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

431–440 of 747 posts

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#431

Post by Marazan »

jimbob45 wrote: post #423
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…

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.

Tell me how Shelby County vs Holder was not ignoring the law?

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#432

Post by HaZeust »

_-david-_ wrote: post #379
wincy wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The 10th amendment basically says any power not granted to the federal government and not banned by the Constitution is left to the state. Secession is never mentioned in the Constitution and as such states have every right to vote to leave. The Supreme Court has previously erroneously ruled that the federal government had the authority to stop it despite that power not having been granted to the federal government.

Texas v. White was a lot more complex than that; Specifically, the court claimed that the Constitution, in its effort to "form a more perfect union," precluded secession. Secession was inherently unconstitutional, because its foundations are that the "more perfect" union is imperfect and not salvageable by any action - short of divorce.

Supreme Court Justice Salmon P. Chase in 1869, Chief Justice at the time:

"When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States."

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#433

Post by joshuamorton »

StanislavPetrov wrote: post #371
jonnybgood wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

>Is every event involving military action a war? Certainly not, which is why I only mentioned a few major foreign invasions that involved hundreds of thousands of our troops and killed millions of people. >What are the thresholds for calling an event a war? Reasonable people can argue over exactly what that threshold is, but nobody reasonable would deny that our invasions of Vietnam and Iraq qualify as wars.

Both were authorized by Congress though?

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#434

Post by HaZeust »

kepler1 wrote: post #308
m-p-3 wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I firmly believe it'll be a catalyst that reminds "The People" that they were MEANT to be the fourth check and balance, and that the check and balance system was NOT abstracted for just political institutions to provide leverage against each other's tension.

The founder of the idea of "checks and balances" themselves (Montesquieu, Secondat) said it, the Founding Fathers who were influenced by the two (Madison) wanted to charter it (Federalist n. 10), and Hobbes argued for it in Leviathan. The writing has been on the wall for CENTURIES to include The People as its own entity within the ontological power-struggle of American politics - we were just led to forget our own history.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#435

Post by grecy »

jakeogh wrote: post #415
bigbacaloa wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> No more comparison

There's no need for a strawman.

The comment didn't say "no more comparison", it said comparing to the lowest of the low is dumb. I agree.

If you're a sporting team, is it productive to say "We're better than the team on the bottom of the ladder" ? (Even though you're second-last)

When you're a country, it's equally as pointless to say "We're doing better than

The only reason a person would ever make a comparison "down the ladder" is because they want to paint themselves in a better light. They have no interest in improving anything, and when they spend enough time looking down the ladder, that's exactly where they'll go.

Sporting teams, countries and people who are interested in improving make comparisons "up" - it gives them something to strive for.

Do you want to improve?

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#436

Post by StanislavPetrov »

sanxiyn wrote: post #394
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…

The Congress in fact voted to go to war with Afghanistan, 420-1. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Milit... for details.

"Authorization for use of military force" is not a declaration of war, despite what the DC blob and their corporate media surrogates would suggest. The whole concept behind checks and balances is that the Congress would retain the power to declare war on foreign nations. Not that they would abdicate their responsibility and pass a bill that gave the executive branch unlimited, undefined warmaking powers.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#437

Post by parineum »

pasquinelli wrote: post #354
lettergram wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

hmmm arguably capitalism was still required. Both the USSR and China both went through (at different times!) great famines due to their collectivization of agriculture. Further, their agricultural practices in general were learned from the capitalist countries and neither produced / produce enough. Both the USSR and China did / currently rely heavily on food imports. Arguably, they only escaped feudalism because capi…

> Both the USSR and China both went through (at different times!) great famines due to their collectivization of agriculture. didn't the ussr squeeze those farmers so tight to get industral equipment out of the capitalists by trading grain? yes, the capitalists graciously supported the ussr, the cold war was actually a big hug! because they traded with capitalist nations they couldn't have existed without capitalism.…

> that didn't happen for some reason.

It was probably because they had to build a wall to keep the citizens of the territory they were occupying from escaping communism.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#438

Post by jakeogh »

Tomte wrote: post #313
WalterBright wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Usually, countries being "nation-built" aren't in a position to choose anything.

So... you should be happy about the winning power allowing some self determinism. Would you rather it have been forced?

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#439

Post by parineum »

yread wrote: post #393
lettergram wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

^ 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 weapon…

There was also almost no standing army at the time so organized militias made a lot more sense

The 2nd amendment is still there and it still means the same thing. If it's no longer necessary, repeal it.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#440

Post by coldtea »

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.

Conspiracy in general, yes.

"Conspiracy theory" is another thing, more specific than conspiracy.

Post reply on HN