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

451–460 of 747 posts

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#451

Post by parineum »

Georgelemental wrote: post #184
buscoquadnary wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Progressive values generally mean trying to make changes [to improve society]. So I think you are technically correct on the definition of progressive and conservative but I would take issue that the progressive side is always trying to change things to better society. After all prohibition, legalized lobotomies, and eugenics we're a big part of the progressive policy in the late 1800s and early 1900s, of course so…

The intent of the changes is to better society, even if we don't agree that that was the actual effect.

The intent of conservatism is to conserve positive aspects of society.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#452

Post by refurb »

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…

Supreme Court rulings are not a popularity contest. It’s intended as an independent (as independent a nominated body can be) that interprets the laws the Congress passes within the confines of the Constitution.

I for one would fear living in a country where the courts were swayed by public sentiment.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#453

Post by topspin »

D13Fd wrote: post #125

The constitution is perfectly easy to amend when we have consensus. The problem is achieving consensus. I don’t think making the constitution easier to amend would make it any easier to achieve national consensus.

> The problem is achieving consensus.

This "problem" is inherent; with time you run out of consensuses as they are ratified. What's left are all the things for which there is no consensus.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#454

Post by sosull »

CGamesPlay wrote: post #406
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…

The Supreme Court is, in no sense of the word, ignoring the law. They are interpreting the laws in ways you disagree with and in ways which have historically not been how it was interpreted by the same court, but this is not what ignoring means. Further, the objections of the population have nothing to do with the judicial branch and everything to do with the legislative branch. The courts are not and have never been…

Watching this play out (as a non-US person), there’s very little comfort in the distinction between court ignoring the law and the court interpreting the law in a way that is different to historic precedent. The act of interpretation infers that the court is making some kind of justification – backing these changes up by explaining them. Typically this would happen via written decision or at least by stare decisis.

But then I saw Samuel Alito commenting just today about how the first amendment does not give Americans, and college students specifically, the right to shout fire in a crowded theatre. The fire in a crowded theatre standard was overturned in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969). So it’s a little odd to hear that the Schenck interpretation from fifty years earlier is back on the menu.

I find myself wondering how that happened. What’s the fine distinction between interpreting the law differently to precedent and ignoring settled law?

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#455

Post by topspin »

sn0w_crash wrote: post #290

So it’s functioning as expected and as intended. These people don’t seem to understand that.

> These people don’t seem to understand that.

These people are operating under the false premise that their views are representative of some consensus that should be ratified in law. In truth the consensus they imagine is merely the prevailing group-think of their own preferred cohort.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#456

Post by betwixthewires »

> hasn’t been amended in any meaningful way since 1971

Already inserting subjectivity into the discussion to support it's premise. I'm not going to like this article.

> It’s always been hard to amend the Constitution. But, in the past half century, it’s become much harder

Yes, systems find stability, turbulence finds a local minima. Of course a lot more happened early on than later, if you expect a flat, linear, normal distribution of changes to something over time you don't know enough about what you're talking about to be talking about it.

Maybe the constitution has lasted 200 years precisely because it is hard to modify. A constitution should be harder to change than just passing any old piece of legislation. If it's just as easy as passing any law it's not a constitution, just another law.

If you think it's hard to amend the constitution, just wait until a constitutional convention convenes in DC in the next 5-10 years, we are almost there, something that hasn't happened since the Continental Congress, it's going to happen soon and it's going to be very interesting. I hope they ratify the equal apportionment amendment.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#457

Post by danjac »

george-in-sd wrote: post #16

Russia and China recently amended their constitution to ensure their respective leaders can stay in power permanently. Having some unchangeable bedrock in a country seems very valuable as we are all vulnerable to tyrants at some point in history.

Constitutions, at the end of the day, are just pieces of paper that can be ignored entirely. The 1977 Soviet Constitution was a landmark in human rights and freedom of expression, but nobody was kidding themselves that this was the reality of Brezhnev's USSR. On the other hand a country like the UK can wing it without a solid constitution at all - just a bedrock of tradition and past legal precedent - yet still remain (despite many glaring faults and recent backsliding) a relatively free country in global and historical terms.

What matters is that the society itself believes in the traditions of democracy, freedom and the rule of law. If that withers and dies, perhaps because people no longer consider these ideals to be as important as their pet ideologies, or because the citizens no longer share a common epistemological reality, or because oligarchs are given free reign to buy politicians, courts and media, then it doesn't really matter any more what your vaunted Constitution says.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#458

Post by 3836293648 »

tdehnel wrote: post #293
jquery wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Was the WSJ always this bad or did Rupert Murdoch’s purchase take it in a far right direction?

Oh knock it off. Having a conservative opinion =/= “far right”

You're talking about Americans. The democrats are far right and the republicans are extremely far right. Look at the rest of the world

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#459

Post by UncleMeat »

scarface74 wrote: post #199
WalterBright wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The answer is, it is a Republic, not a Democracy. It's set up to make it difficult for the majority to trample on the rights of the minority. More colorfully, having two wolves and a sheep vote on what's for dinner. It's still a good thing.

> It's set up to make it difficult for the majority to trample on the rights of the minority Two words: Jim Crow

Yeah. The idea that our system somehow successfully prevents a majority from outright extreme oppression of a minority is laughable given our history. This is just a talking point made with nearly zero intellectual honesty to continue to support a system that benefits one political faction.

When they say "trample on the rights of the minority" they mean "enact legislation unpopular among conservatives."

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#460

Post by pavlov »

refurb wrote: post #452
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…

Supreme Court rulings are not a popularity contest. It’s intended as an independent (as independent a nominated body can be) that interprets the laws the Congress passes within the confines of the Constitution. I for one would fear living in a country where the courts were swayed by public sentiment.

It’s hardly an independent body when 67% of members are lifetime political appointees from a party that hasn’t represented a national majority in several decades.
Post reply on HN