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

711–720 of 747 posts

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#711

Post by funcDropShadow »

tomp wrote: post #682
funcDropShadow wrote: post #630

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Replacing a prime minister after 6 weeks is an extremely short term, even for Italy. The current German constitution --- basic law to be precise -- has lasted twice as long as the previous German constitution. And its end doesn't appear on the horizon. The stability of the US system looked quite dire from the outside less than two years ago.

> The stability of the US system looked quite dire from the outside less than two years ago. Only if you believe fake news media propaganda who equated "mostly peaceful protest" with "coup" (for real examples of a coup, look no further than Libya, Ukraine, or Myanmar; hint: it usually involves guns & people getting killed).

People were killed in Washington.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#712

Post by refurb »

lovich wrote: post #650
refurb wrote: post #511

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Then what happens when one party controls the Senate and another the Presidency?

Which has happened quite often?

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#713

Post by sokoloff »

refurb wrote: post #712
lovich wrote: post #650

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Then what happens when one party controls the Senate and another the Presidency? Which has happened quite often?

What used to happen is the President nominated someone qualified and the Senate confirmed them.

Now, it causes a political circus.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#714

Post by jawns »

mberning wrote: post #603
jawns wrote: post #518

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

I agree with you that Congress shares part of the blame. But there are currently two paths to effectively amend the Constitution, and one of them is waaay easier, so it's not surprising that it has come to this.

I would like to see the U.S. take a page from Canada, which has what is called a "Notwithstanding Clause" in its own constitution:

https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/notwithsta...

The clause essentially says that if the judicial branch declares a law unconstitutional, then the legislative branch, with broad support, can issue a temporary override, which lasts for five years and can be renewed.

If the U.S. were to ratify a similar amendment, then there would be two ways to head off or invalidate SCOTUS decisions on constitutional issues. With the assent of 3/4th of states, an amendment can be ratified outright, either to prevent or respond to a court ruling. Alternatively, with the assent of 2/3rds of Congress, a specific Supreme Court decision can be temporarily overruled.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#715

Post by denton-scratch »

indymike wrote: post #673
denton-scratch wrote: post #638

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the kind of nonsense that is produced by the US Constitution: https://vividmaps.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Texas.jpg

> This is the kind of nonsense that is produced by the US Constitution: How Texas draws congressional districts is up to the people of the Great State of Texas.

Yes, it's clear to everyone that your voting rights in the USA depend on where you live. That map of Texas is just one particularly egregious example of a gerrymandered district.

I think it's crazy that national (federal) elections are held under rules that vary from state to state; and that a congressional district the shape of a snake is permissible at all, whoever gets to draw the district. It seems obvious to me that national elections should be held under uniform national rules. But it's none of my business; I don't live in the USA, and I'm not from the USA.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#716

Post by denton-scratch »

WalterBright wrote: post #694
indymike wrote: post #674

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Apparently not; many states have a death penalty (i.e. a withdrawal of that privilege). Prosecution of policemen for murder is rare, and a conviction is even rarer.

And you're still baldly asserting that rights exist, without explaining what rights are or where they come from.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#717

Post by denton-scratch »

WalterBright wrote: post #695
denton-scratch wrote: post #672

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't know what you mean by thriving, which is why I asked.

And you still aren't addressing my question, which is what are rights, and where do they come from.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#718

Post by Kbelicius »

clarionbell wrote: post #499
Kbelicius wrote: post #444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Virginia, a slave state, was by far the most populous state at the time the Constitution was adopted. Only if you count slaves and I don't see why you would in this context.

Hence something called "3/5 compromise" which diluted political power of slave holders and while keeping slaves under their heel.

No, it increased the political power of slave holders since slaves couldn't vote but were counted as if they could.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#719

Post by Kbelicius »

Turing_Machine wrote: post #590
clarionbell wrote: post #499

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hence something called "3/5 compromise" which diluted political power of slave holders and while keeping slaves under their heel.

That is exactly correct. It was the slave states that wanted slaves fully counted, while the free states didn't want them to count at all. People who go off about "3/5 of a person" don't realize that doing that made the slave states weaker, not stronger.

> People who go off about "3/5 of a person" don't realize that doing that made the slave states weaker, not stronger.

That would be true only if the slaves could vote. Since they could not it made those states stronger.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#720

Post by no-s »

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #578
randcraw wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This likely boils down to how each party feels about the second amendment.

It seems to me the problems with the second amendment are twofold: 1. It was written under the assumption that there would be no standing army, so the citizen militia would be the backbone of the defense of the nation. But that isn’t where we are today, unfortunately. 2. A large part of the US seems to believe that getting rid of guns would make the US less violent. I suspect they are completely wrong about that. Our…

> So we are stuck with an extremely divisive issue which really has no impact on anything real.

The 2nd is a canary. Its song is the relationship between security and freedom. Should the canary die, then expect the invocation of the rule of sic temper tyrannis...HHOS.

Let’s just leave it be and keep that impact theoretical.

Post reply on HN