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

491–500 of 747 posts

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#491

Post by sokoloff »

pavlov wrote: post #460
refurb wrote: post #452

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Independent is orthogonal to whether its members match any particular political party provenance.

In fact, the more we demand that it match that profile, the less independent it’s likely to become.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#492

Post by ShredKazoo »

The notion of amending the constitution in response to political dysfunction is a bit paradoxical, because dysfunctional politics are upstream of the amendment process. Dysfunctional politics will likely mean a dysfunctional amendment.

Some thoughts on resolving the paradox:

* If the constitution had been easier to amend in the 90s and 00s, perhaps some wise politicians would've seen whispers of the current dysfunction and passed an amendment to preempt it. Maybe there could be a "department of the future" that's trying to figure out how things could go off the rails and what amendments we could pass in advance to help.

* If amendment was done according to an entirely different process (e.g. sortition https://www.sortitionfoundation.org/case_study_america_in_on... -- essentially a citizen's assembly), that could solve the paradox. Especially if the new process was something slower and somehow less prone to dysfunction. It'd be like an additional check & balance. Sadly, we don't have much experience with sortition or other very different processes, and it seems risky to entrust them with something as important as the constitution. Maybe the rule could simply be that the legislature is required to vote on whether to adopt the changes that come out of the sortition process?

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#493

Post by parkingrift »

TeeMassive wrote: post #339
pasquinelli wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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, filibuster, presidential veto, high threshold of consensus for changing the constitution), as it should. which is why prohabition never happened.

Crime virtually disappeared after Prohibition was passed until the apparition of organized crime. At the time (and still to this day) alcohol and drugs made and destroyed empires. The Dutch Empire was based on Gin. The British Empire on Opium and Rhum. Russia on Vodka. France had Bourbon.

You could also rewrite this sentence to say that prohibition created organized crime.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#494

Post by sokoloff »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #356
kccqzy wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The tenth amendment is certainly in effect. It's just that we have an expanded definition of commerce those days.

Not just definition. By any measure, or any definition, we have massively expanded inter-state commerce these days.

Indeed. When the Supreme Court rules that 6 MJ plants, grown and consumed on a homeowner’s property, falls under the power to regulate inter-state commerce, I think some of plot has been lost.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#495

Post by lovich »

refurb wrote: post #487
pavlov wrote: post #460

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's not "from a party", it's nominated "by the Senate". For example, Amy Barrett was confirmed by a vote of 55-43, including 3 Democrats. I'm not sure why you mention "a national majority". It was never a popularity contest. States elect senators, senators confirm Supreme Court justices.

And which office proposes said candidates? And how does that office get elected? It’s not crazy for the OP to mention a national majority

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#496

Post by sokoloff »

hardtke wrote: post #366
stale2002 wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If there is a strong enough popular support for taking more extreme actions, then there should be strong enough support to change the constitution the normal way. For people who want the constitution changed, thats the dilemma they have to deal with. If they don't have enough support to do it the regular way, then maybe the more silly and extreme solutions aren't justified either.

The primary flaw in the constitution is that smaller states have disproportionate power (Senate and Electoral College) and will never give up or dilute this power. Even worse, equal representation for each state in the Senate is literally the only part of the constitution that cannot be amended. So even with overwhelming popular support there is an absolute barrier to reform.

The Senate composition can be amended legally. It does require the consent of any state which would lose proportional representation, placing a strong practical hurdle but there is no absolute legal barring of that amendment.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#497

Post by lovich »

nyokodo wrote: post #326
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…

> These are dark times for US democracy The US system has little d democratic aspects but it is not a democracy. It was intentionally setup to protect the minority from the majority in critical respects like constitutional amendments. Also, population shifts are ongoing and the coastal blue populations are the most rapidly aging in the country and the increasingly red US born Hispanic populations are the most rapidly…

It’s a democratic republic. I have a distaste for conservative arguments to begin with but the wheedling pedantry of this one they always trout out to ignore the word “democratic” in the description to justify anti democratic measures always manages to annoy me just a little bit harder

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#498

Post by LatteLazy »

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 say "should" and I think you're right that that is how the system is interpreted to work and has been for a while. But don't mistake that for a design choice by genius founding fathers OR for a good aspect or a way of achieving good government.

Relying on consensus to get things done AND designing a system to prevent consensus (party system, FPTP etc) is really just a recipe for deadlocked government. The result is the main failing of the US system: things are dictated by the craziest holdout.

I don't think this is a design choice (thinking so would be pretty damning for the founding fathers...). I don't think it serves the US well. I think it is only how the system "should" work in the sense that it is the natural failure mode of the system as written. If a bad, rushed coder fails to put divide by zero protection in, the program "should" crash when someone puts a 0 in. That doesn't mean that isn't a bug to fix though...

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#499

Post by clarionbell »

Kbelicius wrote: post #444
Turing_Machine wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No, it was because the slave states didn't want to lose slavery in a Senate vote. Sorry, that is simply not true. Virginia, a slave state, was by far the most populous state at the time the Constitution was adopted.

> Virginia, a slave state, was by far the most populous state at the time the Constitution was adopted. Only if you count slaves and I don't see why you would in this context.

Hence something called "3/5 compromise" which diluted political power of slave holders and while keeping slaves under their heel.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#500

Post by refurb »

lovich wrote: post #495
refurb wrote: post #487

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not "from a party", it's nominated "by the Senate". For example, Amy Barrett was confirmed by a vote of 55-43, including 3 Democrats. I'm not sure why you mention "a national majority". It was never a popularity contest. States elect senators, senators confirm Supreme Court justices.

And which office proposes said candidates? And how does that office get elected? It’s not crazy for the OP to mention a national majority

What do you mean office?

The voters elect senators, who nominate candidates and then vote.

Post reply on HN