had to call on citizens to defend their towns, states and country regularly. They didn't have money and needed the citizens to have their own weapons. For both personal and collective defense.

> The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed. - Thomas Jefferson

That said, there has always been a push from various political groups (all the way back to John Adams) who pushed to regulate arms in one-way-or-another. The point is, the reading itself is clear. If you read the various diaries, letters, speeches and publications at the time it paints a picture much like today. There are those who want a disarmed population fearing rebellion and those who demand an armed population. The group that won out on the amendment were clear: "There shall be no law regulating arms and you should be proficient in their use"