6 ms·

Wow, you're seriously underestimating this issue. For instance, the German constitution ("Grundgesetz") has an eternity clause in it that makes it unconstitutio

Wow, you're seriously underestimating this issue. For instance, the German constitution ("Grundgesetz") has an eternity clause in it that makes it unconstitutional to remove the basic principles in Articles 1 and 20. Many other modern constitutions have such clauses.[1] By the way, Article 4, paragraph 4 in the German constitution states: " All Germans shall have the right to resist any person seeking to abolish this constitutional order if no other remedy is available." If constitutional assemblies worry about things like that, it's not as silly as you put it for Gödel to have wondered about not having such features in the US constitution at a time just after WW2. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrenched_clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrenched_clause Edit: Not a minor nitpick. Article 1 AND 20. Fixed!

warpspin 6y ago
Just a minor nitpick. It is article 1 AND 20, not articles 1 to 20.
msravi 6y ago
OP's point is that you can write anything in the constitution - that it can never be changed, or whatever - but that's of no value whatsoever, if a large majority of people agree and decide that it's an invalid document.
- jonathanstrange 6y ago
  That's not how constitutional law works, though. Even if someone seizes power by force, the apparent constitutionality of their reign or lack thereof has many implications in international law and for the recognition of the new government, as well as for retrospective assessments, including the validity of the laws enacted by the regime. Dictators put great efforts in making their reign at least look constitutional.
  - taurath 6y ago
    And fundamentally that is to preserve existing institutions of legalities, so that the dictator can wield the power of the state and not have the state itself dissolve.
  - rtpg 6y ago
    France, for example, has gone through many different constitutions (the current one is from 1958). I don’t think they’re unique in changing up their foundational texts (and don’t forget places like the UK, that have no constitution, and rely on norms) But my point was mainly around popular movements. Not going to comment on international judgement in these circumstances
    - jonathanstrange 6y ago
      Well, I'm not going to argue with you, there is no real disagreement here. All I'm saying is that you can be certain the members in various constitutional assemblies have been well aware of your point, and that contradictions in constitutions are not minor issues.
    - jfengel 6y ago
      We... several different constitutions. The current one is called the Fifth Republic. The Third Republic ended when Germany took over the country, and the Fourth Republic was kind of an abortive mess. It was more akin to the US taking a mulligan after the Articles of Confederation. The Third Republic had actually lasted quite a while. There was definitely a mess before that: monarchy, revolution that created a republic that turned into an empire, then a monarchy again, then a republic again, then the nephew of the original emperor being declared emperor... the 19th century was not a good time to be French. (And I'm leaving out some revolutions and constitutions that didn't go anywhere.) But after that they really had settled down, until an outside force blew it all up. The 19th century wasn't really all that solid anywhere in Europe. Germany and Italy didn't do any better.
  - varjag 6y ago
    International law is even more an afterthought for status quo than national constitutions. Noone is really bound by it unless it crosses a handful of powerful national actors with the guns. And countries recognizing governments unrecognized by others is common. Happened multiple times this side of the millennium.
  - refenestrator 6y ago
    If they seize power by force AND they piss off NATO, then yeah. If they're anticommunists in Latin America, or anti-Gaddaffi in Libya, they'll probably be fine.
- bluGill 6y ago
  Doesn't even need a majority, just enough powerful people. If our generals decide to take over what stops them? Recent history around the world has a number or such cases.
  - cecja 6y ago
    You fucking americans and your but it's not against the law attitude it's just suffocating reading comments like this all the time everywhere. bUt If It'S nOt IlLeGaL. Holy shit you are all cunts.
- TeMPOraL 6y ago
  That's a corner case, though. Anything is possible if you can get enough people to simultaneously adopt a new intersubjective[0] belief. In reality, changes in laws happen when a small group supports them and, small opposition notwithstanding, vast majority of people do not care. One of the easiest ways to make the majority care - and oppose you - is to push your changes in a way that violates existing legal framework, particularly important things like a constitution. As long as you don't do that - as long as you take things slow and don't raise people's alarms - you can boil the proverbial frog. That's what these clauses are meant to protect from. A series moves, planned or accidental, that could turn the country into dictatorship. -- [0] - I.e. the kind that's valid as long as enough people believe enough other people believe it's valid. Like a constitution. Or money.
  - SiempreViernes 6y ago
    I think this is overlooking the larger issue: in these scenarios there are powerful groups that plan to turn the country into a dictatorship, and that's really the bit to worry about. You cannot simply write down a law prohibiting becoming a dictatorship and then sit back thinking all will be fine, because then these groups will simply grow their power until they can ignore the bits of the law they don't like. And they don't need to change the law to gain power, they merely need acceptance of their telling of events. On the other hand, without extensive support you cannot create a dictatorship because that word implies such extensive societal control that there simply must be extensive power behind it for it to function at all.
jojobas 6y ago
1. Alter articles 4 and 79 (this one contains the eternity clause) so that that they don't protect articles 1 and 20 . 2. Alter articles 1 and 20 3. ??? 4. 4th Reich
- anoncake 6y ago
  The eternity clause implicitly protects itself because anything else would be absurd and judges aren't computers.
  - jojobas 6y ago
    (Un)like computers, judges sometimes die and guess who nominates replacement judges.
    - anoncake 6y ago
      Judges rarely die in office. What's your point?
      - jojobas 6y ago
        If you have so much control as to modify the constitution, you can as well appoint the judges that would side with your interpretation.
        anoncake 6y ago
        If you have that control for long enough to effectively replace the court, then that defense mechanism has failed.
  - lnl 6y ago
    If that was how it was meant to be understood, it could have easily been written explicitly by making it a recursive clause. E.g. in the case of my country, article 4 of the constitution says that the first 3 articles cannot be changed; it could have said first 4 articles cannot be changed, thereby making it a legal impasse. More likely, the authors of entrenched clauses understood that, if it came to that, making that change illegal wouldn't prevent a slip to dictatorship. That impasse would only hinder the honest actors, if in the future there came a time when those entrenched clauses really legitimately need to be changed; and hence that door was deliberately left open. Sure, if it came to that, judges may still rule your way to slow down the slide the dictatorship, but then the next constitutional amendment would be "all judges are retired, here's how new judges are selected". Or some other legal maneuver. Even the strongest clauses could be circumvented if they have enough support or power, let alone feeble interpretations of implicit clauses.
littlestymaar 6y ago
> For instance, the German constitution ("Grundgesetz") has an eternity clause in it that makes it unconstitutional to remove the basic principles in Articles 1 and 20. It is unconstitutional, by the old constitution standards', but the new regime can just ignore it and call it a day (we're talking about a fascist takeover here). > paragraph 4 in the German constitution states: " All Germans shall have the right to resist any person seeking to abolish this constitutional order if no other remedy is available." that's cute, but do you think it would change anything if Myanmar's constitution had included such clause? Do you think it would stop the military from shooting protestors? Laws, and constitutions, are useful, but in the end: politics is about power, not laws.
- lordgrenville 6y ago
  > Politics is about power, not laws. This, exactly. I think constitutional guardrails are an effect, not a cause, of healthy democracies. If there is political will to do something bad the law can always be abrogated, edited, reinterpreted or circumvented. The existence of a loophole isn't surprising. The existence of a law without them would be. (Same applies, mutatus mutandis, to smart contracts.)
- TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
  Power is a continuum, not a binary. A foundational element in politics is the use of narratives to influence behaviour. You can't stop a bullet with a piece of paper. But what's written on the paper can persuade a would-be shooter that the cost of their actions is likely to outweigh the benefits - because it legitimises and encourages counter-actions and severe penalties. The efficient way to maintain power is by controlling what people believe. It's a lot less effort and mess than trying to torture and murder everyone who opposes you.
- anoncake 6y ago
  > that's cute, but do you think it would change anything if Myanmar's constitution had included such clause? Perhaps not, but Myanmar isn't full of Germans. > Laws, and constitutions, are useful, but in the end: politics is about power, not laws. The power to make people behave in a certain manner. Laws are quite effective at that.

warpspin 6y ago

Just a minor nitpick. It is article 1 AND 20, not articles 1 to 20.

msravi 6y ago

OP's point is that you can write anything in the constitution - that it can never be changed, or whatever - but that's of no value whatsoever, if a large majority of people agree and decide that it's an invalid document.

jonathanstrange 6y ago
That's not how constitutional law works, though. Even if someone seizes power by force, the apparent constitutionality of their reign or lack thereof has many implications in international law and for the recognition of the new government, as well as for retrospective assessments, including the validity of the laws enacted by the regime. Dictators put great efforts in making their reign at least look constitutional.
- taurath 6y ago
  And fundamentally that is to preserve existing institutions of legalities, so that the dictator can wield the power of the state and not have the state itself dissolve.
- rtpg 6y ago
  France, for example, has gone through many different constitutions (the current one is from 1958). I don’t think they’re unique in changing up their foundational texts (and don’t forget places like the UK, that have no constitution, and rely on norms) But my point was mainly around popular movements. Not going to comment on international judgement in these circumstances
  - jonathanstrange 6y ago
    Well, I'm not going to argue with you, there is no real disagreement here. All I'm saying is that you can be certain the members in various constitutional assemblies have been well aware of your point, and that contradictions in constitutions are not minor issues.
  - jfengel 6y ago
    We... several different constitutions. The current one is called the Fifth Republic. The Third Republic ended when Germany took over the country, and the Fourth Republic was kind of an abortive mess. It was more akin to the US taking a mulligan after the Articles of Confederation. The Third Republic had actually lasted quite a while. There was definitely a mess before that: monarchy, revolution that created a republic that turned into an empire, then a monarchy again, then a republic again, then the nephew of the original emperor being declared emperor... the 19th century was not a good time to be French. (And I'm leaving out some revolutions and constitutions that didn't go anywhere.) But after that they really had settled down, until an outside force blew it all up. The 19th century wasn't really all that solid anywhere in Europe. Germany and Italy didn't do any better.
- varjag 6y ago
  International law is even more an afterthought for status quo than national constitutions. Noone is really bound by it unless it crosses a handful of powerful national actors with the guns. And countries recognizing governments unrecognized by others is common. Happened multiple times this side of the millennium.
- refenestrator 6y ago
  If they seize power by force AND they piss off NATO, then yeah. If they're anticommunists in Latin America, or anti-Gaddaffi in Libya, they'll probably be fine.
bluGill 6y ago
Doesn't even need a majority, just enough powerful people. If our generals decide to take over what stops them? Recent history around the world has a number or such cases.
- cecja 6y ago
  You fucking americans and your but it's not against the law attitude it's just suffocating reading comments like this all the time everywhere. bUt If It'S nOt IlLeGaL. Holy shit you are all cunts.
TeMPOraL 6y ago
That's a corner case, though. Anything is possible if you can get enough people to simultaneously adopt a new intersubjective[0] belief. In reality, changes in laws happen when a small group supports them and, small opposition notwithstanding, vast majority of people do not care. One of the easiest ways to make the majority care - and oppose you - is to push your changes in a way that violates existing legal framework, particularly important things like a constitution. As long as you don't do that - as long as you take things slow and don't raise people's alarms - you can boil the proverbial frog. That's what these clauses are meant to protect from. A series moves, planned or accidental, that could turn the country into dictatorship. -- [0] - I.e. the kind that's valid as long as enough people believe enough other people believe it's valid. Like a constitution. Or money.
- SiempreViernes 6y ago
  I think this is overlooking the larger issue: in these scenarios there are powerful groups that plan to turn the country into a dictatorship, and that's really the bit to worry about. You cannot simply write down a law prohibiting becoming a dictatorship and then sit back thinking all will be fine, because then these groups will simply grow their power until they can ignore the bits of the law they don't like. And they don't need to change the law to gain power, they merely need acceptance of their telling of events. On the other hand, without extensive support you cannot create a dictatorship because that word implies such extensive societal control that there simply must be extensive power behind it for it to function at all.

jojobas 6y ago

1. Alter articles 4 and 79 (this one contains the eternity clause) so that that they don't protect articles 1 and 20 . 2. Alter articles 1 and 20 3. ??? 4. 4th Reich

anoncake 6y ago
The eternity clause implicitly protects itself because anything else would be absurd and judges aren't computers.
- jojobas 6y ago
  (Un)like computers, judges sometimes die and guess who nominates replacement judges.
  - anoncake 6y ago
    Judges rarely die in office. What's your point?
    - jojobas 6y ago
      If you have so much control as to modify the constitution, you can as well appoint the judges that would side with your interpretation.
      - anoncake 6y ago
        If you have that control for long enough to effectively replace the court, then that defense mechanism has failed.
- lnl 6y ago
  If that was how it was meant to be understood, it could have easily been written explicitly by making it a recursive clause. E.g. in the case of my country, article 4 of the constitution says that the first 3 articles cannot be changed; it could have said first 4 articles cannot be changed, thereby making it a legal impasse. More likely, the authors of entrenched clauses understood that, if it came to that, making that change illegal wouldn't prevent a slip to dictatorship. That impasse would only hinder the honest actors, if in the future there came a time when those entrenched clauses really legitimately need to be changed; and hence that door was deliberately left open. Sure, if it came to that, judges may still rule your way to slow down the slide the dictatorship, but then the next constitutional amendment would be "all judges are retired, here's how new judges are selected". Or some other legal maneuver. Even the strongest clauses could be circumvented if they have enough support or power, let alone feeble interpretations of implicit clauses.

littlestymaar 6y ago

> For instance, the German constitution ("Grundgesetz") has an eternity clause in it that makes it unconstitutional to remove the basic principles in Articles 1 and 20. It is unconstitutional, by the old constitution standards', but the new regime can just ignore it and call it a day (we're talking about a fascist takeover here). > paragraph 4 in the German constitution states: " All Germans shall have the right to resist any person seeking to abolish this constitutional order if no other remedy is available." that's cute, but do you think it would change anything if Myanmar's constitution had included such clause? Do you think it would stop the military from shooting protestors? Laws, and constitutions, are useful, but in the end: politics is about power, not laws.

lordgrenville 6y ago
> Politics is about power, not laws. This, exactly. I think constitutional guardrails are an effect, not a cause, of healthy democracies. If there is political will to do something bad the law can always be abrogated, edited, reinterpreted or circumvented. The existence of a loophole isn't surprising. The existence of a law without them would be. (Same applies, mutatus mutandis, to smart contracts.)
TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
Power is a continuum, not a binary. A foundational element in politics is the use of narratives to influence behaviour. You can't stop a bullet with a piece of paper. But what's written on the paper can persuade a would-be shooter that the cost of their actions is likely to outweigh the benefits - because it legitimises and encourages counter-actions and severe penalties. The efficient way to maintain power is by controlling what people believe. It's a lot less effort and mess than trying to torture and murder everyone who opposes you.
anoncake 6y ago
> that's cute, but do you think it would change anything if Myanmar's constitution had included such clause? Perhaps not, but Myanmar isn't full of Germans. > Laws, and constitutions, are useful, but in the end: politics is about power, not laws. The power to make people behave in a certain manner. Laws are quite effective at that.