[RonaldSchleifer]

Thank you for your reporting on this, even if it just seems to chronicle the ever accelerating deconstruction of the Constitution. Even if American Constitutionalists were able to walk back these types of clear abuses on the social compact that keeps peace by two steps, it will only be without realizing that five steps were taken towards the progress of disassembling the Constitution.

An old, irrelevant, outdated document the Constitution is, they tell you as part of the psychological manipulation game they play to get people to foolishly abdicate their most fundamental rights through the con job of government's benevolence. But in the end, well beyond the point of way-too-late, people will unfortunately have to come to terms with the reality that freedom, liberty, self-governance, and that the government is no one's friend are not old, irrelevant, and outdated principles; they are universal principles that span time.

Just like many things in humanity have been discovered and crated, then forgotten and taken for granted and driven to being lost and collapsed, and then rediscovered or reinvented; so too, does it seem humanity is on course to bury this experiment with self-governance that was kicked off in 1775, for maybe another 1,000 years, if not permanently. Is there even an opportunity or chance for freedom to rise again when it is suppressed so thoroughly by way of technology and soulless robots and AI? I think not. I hope I am for once wrong. ... War or galvanizing event to rationalize ever more eradication of liberty, incoming, all to the cheers of adoring fans.

In memoriam the people who's voices have been squelched by the tech tyrants. They will not be the last victims of this evil that is descending on us with ominous persistence.

[kazagistar]

I'm not sure how the constitution is remotely relevant here. It's clearly not protecting us from this in it's current state. If we want protections against secret government gag orders, we have to vote for people who will oppose them, which is a really small number of people indeed, or else vote to change the constitution to actually start protecting these rights. And if this turns out to be impossible, what is at fault? Probably to some extent... the existing powers of government, as enshrined in the constitution.

The governmental system we have is not a perversion of the constitution, but a reflection of its inadequacies.

[cgriswald]

The Constitution is only a piece of paper. Lots of people tell you this, usually when they're arguing against gun ownership; but they completely miss the point of what that means. In their minds that means, "So we should just do whatever we want."

Everything "enshrined in The Constitution" is no such thing. It's enshrined in our culture, and individual hearts and minds. That's why it's so incredibly stupid and naive to push for things that are unconstitutional: it means you've dismantled your respect for the ideas in the constitution in your own mind, and you're cool with others, even your enemies, dismantling it in theirs. Usually you do this for some short-term, inadequate political reason (vague promises about controlling guns or banning abortion or taxing rich folks).

The Constitution isn't inadequate. We are, because we have no respect for the rights of others when it comes to what we think is best for everyone. We are, because we believe the lies that are pumped at us 24 hours a day. We are, because we argue that the Constitution is just a piece of paper when it gets in the way of what we want.

It's not about The Constitution. It's about people generally having the government they deserve.

[kabdib]

"Democracy is government for the people, by the people, on the principle that the people should get the kind of government that they deserve, good and hard."

[wish i could attribute this, but i don't remember where i first heard it]

[a3camero]

It's by H.L. Mencken (1915): https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/H._L._Mencken. https://books.google.ca/books?id=hXVHAAAAYAAJ&q=%22Democracy...

[kabdib]

Thanks! I had a feeling it was Mencken, it certainly sounds like him.

[bdamm]

You're right. Discussing the shortcomings of the constitution is sort of viewed as a faux pax in American society, but the fact is that the current government, including its weaknesses, is an outcome of it. Discussions of how it could be improved, particularly given the almost 250 years of data we have, should be welcome.

Another strongly American social phenomenon is viewing the government as an intrusive enemy. The result is this kind of wish that the government would just go away and I think a lot of Americans think that if we could just somehow suffocate the government then the problems that it presents would vanish. The reality, of course, is not even remotely that way. Government is a tool that the powerful will continue to use to clobber each other.

It seems hopeless, but we at least need to talk about how the government can be improved, including its fundamental structures.

[mindcrime]

... we at least need to talk about how the government can be improved ...

I would amend that to "... we at least need to talk about how the government can be improved or eliminated ..."

One has to consider what the fundamental basis for government even is and how government can have any authority at all, and what the limits on that authority are.

I would encourage everybody reading this to go read The Law[1] by Bastiat, for a highly cogent analysis of these issues. The entire essay is a delight, but one point he makes stands out to me:

What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense. <snip> Thus the principle of collective right — its reason for existing, its lawfulness — is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force — for the same reason — cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.

If you adhere to this viewpoint, the "government" (which we usually take as a proxy for "the law") is only an extension of existing individual rights, and cannot have any authority or right that an individual doesn't have. Of course one can also get into a different discussion of whether or not it is even correct to treat "the government" (or "The State") as the natural (or only) proxy for what we mean by "the law".

[1]: http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html

[mirimir]

The Constitution still says what it always said. The problem is that there's been 243 years of interpretation. So what it effectively says in many cases bears little relationship to it.

[guelo]

Not sure what you're talking about, the courts have ruled that NSLs are constitutional.

[mirimir]

That's the problem. I'm almost 100% sure that, if you explained an NSL to Jefferson, he'd say that it clearly wasn't constitutional. Washington too, very likely. Adams, though, might have gone either way.

[simplecomplex]

The Supreme Court has been a treasonous organization since Wickard v Filburn (8 of 9 justices then of course appointed by Roosevelt)

NSLs are unconstitutional.

> The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

[stjohnswarts]

I agree there is nothing at all constitutional about them, just like the Patriot Act.