4 ms·
I've laughed ever since United States v. Jones (2012), the GPS tracker-stuck-to-vehicle case. The justices actively debated what the historical equivalent of 2
by qingcharles 4mo ago
I've laughed ever since United States v. Jones (2012), the GPS tracker-stuck-to-vehicle case.
The justices actively debated what the historical equivalent of 24/7 digital tracking would look like in 1791. This prompted the famous hypothetical of an officer secretly squeezing into the trunk of a horse-drawn carriage to track someone's movements over several days.
The issue here is that there's no practical way to ever update the Bill of Rights in the 21st century. Bug or feature?
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- krapp 4mo ago>The issue here is that there's no practical way to ever update the Bill of Rights in the 21st century. Bug or feature? Given that this isn't an issue in any other modern democracy, I'd say "bug."
- willturman 4mo ago‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens https://theonion.com/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-this-r-1848971668/ https://theonion.com/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation...
- lazide 4mo agoEh, since it would most likely be used to remove some key right….
- nradov 4mo agoThe slow pace of change is a feature, not a bug. It's fine to wait decades or centuries until we have broad consensus before making amendments. While this might seem maddeningly frustrating or unjust in the short term, in the long term it makes our republic more stable. The USA has had an uninterrupted system of government since 1789. How many other major countries can say the same?
- ceejayoz 4mo ago> The slow pace of change is a feature, not a bug. To a point. It seems to have ground to a halt. > The USA has had an uninterrupted system of government since 1789. How many other major countries can say the same? Quite a few of them can say "we took those good ideas and built on them".
- nradov 4mo agoIn what sense has it ground to a halt? Eight amendments have been ratified in the past 100 years. I think some people are taking a very short-term view here and lack a historical perspective. Let's see how those other countries are doing 100 years from now.
- redserk 4mo agoA government structure that changes isn’t inherently bad. The US has gone through multiple iterations just by reinterpreting a document. Other countries tend to be a bit more explicit in this. The US in 2026 operates fundamentally differently than in 1910, and both are unrecognizable to 1801. The document was written when there were 13 states, and at best, appetite for a mere handful of others to join. For example, the degree of the weaponization of state-carving in the mid-19th century wasn’t in the cards. A 26 member upper legislature operates substantially different than one comprised of 100 members.
- soulofmischief 4mo agoThe scaling laws involved here are worth precise study. A high majority requirement seems reasonable as you have less and less members. It prevents one person from coming in and convincing two other people to completely change how things operate. But the optimal majority requirement which balances rigidness and flexibility certainly trends downward as an organization grows. By how much? I'd like to know.
- harimau777 4mo agoYa, screw all those people who have to suffer in the short term!
- semiquaver 4mo ago> no practical way to ever update the Bill of Rights in the 21st century What on earth do you mean? The practical way is the same as it always was: subsequent amendment. The fact that it requires consensus is a feature. This reads the same way as people who say things like “we just have to accept that Congress is broken and can’t pass new legislation.” Like hell we do!
- lazide 4mo agoThey mean ‘have you seen congress? Good luck’, not that the mechanism is mechanically harder to use.
- qingcharles 4mo agoThis. Getting enough states to agree on a change would be a fool's errand I think. It seems like the reds and blues can't agree on anything at all any longer.
- graveemaster 4mo agoI agree 99% with you, except when it comes to these enormous data centers. When you look at the local zoning committee meetings, you're seeing Reds, Blues and Ind mostly calling for a moratorium on build sites in their communities.
- lazide 4mo agoWhat does that have to do with anything that would plausibly be in the bill of rights?
- Henchman21 4mo agoI mean, after decades of manufactured cultural rifts, we're right where the powers that be want us to be. Disorganized and ripe for exploitation.
- expedition32 4mo ago
- cucumber3732842 4mo ago>The justices actively debated what the historical equivalent of 24/7 digital tracking would look like in 1791. Redcoats in your home, comparing notes with all the other redcoats who live in your buddies house and hassle your bartender, watch the comings and goings of everyone else around town, etc, etc.
- 0xbadcafebee 4mo agoWell it's a feature in that the ratification rules were part of an intentional illicit rewrite of the constitution. We could make it easier to modify like other nations, but that also makes it easier to repeal. I think the fix is to require more political parties to be involved, so a 51% majority of a single party can't remove federal laws whenever they have a majority. Then you wouldn't need an amendment to solve controversial problems.
- semiquaver 4mo agoAnything requiring bipartisanship can be gamed with synthetic parties, the legitimacy of which will surely be deemed a nonjusticiable political question.
- watwut 4mo ago> The issue here is that there's no practical way to ever update the Bill of Rights in the 21st century. Bug or feature? Of course there is, it is just being done - the constitution is being rewritten out right now by supreme court. All you need is a majority on a 9 person commission.