A bad grade that changed the U.S. constitution (2017) • Hacker News Board

Re: A bad grade that changed the U.S. constitution (2017)

#61

Post by deertick1 » Thu, Aug 05, 2021, 2:25 AM UTC

voidfunc wrote: post #36

sigzero wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is what was supposed to happen. The Federal level has way too much power today.

Yes, unfortunately "states rights" has become a rallying cry for racism and hatred, but the original framing of this country is that the state's are basically supposed to be much stronger than the Federal government. I don't really know whether we can unwind the federal governments grasp on things without basically destabilizing the whole thing though at this point (and admittedly, I'm not sure the majority would wan…

Since when has "states rights" become a rallying cry for racism or hatred?

I'm really tired of people saying stuff like this : has become a rallying cry for racism and transphobia and bigotry.

Its really obnoxious and disingenuous. Give me one example of someone using states rights as a call for racism and hatred.

My guess is you probably only said what you just said because you've read enough articles by blue-haired liberal arts graduates with a sub 100 IQ.

Re: A bad grade that changed the U.S. constitution (2017)

#62

Post by Causality1 » Thu, Aug 05, 2021, 2:26 AM UTC

minikites wrote: post #58

fallingknife wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Letting the states make their own decisions on issues not addressed by the constitution is a perfectly viable solution. Not sure why that would be particularly difficult.

How well did the states do at running their own vaccine programs? How well did it work when some states recognized gay marriage and others did not? Having nationwide consistency is important for many issues.

The gay marriage issue is a great example of exactly the opposite of your point. States one by one recognizing gay marriage and proving that it wasn't going to cause the collapse of society is the only reason it was recognized on a national level. The same process is currently happening with marijuana prohibition.

Re: A bad grade that changed the U.S. constitution (2017)

#63

Post by thereare5lights » Thu, Aug 05, 2021, 2:27 AM UTC

jawns wrote: post #2

There have been only two amendments to the U.S. Constitution over the past 50+ years (one of which is the subject of this story). Why? Partly because the Supreme Court has been very willing to discover hidden rights within the existing amendments, decreasing the need for states to go through the very arduous process of getting a new amendment over the finish line. That might seem like a fine way to handle things ...…

For more information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penumbra_(law)

Re: A bad grade that changed the U.S. constitution (2017)

#64

Post by vmception » Thu, Aug 05, 2021, 2:28 AM UTC

sigzero wrote: post #28

fallingknife wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Letting the states make their own decisions on issues not addressed by the constitution is a perfectly viable solution. Not sure why that would be particularly difficult.

That is what was supposed to happen. The Federal level has way too much power today.

Little did they know that all commerce would be interstate commerce by the 20th century

The Federal government has subjugated all states, and merely tolerates their grasps at 10th amendment autonomy as it derives power from the collection of states. But it is more well funded, controls the currency, and has more land and resources under its title. States don't matter.

Re: A bad grade that changed the U.S. constitution (2017)

#65

Post by minikites » Thu, Aug 05, 2021, 2:28 AM UTC

victor106 wrote: post #41

> In 1995, he realized Mississippi had never ratified the 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery. So he pushed that state's Legislature to do it — and it worked. Just think about that for a second: Someone had to push the state legislature to abolish slavery in 1995. Just sickening

Slavery was never really abolished, it's still allowed as punishment for a crime. The bias of police and the criminal justice system against people of certain races takes on a new meaning in this light.

Re: A bad grade that changed the U.S. constitution (2017)

#66

Post by webnrrd2k » Thu, Aug 05, 2021, 2:28 AM UTC

fallingknife wrote: post #27

resoluteteeth wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If interpreted strictly, the constitution is really not suitable for operating a modern government (e.g. if you interpret the list of powers given to the federal government narrowly) so the supreme court essentially has no choice but to make stuff up. Obviously once they start doing that there's no real way to control what they are able to modify, but the only real way to fix it would be to completely scrap the curre…

Letting the states make their own decisions on issues not addressed by the constitution is a perfectly viable solution. Not sure why that would be particularly difficult.

The U.S. history with slavery and Jim Crow laws tell me that it's not always perfectly viable, and is sometimes very difficult.

Re: A bad grade that changed the U.S. constitution (2017)

#67

Post by minikites » Thu, Aug 05, 2021, 2:31 AM UTC

Causality1 wrote: post #62

minikites wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How well did the states do at running their own vaccine programs? How well did it work when some states recognized gay marriage and others did not? Having nationwide consistency is important for many issues.

The gay marriage issue is a great example of exactly the opposite of your point. States one by one recognizing gay marriage and proving that it wasn't going to cause the collapse of society is the only reason it was recognized on a national level. The same process is currently happening with marijuana prohibition.

>States one by one recognizing gay marriage and proving that it wasn't going to cause the collapse of society is the only reason it was recognized on a national level.

You're leaving out the massive fights from states that did not want to recognize gay marriage, which could have easily gone the other way. The same process will repeat with marijuana prohibition and the states fighting it may succeed this time. What would have happened if gay marriage stayed as a patchwork of legal statuses? What will happen in the long run when marijuana is legal in many states but continues to send you to prison for decades in others? This is not a stable situation and the exact reason we need the federal government to do things instead of leaving it up to the states.

Re: A bad grade that changed the U.S. constitution (2017)

#68

Post by quantumBerry » Thu, Aug 05, 2021, 2:32 AM UTC

shadowgovt wrote: post #56

quantumBerry wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Power centralization is rarely predicated on reasons that include the benefit of common man. The US doesn't appear much different in that regard, either.

There were two major events in US history that caused significant Federal power consolidation. Technically three, if you count the collapse of the government that was structured under the Articles of the Confederacy prior to the Constitution because it's lack of tax authority meant that it couldn't deal with the war debts that have been accrued from 1776 onward. The first was the civil war, and federal power consolid…

>Easily half the states demonstrated that they could not be trusted to run their own affairs and protect the rights of the citizens enshrined in the Constitution.

So instead we have a more centralized federal government that cannot be trusted to protect the rights of the citizens enshrined in the Constitution ( that same post civil war government interned the Japanese, allows police to search any vehicle with the "signal" of a dog, and instead of enslaving blacks just disproportionately tosses them to wither away in prison instead. Instead of enslaving brown people here, now our kinder gentler federal government just blow them up in foreign countries instead. )

>The reinterpretation of the Constitution that occurred during the Great Depression granted the federal government the authority to regulate commerce within States under the interstate commerce clause. This authority drives everything from farm subsidies to drug regulation.

That's the first time I've seen the war on drugs used to justify the centralization of power. I suppose we need a new civil war against the "untrustworthy" states that have legalized marijuana so affairs can be run the right way.

It's pretty "reasonable" to believe the federal government DOESN't need the authority they currently have.

Re: A bad grade that changed the U.S. constitution (2017)

#69

Post by Aerroon » Thu, Aug 05, 2021, 2:36 AM UTC

krrrh wrote: post #51

rcollyer wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The constitution is remarkably vague about all manner of things. So, the argument that the "expansion of the government beyond what the Constitution allows" is really difficult to support on a textualist basis. What exactly did you have in mind?

How about the following… > to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes. Being interpreted thusly… > The government argued that if a single exception were made to the Controlled Substances Act, it would become unenforceable in practice. The government also contended that consuming one's locally grown marijuana for medical purposes affects the interstate market of…

Wickard v. Filburn is crazy.

Filburn grew his own crops on his own land to feed his own animals. The government fined him under interstate commerce laws for growing too much wheat.

>The Court decided that Filburn's wheat-growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for animal feed on the open market, which is traded nationally, is thus interstate, and is therefore within the scope of the Commerce Clause.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

Re: A bad grade that changed the U.S. constitution (2017)

#70

Post by rayiner » Thu, Aug 05, 2021, 2:43 AM UTC

resoluteteeth wrote: post #11

jawns wrote: post #2

There have been only two amendments to the U.S. Constitution over the past 50+ years (one of which is the subject of this story). Why? Partly because the Supreme Court has been very willing to discover hidden rights within the existing amendments, decreasing the need for states to go through the very arduous process of getting a new amendment over the finish line. That might seem like a fine way to handle things ...…

If interpreted strictly, the constitution is really not suitable for operating a modern government (e.g. if you interpret the list of powers given to the federal government narrowly) so the supreme court essentially has no choice but to make stuff up. Obviously once they start doing that there's no real way to control what they are able to modify, but the only real way to fix it would be to completely scrap the curre…

> If interpreted strictly, the constitution is really not suitable for operating a modern government (e.g. if you interpret the list of powers given to the federal government narrowly) so the supreme court essentially has no choice but to make stuff up.

One, that’s not quite true. Sometimes the Constitution uses broad language. For example, the Commerce Clause is worded expansively. It’s probably been pushed a bit beyond the text, but the bigger impact is from vastly more activity in the country involving “interstate commerce.” Regardless, that’s well within the scope of interpretation and judgment.

By contrast, there are a number of things the Supreme Court has simply made up. Conjuring a “right to privacy” from “penumbras” of the other amendments is an example. The “reasonable expectation of privacy” formulation of the 4th amendment. The “wall of separation” of church and state. The country wouldn’t fall into the ocean without these things.

The administrative state is probably the most unconstitutional thing that’s simultaneously necessary. Specifically, regulatory agencies in the executive branch that combine legislative and judicial functions. (E.g. having the ability to promulgate rules and then adjudicate violations.) But one can imagine workarounds. E.g. executive agencies propose rules which Congress enacts. (Proposing laws is actually a function of the executive branch.)