5 ms·

> How have we gotten to a place where our elected officials - sworn to uphold the constitution - willingly and knowingly pass unconstitutional laws just to see

> How have we gotten to a place where our elected officials - sworn to uphold the constitution - willingly and knowingly pass unconstitutional laws just to see how long they can get away with it? The constitution is not a immutable document and "upholding" it has never meant anything. It is whatever the courts interpet it as and in this case the judge disagreed but you pull a different judge and you might get a different outcome.

Cupertino95014 2y ago
> The constitution is not a immutable document Actually, yes it is. You can amend it, but you can't edit it. Secondly, there's a body of legal scholarship that your "different judge" has to master. It's not just a matter of policy preference.
- leafmeal 2y ago
  immutable had a different meaning in common parlance than it does in datatypes. And even in datatypes usually you end up creating a new "copy" of the thing but with more info appended. The original remains as it was, unchanged (until garbage collection of course)
  - Cupertino95014 2y ago
    I don't see what this contributes. Written laws are immutable in the common sense of the word. That's what "legal certainty" means as an ideal: citizens can know what they'll be punished for. If it's unclear talk to your lawyer.
- renewiltord 2y ago
  Actually, everything is immutable. All things exist as they are. You are just moving to a different time coordinate (or rather a spacetime point). You can create a changed thing, but the original thing remains there unchanged.
- krapp 2y ago
  If the Constitution were truly immutable, different iterations of the Supreme Court wouldn't be able to interpret the same words in different ways. In fact, we wouldn't even need a Supreme Court to interpret it. It would always mean exactly what it says in no uncertain terms, with the absolute certainty of mathematical proof. But it is edited through the interpretation of the Supreme Court. And that's by design - the Constitution was written to be intentionally vague, which makes it unavoidably mutable.
  - Cupertino95014 2y ago
    This reads like the transcript of a discussion comprising a bunch of computer science students. Words are not mathematical symbols. I know you'd like them to be unambiguous, but they're not. First-year law students would probably just smile tolerantly and pat you on the head.
    - krapp 2y ago
      I thought I was clearly arguing that the Constitution is not immutable precisely because of the ambiguity of its language...
- Aeolun 2y ago
  > but you can't edit it That simply requires a prior amendment to make it constitutional. Then again, there’s absolutely nothing saying you need to follow it at all. That’s just a social construct. You could strike it out entirely tomorrow, and as long as your monopoly on violence remains intact there’s little anyone could do against it.
  - Alupis 2y ago
    > as long as your monopoly on violence remains intact there’s little anyone could do against it. And now people understand why the Second Amendment exists... no?
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > You can amend it, but you can't edit it The Constitution is mutable. By your definition, nothing is immutable because technically the data on the disk is overwritten in a manner technically recoverable by theoretical means.

Cupertino95014 2y ago

> The constitution is not a immutable document Actually, yes it is. You can amend it, but you can't edit it. Secondly, there's a body of legal scholarship that your "different judge" has to master. It's not just a matter of policy preference.

leafmeal 2y ago
immutable had a different meaning in common parlance than it does in datatypes. And even in datatypes usually you end up creating a new "copy" of the thing but with more info appended. The original remains as it was, unchanged (until garbage collection of course)
- Cupertino95014 2y ago
  I don't see what this contributes. Written laws are immutable in the common sense of the word. That's what "legal certainty" means as an ideal: citizens can know what they'll be punished for. If it's unclear talk to your lawyer.
renewiltord 2y ago
Actually, everything is immutable. All things exist as they are. You are just moving to a different time coordinate (or rather a spacetime point). You can create a changed thing, but the original thing remains there unchanged.
krapp 2y ago
If the Constitution were truly immutable, different iterations of the Supreme Court wouldn't be able to interpret the same words in different ways. In fact, we wouldn't even need a Supreme Court to interpret it. It would always mean exactly what it says in no uncertain terms, with the absolute certainty of mathematical proof. But it is edited through the interpretation of the Supreme Court. And that's by design - the Constitution was written to be intentionally vague, which makes it unavoidably mutable.
- Cupertino95014 2y ago
  This reads like the transcript of a discussion comprising a bunch of computer science students. Words are not mathematical symbols. I know you'd like them to be unambiguous, but they're not. First-year law students would probably just smile tolerantly and pat you on the head.
  - krapp 2y ago
    I thought I was clearly arguing that the Constitution is not immutable precisely because of the ambiguity of its language...
Aeolun 2y ago
> but you can't edit it That simply requires a prior amendment to make it constitutional. Then again, there’s absolutely nothing saying you need to follow it at all. That’s just a social construct. You could strike it out entirely tomorrow, and as long as your monopoly on violence remains intact there’s little anyone could do against it.
- Alupis 2y ago
  > as long as your monopoly on violence remains intact there’s little anyone could do against it. And now people understand why the Second Amendment exists... no?
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> You can amend it, but you can't edit it The Constitution is mutable. By your definition, nothing is immutable because technically the data on the disk is overwritten in a manner technically recoverable by theoretical means.