| ▲ | qingcharles 2 days ago |
| I've laughed ever since United States v. Jones (2012), the GPS tracker-stuck-to-vehicle case. The justices actively debated what the historical equivalent of 24/7 digital tracking would look like in 1791. This prompted the famous hypothetical of an officer secretly squeezing into the trunk of a horse-drawn carriage to track someone's movements over several days. The issue here is that there's no practical way to ever update the Bill of Rights in the 21st century. Bug or feature? |
|
| ▲ | semiquaver 2 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| > no practical way to ever update the Bill of Rights in the 21st century
What on earth do you mean? The practical way is the same as it always was: subsequent amendment. The fact that it requires consensus is a feature.This reads the same way as people who say things like “we just have to accept that Congress is broken and can’t pass new legislation.” Like hell we do! |
| |
| ▲ | lazide 2 days ago | parent [-] | | They mean ‘have you seen congress? Good luck’, not that the mechanism is mechanically harder to use. | | |
| ▲ | qingcharles 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | This. Getting enough states to agree on a change would be a fool's errand I think. It seems like the reds and blues can't agree on anything at all any longer. | | |
| ▲ | graveemaster 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I agree 99% with you, except when it comes to these enormous data centers. When you look at the local zoning committee meetings, you're seeing Reds, Blues and Ind mostly calling for a moratorium on build sites in their communities. | | |
| ▲ | lazide a day ago | parent [-] | | What does that have to do with anything that would plausibly be in the bill of rights? |
| |
| ▲ | Henchman21 a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | I mean, after decades of manufactured cultural rifts, we're right where the powers that be want us to be. Disorganized and ripe for exploitation. |
| |
| ▲ | expedition32 a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | People in my country hate eachother yet nobody pretends it's still 1848- the year the Dutch constitution was written. | | |
|
|
|
| ▲ | cucumber3732842 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| >The justices actively debated what the historical equivalent of 24/7 digital tracking would look like in 1791. Redcoats in your home, comparing notes with all the other redcoats who live in your buddies house and hassle your bartender, watch the comings and goings of everyone else around town, etc, etc. |
|
| ▲ | krapp 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| >The issue here is that there's no practical way to ever update the Bill of Rights in the 21st century. Bug or feature? Given that this isn't an issue in any other modern democracy, I'd say "bug." |
| |
| ▲ | nradov 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | The slow pace of change is a feature, not a bug. It's fine to wait decades or centuries until we have broad consensus before making amendments. While this might seem maddeningly frustrating or unjust in the short term, in the long term it makes our republic more stable. The USA has had an uninterrupted system of government since 1789. How many other major countries can say the same? | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > The slow pace of change is a feature, not a bug. To a point. It seems to have ground to a halt. > The USA has had an uninterrupted system of government since 1789. How many other major countries can say the same? Quite a few of them can say "we took those good ideas and built on them". | | |
| ▲ | nradov 2 days ago | parent [-] | | In what sense has it ground to a halt? Eight amendments have been ratified in the past 100 years. I think some people are taking a very short-term view here and lack a historical perspective. Let's see how those other countries are doing 100 years from now. | | |
| ▲ | redserk 2 days ago | parent [-] | | A government structure that changes isn’t inherently bad. The US has gone through multiple iterations just by reinterpreting a document. Other countries tend to be a bit more explicit in this. The US in 2026 operates fundamentally differently than in 1910, and both are unrecognizable to 1801. The document was written when there were 13 states, and at best, appetite for a mere handful of others to join. For example, the degree of the weaponization of state-carving in the mid-19th century wasn’t in the cards. A 26 member upper legislature operates substantially different than one comprised of 100 members. | | |
| ▲ | soulofmischief a day ago | parent [-] | | The scaling laws involved here are worth precise study. A high majority requirement seems reasonable as you have less and less members. It prevents one person from coming in and convincing two other people to completely change how things operate. But the optimal majority requirement which balances rigidness and flexibility certainly trends downward as an organization grows. By how much? I'd like to know. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | UncleMeat 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > The USA has had an uninterrupted system of government since 1789. Sort of. We had a civil war. We had a second founding. Then we had violent overthrowing of the reconstruction governments in the south. It has been less than 100 years since the US has provided the franchise to everybody, and even then this is a bit questionable. Instead of constitutional amendments we get aggressive reinterpretation of the text by politically motivated efforts to change the courts. Despite no change to the constitution itself we've created criminal immunity for presidents and overturned interpretations regarding separation of powers than have been in place for a century. | |
| ▲ | harimau777 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Ya, screw all those people who have to suffer in the short term! |
| |
| ▲ | willturman 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | ‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens https://theonion.com/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation... | |
| ▲ | lazide 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Eh, since it would most likely be used to remove some key right…. |
|
|
| ▲ | 0xbadcafebee 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Well it's a feature in that the ratification rules were part of an intentional illicit rewrite of the constitution. We could make it easier to modify like other nations, but that also makes it easier to repeal. I think the fix is to require more political parties to be involved, so a 51% majority of a single party can't remove federal laws whenever they have a majority. Then you wouldn't need an amendment to solve controversial problems. |
| |
| ▲ | semiquaver a day ago | parent [-] | | Anything requiring bipartisanship can be gamed with synthetic parties, the legitimacy of which will surely be deemed a nonjusticiable political question. |
|
|
| ▲ | watwut 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > The issue here is that there's no practical way to ever update the Bill of Rights in the 21st century. Bug or feature? Of course there is, it is just being done - the constitution is being rewritten out right now by supreme court. All you need is a majority on a 9 person commission. |
|
| ▲ | 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [deleted] |
