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

641–650 of 747 posts

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#641

Post by denton-scratch »

WalterBright wrote: post #598
denton-scratch wrote: post #530

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Yeah, well I don't see a country that's thriving, except in terms of wealth (for some). I see a country lurching towards another Civil War.

Anyway, my point was that I don't think these rights exist, and that framing things in terms of rights is arse-over-tit. I'm not interested in arguing whether the US chose the right set of rights; I'm saying I have no idea what a "right" is, other than a privilege granted by law.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#642

Post by tastyfreeze »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #607
tastyfreeze wrote: post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The state government is a consolidated view of the people in that state. That doesn't mean that everybody in the state agrees. But, it does mean that there are some settled issues at the state level. A state's senators should be representing those settled views.

Senators did represent the people but once removed. The people can be swayed by a smooth talker or a pretty face. The state legislature selecting senators ensured that senators represented the collective wishes of the state and reinforced state sovereignty by giving the state government a voice in congress. The Senate acted as a check on the people's whims represented in the House.

Federalists 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 75, and 76 address the Senate but the reason for the Senate is summarized at https://www.senate.gov/about/origins-foundations/idea-of-the....

Unless a Constitution describing a large government is ratified I will stick to my belief that a large portion of the government is unconstitutional and unnecessary. The Constitution explicitly says that the only powers the federal government has are what is described in the Constitution. Anything beyond that shouldn't exist at the federal level.

A small federal government ensures that what the people of one state want has absolutely zero effect on any other state. It ensures that the people that live closest to each other are deciding the rules they live by. That makes for a happier populous as the people feel they actually have a say in how their lives are governed. A large central government is costly, ineffective and overbearing.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#643

Post by funcDropShadow »

nvahalik wrote: post #599
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But your #1 and #2 don't appear in most countries non-extremist left parties. Sure many other western democracies allow abortion in some form, but never unrestricted. E.g. in Germany you can abort in the first three month of the pregnancy if you have been to counseling. That makes it impossible to make a decision in a moment that you would regret later. Later abortions are legal only in life threatening situations.

And the support of logically inconsistent and outright vile policies to favor the later letters of the alphabet soup are an American export.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#644

Post by funcDropShadow »

chiefalchemist wrote: post #153
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…

The irony? Nowhere, that I'm aware of, is there anything in the founding documents about limiting choice to two parties. We can't keep filtering everything through a binary lens and expect to get anything but binary opposing views. The tool (i.e. The Constitution) is fine. The problem is at this point it's being used as a hammer and it's a screwdriver. Ya can't blame the tool for those who insist on misusing it.

Democracies that elect powerful presidents directly are usually two party systems. Only the indirect vote of the government through a parliament makes multi party systems more stable.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#645

Post by [deleted] »

nvahalik wrote: post #599
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#646

Post by denton-scratch »

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…

The fourth is effectively a law that constrains the authorities from carrying out searches under many circumstances.

The fifth constrains courts from forcing people to testify against themselves.

These rules are often framed as "rights", but they are really restrictions on the power of government officials.

I'm not sure why you have put this in terms of "specific types of business" and "certain activities". What types of business, and what activities, receive special protection under those amendments? What are you getting at?

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#647

Post by DuskStar »

candu wrote: post #570
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…

Meanwhile, Ireland manages to amend its constitution regularly [1] without exploding. I _very much disagree_ with the assertion that the US constitution's rigidity is its greatest strength. Similar to taking on too much technical debt, this rigidity makes it impossible to update in response to changing circumstances! I'm not convinced that's ever a good thing; what good reason is there to believe that a constitution…

> Extended the definition of "time of war" to include a war in which the state is not a participant. This was to allow the Government to exercise emergency powers during the Second World War, in which the state was neutral.

Seems like Ireland lasted 2 years before (in practice) removing all constitutional limits on government power forever. Oh sure, it's only "if so resolved by both Houses of the Oireachtas" but that's slim comfort to me.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#648

Post by rhino369 »

yieldcrv wrote: post #401
cat_plus_plus wrote: post #385

United States unamendable national and state borders are also a factor. Whatever one thinks about Brexit, it allowed EU to continue with countries that are committed to EU and for UK to consider what's best for UK, including welcoming Hong Kong residents not enthusiastic about takeover by China. If California and Texas go their own way and borders between states are adjusted to accommodate red and blue area, maybe cu…

> can be still part of Nato and have a free travel arrangement with each other, changes do not have to be extreme I've spent the last past decade pointing that out to people. People act like a state being separate from the US and independent is soooo absurd, logistically. But the US can still assist on a natural disaster just like it does in all of the Americas. Common defense can occur, as you point out. Visa and wa…

It's absurd because Californian's aren't really a nationality in the way the British or French are. People talk about red states and blue states, but that's just the mix of rural/surburban/urban people in the state. Rural Californians are much more in common with rural Texans than with Los Angelenos.

There is more cultural variance within just Spain than the entirety of the USA. We truly are one people.

Ironically, calling for a USA that is just an common defense alliance with open trade borders is pretty much what conservatives want. They'll be happy to cut taxes, and let California experiment with what it wants.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#649

Post by yieldcrv »

rhino369 wrote: post #648
yieldcrv wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> can be still part of Nato and have a free travel arrangement with each other, changes do not have to be extreme I've spent the last past decade pointing that out to people. People act like a state being separate from the US and independent is soooo absurd, logistically. But the US can still assist on a natural disaster just like it does in all of the Americas. Common defense can occur, as you point out. Visa and wa…

It's absurd because Californian's aren't really a nationality in the way the British or French are. People talk about red states and blue states, but that's just the mix of rural/surburban/urban people in the state. Rural Californians are much more in common with rural Texans than with Los Angelenos. There is more cultural variance within just Spain than the entirety of the USA. We truly are one people. Ironically, c…

The counterpoint being that the cultural similarities aren't a line in the sand on being separate. There are plenty of places that are similar and separately sovereign.

But let me make it less absurd to you:

"Hey Republican House and Senate, trade offer: California gets sovereignty, you make the democrats lose 55 electoral college votes and essentially never have to hear from them ever again for all eternity"

I honestly think they would bite.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#650

Post by lovich »

refurb wrote: post #511
sokoloff wrote: post #507

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The President nominates and the Senate vets/confirms them. https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/faq_general.aspx

You're right. The senate judiciary committee will vote, then the candidate is voted on by the entire senate. Regardless, the confirmation process is conducted by elected representatives. There is no "this party chose them".

A strict reading of the rules says that but the meta behavior of how the political parties interact with those rules means that the scotus judges are de facto chosen by one party or the other.
Post reply on HN