Hacker News Reader

Comment by diggernet | Hacker News Reader

In the specific case of the U.S. Constitution, it defines the structure of, and limits the power of, the Federal Government. So it governs the Feds, not the people. The governed (bureaucrats and politicians) give their consent by the act of applying for the job. Doubly so, those who must give an oath to the Constitution upon taking the job. Where consent of the governed is lacking is when the government contorts the Constitution to expand their power. Which is why any politician who speaks of "interpreting" the Constitution as a "living document" is not to be trusted.

View on HN

Did you read the article linked? It specifically dismisses the idea that the Constitution can be a governing document of people who are generations removed from its ratification.

Falling back on a constitutional argument (at least, one that simply says "everyone should follow the Constitution!") is somewhat lazy in response to a specific refutation of the Constitution.

And I specifically dismiss the idea that the Constitution governs the people. It is the document by which the people (attempted to) govern the Feds. And it provides a mechanism by which the people (including those who are generations removed) can change those laws under which the Feds operate, as well as a way to impose the changes without needing Federal cooperation. Whether the people have adequately enforced their authority, or made appropriate updates to that law, are entirely separate questions, and certainly subject to vigorous debate.

At the very least I presume you'd acknowledge that the U.S. Constitution lists crimes including treason, counterfeiting, and piracy. I can't think of a more canonical way to "govern the people" than a state actor specifying criminal sanctions that can include the punishment of death...

Yes, it lists them, but not in the context of defining crimes or punishments. It is granting to the new government the authority to define, determine the punishment for, and prosecute those crimes. In other words the document does not "govern the people", it, as part of defining the new government, grants it (limited) power to govern the people. But still subject to the future whims of the people. Get enough people to agree, and you can remove the authority to punish treason.

Oh, I will acknowledge that the 18th had no business being in the Constitution. Thankfully, that mistake was corrected.

The article is an interesting if impractical thought experiment.

Nations are more than the sum of their citizen parts. They live beyond the scope of any one human. Thousands if not millions are born and die every day. Law is more long lived by necessity.

Framework documents like the constitution are gifts from our ancestors -- any system sting enough to endure and flexible enough to change is a good thing. If the 20th century taught anything, it's that nation building is exceptionally difficult. The US constitution has been the core framework for a robust nation for centuries.

> it governs the Feds, not the people.

No, it governs (or claims to govern) everybody within the territory of the United States. It says it is the supreme law of the land. Its provisions defining the structure of the Federal government also define what the Federal government is allowed to do to govern the people.

Yet, the logical construction of the constitution is such that any powers not explicitly delegated to the federal government by the people through the constitution are retained to the states and the people. This was the Federalist argument in favor of the constitution and the Federalist argument that a bill of rights was unnecessary. The Anti-Federalist papers argued that the Federalists were a bunch of delusional idealists, and insisted on a Bill of Rights.

George Mason was what we would call in modern terms, the sponsor of the bill in the 1st congress. He was the first congressman to hold the seat for the 1st district of Virginia. His bill was eventually split into 12 amendments. 11 passed the house, and 10 were quickly ratified by the states. The 11th eventually was ratified as the 27th amendment in 1992.

The idea that powers not explicitly delegated to the federal government by the constitution are retained by the states and the people is honored more in the breach, I admit.

I find arguments that always begin and end with "the Constitution says" to be a lot like Christians making an argument based on the Bible. Like the Bible, it's got some nice bits in. But, if you're treating it like a religion, I'm not interested in even having the conversation.

Doing so assumes we were finished evolving, as an ethical and civil society, over 200 years ago. Doing so assumes that a small group of men, all of them white land owners, many of whom owned slaves, most of whom believed women should never have the vote, most of whom believed black and brown folks should never have equal rights, got everything right. Yes, many of them were brilliant; hell, I still greatly admire many of them, despite their many flaws. They did a fine job, given what was known and understood at the time.

But, frankly, I find arguments that leave no room for change, as is the case with religious discussions, to be boring (also incorrect, but, mostly boring). I've "been there, done that"...I had my constitutional libertarian phase a couple decades ago.

I can't tell if you agree or disagree with anything that I said, because you don't address any of my points in any meaningful way.

I would like to point out, however, that clearly the authors of the constitution did not think they had written a final document once-and-for-all, as evidenced by two things: 1) including three different means of amending the document, and 2) the very authors of the document proposed a package of 12 amendments as one of their first priorities during the first congress.

I would argue that there are only two ways to view the constitution: 1) it means what it says and if you don't like that, do what the authors did, amend it, or 2) make shit up as we go along. I'm for #1.

"I would argue that there are only two ways to view the constitution: 1) it means what it says and if you don't like that, do what the authors did, amend it, or 2) make shit up as we go along. I'm for #1."

And, that's what I'm saying is wrong. You're presenting a false dichotomy. "But, muh Constitution!"

It's boring, and doesn't acknowledge the things that went wrong in all these years of the American experiment.

It's not a false dichotomy at all. Give the words a plain reading. If you don't like the plain reading, amend it. There are, after all, three different ways to get it amended, it has beed done many times in the past, notably by the main authors before the ink was barely dry.

The only other option is to appoint some small pool of people to try to get us all to collectively pretend that the words mean something other than what they plainly say. That is the path to the rule of man, and I for one prefer the rule of law. There is no middle ground, give or take clarifications. And for clarifications, the burden of proof must be on the government, or the system fails.

"Give the words a plain reading."

Spoken like a true fundamentalist. I've heard that exact phrase from evangelical street preachers.

No doubt your street preachers always follow it up with "If you don't like the plain reading, amend it", too.

I fear I'm perpetually doomed to spend at least some of my time online talking past Constitutional scholars as they talk past me. We're simply not having the conversation you think we're having.

I understand what you're saying; and have understood it every time you and dbcurtis have said it (in a variety of ways). I am disagreeing with the underlying premise of it. I am not disagreeing that the constitution has built-in mechanisms to change it. I am disagreeing with you that the government the constitution has defined has any ethical right to govern people who did not consent to it. It doesn't matter if it can theoretically be changed, it is premised on a notion I reject.

Thank you. I was having trouble understanding how arguments that the Constitution allows us to impose changes on the government "leave no room for change". :)

The 9th Amendment disagrees with you.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com