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

Gödel's Loophole

en.wikipedia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 134 posts

Re: Gödel's Loophole

#41

Post by admissionsguy »

rtpg wrote: post #7

This is the prototypical "wow the nerd tried to solve law and lawyering". Yes, the constitution can be ammended to be less democratic. It can also be entirely ignored by everyone, and things can also happen in ways that go against its text, with judges looking the other way! People are not magically bound by words on a piece of paper, so if you end up being able to go through the (extremely arduous! Moreso than many…

> Yes, the constitution can be ammended to be less democratic. It can also be entirely ignored by everyone, and things can also happen in ways that go against its text, with judges looking the other way!

Or the words of the constitution can be reinterpreted to mean something entirely different than what they originally meant.

Re: Gödel's Loophole

#42

Post by jonathanstrange »

msravi wrote: post #39
jonathanstrange wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, you're seriously underestimating this issue. For instance, the German constitution ("Grundgesetz") has an eternity clause in it that makes it unconstitutional to remove the basic principles in Articles 1 and 20. Many other modern constitutions have such clauses.[1] By the way, Article 4, paragraph 4 in the German constitution states: " All Germans shall have the right to resist any person seeking to abolish this…

OP's point is that you can write anything in the constitution - that it can never be changed, or whatever - but that's of no value whatsoever, if a large majority of people agree and decide that it's an invalid document.

That's not how constitutional law works, though. Even if someone seizes power by force, the apparent constitutionality of their reign or lack thereof has many implications in international law and for the recognition of the new government, as well as for retrospective assessments, including the validity of the laws enacted by the regime. Dictators put great efforts in making their reign at least look constitutional.

Re: Gödel's Loophole

#43

Post by yottalove »

Incorporate core rights of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights into the body of the Constitution ensuring, as Article 30, that any attempt to weaken or remove any of these rights automatically invalidates the entire Constitution. This makes it too legislatively burdensome to weaken and would unequivocally signal a coup is taking place.

Re: Gödel's Loophole

#44

Post by bluGill »

msravi wrote: post #39
jonathanstrange wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, you're seriously underestimating this issue. For instance, the German constitution ("Grundgesetz") has an eternity clause in it that makes it unconstitutional to remove the basic principles in Articles 1 and 20. Many other modern constitutions have such clauses.[1] By the way, Article 4, paragraph 4 in the German constitution states: " All Germans shall have the right to resist any person seeking to abolish this…

OP's point is that you can write anything in the constitution - that it can never be changed, or whatever - but that's of no value whatsoever, if a large majority of people agree and decide that it's an invalid document.

Doesn't even need a majority, just enough powerful people. If our generals decide to take over what stops them? Recent history around the world has a number or such cases.

Re: Gödel's Loophole

#45

Post by raverbashing »

drawkbox wrote: post #34

The Constitution and Amendments though typically only work when they expand rights/freedoms rather than contract rights/freedoms. A good example is the 18th Amendment [1] which was drug prohibition of alcohol in 1920 which was reversed with the 21st Amendment [2] in 1933. The addition took away rights/freedoms and it led to a bad phase in America as well as created mafias and underground black markets that sapped mon…

Agree. As the fundamental law of a country, what makes sense to have there is:

- Basic freedoms/rights

- The government limits/boundaries (legislative and in regards to citizens)

- How the government should work (on a very high level)

The rest is better to have as laws/treaties. (Though to be fair sometimes it would be helpful to be more specific, still laws always move much slower than the times and technological changes might be difficult to consider using a past lens)

The US constitution is to be fair one of the most concise ones. As you correctly point out, prohibition is something that shouldn't have been even there

Re: Gödel's Loophole

#46

Post by taurath »

jonathanstrange wrote: post #42
msravi wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OP's point is that you can write anything in the constitution - that it can never be changed, or whatever - but that's of no value whatsoever, if a large majority of people agree and decide that it's an invalid document.

That's not how constitutional law works, though. Even if someone seizes power by force, the apparent constitutionality of their reign or lack thereof has many implications in international law and for the recognition of the new government, as well as for retrospective assessments, including the validity of the laws enacted by the regime. Dictators put great efforts in making their reign at least look constitutional.

And fundamentally that is to preserve existing institutions of legalities, so that the dictator can wield the power of the state and not have the state itself dissolve.

Re: Gödel's Loophole

#47

Post by TeMPOraL »

msravi wrote: post #39
jonathanstrange wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, you're seriously underestimating this issue. For instance, the German constitution ("Grundgesetz") has an eternity clause in it that makes it unconstitutional to remove the basic principles in Articles 1 and 20. Many other modern constitutions have such clauses.[1] By the way, Article 4, paragraph 4 in the German constitution states: " All Germans shall have the right to resist any person seeking to abolish this…

OP's point is that you can write anything in the constitution - that it can never be changed, or whatever - but that's of no value whatsoever, if a large majority of people agree and decide that it's an invalid document.

That's a corner case, though. Anything is possible if you can get enough people to simultaneously adopt a new intersubjective[0] belief.

In reality, changes in laws happen when a small group supports them and, small opposition notwithstanding, vast majority of people do not care. One of the easiest ways to make the majority care - and oppose you - is to push your changes in a way that violates existing legal framework, particularly important things like a constitution. As long as you don't do that - as long as you take things slow and don't raise people's alarms - you can boil the proverbial frog.

That's what these clauses are meant to protect from. A series moves, planned or accidental, that could turn the country into dictatorship.

--

[0] - I.e. the kind that's valid as long as enough people believe enough other people believe it's valid. Like a constitution. Or money.

Re: Gödel's Loophole

#48

Post by eek04_ »

saberdancer wrote: post #13

This is why there are checks and balances. The laws and constitutions are not rules in a game that can be exploited arbitrarily. There is an intention behind them and law is and should be interpreted in that way. If this loophole exists it probably goes against the intention of the lawmakers and would be struck down by supreme court.

> If this loophole exists it probably goes against the intention of the lawmakers and would be struck down by supreme court.

It's Common law not French/European law. The intent of the lawmakers is, in common law, more or less completely assumed to be present in the text of the law. French/European courts looks to the context the law was made in and other documents produced; common law judges mostly don't (but do look much more to precedent.)

And there is of course the problem of judges in the US being fairly strongly partisan politicised (since all power in the US is partisan politicised), so the interpretation will depend on which party has lately stuffed the supreme court.

Re: Gödel's Loophole

#49

Post by TeMPOraL »

eurasiantiger wrote: post #21
rtpg wrote: post #7

This is the prototypical "wow the nerd tried to solve law and lawyering". Yes, the constitution can be ammended to be less democratic. It can also be entirely ignored by everyone, and things can also happen in ways that go against its text, with judges looking the other way! People are not magically bound by words on a piece of paper, so if you end up being able to go through the (extremely arduous! Moreso than many…

It’s baffling that some people believe banning something by law prevents it from happening.

It mostly does, though.

That's the magic of intersubjective beliefs. Laws may be words on paper, but as long as everyone expects that everyone else expects everyone to follow them, they're mostly followed. Same with money - it's just pieces of paper and numbers in some computers, but by virtue of shared belief, it has real power.

To the extent making something illegal doesn't prevent it from happening, there are enforcement structures - but those could never actually police everyone. Their job is to catch the occasional person who wasn't convinced by the "words on paper", and by doing so, reinforce people's belief in the "shared delusion" of laws. Because when people stop believing, society disappears.

Post reply on HN