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

531–540 of 747 posts

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#531

Post by tomp »

denton-scratch wrote: post #530
indymike wrote: post #512

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don’t write low level, close to the hardware software with Python or Java. You use something like C, Rust or assembler. Constitutions are the firmware. Building nations is an old, old craft and the legal instruments used to define have been being written for thousands of years. In many ways our constitution is the Rust of these documents in that it focused on security of structure and by the time it was ratified,…

> individual rights over everything else I used to admire the US constitution. I've grown up now. Who could possibly be opposed to human rights - i.e. human beings having rights? And indeed, the US constitution does appear to be largely about rights. Over the years I've increasingly leaned to the view that these rights are mostly a legal fiction, and that the things that are supposedly rights are highly subjective po…

> Who could possibly be opposed to human rights - i.e. human beings having rights? And indeed, the US constitution does appear to be largely about rights.

What do you mean? US citizens have pretty much the most rights of any people in the world.

Can you list the countries that guarantee freedom of speech, freedom to bear arms, freedom from unreasonable searches and freedom to stay silent (not incriminate yourself)?

(Of course, the implementation of these rights is ... imperfect.)

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#532

Post by pjc50 »

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.

The constitutions the US imposed on Germany and Japan we're talking about, which are very different from the US. No unlimited access to firearms and hate speech, for obvious reasons.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#533

Post by pjc50 »

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.

> Crime virtually disappeared after Prohibition was passed until the apparition of organized crime

I have never seen this claim made before and would like some evidence for it.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#534

Post by tomp »

kelseyfrog wrote: post #220
trelane wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, interesting. How many have they tried experimentally?

Parliamentary systems are generally considered more stable than presidential systems and tend to more naturally express multiparty politics (Australia and UK not withstanding). Even while many people in the US might like the things a parliamentary system has to offer, there is no viable way to transition to one culturally. As much Americans hate how politics works presently, they hate the idea of replacing it even mo…

> Parliamentary systems are generally considered more stable

Hm... Germany's system changed at least 3 times in the 20th century. France is on its Fifth Republic. Italy is a shitshow.

To me it seems that the oldest democracies (UK, US) are the most stable (even today!) and they're majority systems (first-past-the-post).

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#535

Post by twic »

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.

It has politically appointed judges! I doubt the US constitution is even in the top 50%.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#536

Post by kasey_junk »

indymike wrote: post #512
crazygringo wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You don’t write low level, close to the hardware software with Python or Java. You use something like C, Rust or assembler. Constitutions are the firmware. Building nations is an old, old craft and the legal instruments used to define have been being written for thousands of years. In many ways our constitution is the Rust of these documents in that it focused on security of structure and by the time it was ratified,…

The idea that the Constitution is somehow directed by the security of individual rights doesn’t pass the most basic reading or history lesson.

It’s a delineation of governmental responsibilities between the various federal branches and the states. It wasn’t until the Bill of Rights was later ratified that it has anything to say about individual rights other than to deny them.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#537

Post by tomp »

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.

> that hasn’t represented a national majority in several decades

You can't really make that claim, objectively.

US elections aren't decided by national majority, so you can't use them as a measure of national majority.

If the game was different, people would play it differently.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#538

Post by candiddevmike »

WalterBright wrote: post #399
dragonwriter wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, by your standard, the Bill of Rights can’t be “broken” by a lawyer, that is, they can’t get a court to apply it in something other than the intended manner. But virtually every significant phrase in the Bill of Rights has been applied in multiple different ways by different courts over the years, so clearly lawyers have had no trouble breaking it.

The BoR has been under continuous and relentless assault for well over two centuries. It is battered and bloodied, but has held up surprisingly well.

The recent abortion ruling disagrees with you. Same with the Patriot Act.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#539

Post by bilbo0s »

geraneum wrote: post #485
kepler1 wrote: post #449

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The worse case is majority rights being subject to the whims and abuses of a minority. Protecting minorities shouldn’t mean that this is ok! P.S. minorities here could mean anything i.e the mega rich, the “legal” cartels, etc.

How is that "worse"?

Abusing any population, is abusing a population. What you just argued is akin to walking into a room full of pregnant high school girls, and declaring one to be the "most" virgin.

Besides, the point of the Constitution, is to make it difficult for such things to happen in one direction or another in the political dimension. Which it does pretty well. If you want it to provide protections in the dimension of private economic activity, you can do that, just make an amendment and build a consensus.

If this new amendment which you draft to ostensibly protect this "majority", can't build the requisite consensus, then not only is it doubtful that it actually protects a majority, but it also shouldn't be an amendment. That's just democracy since the "majority" you claim to be serving doesn't seem to want the amendment.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#540

Post by skymast »

The 2nd Amendment does not apply to semi-auto rifles, nor does it apply to bolt action rifles, pistols, or revolvers. The 2nd Amendment RESTRICTS GOVERNMENT. The technology of the firearm is irrelevant. The restrictions on government remain the same, regardless of the firearm. The Second Amendment was not written to grant permission for citizens to own and bear firearms. It forbids government interference in the right to keep and bear arms, period. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Post reply on HN