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

411–420 of 747 posts

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#411

Post by akira2501 »

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…

> Constitutional amendments were supposed to be easier than right to rebellion.

I think they were more worried about entire _states_ going into rebellion and not factions of populations spread across them.

> These are dark times for US democracy.

I don't think that's warranted. I would say these are the growing pains of a country now fully entering the age of always available connectivity with a founding document created when horse travel was the only credible way to travel across it.

> There’s no evidence things are working as intended.

You could say this of many things. The highly monopolized state of our media in the face of this new era is definitely a baffling outcome, and I definitely spend a lot of time thinking about the connection between this and the previous statement.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#412

Post by SaberTail »

jessaustin wrote: post #344

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 ri…

Yeah, exactly. There's so much propaganda in the USA depicting the constitution as some sort of inspired document written by enlightened men, and then most people don't bother reading beyond what they learned in school.

One only need look at how undemocratic the constitution was. Only one federal office, the House of Representatives, was elected by the people (and at the time the constitution was written, only men with property could vote). The president and vice president are elected by an electoral college. Senators were elected by state legislatures. Supreme Court Judges are even further insulated from the people, being appointed by the President. "The People" had extremely little influence on the federal government, and it's only gotten marginally better since.

Hopefully everyone understands how much the constitution did to protect the wealth of slave owners, since this is taught in schools. But it also made western land speculators richer by creating a government capable of exerting sufficient power over those western lands to open them up for settlement. It made the holders of revolutionary war debt richer by creating a government that could assume that debt and pay it off. It made owners and investors in manufacturing enterprises richer by creating a government that could protect industry with tariffs while keeping states from taxing the flow of goods or interfering with contracts.

Every framer of the constitution belonged to at least one of these groups, and they benefited when it was ratified. The book An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States by Charles Beard goes into great detail on this. It's out of copyright and freely available online: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/An_Economic_Interpretation_of...

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#413

Post by dylan604 »

wincy wrote: post #345
dylan604 wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

>Could a state democratically elect to secede from the union?

It was supposed to be part of the stipulations Texas had in the agreement to re-join the Union. At least that is part of Texas folklore. However, they were coming at it from a different direction in saying that the annexing was not done legally, so it should just naturally revert back to how it was before the illegal annexing.

We're actually seeing something similar but different currently in how part of Oregon wants to become part of Idaho.

>What if a National vote was held and a majority agreed to split up the USA?

It might not be a national vote, but a civil war ending in a stale mate would essentially do just that. Think Handmaid's Tale's Gilead.

> 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?

I gladly suggest donating Texas and Florida as the land of the new territory for the "crazy" for which you speak. Anyone not wanting to be part of there rules can move to the other states, and anyone wanting to be part of it can move in. Just let me move out of Texas before the mad rush

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#414

Post by _-david-_ »

joshuamorton wrote: post #367
jakeogh wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Boundaries, states in this case, but it's a general principal, are exactly what give the people within them self-determination.

Only if those boundaries are individually self-governing! And they are not, since California and New York cannot outlaw handguns due to the influence of Wyoming and Idaho. And as soon as you say "well the voters in Wyoming and Idaho deserve...", you've dropped any pretense of the internal boundaries mattering, because we're now just talking about federal representation, where those citizens have disproportionately la…

California and New York cannot ban hand guns because of the incorporation of the Bill of Rights. Prior to this concept the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government. The States were free to ban guns if they wanted.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#415

Post by jakeogh »

bigbacaloa wrote: post #392
zajio1am wrote: post #246

Well, US constitution is still more amendable than EU constitutional treaties, which require unanimous agreement of all states.

Not as bad as someone ele is one of the dumbest lines of argument.

Comparison is "dumb"? Is it now a logical fallacy? Better ban history 101.

No more comparison. I'll just... uh... compare things against some theoretical ideal I make up.

Maybe get some psychological warfare experts and brand it? Historyaboutisim?

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#416

Post by zhoujianfu »

tastyfreeze wrote: post #115
colinmhayes wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The Constitution is an agreement between the states, not individuals. When ratifying the Constitution the people of a state voted to join the union as the unit of a state not as individuals. That makes the states the constituents not the people.

That’s how it was formed yes, but that doesn’t mean we need to keep it.

It’s like saying, “Lead was added to fuel to improve the efficiency of the engines. We can’t change it now!”

1. There should be one person, one vote.

2. People should get to vote on every position (and only those positions) that affect them.

3. Therefore, the role of president, which affects all people in the US, should be voted on as one person, one vote, nation-wide.

(Nobody seems to complain that all governors are voted on by a state-wide popular vote, and not by say the state’s mayors!)

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#417

Post by _-david-_ »

xxpor wrote: post #18
cvwright wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I don't consider 1860-1964 to be relatively peaceful.

A war every now and again is relatively peaceful.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#418

Post by joshuamorton »

jakeogh wrote: post #400
joshuamorton wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only if those boundaries are individually self-governing! And they are not, since California and New York cannot outlaw handguns due to the influence of Wyoming and Idaho. And as soon as you say "well the voters in Wyoming and Idaho deserve...", you've dropped any pretense of the internal boundaries mattering, because we're now just talking about federal representation, where those citizens have disproportionately la…

They cant outlaw guns (lets not pretend) because humans have the inalienable right to -defend- themselves. And that includes against a tyrannical government. The United States would not exist otherwise[1]. [1] https://s3.amazonaws.com/oyez.case-media.ogg/case_data/2007/... You cant outlaw lathes and mills. Now guns are now printable. That train has left. DRM lost.

Given the way you're intentionally missing the point, I think it's clear my argument hit the mark. And jutt to further clarify, it's completely possible to ban things that someone can manufacture. I'm not sure what makes you think otherwise.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#419

Post by AntiRemoteWork »

bitwize wrote: post #306
lettergram wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No post body was provided.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#420

Post by joshuamorton »

_-david-_ wrote: post #414
joshuamorton wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only if those boundaries are individually self-governing! And they are not, since California and New York cannot outlaw handguns due to the influence of Wyoming and Idaho. And as soon as you say "well the voters in Wyoming and Idaho deserve...", you've dropped any pretense of the internal boundaries mattering, because we're now just talking about federal representation, where those citizens have disproportionately la…

California and New York cannot ban hand guns because of the incorporation of the Bill of Rights. Prior to this concept the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government. The States were free to ban guns if they wanted.

Correct, a (functional) amendment to the constitution made by the supreme court and unable to be overturned except by that body, due to the inability to amend our constitution. This is decidedly not an argument against anything I've said.
Post reply on HN