A bad grade that changed the U.S. constitution (2017) • Hacker News Board

Re: A bad grade that changed the U.S. constitution (2017)

#91

Post by xxpor » Thu, Aug 05, 2021, 3:29 AM UTC

wanderingmind wrote: post #88

jawns wrote: post #2

There have been only two amendments to the U.S. Constitution over the past 50+ years (one of which is the subject of this story). Why? Partly because the Supreme Court has been very willing to discover hidden rights within the existing amendments, decreasing the need for states to go through the very arduous process of getting a new amendment over the finish line. That might seem like a fine way to handle things ...…

This is an age old debate between judicial activism and judicial originalism. Most issues seem to stem from interpretation of the text. Activist wing thinks it needs to be interpreted within the current framework of judicial, social and political viewpoints while originalism wants it to be interpreted in the way it was originally written. It's hard to say one way or another. Activits would claim Brown vs Board create…

Even if you're not a judicial activist, originalism for a 250 year old constitution is practically speaking, insane and unrealistic. The industrial revolution hadn't even happened yet! We have no way of knowing what the founders would have thought about modern problems.

This is not even considering that a lot of their known ideas were absolutely terrible.

Re: A bad grade that changed the U.S. constitution (2017)

#92

Post by jjlustig » Thu, Aug 05, 2021, 3:29 AM UTC

shadowgovt wrote: post #56

quantumBerry wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Power centralization is rarely predicated on reasons that include the benefit of common man. The US doesn't appear much different in that regard, either.

There were two major events in US history that caused significant Federal power consolidation. Technically three, if you count the collapse of the government that was structured under the Articles of the Confederacy prior to the Constitution because it's lack of tax authority meant that it couldn't deal with the war debts that have been accrued from 1776 onward. The first was the civil war, and federal power consolid…

Your also forgetting the 16th amendment (federal income tax). This arguably was the critical aspect in increasing federal power.

Re: A bad grade that changed the U.S. constitution (2017)

#93

Post by chmod600 » Thu, Aug 05, 2021, 3:30 AM UTC

vmception wrote: post #64

sigzero wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is what was supposed to happen. The Federal level has way too much power today.

Little did they know that all commerce would be interstate commerce by the 20th century The Federal government has subjugated all states, and merely tolerates their grasps at 10th amendment autonomy as it derives power from the collection of states. But it is more well funded, controls the currency, and has more land and resources under its title. States don't matter.

You're mistaken. Everything is interstate commerce, whether commerce or not.

Re: A bad grade that changed the U.S. constitution (2017)

#94

Post by xxpor » Thu, Aug 05, 2021, 3:31 AM UTC

iammisc wrote: post #72

webnrrd2k wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The U.S. history with slavery and Jim Crow laws tell me that it's not always perfectly viable, and is sometimes very difficult.

Except we have no problem with such diverse policy in other federations like the eu.

You absolutely have a ton of problems. How many things don't launch in the EU due to differing regulations and languages?

Re: A bad grade that changed the U.S. constitution (2017)

#95

Post by xxpor » Thu, Aug 05, 2021, 3:31 AM UTC

jltsiren wrote: post #49

fallingknife wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Letting the states make their own decisions on issues not addressed by the constitution is a perfectly viable solution. Not sure why that would be particularly difficult.

I'm not so sure about that. A federal state as a tight union of autonomous non-sovereign states is viable. We have plenty of examples for that. An EU-style loose union of sovereign states also works, if only barely. However, there is no evidence that a loose union of non-sovereign states would work in the present-day world. It might work, but the question is very complex, and we can't hope for a confident answer with…

We tried the latter suggestion back in the day, and it was terrible, even back then.

Re: A bad grade that changed the U.S. constitution (2017)

#96

Post by thesuperbigfrog » Thu, Aug 05, 2021, 3:33 AM UTC

minikites wrote: post #67

Causality1 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The gay marriage issue is a great example of exactly the opposite of your point. States one by one recognizing gay marriage and proving that it wasn't going to cause the collapse of society is the only reason it was recognized on a national level. The same process is currently happening with marijuana prohibition.

>States one by one recognizing gay marriage and proving that it wasn't going to cause the collapse of society is the only reason it was recognized on a national level. You're leaving out the massive fights from states that did not want to recognize gay marriage, which could have easily gone the other way. The same process will repeat with marijuana prohibition and the states fighting it may succeed this time. What wo…

>> we need the federal government to do things instead of leaving it up to the states.

Unless it concerns powers specifically given to the federal government by the US constitution that would be unconstitutional: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." (10th Amendment).

If you do not like the laws in your state, vote to change the laws.

If you do not like the laws in other states, discuss and persuade the voters of those states to change their laws.

Re: A bad grade that changed the U.S. constitution (2017)

#97

Post by tofukid » Thu, Aug 05, 2021, 3:33 AM UTC

wanderingmind wrote: post #88

jawns wrote: post #2

There have been only two amendments to the U.S. Constitution over the past 50+ years (one of which is the subject of this story). Why? Partly because the Supreme Court has been very willing to discover hidden rights within the existing amendments, decreasing the need for states to go through the very arduous process of getting a new amendment over the finish line. That might seem like a fine way to handle things ...…

This is an age old debate between judicial activism and judicial originalism. Most issues seem to stem from interpretation of the text. Activist wing thinks it needs to be interpreted within the current framework of judicial, social and political viewpoints while originalism wants it to be interpreted in the way it was originally written. It's hard to say one way or another. Activits would claim Brown vs Board create…

> originalism wants it to be interpreted in the way it was originally written.

Originalists want it to be interpreted in the way it was intended. They go to great lengths to discover the original intent behind the law as it was understood at the time of writing.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Originalism

I’m honestly amazed that any other position but originalism is considered rationally tenable. Laws are written with an intended meaning and understanding. The idea that the intent and meaning of law should change with time is ridiculous. The law should be changed if people come to find it disagreeable, not reinterpreted. Judicial activists seek to subvert the will of the legislature, and in that way they are criminals.

Re: A bad grade that changed the U.S. constitution (2017)

#98

Post by xxpor » Thu, Aug 05, 2021, 3:34 AM UTC

jjlustig wrote: post #92

shadowgovt wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There were two major events in US history that caused significant Federal power consolidation. Technically three, if you count the collapse of the government that was structured under the Articles of the Confederacy prior to the Constitution because it's lack of tax authority meant that it couldn't deal with the war debts that have been accrued from 1776 onward. The first was the civil war, and federal power consolid…

Your also forgetting the 16th amendment (federal income tax). This arguably was the critical aspect in increasing federal power.

It does seem that the history and political coalitions leading to it are wildly underdiscussed

Re: A bad grade that changed the U.S. constitution (2017)

#99

Post by BeFlatXIII » Thu, Aug 05, 2021, 3:36 AM UTC

shadowgovt wrote: post #60

dimitrios1 wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Discover hidden rights is quite the euphemism for legislating from the bench. But credit is due for the correct answer, which is returning the balance back to the legislative branch.

Honestly, the legislative branch can take most of the power anytime it wants. The Supreme Court interprets laws when they are vague, or when they are unconstitutional. It is loathe to consider things unconstitutional when they are plainly constitutional. But the deep division in American politics has resulted in a legislature that is almost incapable of considering major legislation that has lasting impact on America…

The congressmen keep getting re-elected because they campaign on high-visibility make work jobs programs. Having separate primary elections does not help things, either.

Re: A bad grade that changed the U.S. constitution (2017)

#100

Post by iammisc » Thu, Aug 05, 2021, 3:36 AM UTC

Retric wrote: post #77

iammisc wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except we have no problem with such diverse policy in other federations like the eu.

The EU is less than 30 and has already lost a member. If you accept membership flexibility then extreme diversity is much easier to accommodate.

The civil war was all about membership flexibility. Is it any surprise that the losers wanted their 'divetsity' to be accommodated.

Frankly we're heading down the path of membership flexibility if the next few years don't bring about significant change.