Hacker News Reader

Comment by _petronius | Hacker News Reader

> But the people are getting what they voted for, so is it really ethical to intervene in that?

No electoral mandate (and the argument for a clear mandate for all of this is thin or nonexistent) makes unconstitutional/illegal action suddenly legal or constitutional.

Whether anyone with the relevant power chooses to punish these violations, is a different matter. The choice since January 2020 has been to repeatedly do nothing in the face of illegal action, but winning elections doesn't make criminal action magically non-criminal.

View on HN

> No electoral mandate (and the argument for a clear mandate for all of this is thin or nonexistent) makes unconstitutional/illegal action suddenly legal or constitutional.

Playing devil's advocate - but the people asked for this, right? Isn't it time to amend the constitution then?

The will of people is the ultimate judge, isn't it?

Why are they operating illegally, then? If "the will of the people" is unified enough to change the Constitution, why not… do that?

Why go through all the trouble of amending the Constitution when you can just do whatever you want because nobody's going to stop you? Suppose Trump declared himself king tomorrow. Who with any power is going to push back? It doesn't matter if it's against the law if nobody cares about the law.

I was responding to this:

> Playing devil's advocate - but the people asked for this, right? Isn't it time to amend the constitution then?

> The will of people is the ultimate judge, isn't it?

Amendments require approval of 3/4 of states and there are still enough states to vote against. Also what amendment, specifically? That Trump can be president more times? Exert more power? Eliminate opposing political parties? Legislate pi to be 3?

Yes, that is my point.

Is constitutional referendums also managed on a FPTP electoral system?

You're saying that elected officials may operate as kings ordained by the will of the people. But they were willed into office, not willed into supreme power.

There are still laws. But you make a case for "might is right"

That's only the case in a pure direct democracy, which isn't what the US is.

There's a process for amending the constitution. If they want to amend the constitution, follow the process. Even if they only follow it once to change the constitutional requirements and reduce the threshold going forward.

We are (theoretically) a nation that is governed by laws, with equal protection for all under those laws. This creates stability and predictability, which encourages commerce and development.

When you go all Calvinball with government, you destroy that stability and predictability, and investment drops.

One team follows the rules, the other team doesn't care about rules and doesn't follow them. Guess which one struggles to achieve their goals.

This is the predictable outcome of the last 50 years of US politics, of the subversion of the rule of law and decency. The southern strategy, the 1994 Newt Gingrich legislative session, the failure of the supreme court to allow recounts in Bush V Gore, the teaparty, september 11th. All of it has only served to entrench and reward conservative opposition to the rule of law.

Also the Clinton administration where we were told repeatedly that the private actions of the president, and accusations of sexual misconduct have no bearing on their ability to be president. I’d also say the reaction to the Bush v. Gore election which solidified in the public consciousness the idea both of unreliable elections and that an election could be (and depending on what corner of the political world you were in, was) stolen. Decades of telling voters that if you don’t vote for one of the “lesser of two evils” you’re throwing away your vote. Decades of congress abdicating their responsibility to the executive branch to avoid the electoral consequences. Decades of cheering on executive fiat changing the rule of the land (see Net Neutrality) like it was a good thing (or at least like it is when one’s chosen team is enacting one’s preferred policies). Or happily going along with the president blatantly and openly refusing to enforce the laws as passed by congress (see federal enforcement of drug laws), again at least when one’s own team is the one doing the ignoring.

I used to think that people really just weren’t paying attention to the sort of precedents they’re setting when they do certain things. But the older I get, the more I’m convinced that it’s intentional. Take the dreaded “filibuster” that supposedly prevents congress from anything (except apparently banning Tik Tok). The filibuster in general, and its current form specifically are entirely products of congresses own rules. At any time, congress can decide by simple majority to change the rules of their proceedings and they could do anything from requiring that you actually get on the floor and speak instead of just declaring “filibuster” like some Magic: the Gathering spell. Or they could reduce the vote requirements to override a filibuster. Or they could abolish the thing completely and declare all their laws pass with a simple majority vote. So there must be some reason why they don’t do this, why it’s not the number one agenda item the moment the Democrats get any major it in congress. And the only logical conclusion is the current state of affairs benefits the congressional reps and that’s more important to them than the overall functioning of the system.

> the people asked for this, right?

No, not by sufficient margin.

Even assuming every state would decide this direct question the same way as they did the Presidency this past election, a Constitutional amendment requires ratification by 38 states.

> The will of people is the ultimate judge, isn't it?

Ultimately it has to be, but not always in the moment. The bar to Constitutional amendment is high for a reason.

> No, not by sufficient margin.

Honest question: would the margin have been sufficient if the outcome was reversed? Would you be understanding of their position if Republicans had the same feelings and ideas of resistance if roles were reversed?

Illegal and unconstitutional executive overreach is what it is, regardless of party.

I don't really envision a Democratic administration making a similar illegal and unconstitutional flurry of bullshit, but if they did, I would absolutely call them out on it.

The requirements to amend the Constitution are clear: a 2/3 supermajority in each chamber of Congress, followed by 3/4 states ratifying it. Neither chamber comes close to clearing that bar, let alone the state margins.

So this discussion is pretty confusing to me, because the Trump administration objectively does not have the level of support you seem to think they do. Are you saying the incoming administration should get a little amendment as a treat? Are you just not aware of the procedure? Where’s the disconnect here?

The position of the devil's advocate is that the procedure is a little undemocratic - it prevents people to express their will, right? - and ought to be bent when it's really needed. Insert whatever justification here the interested side could plausibly produce.

And like many devil’s advocate positions, it doesn’t make sense. Like, how exactly does the procedure prevent people from expressing their will? If there were truly popular support for DOGE, they would be able to conjure up the required votes in Congress and amongst the states.

But they can’t, because that support doesn’t exist. You’re starting from the presupposition that this is “the people’s will”, but voter turnout was less than 2/3 and Trump only won a plurality of that. That’s not to say that he didn’t win, but you’re talking about whether we should amend the Constitution to satisfy less than a third of eligible voters.

32 is less than 38, regardless of the political valence.

On the grounds that I'm, y'know, human I will grant that I'd probably find myself filling in the details of where exactly the constitutional lines are drawn somewhat differently in line with my policy preferences, but the question wasn't whether this is within bounds of the Constitution, but whether we ought to (morally) consider the Constitution amended anyway because of the electoral victory. My answer to that will always be no - both because of the numbers and also because the election conflates a bunch of questions where ratification asks just the one question directly.

1. The devil doesn't need an advocate, he already has plenty of shills to advocate for him.

2. 49.8% of the popular vote is enough to elect an executive, but not enough to overturn the constitution, which places clear limits on the power of that executive. The more radical the change, the larger the consensus that it requires. In order for the executive to legally receive this power, you need a supermajority of states.

But in a world where the courts and the cops are on your side, nothing needs to be legal anymore.

> 1. The devil doesn't need an advocate, he already has plenty of shills to advocate for him.

Yes, but - if you want to review your arguments, it might be still useful.

> But in a world where the courts and the cops are on your side, nothing needs to be legal anymore.

Maybe not legal - but effective it could be. As a recent example, Syria changed the people at power disregarding laws - cops and courts weren't enough to prevent it.

'Experiencing a Syrian-style civil war' is not exactly ranking highly on my bucket list.

There US state is also far more internally secure than the Syrian state ever was.

constitution is deliberately a law that is hard to change. it's not meant to be amended every election cycle

The constitution and laws are for the people. If the people don't care for them then they're just meaningless bits of paper.

Frankly we haven't had any real rule of law for a long time, and that's finally filtered through to the general populace. The law has been selectively enforced for decades (the famous "three felonies a day"). Of course the people don't respect the law any more, why would they?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com