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

691–700 of 747 posts

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#691

Post by antifa »

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.

> unrestricted killing of the unborn

Not an accurate description of any democrat AFAIK.

> supporting the alphabet-soup of sexual/gender spectrum

Probably not priority #1 or #2, and if they were, not even an actually bad thing...

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#692

Post by [deleted] »

nvahalik wrote: post #597
throw0101c wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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_.

[deleted]

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#693

Post by throw0101c »

nvahalik wrote: post #597
throw0101c wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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_.

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

Your dictionary definition and the practical real world are two different things. Especially when it comes to implementing policy (and the methods used to gain power).

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#694

Post by WalterBright »

indymike wrote: post #674
denton-scratch wrote: post #641

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> I'm saying I have no idea what a "right" is, other than a privilege granted by law. Yep, and Constitutions define these privileges and make them supreme, above other laws.

We have a right to not be murdered. That is a right, not a privilege.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#695

Post by WalterBright »

denton-scratch wrote: post #672
WalterBright wrote: post #664

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They come from human nature. The evidence comes from how well a society thrives, or fails to thrive, under particular sets of rights. The US has thrived, so its concept of rights is more accurate than, say, communist rights, under which people do very poorly.

Well, OK. Or maybe they come from garden compost, or the luminiferous aether. You're just making bald assertions. As far as "communist rights" are concerned, I don't think the idea of rights has much prominence in communist thought. And your linking of rights (as you conceive of rights) with "thriving" (which you haven't defined, but I assume you mean wealth) is pretty fishy. Many people in the USA are not wealthy at…

Ya know, the point is lost when one starts to debate the meanings of words. You and I both know what "thriving" means.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#696

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

edmcnulty101 wrote: post #689
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

California could not win any popular vote about any matter whatsoever on its own. The only thing that wins popular votes is ... having a majority of voters voting for it. Doesn't sound so bad does it? At least until you start to introduce the petty tribalism of "I don't want those folks who ain't from round here telling us what we can and can't do". The real question is: there are obviously different "ideal sized bod…

Direct democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. tyranny of the masses is equally as bad as tyranny of the one especially considering how tribalistic people are. That's why the framers of the Constitution decided against what you're proposing. as to the right size question. there is no right size. it's totally arbitrary. States are what we have and that's fine.

Direct democracy can come with and without a constitution that says the wolves cannot eat the sheep. I like the version with the constitution.

"Tyranny of the masses" is a red-herring. If your constitution (and its enforcement mechanisms) are good, the masses can't do anything to the minorities other than make them irritated (which is a condition we all live in from time to time). And if your constitution isn't good, then your "republic-not-a-democracy" is going to suck for some (or even all) people, too.

I don't agree that there are "no right sizes". I do agree that we don't know what they are yet.

States are not what we have, states are one-sized thing that we have, but we also have villages, towns, cities, counties and even in some cases and for some purposes, regions. And while you may think that its fine, others do not.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#697

Post by TeeMassive »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #365
TeeMassive wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Crime virtually disappeared after Prohibition was passed until the apparition of organized crime. At the time (and still to this day) alcohol and drugs made and destroyed empires. The Dutch Empire was based on Gin. The British Empire on Opium and Rhum. Russia on Vodka. France had Bourbon.

> Crime virtually disappeared after Prohibition was passed until the apparition of organized crime. Is that a bit like "the sun stopped coming up, until the sun came up the next day" ?

Or that they saw the immediate effect but the consequences after that. Hindsight is 20/20.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#698

Post by TeeMassive »

pjc50 wrote: post #533
TeeMassive wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Crime virtually disappeared after Prohibition was passed until the apparition of organized crime. At the time (and still to this day) alcohol and drugs made and destroyed empires. The Dutch Empire was based on Gin. The British Empire on Opium and Rhum. Russia on Vodka. France had Bourbon.

> Crime virtually disappeared after Prohibition was passed until the apparition of organized crime I have never seen this claim made before and would like some evidence for it.

https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/6/5/18518005/prohibit...

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#699

Post by TeeMassive »

voltaireodactyl wrote: post #362
TeeMassive wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In my opinion the unacceptable, repetitive, fundamentalist-led attacks on the very institution of voting itself would take far more precedence than the social issues you listed How are they attacked? From what I've seen, all the "voter suppression" stories coming from the US are all things we have in place in other modern democracies like in Canada. We have voter ID, we have to make sure we are registered, we can o…

That doesn’t surprise me, honestly, because the reporting around this is often hard to parse. I suspect that difficulty is on purpose, at least in North Carolina where I am based. If you would like to understand more about what I’m talking about, which goes far beyond the things like voter ID that you have mentioned, I would suggest beginning with stolen ballots in North Carolina during the 2016 and 2020 elections, a…

Any source?

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#700

Post by TeeMassive »

Nursie wrote: post #359
TeeMassive wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In my opinion the unacceptable, repetitive, fundamentalist-led attacks on the very institution of voting itself would take far more precedence than the social issues you listed How are they attacked? From what I've seen, all the "voter suppression" stories coming from the US are all things we have in place in other modern democracies like in Canada. We have voter ID, we have to make sure we are registered, we can o…

Voter suppression in the US appears to take on other forms, reducing the number of polling places in urban centres such that it can take several hours to cast a vote, restricting their hours, making it illegal to provide water for those in the queue, that sort of thing. Multi-pronged attacks which try to ensure only 'your' people get to participate. As an Australian resident and a British citizen, it seems outrageous…

Any source?
Post reply on HN