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

581–590 of 747 posts

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#581

Post by dsfyu404ed »

kasey_junk wrote: post #550
tomp wrote: post #531

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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)? (…

That’s begging the question. If you define rights specifically by enumerating how they are defined in the bill of rights of course the US comes out on top. That’s before your hedge about implementation. In practice the US performs rather badly when scores on civil liberties. Here is one methodology https://knoema.com/atlas/ranks/Civil-liberties-index?mode=am... but you can find similar results across many others. Jus…

>In practice the US performs rather badly when scores on civil liberties.

Which IMO is mostly a reflection of a country in which a large subset of the electorate do not really believe in human rights beyond the extent of a useful legal fiction to be followed in the default case and quietly ignored in the pursuit of specific outcomes.

If the people had a hardline stance on human rights and civil liberties the government would reflect that.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#582

Post by naasking »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #46
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's a statement about each party's (dis)satisfaction with the current success of their party. This requires clarification. If our government was elected based on a "one person one vote" principle, Republicans would be nearly guaranteed to lose the presidency and Congress. Since 1992 there have been 8 presidential elections. Republicans only won the popular vote once (2004) but also won the presidency in 2000 and 2…

> This requires clarification. If our government was elected based on a "one person one vote" principle, Republicans would be nearly guaranteed to lose the presidency and Congress.

That's a meaningless observation. If the rules were different such that the popular vote mattered more, then Republicans would play a different game. Roughly the same equilibrium would be achieved in the end.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#583

Post by dsfyu404ed »

denton-scratch wrote: post #557
tomp wrote: post #531

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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)? (…

US citizens do indeed have a constitution that confers lots of rights. My contention is simply that these rights are legal fictions and political footballs, and should not be in-scope for a constitution. They shouldn't be baked-in; they should be simple legislation. I mainly don't believe in these "rights". I think people should be treated fairly and equitably; and I think that should be a matter of law. But constitu…

They're political footballs because people don't want people they don't like or are who are doing things they don't like to have rights and monkeying with definitions is easier than the full frontal assault of amending the constitution.

How many times have you seen people on HN advocating, to much popular support, for infringing upon the 4th amendment for people who are involved in specific types of business or the infringing upon 5th amendment protections for people engaged in certain activities?

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#584

Post by JKCalhoun »

ericmay wrote: post #560
checkyoursudo wrote: post #544

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We should not idolize a past that did not exist. The politicians during the 1780s were not more virtuous, cooperative, or intelligent than the politicians of today. I tend to agree more with Thomas Jefferson: "On similar ground it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation. They may manage it then, and what proceeds from…

But then you site one of those politicians who wrote actual thoughtful discourse. Is there a single politician in office or who has recently left office in America who has written anything approaching the thoughtfulness of even this short piece? I have to believe that even if it were true that many or most politicians in 1780 were similar to politicians today on levels that you mention that they still had a serious c…

In what forum today are politicians given an opportunity to speak/write intellectually?

Sadly too, there has been for some time an under current of anti-intellectualism in politics. It is my understanding that Barack Obama, as an example, is highly educated, no doubt could engage in lofty discussions… that would be political suicide.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#585

Post by amanaplanacanal »

abigail95 wrote: post #157
jaybrendansmith wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. The propaganda of the media, both intentional and accidental, is impacting our Democracy more than I would have thought possible. Being a critical thinker, I made the classic error of assuming that others could not easily be duped, and would actually do their own research on the issues. Boy was I wrong. We are all entitled to our own opinions, but we cannot survive as a Democracy if the citizenry believe they a…

Democracy is majority rule. Democracy is nothing about facts or opinions. You are the one impacting democracy by saying we cannot survive if we keep current democratic rules. You can have the best argument for improving society by limiting who is allowed to vote, what things you're allowed to vote on, and what facts you are allowed to talk about. It can even be a true argument that would make everyone better off. But…

> The only way you can lose a democracy is by voting to stop voting, or voting to stop other people from voting.

Or for the people in power to ignore the actual vote and do what they want to do anyway. See the large group of election deniers currently in government or running for office.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#586

Post by naasking »

lupire wrote: post #224
johnnyanmac wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The fact is that our Constitution reduces voting rights for those that live in populous urban areas and gives outsized voting rights to those that live in rural/sparsely populated area yup, that was by intention. That's also exactly why the senate was erected; they didn't want smaller states to be ignored by campaigns that could ultimately just focus on enough electoral votes to win the election. >This rationale/com…

No, it was because the slave states didn't want to lose slavery in a Senate vote. If you think CA is too populous for it's people deserve an equal vote, CA should be 6 states. But the slavers fought that too (Missouri Compromise). State boundaries are legal constructs inherited from obsolete aristocracy, not meaningful cultural boundaries. It makes no sense to solve a hypothetical tyranny of large states by replacing…

> No, it was because the slave states didn't want to lose slavery in a Senate vote.

Here in Canada we have the same setup but without the historical baggage of slavery justifying it, so I don't think your reason holds up. There are good reasons for avoiding a tyranny of the majority.

For instance, the less populous states tend to be more rural and make most of your food. The more populous states are more urban and its people largely have little idea how food is made. I'm exaggerating a bit, but maybe give the states that are making your food an equal say in your nation as those that are eating that food.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#587

Post by prottog »

closeparen wrote: post #314
nathanaldensr wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This basic fact eludes the intelligentsia who all assume that federal power is The Way Things Are (or Should Be). They assume it's the default position, when in fact the Framers intended it to be a bare-bones fallback for only basic things like the national defense.

The economy turns out to be a pretty big deal, and Commerce Clause aside, states by design have little leverage over it: their borders being open, capital can always just head next door. Small federal government is basically equivalent to right-libertarian economic policy. In an alternate universe you might see liberals content to build welfare states at state level, but in this one it's not really an option. The fra…

We do have to acknowledge that the Commerce Clause has been twisted to federally regulate things that are probably outside what the framers intended. In Wickard v. Filburn, the Supreme Court gave the federal government authority to fine a farmer for growing wheat to feed animals on his own farm! Neither interstate nor commerce involved. Or Gonzales v. Raich, or any number of other cases.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#588

Post by gilbetron »

refurb wrote: post #488
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you secure a multiterm presidency?

Was Obama ever at risk of not getting two terms considering the Republican candidates? It's not guaranteed, but you can usually guess when Presidents are popular enough to stick around for 2 terms.

In hindsight, no, at the time, absolutely. If things had gone a bit differently, he would've failed. I mean the 2012 election was about equivalent to the 2020 election, numbers wise.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#589

Post by tptacek »

kritiko wrote: post #237
lupire wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Congress passing laws saps power from the Supreme Court, and is easier than Amending the Constitution.

The Supreme Court can then strike down those laws via judicial review, a power not enumerated in the constitution.

The idea of judicial review as unconstitutional is a fringe view not worth taking seriously. It was established by the framers during the time of the framers. It was a norm in law in the systems that preceded the Constitution, both in the colonies and in the post-revolutionary governments. It's mentioned in the Federalist Papers. When you're arguing with Publius, you're in crank territory.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#590

Post by Turing_Machine »

clarionbell wrote: post #499
Kbelicius wrote: post #444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

That is exactly correct.

It was the slave states that wanted slaves fully counted, while the free states didn't want them to count at all.

People who go off about "3/5 of a person" don't realize that doing that made the slave states weaker, not stronger.

Post reply on HN