Hacker News Reader

Comment by hn_throwaway_99 | Hacker News Reader

> only that this could be a way they do it.

No, it couldn't. Again, just erasing sections of laws from websites is not how it is done. It's dumb to conflate what authoritarian regimes do to memory hole historical events (which, to be clear, I think the current US administration has done or at least attempted to do) with just thinking "Yep, we'll just delete this law from the website and then we'll be good."

This was obviously a clerical/administrative screw up, if only because the consequences are so clearly benign.

View on HN

This is a really strange take to me. If I go online to look up my rights from an official source, like the Library of Congress, and some of them are missing, that isn't benign. No, it hasn't changed the law, but it changes what I know about the law.

Y'all act like the administration didn't rename the Gulf of Mexico like it changes the physical gulf or ownership status. Or direct museums about how to portray history. Or, historically, sharpie on a weather map. Removing or changing information as they find convenient is entirely reasonable to expect from the admin.

That said, they rolled it back, so likely someone effed up.

> Y'all act like the administration didn't rename the Gulf of Mexico like it changes the physical gulf or ownership status. Or direct museums about how to portray history...

No, we aren't. Those are two different things - heck, I literally said "which, to be clear, I think the current US administration has done or at least attempted to do", and I was referring to specific instances of stuff like this, https://www.npr.org/2025/02/05/nx-s1-5286299/nsa-museum-dei-....

My whole point is that raising your pitchforks over obvious clerical errors makes it that much harder to identify real attempts of deception. I think tptacek hit the nail on the head with his "I think you may be arguing with people who are disappointed that this is benign" comment.

So on the one hand, you acknowledge that the admin has done similar things. On the other hand, you think it's "obvious" that they didn't do this thing. Which, again, is similar to other things. That they have done.

The best advice I've ever heard, I'm going to proffer to you: remove the word "obvious" from your vocabulary.

I actually don't really care whether it's benign or not. Not everyone cares about this as much as you do. I just think soapbox warrioring needs to be addressed.

Why would someone be editing a copy of the Constitution in the first place, knowing full well that it doesn't make any real legal change?

It's not a "copy of the Constitution"; it's a site about the Constitution. If you Google "US Constitution", the top of the search page will be the National Archives transcription.

This is just people wanting to be het up about something. How would this particular Constitutional heist even work?

The way it works is they do a hundred illegal things all at once, and see what gets through, see what people band together and spend time on.

To accomplish that they demand 100 changes all over the place to official words/documents. Then on "the day" they command everyone to do all the changes.

This particular incident, is a mistake by some web admin, who forgot to hold off until "the day" it is all suppose to change

It is an accidental glimpse into what they are putting real effort into, its unbelievable what they are already getting away with and what will keep coming

For what reason would anyone be editing text of the constitution? It's not dynamic.

Probably just another less-important thing tossed out there to keep the distraction index high.

I think you may be arguing with people who are disappointed that this is benign.

Meh, I'd be happy to know that. But in several other instances of "honest mistakes" from this administration, we've found out later they were quite deliberate violations of people's rights.

For example from this Trump personal defense attorney → Deputy AG → freshly minted federal judge whose team "made a mistake" in allowing planes to take off despite court orders: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/emil-bov...

None of your rights have been violated here. This is a website.

I didn't mean to suggest that they had in this particular instance! Edited to clarify.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com