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

591–600 of 747 posts

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#591

Post by Izkata »

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…

> Seventy-two per cent

..is one of those percentages that comes up in survey results so often that I can't help but distrust those results. It feels like something is being gamed to come up with that, and this one managed to get it twice.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#592

Post by Turing_Machine »

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.

Women, children, and slaves were all counted for purposes of representation (slaves at 3/5 --- which made the slave states weaker, not stronger) even though they couldn't vote.

Children can't vote to this day but still count in terms of representation in the House.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#593

Post by gen220 »

mynameishere wrote: post #574
gen220 wrote: post #158

In the US, we used to amend constitutions fairly regularly (at the Federal, State levels, but I’m most familiar with Federal and New York), especially through WWII. With a few exceptions (the prohibition is the biggest one that springs to mind), the trend line has generally been progressive. We stopped making meaningful changes around the 1960s, read into that what we may. Regardless, our governmental institutions ha…

It was progressives who outlawed booze. Don't retcon that word to mean "whatever I approve of today."

I think we’re using different definitions of “progressive”.

I’m using the dictionary definition “favoring liberal ideas”. I think you’re referring to big-P “Progressive”?

Regardless of whether the temperance movement identified itself as “progressive” or which political party germinated it, prohibition is not a liberal idea: restricting the liberty to consume alcohol is not an expansion of freedom.

The policy was bundled into the nominally “Progressive” platform of the 20th Century, but that doesn’t make it a progressive policy. North Korea and the Congo are nominally Democratic Republics, but their claiming the name doesn’t change the definition of democracy or republic.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#594

Post by mythopedia »

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.

> On October 26, the Senate confirmed Barrett to the Supreme Court by a vote of 52–48, 30 days after her nomination and 8 days before the 2020 presidential election. *Every Republican senator except Susan Collins voted to confirm her, whereas every member of the Senate Democratic Caucus voted in opposition.* Barrett is the first justice since 1870 to be confirmed without a single vote from the Senate minority party.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy_Coney_Barrett

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#595

Post by WalterBright »

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #573
WalterBright wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Bill of Rights is particularly brilliant in its conciseness. A lawyer once said that "show me a contract that's one page, and I won't be able to break it. Show me one 20 pages long, and I'll break it."

This lawyer must not have been aware of the marvelous legal doctrines of mental gymnastics and motivated reasoning that often get applied to such phrases as "persons and effects" or "shall not be infringed". And let us not forget the definition tricks that get played with words like "search" and "speech". edit: Sarcasm should be obvious. Point is if enough key parties want to ignore the law it gets ignored and upheld…

Oh, I'm aware of that. I have a bone to pick with a lot of the SC rulings.

But also consider that nobody has yet been put in jail for harshly criticizing the President. And you can still buy a gun.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#596

Post by lettergram »

scrlk wrote: post #473
somenameforme wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/ There's another critical date: 1971. That was the year that Nixon ended the Bretton Woods System. [1] Bretton Woods was a defacto global* monetary system. Other currencies were pegged to the dollar and the dollar was convertible to gold at a fixed rate. This created a sort of soft backing to the dollar. After it ended the final constraint the 'government printing' (this is not an entire…

> I suspect when this current system we've created blows up, it's going to make 1929 look like a bull market. I don't think it will completely blow up, but there will be enough economic pain inflicted such that the ordinary person will be happy to accept a central bank digital currency. The cogs are already turning: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/g7-public-policy-...

At this point, I think the US would not accept it.

Half the country wants nothing to do with the federal government. If you visit places like South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Florida, Indiana, etc the people there are openly saying “prepare, the government is attacking us”

Driving around the country you’ll see upside down American flags (meaning country in distress), gadsden flags, etc you’re much more likely going to get people to accept ETH then take over the org or something.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#597

Post by nvahalik »

throw0101c wrote: post #176
nvahalik wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> refusing to compromise Unfortunately the left has won in this regard. The left moves so hard and fast to the left that even the right can no longer "refuse to compromise." If they don't, they are bigots at worst and uncultured, out of touch imbeciles at best.

> Unfortunately the left has won in this regard. Republicans have moved further to the right than Democrats have to the left: * https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/03/10/the-polariz...

I'm not disputing this, but I think there should be a clarification:

By definition, someone who is conservative doesn't need to "move". Conservatism is about _conserving_ and subsequently not changing or moving.

If the conservatives are becoming "more conservative" they are (or at least should be) _not moving_.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#598

Post by WalterBright »

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…

Here's how you can tell if a set of rights is more correct or less correct - how well a country organized around those rights thrives, or fails to thrive.

The US has thrived, meaning its definition of rights is reasonably on the mark.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#599

Post by nvahalik »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #154
johnthuss wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, please give some examples.

The US "left wing" party does not (collectively) support: * nationalized health insurance * higher upper marginal rate income taxes * expanded public transportation * higher corporate taxes * unions/employee members of corporate boards * longer parental leave * more vacation time These and many other policies are common across other democratic nations' left-ish parties, and are actual policy in many of those nations.

I take it you haven't read the Party Platform, have you?

Not sure that it really matters. As the #1 and #2 priorities of the Democratic Party right are allowing for the unrestricted killing of the unborn and supporting the alphabet-soup of sexual/gender spectrum.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#600

Post by WalterBright »

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…

Fortunately, you still have those rights - whether you recognize them or not, and whether or not the government recognizes them.

They're inherent to being a human being - those "inalienable" rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence.

The US Constitution did not create those rights, it recognized them.

Post reply on HN