[reliabilityguy]

> When Napoleon seized power in 1799, he crafted a French constitution that he wanted to be “short and obscure”, the better to enable his authoritarian power. The United States has ended in the same place.

What is “obscure” in the US constitution?

The first amendment is the one thing that makes it impossible for authoritarian US to be reality.

[watwut]

Authoritarian US is becoming the reality right now and the first amendment provides exactly zero protection. We are watching US constitution collapse right now.

Second, its meaning IS obscure. It get reinterpreted and modified by supreme court to unrecognizable degree. The words dont mean what they used to mean back then, because court used some alternative history to achieve their political goal. It is also not like the court was grounded in contemporary reality when making those decisions and explaining them.

Most of constitutional protections are weak. There is no recourse if your rights are broken, only ever increasing maze of special conditions and requirements you need to fill if you want those protections to apply.

[reliabilityguy]

> Authoritarian US is becoming the reality right now and the first amendment provides exactly zero protection.

Well, this is not true. As a matter of fact, you can talk about it without fear that you would be arrested for your speech. In real authoritarian regimes, e.g., Jordan, Qatar, China, Russia (de jure protections exist, de facto not so much) you have no protections at all. In those places speaking out means you end up in jail.

> We are watching US constitution collapse right now.

Can you give an example?

> Second, its meaning IS obscure. It get reinterpreted and modified by supreme court to unrecognizable degree.

What article do you think was interpreted to unrecognizable degree?

> The words dont mean what they used to mean back then, because court used some alternative history to achieve their political goal.

Can you provide an example for that as well?

> It is also not like the court was grounded in contemporary reality when making those decisions and explaining them.

I think this is the case with all the precedent-based judicial systems, no?

> Most of constitutional protections are weak. There is no recourse if your rights are broken, only ever increasing maze of special conditions and requirements you need to fill if you want those protections to apply.

In order to argue about that you would have to be specific. It seems to me that the constitutional protections are the only ones that actually work, e.g., 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 5th amendments are really powerful, and go without saying.

[rsynnott]

> Can you give an example?

I mean, ol' minihands is certainly _trying_ to erode the first amendment. Now the question is whether the courts will let him.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/09/us/politics/trump-freedom...