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

601–610 of 747 posts

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#601

Post by WalterBright »

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #583
denton-scratch wrote: post #557

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

I see all the rights under constant attack all the time. By Americans. It's heartbreaking.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#602

Post by WalterBright »

kasey_junk wrote: post #536
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,…

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.

And yet the BoR was the first set of Amendments as the founders realized the mistake of not including them.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#603

Post by mberning »

jawns wrote: post #518
mberning wrote: post #514

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correct. If you make it easier to amend in order to assail your current grievance, it won’t be long before someone else gets into power in order to assail their current grievance, which may be free speech, or worse.

Oh, it's still amended, but by judicial decisions from as few as five justices, rather than by supermajorities of Congress and the states.

That's hyperbolic and is really letting the legislature off the hook for their poor performance. Many of the things that people are upset about, say abortion rights, could have easily been addressed over the past few decades via legislation, but the congress was happy to allow it to rest on a shaky legal foundation via judicial ruling. Even now, they do nothing on the issue. You could pass a federal law saying that an abortion is to be legal in the case of incest. Who is going to oppose that? Rather than do that people want to make it easier to amend the constitution. It's ridiculous and dangerous. If the legislature tries and is denied by the courts then maybe we can talk about a constitutional amendment. But they haven't even tried yet.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#604

Post by kritiko »

tptacek wrote: post #589
kritiko wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm not arguing with Publius, I'm saying it would be preferable if it were explicitly stated -- same as e.g. a right to privacy or a less ambiguous 2nd amendment.

As for what the framers thought, Wikipedia has some choice quotes, including from Thomas Jefferson: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review_in_the_United_...

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#605

Post by WalterBright »

theluketaylor wrote: post #489
pyuser583 wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My source for Canada and South Africa is Ruth Badger Ginsburg. She suggested insurrectionists in Egypt emulate the South African and Canadian Constitutions, rather than the US Constitution. She wasn’t insulting the US Constitution, just emphasizing it’s the product of circumstances that didn’t apply to Egypt. Seems like the Canadian Constitution is similarly constructed - taking the specific time, place, customs into…

> Ruth Badger Ginsburg Ruth Badger Ginsburg should be a Supreme Court Justice on a kids show filled with animals who makes landmark decisions the real Ruth Bader Ginsburg would have proud of. Your own link contains my very point: the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a modern piece of human rights legislation. RBG specifically calls out the Charter, not the Canadian constitution as a whole. The Charter is like the US…

"The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."

So the law can override it as they please? I prefer the US version that says "Congress shall make no law ..."

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#606

Post by kelseyfrog »

tomp wrote: post #534
kelseyfrog wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

To actually do comparative politics, you need to regress over regimes not just call out counter examples. This is a quantitative problem, not a logic problem.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#607

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

tastyfreeze wrote: post #408
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Returning the Senate to selection by state legislature also solves the complaint of unequal representation in the senate. ?? Wyoming would still have 2 senators, just like California. How does that help in any way? > Representing the people isn't supposed to be the purpose of the senate. For many of us, that's precisely the problem. The role of the government is the representation of the people, and to the extent t…

The House is the representation of the people. The Senate is supposed to represent each state government. Regardless of population the state governments do not need more representation. The role of government is to protect states from foreign or domestic invasion and to ensure no government tramples the rights of the people. But, we are so far past what the government is supposed to do we have people trying to figure…

What interest does a state government have other than the interests of the people of the state.

Your assertions about the role of the federal government represent one view of that role, and a very historical one at that. That doesn't make it wrong, but it would probably be more useful to say something like "I continue to believe that the view of the some of the framers, and many of the land owning class in the 1700's, that the federal government's role should be very small, continues to be correct even in the 2020s".

More useful because lots of people don't agree with that perspective.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#608

Post by Redoubts »

rayiner wrote: post #523
zhoujianfu wrote: post #421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah! As long as we have fptp elections there will be two parties each getting about 50% of the vote, because they will evolve to be competitive. The question is just should that 50% line be about the middle of all citizens, or should that “middle” be randomly skewed towards people who happen to live nearer to farms.

That’s not the only “question.” We’re a federation of 50 sovereign states, not a single state. You can’t just sweep that part under the rug. In general, people tend to get really upset when you act like certain lines on the map just don’t exist.

Hot take: we really should rethink those lines, since they were drawn to balance a power struggle resolved >150 years ago.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#609

Post by pythonaut_16 »

kasey_junk wrote: post #536
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,…

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.

This is either absurd or sorely uninformed. That the Bill of Rights was added later is essentially a procedural technicality.

The (lack of a) Bill of Rights was a major concern when the Constitution was drafted. It was passed with the promise that amending it with a Bill of Rights would be the first priority.

The Constitution was only passed without it so the convention wouldn't keep dragging on.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#610

Post by rayiner »

Redoubts wrote: post #608
rayiner wrote: post #523

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s not the only “question.” We’re a federation of 50 sovereign states, not a single state. You can’t just sweep that part under the rug. In general, people tend to get really upset when you act like certain lines on the map just don’t exist.

Hot take: we really should rethink those lines, since they were drawn to balance a power struggle resolved >150 years ago.

California: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jsW9MlYu31g
Post reply on HN