6 ms·
Constitution.congress.gov/constitution 6/8/25 –> 8/4/25 Diff
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- mmastrac 1y agoThis appears to be the removed section: -------------------------- To provide and maintain a Navy; To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;–And To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. Section 9 The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person. The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it. No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed. No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken. No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State. No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another. No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time. No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State. Section 10 No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility. No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress. No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
- eqvinox 1y agoIt's a bit odd that the deletion starts midway through section 8. In a perfect world I'd first assume a software bug, then an accident, then incompetency. In the current political climate, … I don't even know what to think.
- mmastrac 1y agoIt's an interesting chunk to remove. Some highlights: The President could command the armed forces without statutory limits. The Writ of Habeas Corpus could be suspended at any time, even without rebellion or invasion. Congress would no longer have exclusive legislative control over Washington, D.C. or military installations. The executive could spend from the Treasury without congressional approval. The executive branch could favour certain ports or states in commerce, allowing economic favouritism, punishing or rewarding states. The federal government might override state-level agreements without needing to respect boundaries. Congress would lose its broad enabling clause to legislate on powers not explicitly listed elsewhere. The funny part: this means that states could create their own militaries, treaties, or currencies. So in theory that would grant the power for a far-more-independent California state that would have an easier time seceding.
- mindslight 1y ago> The funny part: this means that states could create their own militaries, treaties, or currencies. So in theory that would grant the power for a far-more-independent California state that would have an easier time seceding. This is getting mentioned like it would be some downside in the traditional red vs blue paradigm, but if you view this through the lens where this administration is working to break up the United States, it's right on brand. Any such military development would also serve as grounds for escalation, and as we've already seen the actual laws don't matter but rather it's all about how they can manage public opinion through sensationalist trolling. California delenda est has been a rallying cry for decades now, so I wouldn't assume one instance of the National Guard being deployed against the People is going to be the end of it.
- rsynnott 1y ago> this means that states could create their own militaries, treaties, or currencies. Also issue letters of marque!
- wheaties 1y agoWhy would they remove Habeus Corpus? "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."
- mindslight 1y agoDead, like habeas corpus rigor mortis.
- genter 1y agoMakes it easier to deport anyone that isn't white.
- dylan604 1y agoBut the threat of deporting white people has been levied as well.
- tptacek 1y agoFor the same reason they removed the Navy.
- mindslight 1y agoThey sold off habeas corpus to OceanGate?
- potato3732842 1y agoThere's probably a few guys at in a shipyard who checked twitter during lunch and are cracking jokes about spending the afternoon fishing or whatever while putting on a bunch of hot PPE right about now.
- ChrisArchitect 1y ago[dupe] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44811733 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44811733
- mmastrac 1y agoThat one was flagged, unfortunately. It would be good to merge the two discussions, however.
- edgineer 1y agoYikes. They removed that section from this page, too: https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-1/ https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-1/ http://web.archive.org/web/20250721170235/https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-1/ http://web.archive.org/web/20250721170235/https://constituti...
- mmastrac 1y agoCreating a constitutional crisis by digitally memory-holing the existing constitution is an interesting approach. I don't recall any regimes attempting this in the past.
- tptacek 1y agoJust noting for posterity that on August 6 2025 people believed you could create a "constitutional crisis" by removing pages from the LOC's online annotated constitution. You all get that we have the original handwritten constitution, right?
- mmastrac 1y agoIf you were living in a country with a strong rule of law that wasn't currently in a constitutional crisis, I'd agree. Yeah, this is likely an accident or mistake, but it's also one of the first steps that someone would take if they wanted to dismantle the existing structure. If this were ten years ago I'd agree. Given today's climate, I'd say wait and see what happens.
- FollowingTheDao 1y agoReallllly hoping this is just a cut and paste error... It also seems like it could be taken out for sections of the country to seceded from the union. "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;"
- josefritzishere 1y agoIn light of current events, it does not feel like an accident.
- AlexandrB 1y agoHow so? The removed section is contiguous and includes a bunch of stuff about navies and states making deals with foreign powers. That's exactly what an accident would look like. Never mind that the online version of the constitution has nothing to do with the legal application thereof. It's not like judges and lawyers are going to look at the website and go: "ah well, that part of the constitution is no longer online so I will just ignore it". The level of paranoia here is unreal. We should be laughing at these idiots for being unable to manage a simple website, not spinning apocalyptic nonsense about how this will materially alter the constitution as applied in the courts.
- SoftTalker 1y ago... but it probably is.
- chrisco255 1y agoRight, the Library of Congress intentionally removed: To provide and maintain a Navy; To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; etc from their website. Time to pack up the Carriers and Subs boys, the Congress.gov intern deleted the authorization for maintaining a Navy! It was a good run while it lasted!
- tptacek 1y agoWhich makes it a very good lesson for how bad our intuitions are about accidents.
- jaredwiener 1y agoIt should hopefully go without saying that as shocking as this is, this is not the legally binding version of the Constitution. Nor is it the only version hosted on a US Government website. NARA's, for example, still seems complete: https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcri... So is the Senate's: https://www.senate.gov/about/origins-foundations/senate-and-constitution/constitution.htm https://www.senate.gov/about/origins-foundations/senate-and-...
- altruios 1y ago[flagged]
- gchamonlive 1y agoFunny how "dog whistle" seems outdated. It's now more like a bullhorn.
- chrisco255 1y agoThis is not that big, stop being so dramatic. The very first line removed is the authorization for maintaining a Navy, the United States's most significant military asset. This is obviously a mistake. An embarrassing one, but not a conspiracy. None of this carries any legal weight whatsoever, this is a website! Our government predates the web by a couple hundred years! Imagine if the laws of our country hung on the thread of a single line of PHP.
- LeafItAlone 1y ago> Imagine if the laws of our country hung on the thread of a single line of PHP. I suspect we’ll be finding out in the next 3.5 years if they have even that strength.
- saalweachter 1y agoEh, I have a hard time looking at the diff and thinking it's anything but someone screwing up a page update. Some of the dropped lines are interesting, but things like the "let's have a navy" don't make any sense to drop, and removing the lines preventing States from minting their own currency, enter into treaties, and raise armies are way more favorable to Blue States at the moment. Also, if someone was going through the Constitution cutting out parts they don't like, they'd be starting with a few notable amendments, not this section.
- aaomidi 1y agoI wonder how much of this is to mess with LLMs.
- lukeman 1y agoLibrary of Congress ack’d and is saying this was a “coding error” and will be fixed soon. https://x.com/librarycongress/status/1953109733633597634?s=46&t=z8DzySTjTTYDrLNmn0YYFA https://x.com/librarycongress/status/1953109733633597634?s=4...
- esafak 1y agoI wonder if an LLM was involved.
- potato3732842 1y agoBe cool if we got a PM. It'd be interesting to see what's going on behind the scenes on the Library of Congress website. Of course government doesn't work that way so we'll never see anything.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- dschuma 1y agoOkay, folks, it's time to stop freaking out. First, this is a link to the Constitution Annotated, a legal treatise that explains the Constitution and its written by the Congressional Research Service, a division inside the Library of Congress. They are NOT subject to Trump administration orders because they are a Legislative branch agency. There is a very live issue about the independence of the Library (that I've previously [written about](https://firstbranchforecast.substack.com/p/a-constitutional-confrontation-at https://firstbranchforecast.substack.com/p/a-constitutional-...)), but at the moment the acting Library of Congress is independent and is not a Trump appointee. Second, the addition or removal of information on the CONAN website has no legal effect and it's not an effort to conceal anything. More likely than not, it's an error on the part of the folks administering the website. You can find the print version of the document on the Government Publishing Office's website. How do I know about this? Well, I used to work at CRS as a legislative attorney and sat next to the guy who edited the treatise. And then starting in 2009, when I was working at a non-profit, I began advocating for the CONAN to be published online, only to be rebuffed by the Library for more than a decade. Here are my [letters](https://github.com/DanielSchuman/Policy/wiki/Constitution-Annotated https://github.com/DanielSchuman/Policy/wiki/Constitution-An...) on the topic. It is entirely appropriate to be freaking out about the White House's efforts to take over the Legislative branch. I've written about that [here](https://firstbranchforecast.substack.com/p/submission-accomplished https://firstbranchforecast.substack.com/p/submission-accomp...). But the CONAN website is not the thing to freak out about. If you have concerns with the Congress dot gov website, and I have more than a view, use the LC's [feedback website](https://www.research.net/r/congress-gov-feedback https://www.research.net/r/congress-gov-feedback) to let them know there's an issue. (Apparently markdown doesn't work for formatting. Sorry.)
- ndsipa_pomu 1y agoDo you have any insight into what kind of work they're doing that would involve changes to the display of the constitution? It's puzzling to me as the document doesn't change often (someone mentioned 1992 as the last time it changed), so why is anyone even touching it.
- potato3732842 1y agoThey truncated Article 1 starting with "To provide and maintain a Navy" (which is a really weird place to start) with no other diff highlighted. I'm gonna file this one under incompetence rather than malice.
- tptacek 1y agoThey erased the No Preference For Ports clause! Clearly the start of something big.
- atonse 1y agoMy heart goes out to the poor dev that's having to fix this ASAP while multiple stressed out managers keep calling and asking for an update, before it becomes a completely unnecessary news cycle.
- 0cf8612b2e1e 1y agoUhh it is text? Unless there is some astronaut engineering in place, this is a copy and paste, one minute job. Or (optimistically) a revert.
- potato3732842 1y agoI bet the text is right on the backend and something is screwing it up between the source (don't wanna use the word "origin" here because that would imply things about their architecture that I don't know are true) and the systems that spew it upon any web browser that asks.
- atonse 1y agoEven if it's text, I guarantee you there are way too many angry and stressed phone calls going around. The amount of actual work might be X, but the amount of emails, calls, status checks, etc is probably 50X.
- sockp0pp3t 1y agoThis is just a barometer for the number of gullible people on HN
- poly2it 1y agoWhat? Gullible is a malleable term depending on what your opinions are. You should specify what you are critiquing. Ad hominem isn't beneficial for this platform.
- ndsipa_pomu 1y agoDo you mean gullible as in following the Trumpian narrative over the evidence of your own eyes, or gullible as in believing that this is yet another piece of disruption/distraction by the team behind Project 2025?
- vanger 1y agoIt is back to nominal already
- crises-luff-6b 1y ago[dead]
- bryanrasmussen 1y agoThe thing is that it is described as a coding error that is responsible, I have a pretty long history in finding coding errors, and also finding things that people did maliciously. Some of these things that were removed are things that the current administration would probably find useful if they didn't exist. I don't disbelieve that it can be a coding error, but I do doubt it just because I am finding it weird to imagine a scenario where this happens. Arguments against it being malicious: stuff has also been removed that maybe current administration wouldn't want removed - for example: >To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; >To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; I think they'd want to leave it in. Coding error Scenarios: Parts of Section 8 and Section 9 were removed. What scenario could create this. Doubt it's some sort of DB error given the parts of Section 8 removal. So I would think some sort of text munging system, perhaps XML or SGML and there were some external entities that could not be resolved. That the whole thing works and doesn't have any sort of leftover bits of text in the current version implies they have some sort of cleanup. I would have been more expecting to see something like "&sec8_29987; &sec9_complete;" or something like that in the right hand side of the diff but nope. That would imply external entities are saved somewhere that maybe was not available at generation time, that is to say the end of section 8 and section 9 are currently offline. That would be a kind of explanation, but of course I doubt it because uh Why?! Is there some sort of publishing system where these entities are used, then I would expect that articles about that part of Section 8 and Section 9 at https://constitution.congress.gov/ https://constitution.congress.gov/ would also have those parts missing in the articles - like there would be a quote and it would instead say "text retrieval error" or something similar. But then I also doubt it because why just those parts. And anyway when I look at https://constitution.congress.gov/search/%22section%209%22 https://constitution.congress.gov/search/%22section%209%22 it seems like information about Section 9 is still available. Question: how often has this online version of the Constitution had these problems over the years? Is this the only time this kind of bug has happened. Has there ever been coding errors when section 8 got repeated.. or similar types of problems. I mean it's not unheard of that there are rare bugs that happen just the one time that alert you there is an instability in a long running system, but it's not common either hence the use of the word "rare" to describe bugs of this sort. Obviously I have made a number of assumptions here, for example I assume this system was not redesigned a month ago and is not currently The U.S Constitution - powered by React! It looks to me like a long running system, but maybe I'm wrong.
- r721 1y agoOther discussions: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44808145 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44808145 (9 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44811733 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44811733 (162 comments, [flagged]) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44814204 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44814204 (28 comments, [flagged]) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44816077 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44816077 (41 comments, [flagged]) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44818241 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44818241 (7 comments)
- historyspwn 1y agoNo one has so far suggested the obvious: it's a stunt to get people talking, checking the website, brushing up their Constitutional knowledge, foreshadowing an upcoming state of emergency. Possibly those who arranged such a stunt have advance warning and foresee a near-future need for a spot of civics education. Make a mental note of the specific rights allegedly "deleted" in case they turn out to be pertinent. Then, just a suggestion, give chapters 6, 8, and 13 of the book of Revelation a glance for examples of conditions where such rights might be suspended.
- historyspwn 1y ago[dupe]