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

701–710 of 747 posts

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#701

Post by crazygringo »

ETH_start wrote: post #361
crazygringo wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't think academics are constantly comparing the real world utilization of constitutional forms...? Allow me to introduce to you, comparative politics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_politics Lest you think this is ideological or theoretical, no -- it's entirely about collecting data of real-world political operation, how similar or different constitutional structures result in similar or different o…

The real world data is extremely limited, given there are only ~200 countries in the modern era, and the huge span of time over which the full impact of a constitution is seen. It's incomparable to PLs, which have perhaps billions of case studies on which comparative analysis can be done.

Actually the more I think about it, the more useful I do find the comparison between constitutions and programming languages.

Because there are probably only ~200 PL's with truly significant usage, and they tend to have a variety of purposes and be used in historically different contexts -- much like constitutions.

The same arguments that programmers have over declarative vs imperative is much like the arguments political scientists have over parliamentary vs presidential. Static vs dynamic type checking is much like civil law vs common law. Perhaps the rise of congressionally-created federal agencies is akin to the rise of object-oriented programming?

And there's similarly nothing "scientific" in proving that one programming language is "better" than another, but people have strong opinions, and experience will tell you which ones are good ideas to pick for a project and which ones are not.

By the way, I'm not sure you know what a case study is -- it's a report written by a person. Nobody's written billions of those. And you don't do comparative analysis on case studies -- a comparative analysis is a case study, where the cases are countries (or programming languages).

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#702

Post by xyzzyz »

closeparen wrote: post #662
rayiner wrote: post #528

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t really buy this. Somehow Europe manages pretty well with much smaller and more granular country level decision making units.

The EU famously makes a lot of policy!

Only barely more than half of the European countries are in EU, and 20 years ago, less than a third was.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#703

Post by pyuser583 »

theluketaylor wrote: post #671
WalterBright wrote: post #666

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The US is a free speech extremist country Jeez, it is hardly extreme. BTW, free speech does not include libel, slander, specific threats, or inciting riots. > we rank higher on the press freedom index Canada does? Based on what? Note that no matter how extremely negative the press was about Trump, never once did the government make any legal threats against them about it.

The US has the most expansive free speech laws in the entire world. Perhaps 'extremist' is a bit hyperbolic, but it's certainly true US free speech laws go far beyond any others. Reporters Without Borders maintains a press freedom index. Their justification is detailed here: https://rsf.org/en/index Canada ranks 19, the US 42

I’m sorry but this rating is a bit of a joke. It lists UK and France as having much freer press than the US.

I remember an interview with John Carreyrou, the French-American journalist who broke the Theranos scandal.

He said very clearly that if it had happened in France, no press outlet would have covered it.

Theranos had a board of trustees that included Henry Kissinger, a future secretary of defense, etc.

And the publisher of the, WSJ, Rupert Murdoch, had invested hundreds of millions.

I doubt it would have been published in the UK or Germany either.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#704

Post by Nursie »

TeeMassive wrote: post #700
Nursie wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

For what? There's loads of stuff in there.

Texas reduces polling places - https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/mar/02/texas-pollin...

Bans on distributing food and water - https://www.ajc.com/politics/food-and-water-ban-at-the-polls...

Summary of a few things including that republicans in Iowa have shortened the early voting window and the hours of voting on election day - https://www.reuters.com/world/us/republicans-erect-voting-ba...

Mark Finchem, republican candidate for secretary of state in Arizona, backing fake electors - https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/laurieroberts/...

Finchem promotes the big lie and says he will use his prospective position (which AFAICT includes responsibility for administering the election) to "make sure that Arizona is the Red State it REALLY is!" - https://twitter.com/derekwillis/status/1403143345132781569

It's true, that last one is perhaps not as cut-and-dried as it could be, there's some wiggle room in there, but to me the intention looks clear. It's fecking crazy to me that a partisan, elected official has anything to do with running the elections in the first place... but there we are.

I'm sure you can find more stuff like this if you look. Of course I'm sure that there are all sorts of excuses and justifications out there for why this is all totally reasonable, or why the 'other side' are just as bad. It's not clear to me they are though, at least, not when it comes to trying to actually undermine democracy itself.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#705

Post by voltaireodactyl »

TeeMassive wrote: post #699
voltaireodactyl wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Of course! Plenty to pick from, depending what specific instances have sparked your curiosity.

For example here’s a great summation of the facts/reporting/criminal acts I mentioned re: election fraud in 2016 (as part of a long running scheme): https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2018/12/07/understandi...

If you would like me to do the work of providing you with additional sources addressing any of the other events, please let me know specifically which events you're curious about. I am happy to inform, but do prefer such requests to present in more limited scope, given that I’m doing a favor. Thank you!

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#706

Post by rnk »

christophilus wrote: post #525
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…

> the rigidity of the Constitution is probably it's greatest strength Yeah. I’m with you there. It’s that way by design along with things like the presidency not having ultimate power. The system’s not perfect, but let any modern politician make substantive changes, and I’d bet heavily on the system getting worse.

As we learned with Trump, there aren't enough limits on the president's power. Especially if the majority in congress just want to keep the bs power coming from their majority - they won't vote against them. The us constitution is vulnerable to the charismatic dictator trope. I wouldn't have believed it before Trump, but a lot of people went along with him because they thought they could stop him later, they thought he wouldn't go that far, they thought other people would stop him. But in our country, we need much greater limits on the president in law and the constitution.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#707

Post by WalterBright »

mijkal wrote: post #669
tomp wrote: post #531

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. What do you mean? US citizens have pretty much the most rights of any people in the world. Can you list the countries that guarantee freedom of speech, freedom to bear arms, freedom from unreasonable searches and freedom to stay silent (not incriminate yourself)? (…

The USA — with the 'most rights of any people in the world' — incarcerates the most people, by far, in some of the most inhumane conditions (slavery is explicitly legal in such contexts) among the developed nations. We're 'free' in an Orwellian sense. Freedom to be educated, have health care regardless of one's employment|wealth, welfare with dignity for those in need — none of these concepts come into consideration…

Getting free stuff is a privilege, not a right.

None of the Bill of Rights is guaranteeing free stuff.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#708

Post by rayiner »

closeparen wrote: post #662
rayiner wrote: post #528

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t really buy this. Somehow Europe manages pretty well with much smaller and more granular country level decision making units.

The EU famously makes a lot of policy!

Not compared to what democrats want the US federal government to do. EU countries have their own gun laws, separate healthcare, retirement, and unemployment systems, separate housing and labor laws, etc. Separate laws on abortion, same sex marriage, and other social issues.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#709

Post by jessaustin »

zuminator wrote: post #320
golemotron wrote: post #12

The alternative is a Constitutional Convention. Considering that each state would have equal representation, I can't imagine anyone on the Left liking that idea.

I was disappointed that the article didn't elaborate on this possibility. The possibility of a Convention of States [0] looms closer than many realize [1]. Only 34 states are needed call the Convention. Although only 19 have officially voted in favor so far, it's believed that the potential number may be higher if slightly different but equivalent provisions are counted. Given a charismatic enough President whose par…

You're absolutely right; this could happen at any time. For instance, when the midterm election of an uninspiring administration coincides with recession and rising oil prices...

Inevitably, the first amendment to come out of such a circus will govern who can use which public restroom.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#710

Post by jquery »

eppp wrote: post #551
jquery wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The biggest strike against states rights in recent memory was the removal of the SALT deduction, one of the strongest protectors of state power. Now states with higher tax burdens are much less competitive, because the citizens of that state don’t benefit nearly as much for what they pay.

The SALT deduction was a massive thumb in the eye to those of us that didnt get it. Why should local tax burden have anything to do with federal taxes? It was just a handout at the end of the day.

Without it, we have a race to the bottom with social services and infrastructure. A state with better infrastructure cannot be tax-competitive with another state that simply sucks on the federal government’s teat for all its needs.

The biggest handout of all is small states getting two senators despite having 1/50th the population. SALT deductions are nothing in comparison, you could always redirect federal money to make sure red states are net beneficiaries of federal money… and whaddya know, even with the SALT deduction they were.

Post reply on HN