4 ms·
I would have to imagine this is an accident or rogue vandalism -- I don't think USGOV is trying to stealth-edit the constitution by truncating the last 18 parag
by dilap 1y ago
I would have to imagine this is an accident or rogue vandalism -- I don't think USGOV is trying to stealth-edit the constitution by truncating the last 18 paragraphs of Article I.
- foolswisdom 1y agoWhy not? Congress is meant to be a check on the other branches of government (though the filibuster rule / partisan omnibus bill system has degraded its collective will, which is why they won't do anything), so pre-emptively removing the powers of congress from the list sounds like a power grab. It's not like it's something completely irrelevant. Same for the limitations of government listed there. Besides, the thing about organizations is that they encourage behaviors. A big corporation encourages different behaviors than a startup, and different company cultures can also encourage / optimize for different things. There's also a reason why we do expect ultimate responsibility to rest with leaders.
- pavlov 1y agoOne can imagine the DOGE staffers high-fiving each other as they pushed this change. Maybe they didn’t find any meaningful waste with their random Python scripts, but at least they got to own the libs.
- Levitz 1y agoBecause this is a government website and not the actual constitution. It's absurd. This is just not how any of this works.
- ahmeneeroe-v2 1y agothis is like when groups say they "hacked the CIA"
- foolswisdom 1y agoPower is power when it is exercised, and power can be exercised when people think you have the power. Overly formalizing things and ignoring how they play out is why congress is today a dysfunctional body, for example. See also here for an example in practice https://prototypingpolitics.substack.com/p/dead-letter-live-practice-how-congress https://prototypingpolitics.substack.com/p/dead-letter-live-...
- RemainsOfTheDay 1y ago[flagged]
- Kapura 1y agoyou should check what the removed sections contain.
- zzzeek 1y agothis constant skepticism, where does it come from? Does Donald Trump have to come knock on your door personally and say "Hey I'm a fascist dictator!" for you to believe your eyes what the presidency is so obviously doing day in and day out? Did you not notice when they illegally swept up 200 men who had tattoos, claimed they were gang members, and sent them off to a foreign prison in direct violation of court orders? That was like "ah woke judges, tattoos are clearly incriminating..." When they tackled and handcuffed a US SENATOR for interrupting a department head that HE IS IN CHARGE FOR OVERSIGHT OF? This is the part I'm trying to understand. What is the threshold for the skeptics?
- Levitz 1y ago[flagged]
- gotoeleven 1y ago[flagged]
- JKCalhoun 1y agoFrom my reading, the administration claimed it was legal, a Federal judge stepped in and said it was not legal (the administration ignored), and finally the Supreme Court ruled due process was in fact denied: some deportees lacked criminal records and denied any meaningful judicial review or legal defense.
- gotoeleven 1y agoSorry what supreme court ruling are you referring to? There was one batch that was deported that included Garcia, and Garcia has since been returned to face federal human trafficking charges in the US. There was another batch of venezuelans that was going to be deported to el salvador but was stopped by a Supreme court ruling on April 19th. Perhaps you are referring to an appeals court ruling to that effect ("some deportees lacked criminal records and denied any meaningful judicial review or legal defense") ? This was overturned by the supreme court on the narrow grounds that the habeus petition should have been filed in TX, not judge shopping in DC.
- szatkus 1y agoConsidering that only the last part of one article is missing it really looks like a bug.
- JKCalhoun 1y agoAgree. And most of us would immediately assume that if it were any other administration.
- RemainsOfTheDay 1y agoThen you should wonder how objective you can be, and why not.
- JKCalhoun 1y agoI do all the time — and I have concluded that the current administration has done themselves no favors whatsoever in this regard. I really can no longer give them the benefit of the doubt and I think it's on them.
- slowmovintarget 1y agoI'm guessing there's something strange about the whole site, because not only are the remaining clauses of Article 1 Section 8 missing (and section 9 and 10), so are all the annotations. The structure shows up in search engines, but the website gives 404s.
- aaronbaugher 1y agoOf course. But it gave a lot of people their outrage of the day, so that's good.