6 ms·

You don’t write low level, close to the hardware software with Python or Java. You use something like C, Rust or assembler. Constitutions are the firmware. Buil

You don’t write low level, close to the hardware software with Python or Java. You use something like C, Rust or assembler. Constitutions are the firmware. Building nations is an old, old craft and the legal instruments used to define have been being written for thousands of years. In many ways our constitution is the Rust of these documents in that it focused on security of structure and by the time it was ratified, security of individual rights over everything else. Most that seek to change the constitution want to take away rights or add new ones. It is good it is hard to change, especially when many of the change seekers can’t even get the popular support to get a law passed or a veto overridden.

denton-scratch 4y ago
> individual rights over everything else I used to admire the US constitution. I've grown up now. Who could possibly be opposed to human rights - i.e. human beings having rights? And indeed, the US constitution does appear to be largely about rights. Over the years I've increasingly leaned to the view that these rights are mostly a legal fiction, and that the things that are supposedly rights are highly subjective political footballs. Nowadays I think of a constitution as a largely non-political set of rules for how government works; i.e. it's a description of a mechanism, not a description of an outcome. From that point of view, the US Constitution is an awful constitution.
- tomp 4y ago
  > Who could possibly be opposed to human rights - i.e. human beings having rights? And indeed, the US constitution does appear to be largely about rights. What do you mean? US citizens have pretty much the most rights of any people in the world. Can you list the countries that guarantee freedom of speech, freedom to bear arms, freedom from unreasonable searches and freedom to stay silent (not incriminate yourself)? (Of course, the implementation of these rights is ... imperfect.)
  - kasey_junk 4y ago
    That’s begging the question. If you define rights specifically by enumerating how they are defined in the bill of rights of course the US comes out on top. That’s before your hedge about implementation. In practice the US performs rather badly when scores on civil liberties. Here is one methodology https://knoema.com/atlas/ranks/Civil-liberties-index?mode=amp https://knoema.com/atlas/ranks/Civil-liberties-index?mode=am... but you can find similar results across many others. Just take our prison population per capita if you want a glaring metric on how poorly we do at freedom.
    - tomp 4y ago
      Yeah let's just say that any list that places Canada sixth on a list is very much suspect. Nothing says "human rights" like criminalising protests, confiscating money, and prohibiting unvaccinated people from leaving the country.
    - dsfyu404ed 4y ago
      >In practice the US performs rather badly when scores on civil liberties. Which IMO is mostly a reflection of a country in which a large subset of the electorate do not really believe in human rights beyond the extent of a useful legal fiction to be followed in the default case and quietly ignored in the pursuit of specific outcomes. If the people had a hardline stance on human rights and civil liberties the government would reflect that.
  - denton-scratch 4y ago
    US citizens do indeed have a constitution that confers lots of rights. My contention is simply that these rights are legal fictions and political footballs, and should not be in-scope for a constitution. They shouldn't be baked-in; they should be simple legislation. I mainly don't believe in these "rights". I think people should be treated fairly and equitably; and I think that should be a matter of law. But constitution is about meta-law - how laws are made, not what their effect is.
    - dsfyu404ed 4y ago
      They're political footballs because people don't want people they don't like or are who are doing things they don't like to have rights and monkeying with definitions is easier than the full frontal assault of amending the constitution. How many times have you seen people on HN advocating, to much popular support, for infringing upon the 4th amendment for people who are involved in specific types of business or the infringing upon 5th amendment protections for people engaged in certain activities?
      - WalterBright 4y ago
        I see all the rights under constant attack all the time. By Americans. It's heartbreaking.
      - denton-scratch 4y ago
        The fourth is effectively a law that constrains the authorities from carrying out searches under many circumstances. The fifth constrains courts from forcing people to testify against themselves. These rules are often framed as "rights", but they are really restrictions on the power of government officials. I'm not sure why you have put this in terms of "specific types of business" and "certain activities". What types of business, and what activities, receive special protection under those amendments? What are you getting at?
    - WalterBright 4y ago
      Fortunately, you still have those rights - whether you recognize them or not, and whether or not the government recognizes them. They're inherent to being a human being - those "inalienable" rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. The US Constitution did not create those rights, it recognized them.
  - mijkal 4y ago
    The USA — with the 'most rights of any people in the world' — incarcerates the most people, by far, in some of the most inhumane conditions (slavery is explicitly legal in such contexts) among the developed nations. We're 'free' in an Orwellian sense. Freedom to be educated, have health care regardless of one's employment|wealth, welfare with dignity for those in need — none of these concepts come into consideration into what 'freedom' actually means in practice. My political leanings started libertarian. Over the years, I have traveled and read, and came to see the US for the farce it is, and encounter the deluded population convinced America is 'the greatest nation ever'. It has potential for sure, but when will we unlock it and truly taste real freedom?
    - WalterBright 4y ago
      Getting free stuff is a privilege, not a right. None of the Bill of Rights is guaranteeing free stuff.
- WalterBright 4y ago
  Here's how you can tell if a set of rights is more correct or less correct - how well a country organized around those rights thrives, or fails to thrive. The US has thrived, meaning its definition of rights is reasonably on the mark.
  - denton-scratch 4y ago
    Yeah, well I don't see a country that's thriving, except in terms of wealth (for some). I see a country lurching towards another Civil War. Anyway, my point was that I don't think these rights exist, and that framing things in terms of rights is arse-over-tit. I'm not interested in arguing whether the US chose the right set of rights; I'm saying I have no idea what a "right" is, other than a privilege granted by law.
    - WalterBright 4y ago
      > I don't see a country that's thriving Americans love to wallow in "oh, woe is us!" whereas if one reads history books, the US is in a golden age.
    - indymike 4y ago
      > I'm saying I have no idea what a "right" is, other than a privilege granted by law. Yep, and Constitutions define these privileges and make them supreme, above other laws.
      - WalterBright 4y ago
        We have a right to not be murdered. That is a right, not a privilege.
        denton-scratch 4y ago
        Apparently not; many states have a death penalty (i.e. a withdrawal of that privilege). Prosecution of policemen for murder is rare, and a conviction is even rarer. And you're still baldly asserting that rights exist, without explaining what rights are or where they come from.
- indymike 4y ago
  > s I've increasingly leaned to the view that these rights are mostly a legal fiction Ultimately all constitutions are just ink on paper (or parchment depending on age) and are only as good as the people who govern. > things that are supposedly rights are highly subjective political footballs. The fabric of society is a pitch where political football is played. The US Constitution is a product of the times when it was created, and so our pitch was created to balance the power of populous states vs. rural states with proportional representation (House) and fixed representation (Senate) and the electoral college. It took great pains to prevent rule by fiat of the executive because of the lesson from English rule. It's surprising it has held up, but a lot of the pressures that existed when it was created are still present (red state/blue state is really urban/rural) in the US today. > From that point of view, the US Constitution is an awful constitution. If a slow, plodding government that is largely effective only when faced with unifying crisis or there is a very high level of consensus is what you want, then the US Constitution works.
  - denton-scratch 4y ago
    This is the kind of nonsense that is produced by the US Constitution: https://vividmaps.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Texas.jpg https://vividmaps.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Texas.jpg
    - indymike 4y ago
      > This is the kind of nonsense that is produced by the US Constitution: How Texas draws congressional districts is up to the people of the Great State of Texas.
      - denton-scratch 4y ago
        Yes, it's clear to everyone that your voting rights in the USA depend on where you live. That map of Texas is just one particularly egregious example of a gerrymandered district. I think it's crazy that national (federal) elections are held under rules that vary from state to state; and that a congressional district the shape of a snake is permissible at all, whoever gets to draw the district. It seems obvious to me that national elections should be held under uniform national rules. But it's none of my business; I don't live in the USA, and I'm not from the USA.
kasey_junk 4y ago
The idea that the Constitution is somehow directed by the security of individual rights doesn’t pass the most basic reading or history lesson. It’s a delineation of governmental responsibilities between the various federal branches and the states. It wasn’t until the Bill of Rights was later ratified that it has anything to say about individual rights other than to deny them.
- WalterBright 4y ago
  And yet the BoR was the first set of Amendments as the founders realized the mistake of not including them.
- pythonaut_16 4y ago
  This is either absurd or sorely uninformed. That the Bill of Rights was added later is essentially a procedural technicality. The (lack of a) Bill of Rights was a major concern when the Constitution was drafted. It was passed with the promise that amending it with a Bill of Rights would be the first priority. The Constitution was only passed without it so the convention wouldn't keep dragging on.
  - kasey_junk 4y ago
    And because a large portion of the delegates thought that the numeration of the rights was unnecessary as it wasn't the point of a constitution.

denton-scratch 4y ago

> individual rights over everything else I used to admire the US constitution. I've grown up now. Who could possibly be opposed to human rights - i.e. human beings having rights? And indeed, the US constitution does appear to be largely about rights. Over the years I've increasingly leaned to the view that these rights are mostly a legal fiction, and that the things that are supposedly rights are highly subjective political footballs. Nowadays I think of a constitution as a largely non-political set of rules for how government works; i.e. it's a description of a mechanism, not a description of an outcome. From that point of view, the US Constitution is an awful constitution.

tomp 4y ago
> Who could possibly be opposed to human rights - i.e. human beings having rights? And indeed, the US constitution does appear to be largely about rights. What do you mean? US citizens have pretty much the most rights of any people in the world. Can you list the countries that guarantee freedom of speech, freedom to bear arms, freedom from unreasonable searches and freedom to stay silent (not incriminate yourself)? (Of course, the implementation of these rights is ... imperfect.)
- kasey_junk 4y ago
  That’s begging the question. If you define rights specifically by enumerating how they are defined in the bill of rights of course the US comes out on top. That’s before your hedge about implementation. In practice the US performs rather badly when scores on civil liberties. Here is one methodology https://knoema.com/atlas/ranks/Civil-liberties-index?mode=amp https://knoema.com/atlas/ranks/Civil-liberties-index?mode=am... but you can find similar results across many others. Just take our prison population per capita if you want a glaring metric on how poorly we do at freedom.
  - tomp 4y ago
    Yeah let's just say that any list that places Canada sixth on a list is very much suspect. Nothing says "human rights" like criminalising protests, confiscating money, and prohibiting unvaccinated people from leaving the country.
  - dsfyu404ed 4y ago
    >In practice the US performs rather badly when scores on civil liberties. Which IMO is mostly a reflection of a country in which a large subset of the electorate do not really believe in human rights beyond the extent of a useful legal fiction to be followed in the default case and quietly ignored in the pursuit of specific outcomes. If the people had a hardline stance on human rights and civil liberties the government would reflect that.
- denton-scratch 4y ago
  US citizens do indeed have a constitution that confers lots of rights. My contention is simply that these rights are legal fictions and political footballs, and should not be in-scope for a constitution. They shouldn't be baked-in; they should be simple legislation. I mainly don't believe in these "rights". I think people should be treated fairly and equitably; and I think that should be a matter of law. But constitution is about meta-law - how laws are made, not what their effect is.
  - dsfyu404ed 4y ago
    They're political footballs because people don't want people they don't like or are who are doing things they don't like to have rights and monkeying with definitions is easier than the full frontal assault of amending the constitution. How many times have you seen people on HN advocating, to much popular support, for infringing upon the 4th amendment for people who are involved in specific types of business or the infringing upon 5th amendment protections for people engaged in certain activities?
    - WalterBright 4y ago
      I see all the rights under constant attack all the time. By Americans. It's heartbreaking.
    - denton-scratch 4y ago
      The fourth is effectively a law that constrains the authorities from carrying out searches under many circumstances. The fifth constrains courts from forcing people to testify against themselves. These rules are often framed as "rights", but they are really restrictions on the power of government officials. I'm not sure why you have put this in terms of "specific types of business" and "certain activities". What types of business, and what activities, receive special protection under those amendments? What are you getting at?
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    Fortunately, you still have those rights - whether you recognize them or not, and whether or not the government recognizes them. They're inherent to being a human being - those "inalienable" rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. The US Constitution did not create those rights, it recognized them.
- mijkal 4y ago
  The USA — with the 'most rights of any people in the world' — incarcerates the most people, by far, in some of the most inhumane conditions (slavery is explicitly legal in such contexts) among the developed nations. We're 'free' in an Orwellian sense. Freedom to be educated, have health care regardless of one's employment|wealth, welfare with dignity for those in need — none of these concepts come into consideration into what 'freedom' actually means in practice. My political leanings started libertarian. Over the years, I have traveled and read, and came to see the US for the farce it is, and encounter the deluded population convinced America is 'the greatest nation ever'. It has potential for sure, but when will we unlock it and truly taste real freedom?
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    Getting free stuff is a privilege, not a right. None of the Bill of Rights is guaranteeing free stuff.
WalterBright 4y ago
Here's how you can tell if a set of rights is more correct or less correct - how well a country organized around those rights thrives, or fails to thrive. The US has thrived, meaning its definition of rights is reasonably on the mark.
- denton-scratch 4y ago
  Yeah, well I don't see a country that's thriving, except in terms of wealth (for some). I see a country lurching towards another Civil War. Anyway, my point was that I don't think these rights exist, and that framing things in terms of rights is arse-over-tit. I'm not interested in arguing whether the US chose the right set of rights; I'm saying I have no idea what a "right" is, other than a privilege granted by law.
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    > I don't see a country that's thriving Americans love to wallow in "oh, woe is us!" whereas if one reads history books, the US is in a golden age.
  - indymike 4y ago
    > I'm saying I have no idea what a "right" is, other than a privilege granted by law. Yep, and Constitutions define these privileges and make them supreme, above other laws.
    - WalterBright 4y ago
      We have a right to not be murdered. That is a right, not a privilege.
      - denton-scratch 4y ago
        Apparently not; many states have a death penalty (i.e. a withdrawal of that privilege). Prosecution of policemen for murder is rare, and a conviction is even rarer. And you're still baldly asserting that rights exist, without explaining what rights are or where they come from.
indymike 4y ago
> s I've increasingly leaned to the view that these rights are mostly a legal fiction Ultimately all constitutions are just ink on paper (or parchment depending on age) and are only as good as the people who govern. > things that are supposedly rights are highly subjective political footballs. The fabric of society is a pitch where political football is played. The US Constitution is a product of the times when it was created, and so our pitch was created to balance the power of populous states vs. rural states with proportional representation (House) and fixed representation (Senate) and the electoral college. It took great pains to prevent rule by fiat of the executive because of the lesson from English rule. It's surprising it has held up, but a lot of the pressures that existed when it was created are still present (red state/blue state is really urban/rural) in the US today. > From that point of view, the US Constitution is an awful constitution. If a slow, plodding government that is largely effective only when faced with unifying crisis or there is a very high level of consensus is what you want, then the US Constitution works.
- denton-scratch 4y ago
  This is the kind of nonsense that is produced by the US Constitution: https://vividmaps.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Texas.jpg https://vividmaps.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Texas.jpg
  - indymike 4y ago
    > This is the kind of nonsense that is produced by the US Constitution: How Texas draws congressional districts is up to the people of the Great State of Texas.
    - denton-scratch 4y ago
      Yes, it's clear to everyone that your voting rights in the USA depend on where you live. That map of Texas is just one particularly egregious example of a gerrymandered district. I think it's crazy that national (federal) elections are held under rules that vary from state to state; and that a congressional district the shape of a snake is permissible at all, whoever gets to draw the district. It seems obvious to me that national elections should be held under uniform national rules. But it's none of my business; I don't live in the USA, and I'm not from the USA.

kasey_junk 4y ago

The idea that the Constitution is somehow directed by the security of individual rights doesn’t pass the most basic reading or history lesson. It’s a delineation of governmental responsibilities between the various federal branches and the states. It wasn’t until the Bill of Rights was later ratified that it has anything to say about individual rights other than to deny them.

WalterBright 4y ago
And yet the BoR was the first set of Amendments as the founders realized the mistake of not including them.
pythonaut_16 4y ago
This is either absurd or sorely uninformed. That the Bill of Rights was added later is essentially a procedural technicality. The (lack of a) Bill of Rights was a major concern when the Constitution was drafted. It was passed with the promise that amending it with a Bill of Rights would be the first priority. The Constitution was only passed without it so the convention wouldn't keep dragging on.
- kasey_junk 4y ago
  And because a large portion of the delegates thought that the numeration of the rights was unnecessary as it wasn't the point of a constitution.