3 ms·

Are the amendments really meant to be inserted at unspecified points in the main text? I never thought of them like this, and it doesn't always work well here.

Are the amendments really meant to be inserted at unspecified points in the main text? I never thought of them like this, and it doesn't always work well here. Most glaringly, there is the part in https://github.com/JesseKPhillips/USA-Constitution/commit/7f340829cfc2ea844de1adfa4d9618d2adb6f932 https://github.com/JesseKPhillips/USA-Constitution/commit/7f... in the article talking about the President's powers, saying "The President shall have Power to [...] He shall from time to time [...]" and the diff inserts "No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law." between these sentences. This doesn't work at all, not only because this amendment has nothing to do with the President's powers, but especially because the "He" starting the next sentence has nothing more to refer to. Of course this would be a lot more boring if the amendments were just tucked on at the end, but I'm afraid reality is just boring here.

skissane 7y ago
> Are the amendments really meant to be inserted at unspecified points in the main text? The US constitution is unusual in leaving the main text unchanged and appending amendments at the end. Most countries don't do that. For example, Australia's constitution [1] has been amended several times since it was first adopted in 1900. But, it is amended by changing the text of existing sections, inserting new sections or subsections (examples: section 105A, subsection 51(xxiiiA)), and deleting entire sections (example: section 127). [1] https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/Constitution.aspx https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practi...
- cyphar 7y ago
  Most notably the 21st Amendment repealed the 18th, but both texts are still present in the amendments section of the US Constitution.
he_the_great 7y ago
The Bill of Rights is more additional than modification. The president is the commander an chief of the military, it seems reasonable he would not be allowed to quarter his troops in peoples homes. Take a look at this one https://github.com/JesseKPhillips/USA-Constitution/commit/0cdbb927a04363d0bfd61bcfa35954e873f6dd91 https://github.com/JesseKPhillips/USA-Constitution/commit/0c...

skissane 7y ago

> Are the amendments really meant to be inserted at unspecified points in the main text? The US constitution is unusual in leaving the main text unchanged and appending amendments at the end. Most countries don't do that. For example, Australia's constitution [1] has been amended several times since it was first adopted in 1900. But, it is amended by changing the text of existing sections, inserting new sections or subsections (examples: section 105A, subsection 51(xxiiiA)), and deleting entire sections (example: section 127). [1] https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/Constitution.aspx https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practi...

cyphar 7y ago
Most notably the 21st Amendment repealed the 18th, but both texts are still present in the amendments section of the US Constitution.

he_the_great 7y ago

The Bill of Rights is more additional than modification. The president is the commander an chief of the military, it seems reasonable he would not be allowed to quarter his troops in peoples homes. Take a look at this one https://github.com/JesseKPhillips/USA-Constitution/commit/0cdbb927a04363d0bfd61bcfa35954e873f6dd91 https://github.com/JesseKPhillips/USA-Constitution/commit/0c...