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

501–510 of 747 posts

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#501

Post by parkingrift »

johnthuss wrote: post #15

"Seventy-two per cent of Republicans think that the Constitution is basically fine as is; seventy-two per cent of Democrats disagree." Of course this has nothing to do the actual Constitution. It's a statement about each party's (dis)satisfaction with the current success of their party. The optimist in me wants to believe that even in this polarized culture politicians could compromise and find a middle ground on man…

It really just boils down to how you feel about guns and abortion.

It’s interesting that people want to restrict rights in one area, and expand them in another. The people and parties just disagree on which is which.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#502

Post by Ekaros »

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

Office that is voted in by people who potentially do not represented 49.9% of the people who voted for them.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#503

Post by Ekaros »

lovich wrote: post #497
nyokodo wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

Federal rebulic. It seems that Federal word is way too often forgotten. Maybe first amendment to constitution moving forward should be getting rid of it and just moving everything to single level, currently federal, but after not.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#504

Post by Beltalowda »

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.

The SCOTUS is "independent" in the sense that it does not have any person or institution they have to answer to, but I'm not sure if that's really all that relevant. The individual members have vastly different views on how to interpret the law, and are clearly put in place for political reasons.

And courts should be "swayed by public sentiment". A judge's job is "to judge", and general societal attitudes play part of that. This is why SCOTUS rulings from 1910 are not the same as today. Otherwise we might as well replace all courts with some AI that would interpret the law to the letter.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#505

Post by Beltalowda »

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.

I think the biggest problem with the constitution is that's it's treated with such reverence, and that discussions quickly devolve in to an "argumentum ad constitution" fallacy, rather than actually discussing the meat of the matter.

For the most part I think the constitution is fine, but I also think it's standing in the way of having meaningful debates about the future of the country because half the debates can be quickly shut down with "the constitution".

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#506

Post by sosull »

kepler1 wrote: post #449
CGamesPlay wrote: post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I would add that if you are a fan of courts protecting minority rights not subject to the whims and abuses of majorities, you should be grateful that judges are not democratically elected.

There are twenty-three states where judges all the way up to the State Supreme Court are elected, rather than being appointed. These include partisan elections, nonpartisan elections, and legislative elections.

https://ballotpedia.org/Judicial_selection_in_the_states

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#507

Post by sokoloff »

refurb wrote: post #500
lovich wrote: post #495

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The President nominates and the Senate vets/confirms them.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/faq_general.aspx

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#508

Post by whoooooo123 »

HWR_14 wrote: post #465
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…

I thought the USSR went through famines because of the natural conditions, (drought and unusual coldness).

3 to 5 million Ukrainians starved to death because the USSR deliberately cut off their food supplies in a targeted attempt to kill them.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#509

Post by anticensor »

WalterBright wrote: post #303
Tomte wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does all the "nation building" around the world by the United States never result in a US style constitution, but seemingly inevitably in something closer to the German one? I mean, Americans always talk about their Constitution's supremacy, but they never want to give it to others (not even to Puerto Rico).

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

In Germany, laws are copyrighted under a reasonable use with attribution licence.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#510

Post by PubliusMI »

HaZeust wrote: post #442
torstenvl wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It may appear that way, especially if someone doesn't make it their life's work. But although concise, it is rich in meaning. You call out Article III, for example, so I'll focus on that. It doesn't say "we should have a Supreme Court and other courts Congress may establish." It says the judicial power of the United States shall be vested in them, and that judges shall be appointed. It isn't magisterial or clerical p…

Your entire argument falls under when you take into consideration that the very judicial power that's "vested" to the Supreme Court in its jurisdiction is solely delegated to Judges that Congress appoints. Congress should not get to seat its own checks and balances, and it doesn't particularly matter if Congress is only allowed to establish and ordain inferior courts to that of the Supreme Court, if they already effe…

No post body was provided.
Post reply on HN