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

651–660 of 747 posts

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#651

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

tastyfreeze wrote: post #642
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #607

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 en…

TFA in this case is called "The Unamendable Constitution", which has some bearing on the way that changes in the relationship between the federal government, the states and the constitution have come to pass. I personally would prefer amendments that codified the current role of the federal government (and probably expanded it even further). But no such amendment process is feasibly within reach, and consequently, the evolution of US society has taken place largely outside the constitutional amendment process.

> A small federal government ensures that what the people of one state want has absolutely zero effect on any other state.

This is ridiculous oversimplification. The people of the states move, they travel, they do business, they have family and friends, across state lines. They also dump waste, use water, pollute the air, kill the wildlife .. across state lines. Recently, procurement of health care across state lines has also become a matter of increased necessity, thanks to the decisions of some states.

> A large central government is costly, ineffective and overbearing.

and is also the only thing that can provide an effective counterweight to interstate and transnational corporate power.

At the big picture level, I think you're fundamentally missing that the context that provided most of the reasons for the original existence of states at all has morphed so dramatically that continuing to insist that the only true conception of the USA is as a rather limited aggregation of states is just denying both time and reality.

We had a civil war to deny some of the people in some of the states the opportunity to hold others as slaves and/or leave the union. When the disagreements between states reaches certain levels on some issues, it is not possible for the union to continue unchanged. Those disagreements will lead either to war or dis-union. That was true long before the federal government expanded as it has in the C20, back when we were much closer to the loose aggregation that you seem to prefer.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#652

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

tastyfreeze wrote: post #642
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #607

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 en…

> A state's senators should be representing those settled views.

why? how is this superior to the alternatives?

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#653

Post by HaZeust »

PubliusMI wrote: post #510
HaZeust wrote: post #442

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your entire argument falls under when you take into consideration that the very judicial power that's "vested" to the Supreme Court in its jurisdiction is solely delegated to Judges that Congress appoints. Congress should not get to seat its own checks and balances, and it doesn't particularly matter if Congress is only allowed to establish and ordain inferior courts to that of the Supreme Court, if they already effe…

Quoted post unavailable.

No post body was provided.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#654

Post by staticman2 »

torstenvl wrote: post #571
candiddevmike wrote: post #542

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It never grants them the ability to nullify laws via judicial review. That is a power they invented themselves.

Yes, it does. I think I was pretty clear about that. Help me understand where you're confused? Is it that you don't see the linkage between the text of Article III and Marbury 's famous line, "it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is"? Because jurisdictio literally means "to say what the law is"

You are doing this weird thing I see on this web site at times when someones takes a court case they like and accepts whatever the judge states carte blanche. No further reading required.

The fact judicial review is not in the constitution is not controversial.

Here's what Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts web sight says:

"The best-known power of the Supreme Court is judicial review, or the ability of the Court to declare a Legislative or Executive act in violation of the Constitution, is not found within the text of the Constitution itself. The Court established this doctrine in the case of Marbury v. Madison (1803)."

https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-re...

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#655

Post by floxy »

bigbacaloa wrote: post #386

The US constitution is an antiquated document written by men who enslaved others. It contains no explicit right to privacy or protection from government surveillance. It does not establish a secular state (only the right to worship as one chooses, which is different) and it features an overly broad freedom of speech that facilitates the spread of misinformation and lies. it chooses the president by an indirect mechan…

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#657

Post by tastyfreeze »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #652
tastyfreeze wrote: post #642

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 en…

> A state's senators should be representing those settled views. why? how is this superior to the alternatives?

I feel like I have repeatedly stated my case on why the Senate representing state governments is superior. So, it is your turn for justification. How is a Senate elected by the people superior to one selected by state governments? How does expanding the Senate to look like the House maintain the bicameral legislature?

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#658

Post by anon291 »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #388
anon291 wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People living in a place should have the sole right to determine what happens to that place. Vacation homes don't give you a right to vote, and they shouldn't. This is nuts.

This is a nonsensical idea, at least as stated. The people who live within 500' of you do not have exclusive control over what happens in that 500' radius circle. Control is ceded to entities like your town, or county, or state, or federal government, in no particular way. The federal government controls, for example, what happens in the air above where you live; your state probably controls the building code for whe…

I believe one of the tenets of hacker news is responding to the best version of a comment, which I think you failed at in your pedanticism. Of course there are overlapping jurisdictions. However, again, the idea that the coasts should have control over a piece of land hundreds and hundreds of miles away that looks nothing like the coasts is undemocratic. People who inhabit a particular 'country' (used in the non nation state meaning of the term) should be able to vote on it. This is a guiding-principle, not an exact rule with feet measurements, as you've given. This is a guiding American principle in fact... we call it self-determination, and it's written in our declaration of independence.

Perhaps I was a bit concise in my comment, but your attempt at rebuttal against some restrictions that you made up is unnecessary.

The danger with letting people far away from a place hold jurisdiction over that land is that it encourages bad actors. For example, if Wyoming were truly represented proportionally then resource extraction would be freer to damage the Wyoming environment. While true Californians (for example) visit often, there are many parts of the state unseen by tourists. Those who live there may witness environmental abuses or needs particular to that area that we do not. They should forward those to their representatives, who can represent their needs. If we truly represented them proportionally, profit-motivated companies and other bad actors would be freer to mutilate the Wyoming environment as the residents would have even less of a voice.

The problem with places like California and one of the reasons for massive polarization in the state is that Cali's government is too centralized. There are many Wyomings within California (and other large, populated states) that feel unrepresented. Bad actors ruin their environment, and they are powerless to do anything because they have representation proportional to the population.

Land, landscapes, environments, and ecosystems deserve representation as well.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#659

Post by TurkishPoptart »

crazygringo wrote: post #189
WalterBright wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US Constitution is still the best one in the world. The 18th Amendment (Prohibition) is an example of what can go wrong with amendments.

Actually it's not. Constitution design is an academic field, a very niche area of political science, and nobody would ever implement anything like the US Constitution today. It would be like using ALGOL for a new project today instead of Python or Java. The US Constitution was very much a version 1.0 project, written before people even knew political parties would be a design constraint. Constitutions are on like ver…

I don't think these are comparable fields.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#660

Post by Veelox »

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…

> Meanwhile, Ireland manages to amend its constitution regularly [1] without exploding.

Ireland has population of ~5 million or about the same as Alabama. It isn't the best example.

Instead of a general critique could you instead offer a specific general improvement?

Post reply on HN