Hacker News Reader

Comment by esaym | Hacker News Reader

I've always hated that a "law" can be interpreted really.

This is your engineering or science background clashing with reality. I, for one, am glad that laws are interpreted and not taken as hard rules. Stupidity would reign otherwise, because it is impossible to create a hard and fast rule that will stand the test of time in a changing civilization.

Unfortunately, I have met too many CS types that are surprised by the concept of law interpretation. That's why liberal education is important.

I was following and agreeing with you (and was going to upvote you), until the last 2 sentences. You could have made your point without bashing "CS types" and CS/engineering education.

Don't you think it is scary to invest that much power in a post that is unelected and for life?

Not possible for it to be otherwise. Also, not desirable.

The law is not like an OS that society runs on, that's a very dangerous but sadly pervasive idea. The law is a tool that society uses for its own betterment, hopefully in the service of justice and liberty.

That's the nature of communication. There can be no communication without interpretation.

We do have some separation between eval (legislative) and apply (executive) though, but that mostly only works for a few things like presidential pardons.

Without it, our Constitution would be almost worthless. Segregation was brought down by the Interstate Commerce Clause!

I would argue that the ICC is something that seriously diminishes the Constitution, as the courts have applied such tortured logic so as to allow the federal government to regulate virtually anything.

I personally think the Constitution should be thrown out and start over. It's an archaic document reflecting a radically different society.

Some love to treat it as sacred, but if it's so sacred how come we've had to amend it so much? Though come to think of it I wouldn't mind a few amendments to the Bible and Koran.

I always wondered why amendments weren't MORE common.

Consider how poorly the legislature works and then look at the process for amending the Constitution. I'm amazed there were so many!

The veneration of the Constitution is a weak point in American government. It's riddled with policy mistakes (see: Impeachment, where the Vice President would cast the deciding vote in his own trial should there be a tie) and rediculous vagaries (Judges serve for life so long as they remain "in good behavior"), not to mention the validation of the fundamental evil of slavery which was, at the time, already a point of contention.

Rather than an objective framework for government, the Constitution has morphed into a shield against discourse, a talisman wielded to justify policies that deserve to be questioned. It's our National Bible, where things are right because see, it says it right there.

> It's riddled with policy mistakes (see: Impeachment, where the Vice President would cast the deciding vote in his own trial should there be a tie)

As mistakes go, this one is purely cosmetic. It has no actual implications; there would be nothing even minorly surprising about saying "the impeached party wins ties".

Not sure what gives you that impression. During the impeachment of Andrew Johnson, Chief Justice Chase cast 2 tie breaking votes on procedural issues. The purpose of this provision (Article 1, Section 3 - Chief Justice presides over the trial of the President in cases of impeachment) was separation of powers but the authors appear to have overlooked that value when it comes to the Vice President.

It doesn't matter. At worst it says that impeachment issues have to win by 2 votes. That doesn't damage separation of powers in any way. It's just an oddity.

I don't think the VP can vote unless there's a tie, so it just says impeachment issues have to win.

You hit the nail on the head. We Americans are religious folks, and the Constitution is our own home-grown religious text.

Look at the veneration for the founding fathers, even elsewhere in these comments. That's religion, not thoughtful political discourse!

Wow, who downvoted you for that? Wickard v. Filburn, seriously.

What else would you do with it?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com