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

91–100 of 747 posts

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#91

Post by advisedwang »

johnthuss wrote: post #15

"Seventy-two per cent of Republicans think that the Constitution is basically fine as is; seventy-two per cent of Democrats disagree." Of course this has nothing to do the actual Constitution. It's a statement about each party's (dis)satisfaction with the current success of their party. The optimist in me wants to believe that even in this polarized culture politicians could compromise and find a middle ground on man…

It's not about party success.

Conservative values generally mean trying to keep things the same. A hard to change set of rules supports this. Progressive values generally mean trying to make changes [to improve society]. Being able to change rules supports this.

We should therefore expect conservative people to want a hard to amend constitution and progressive people to want a easy to amend constitution, regardless of whether or not they are in power. I expect this asymmetry to be visible in whether more ammendments are proposed (and ratified under) progressive or conservative regiemes.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#92

Post by ausbah »

prottog wrote: post #66
nonethewiser wrote: post #51

Controversial policy cannot and should not become amendments. There is very little that everyone agrees that the government should do and the government is already very powerful. That's why constitutional amendments are so rare.

Absolutely! The constitution by its nature should dictate things that the overwhelming majority of people agree on, not the usual fifty percent plus one person slim margin that a lot of controversial policies end up being.

there are some things that no amount of a majority ever makes moral

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#93

Post by prottog »

jfengel wrote: post #27
akomtu wrote: post #10

What are the amendements that they want to pass, but cannot?

The Equal Rights Amendment would have been nice. A Supreme Court member did say that without it, the Constitution does not prohibit discrimination based on sex. There are certain rights that are broadly popular, such as the right to birth control and the right to be gay, which are currently only protected by Supreme Court judgment. A member of that court explicitly called for reconsidering them. They are so broadly a…

You don't need a constitutional amendment -- just pass a law. If they're so broadly accepted, it shouldn't be difficult.

> the right to birth control

You mean the right to contraceptives paid for by the public, covered by insurance, or administered by people who may have sincerely-held religious beliefs against contraception? No state, Supreme Court judgments aside, forbids an adult from paying for birth control pills on their own prescribed by a doctor who sees it fit.

> the right to be gay

What? Obergefell requires states to grant and recognize marriages between two people of the same sex. That seems like a pretty narrow part of "being gay".

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#94

Post by prottog »

ausbah wrote: post #92
prottog wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely! The constitution by its nature should dictate things that the overwhelming majority of people agree on, not the usual fifty percent plus one person slim margin that a lot of controversial policies end up being.

there are some things that no amount of a majority ever makes moral

You are right, though of course no single person is the authority on what the ultimate moral truth is, so this is perhaps a non-operative statement when it comes to governance.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#95

Post by jeffbee »

ohCh6zos wrote: post #86
jeffbee wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No rational person gives a damn what some guys who died 200 years ago would have thought about our present.

Why would you reject something based on the age? Either the idea has value or it does not without regard for the age.

I don't reject it based on age. I reject it based on the fact that the people in question were largely slaveowners who led a revolution because the government of Britain was trying to muscle in on their tea smuggling operations, who thought that phlogiston existed, who were deists, who have nothing to teach us today.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#96

Post by sokoloff »

dbrueck wrote: post #62

I like the idea of the Constitution as a living document, updated over time, but I'm also really glad it's so hard to amend. It's not perfect, but there are usually extremely good reasons for pretty much everything in there, and so if we're going to change something, it seems like a prerequisite should be a deep understanding of why something was put in there in the first place. Take the Electoral College. It's en vo…

See also: Chesterton's Fence. https://www.chesterton.org/taking-a-fence-down/

There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#97

Post by prottog »

dbrueck wrote: post #62

I like the idea of the Constitution as a living document, updated over time, but I'm also really glad it's so hard to amend. It's not perfect, but there are usually extremely good reasons for pretty much everything in there, and so if we're going to change something, it seems like a prerequisite should be a deep understanding of why something was put in there in the first place. Take the Electoral College. It's en vo…

Chesterton's fence stands tall and proud still.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#98

Post by akomtu »

jfengel wrote: post #27
akomtu wrote: post #10

What are the amendements that they want to pass, but cannot?

The Equal Rights Amendment would have been nice. A Supreme Court member did say that without it, the Constitution does not prohibit discrimination based on sex. There are certain rights that are broadly popular, such as the right to birth control and the right to be gay, which are currently only protected by Supreme Court judgment. A member of that court explicitly called for reconsidering them. They are so broadly a…

This equal rights principle is implied by "all men are created equal" and both parties would support the explicit amendment, maybe for different reasons. The red camp wants to end "affirmative" action, while the blue camp wants to affirm rights of minorities. I guess the wording of the amendement is what would cause a fight.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#99

Post by sokoloff »

OrvalWintermute wrote: post #60

I consider myself a patriotic American, but I don't know that the government even follows the Constitution in the first place. NSA has been hoovering up data of innocent Americans, and the IC in general, works with foreign ICs, to target Americans without reasonable cause, just blanket vacuuming. Much of the govt, including federal, state, and local, has been purchasing private data without a warrant signed by a judg…

Yes, it might not need to be re-written so much as it needs to be re-read.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#100

Post by prottog »

jeffbee wrote: post #95
ohCh6zos wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would you reject something based on the age? Either the idea has value or it does not without regard for the age.

I don't reject it based on age. I reject it based on the fact that the people in question were largely slaveowners who led a revolution because the government of Britain was trying to muscle in on their tea smuggling operations, who thought that phlogiston existed, who were deists, who have nothing to teach us today.

In the same vein as GP, the validity of an idea is independent of whether the people who held them owned slaves. If you don't own slaves but think the sun rises from the west, you're still wrong.

Besides, if the only things to be learned from history are those from whom you deem morally clean, I'd wager there's precious little left at all.

Post reply on HN