6 ms·

Congress Just Deleted Habeas Corpus from the Constitution on Its Website

58 points by akudha 1y ago

Alupis 1y ago
> Because the sketchy sedition hobbyists are the ones running Congress now. Yeah, ok... A website obviously isn't the Constitution nor the law. Dumb, over-sensationalized, rage-baiting hit piece. Move along...
- mlhpdx 1y ago
  Maybe. Or maybe it does signal intent. Either way it’s a valid reaction to a stupid edit.
  - Alupis 1y ago
    This article is attempting to read into something that is much more likely nothing... some intern clicked the wrong button or whatever. Again, the website has zero impact on the law. It literally doesn't matter.
    - mason_mpls 1y ago
      Is there a delete habeas corpus button? The specific search the current administration happens to be hitting legal challenges on?
      - slowmovintarget 1y ago
        All of this heavy breathing leaves out that the edit also deletes the U.S. Navy, I mean, if it had any legally binding impact, which thankfully, a website does not.
        throwanem 1y ago
        I've heard ideas I liked less. Let's give the damned airedales back to the Army while we're at it, hey? Buncha fancified cavalry-wannabe jagoffs, they've had swelled heads for fifty years.
        mason_mpls 1y ago
        “Legally Binding” is determined by the courts. The process of overturning sections of the constitution start with claiming they were never there. The current admin spent months saying the 14th amendment essentially isn’t valid, so they could justify it to their base once they got SCOTUS to overturn birthright citizenship, despite it being plainly enumerated in the 14th amendment.
- raverbashing 1y ago
  Yes because it's fun to take legal texts and change them in interesting ways and post them to authoritative sites "It's just a prank bro"
- lwansbrough 1y ago
  Yeah why would an administration that is doing mass illegal deportations without due process want to remove freely available information on Habeas Corpus from their websites? Clearly dumb and very sensationalized! Nothing to see here!
  - Alupis 1y ago
    Because it's not published in a million other places? Because it's now officially not the law because it's not on this one particular website? Come on people... you're being rage-baited to hell.
    - lwansbrough 1y ago
      You keep harping on the point that the laws haven't changed. Nobody is arguing that. But how would the average person access the text of the constitution? Should they not expect to find the full text on the official government website for the constitution? If I search "US constitution" and congress.gov is the first result, am I dumb for reading that source and believing that is the full text? If I am detained illegally by ICE and I try to inform myself of my constitutional rights through the official government channels, and am not informed of my right to due process, have I been successfully ragebaited?
      - Alupis 1y ago
        > But how would the average person access the text of the constitution? Right, because the average person googles the constitution right away when they are arrested? What are you going to do with this googled info? Show it to the officer and get released? What reality is this even? Nothing on this website changes anything... so yes, you are being very successfully rage baited, to the literal max. Just look how outraged over nothing you are... getting all worked up over a website on a Wednesday afternoon. You'll probably stew on this all day, even complain to others about it. Rage baited, indeed.
        lwansbrough 1y ago
- nerdjon 1y ago
  Under normal circumstances I could more easily give the benefit of the doubt on this, but the reality is we are not living in any amount of normalcy as far as this administration is concerned. Of course removing this does not change the law, but this is still an official place for people to view these documents. Could it have just been someone making an honest mistake? Yeah of course. Has this administration already been deleting other important information from government websites and this could have been on purpose? Also yes.
- roughly 1y ago
  I get the feeling you're one of the people who's going to be telling me I'm overreacting while we sit shackled together on a bus to Guatemala, where surely there are lawyers waiting for us.
  - panarchy 1y ago
    "You should be grateful we're getting a free vacation to a nice country with lovely weather. Do you libs ever stop complaining?" /s
    - roughly 1y ago
      "Technically this isn't illegal, because we've got an extradition treaty with Guatemala, and the court said Trump needed to show evidence in a trial before flying people out, but we're on a bus, not a plane, so really this isn't violating any laws, so it's hard to really call this executive overreach. Also, there's no law specifically saying the court trial needs to be in an American court room, plus the ICE-built adjunct to the Guatemalan embassy is technically American territory, and the local immigration judge was officially appointed by Congress in a secret session to protect his identity, and of course you can't let media in the room for a closed session. None of this is actually illegal, so I don't know why you're being so hyperbolic."
ortusdux 1y ago
See also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44812375 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44812375
throwanem 1y ago
Flagged because it is obviously an error since corrected, because this is not an authoritative source nor meant to be one on the text of the Constitution as the fundamental law of the United States, and primarily because if these are the kinds of tea leaves you feel the need to invent in 2025, you are better off talking seriously with a professional about your anxiety disorder, because the republic is really in far worse shape than to find leisure for such comedy would suggest you understand.
- mason_mpls 1y ago
  How does an error that specific happen on accident?
  - throwanem 1y ago
    Trivially, of course. To purport otherwise as this author has leads me to think, not remotely for the first time lately, that people would be wiser more often to heed labels saying things like "take with food" and "do not operate heavy machinery." (This last is a stretch, I grant you, but I've seen what folks in their 20s call upper body strength these days, and any mechanical keyboard with a steel baseplate likely now qualifies.) I anticipate with mild annoyance your like insistence on calling my claim, that this is an example basically of a US government employee half-assing a job that sucks and they hate, a "conspiracy theory." It isn't, of course. It's just that I understand what to be afraid of and you don't, so you're constantly terrified and incapable to reacting to any development other than as a kicked dog, and I'm Wittgenstein's lion. Oh, not for the sake of the damned mangy cat! But there's nothing I can say that you are able to understand, not at the moment at least. You're way too scared for today and not nearly enough for half a decade from now, when we'll all be wishing we had made the most of this time while we had it. You could do better, but you probably won't, because even right now you're wasting the same time being angry at me for tossing off a read like this.
    - mason_mpls 1y ago
      your prompt could use some tuning
Havoc 1y ago
Sure seems like preparation. Having multiple versions of it floating around creates ambiguity and chaos As a certain someone is fond of saying FAKE NEWS
puppycodes 1y ago
good conspiracy theory fodder but occam's razor says just a dumb mistake. ironically this would be a great way to draw attention to the missing section rather than bury it.

58 points by akudha 1y ago

> Because the sketchy sedition hobbyists are the ones running Congress now. Yeah, ok... A website obviously isn't the Constitution nor the law. Dumb, over-sensationalized, rage-baiting hit piece. Move along...

mlhpdx 1y ago
Maybe. Or maybe it does signal intent. Either way it’s a valid reaction to a stupid edit.
- Alupis 1y ago
  This article is attempting to read into something that is much more likely nothing... some intern clicked the wrong button or whatever. Again, the website has zero impact on the law. It literally doesn't matter.
  - mason_mpls 1y ago
    Is there a delete habeas corpus button? The specific search the current administration happens to be hitting legal challenges on?
    - slowmovintarget 1y ago
      All of this heavy breathing leaves out that the edit also deletes the U.S. Navy, I mean, if it had any legally binding impact, which thankfully, a website does not.
      - throwanem 1y ago
        I've heard ideas I liked less. Let's give the damned airedales back to the Army while we're at it, hey? Buncha fancified cavalry-wannabe jagoffs, they've had swelled heads for fifty years.
      - mason_mpls 1y ago
        “Legally Binding” is determined by the courts. The process of overturning sections of the constitution start with claiming they were never there. The current admin spent months saying the 14th amendment essentially isn’t valid, so they could justify it to their base once they got SCOTUS to overturn birthright citizenship, despite it being plainly enumerated in the 14th amendment.
raverbashing 1y ago
Yes because it's fun to take legal texts and change them in interesting ways and post them to authoritative sites "It's just a prank bro"
lwansbrough 1y ago
Yeah why would an administration that is doing mass illegal deportations without due process want to remove freely available information on Habeas Corpus from their websites? Clearly dumb and very sensationalized! Nothing to see here!
- Alupis 1y ago
  Because it's not published in a million other places? Because it's now officially not the law because it's not on this one particular website? Come on people... you're being rage-baited to hell.
  - lwansbrough 1y ago
    You keep harping on the point that the laws haven't changed. Nobody is arguing that. But how would the average person access the text of the constitution? Should they not expect to find the full text on the official government website for the constitution? If I search "US constitution" and congress.gov is the first result, am I dumb for reading that source and believing that is the full text? If I am detained illegally by ICE and I try to inform myself of my constitutional rights through the official government channels, and am not informed of my right to due process, have I been successfully ragebaited?
    - Alupis 1y ago
      > But how would the average person access the text of the constitution? Right, because the average person googles the constitution right away when they are arrested? What are you going to do with this googled info? Show it to the officer and get released? What reality is this even? Nothing on this website changes anything... so yes, you are being very successfully rage baited, to the literal max. Just look how outraged over nothing you are... getting all worked up over a website on a Wednesday afternoon. You'll probably stew on this all day, even complain to others about it. Rage baited, indeed.
      - lwansbrough 1y ago
nerdjon 1y ago
Under normal circumstances I could more easily give the benefit of the doubt on this, but the reality is we are not living in any amount of normalcy as far as this administration is concerned. Of course removing this does not change the law, but this is still an official place for people to view these documents. Could it have just been someone making an honest mistake? Yeah of course. Has this administration already been deleting other important information from government websites and this could have been on purpose? Also yes.
roughly 1y ago
I get the feeling you're one of the people who's going to be telling me I'm overreacting while we sit shackled together on a bus to Guatemala, where surely there are lawyers waiting for us.
- panarchy 1y ago
  "You should be grateful we're getting a free vacation to a nice country with lovely weather. Do you libs ever stop complaining?" /s
  - roughly 1y ago
    "Technically this isn't illegal, because we've got an extradition treaty with Guatemala, and the court said Trump needed to show evidence in a trial before flying people out, but we're on a bus, not a plane, so really this isn't violating any laws, so it's hard to really call this executive overreach. Also, there's no law specifically saying the court trial needs to be in an American court room, plus the ICE-built adjunct to the Guatemalan embassy is technically American territory, and the local immigration judge was officially appointed by Congress in a secret session to protect his identity, and of course you can't let media in the room for a closed session. None of this is actually illegal, so I don't know why you're being so hyperbolic."

ortusdux 1y ago

See also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44812375 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44812375

throwanem 1y ago

Flagged because it is obviously an error since corrected, because this is not an authoritative source nor meant to be one on the text of the Constitution as the fundamental law of the United States, and primarily because if these are the kinds of tea leaves you feel the need to invent in 2025, you are better off talking seriously with a professional about your anxiety disorder, because the republic is really in far worse shape than to find leisure for such comedy would suggest you understand.

mason_mpls 1y ago
How does an error that specific happen on accident?
- throwanem 1y ago
  Trivially, of course. To purport otherwise as this author has leads me to think, not remotely for the first time lately, that people would be wiser more often to heed labels saying things like "take with food" and "do not operate heavy machinery." (This last is a stretch, I grant you, but I've seen what folks in their 20s call upper body strength these days, and any mechanical keyboard with a steel baseplate likely now qualifies.) I anticipate with mild annoyance your like insistence on calling my claim, that this is an example basically of a US government employee half-assing a job that sucks and they hate, a "conspiracy theory." It isn't, of course. It's just that I understand what to be afraid of and you don't, so you're constantly terrified and incapable to reacting to any development other than as a kicked dog, and I'm Wittgenstein's lion. Oh, not for the sake of the damned mangy cat! But there's nothing I can say that you are able to understand, not at the moment at least. You're way too scared for today and not nearly enough for half a decade from now, when we'll all be wishing we had made the most of this time while we had it. You could do better, but you probably won't, because even right now you're wasting the same time being angry at me for tossing off a read like this.
  - mason_mpls 1y ago
    your prompt could use some tuning

Havoc 1y ago

Sure seems like preparation. Having multiple versions of it floating around creates ambiguity and chaos As a certain someone is fond of saying FAKE NEWS

puppycodes 1y ago

good conspiracy theory fodder but occam's razor says just a dumb mistake. ironically this would be a great way to draw attention to the missing section rather than bury it.