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

421–430 of 747 posts

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#421

Post by zhoujianfu »

tptacek wrote: post #285
rayiner wrote: post #163

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. Not at all. Republicans have won the Congressional popular vote more times than democrats since 1992, and are about to win it again. There has only been one election since 1992 where Republicans won more House seats while losing the Congressional popular vote. They’re…

If we used a nationwide popular vote, the GOP would just run someone closer to the median of their House delegation, which consistently does win the popular vote. Sounds pretty great to me.

Yeah! As long as we have fptp elections there will be two parties each getting about 50% of the vote, because they will evolve to be competitive.

The question is just should that 50% line be about the middle of all citizens, or should that “middle” be randomly skewed towards people who happen to live nearer to farms.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#422

Post by _-david-_ »

joshuamorton wrote: post #420
_-david-_ wrote: post #414

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I wasn't making an argument against the point you were trying to convey, but the argument you were using. It is not Wyoming and Idaho's fault, but an erroneous understanding of the 14th amendment that caused California to lose the right to ban guns.

If the incorporation of the bill of Rights never happened California could ban not just handguns but every gun they wanted.

I agree that Wyoming, Idaho and like minded states are stopping an amendment repealing the 2nd amendment. The easier way to get rid of guns in California is to push for no incorporation of the 2nd amendment. The Supreme Court could do it if they wanted. You literally just need to convince 5 people.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#423

Post by jimbob45 »

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…

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).

SCOTUS can be overruled by the states themselves via amendments. They’re not ignoring law at all.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#425

Post by roflyear »

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…

You confuse consensus with "if we agree with the other guys we'll lose votes" - they aren't the same thing.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#426

Post by jimbob45 »

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.

https://youtu.be/Ggz_gd--UO0

Scalia has a great speech on this. Our Constitution has been outdone several times over the centuries, even by Russia. Ours is the best, though, because ours is still standing and the others are not. The bottom line is that the gridlock and glacial pace of progress that others decry is what gives the Constitution its robustness that other lack.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#427

Post by brigandish »

crazygringo wrote: post #189
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.

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…

It's a version of the English Bill of Rights 1689 so I'm not sure where you get the idea it's version one as the 1689 one wasn't even version one for England.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#428

Post by EdwardDiego »

jjtheblunt wrote: post #387
StanislavPetrov wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> A conspiracy theory is, by definition, a secret. conspiracy just means (Latin etymology) breathing together, i.e., being coherent...there's nothing about secret in the general case.

Indeed! Breathing together in the literal, but breath also carries connotations, as often expressed in the Greek pneuma - the Bible, according to Paul, was "theospneustos", God breathed, the soul is the "pneuma", so conspiring implies an intermingling.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#430

Post by joshuamorton »

_-david-_ wrote: post #422
joshuamorton wrote: post #420

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I wasn't making an argument against the point you were trying to convey, but the argument you were using. It is not Wyoming and Idaho's fault, but an erroneous understanding of the 14th amendment that caused California to lose the right to ban guns. If the incorporation of the bill of Rights never happened California could ban not just handguns but every gun they wanted. I agree that Wyoming, Idaho and like minded st…

I mean I think that incorporation has a clearer constitutional basis than heller, but I see your point.

It also doesn't help that the constitution is unpleasantly vague in many places. It is a legal document, the chief legal document in fact, and yet we are forced to define legality based not so much on the text but on the vibe of the text (and yes this is true even if you are a textualist!), because the text isn't precise about what it means.

Post reply on HN