The Trump regime has edited constitution.congress.gov

[fskimospy]

Nonsense? Do you recall how many times the right have whitewashed history or told people what they see and hear isn't real?

Are you already boiled?

Look, I like all you guys but you are being crazy here.

 

[WelshBloke]

The Constitution is housed in thousands or maybe millions of places on the internet as we speak. The idea that he's going to be able to 'hide it in a dusty corner that only constitutional scholars can find' by deleting a page in a website I bet you didn't even know existed until you read about it is preposterous.

It's on fucking Wikipedia, a source that way more people probably use for this than that website.

What, are people going to forget we have habeas corpus rights (at least theoretically) because of this? I bet like 25% of Americans even know what that is and remember, that's with this website being around probably for decades.

Do you think that it was a mistake that this was dropped from the website and just a coincidence that it's parts that directly say that what Trumps doing is unconstitutional?
Or do you think that this was a ham fisted attempt to hide something from the public (or possibly Trump tbh)?

I get that it probably doesn't matter to you as you have plenty of sources of information and a fairly deep knowledge of the subject. You're not the person they are concerned with though.

I absolutely think that this wasn't done by accident and that the person/persons who did it do think that it will make a difference in public perception, and those guys know their intended audience quite well!

 

[sactoking]

By extension, local book bans are irrelevant because the banned books are available from other sources.

 

[fskimospy]

Do you think that it was a mistake that this was dropped from the website and just a coincidence that it's parts that directly say that what Trumps doing is unconstitutional?
Or do you think that this was a ham fisted attempt to hide something from the public (or possibly Trump tbh)?

I get that it probably doesn't matter to you as you have plenty of sources of information and a fairly deep knowledge of the subject. You're not the person they are concerned with though.

I absolutely think that this wasn't done by accident and that the person/persons who did it do think that it will make a difference in public perception, and those guys know their intended audience quite well!

It doesn't make sense for it to have been done on purpose, or at least not to any coordinated purpose. (I could see some asshole deciding to delete it though)

1) it's available on Wikipedia, which I bet gets a lot more traffic than that site. It's also available on thousands or millions of other websites around the world. It's one of the most famous documents in the world!

2) from what I've read it wasn't removed on any of the many, many other government websites that have the Constitution on them. If the goal is to hide things from the public, why not?

3) have you read Article 1, Section 9? If a member of the public is ignorant about the powers of Congress and the rights afforded them do you think they're going to read this and understand it? (they will not)

Article One of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I have no idea how this happened, although incompetence is probably the most likely answer. Even if it was malicious though it's a pointless exercise. Like is the theory of action here really that the Trump administration has deleted a specific passage from a single copy of the Constitution as part of an effort to eliminate it from the Constitution or at least the public's knowledge of the Constitution? I find that highly unlikely but honestly I wish it were true because that would mean they are wasting their time doing useless things instead of damaging the constitutional order in a more meaningful way.

 

[fskimospy]

By extension, local book bans are irrelevant because the banned books are available from other sources.

Local book bans are problematic because, generally speaking, the books being banned are banned from schools or libraries. This is problematic for schools as kids usually don't have the ability to go to another school that wouldn't be affected and this inhibits freedom of thought and expression. It is problematic for libraries because they are a source of free access and people may not have the money or means to read them otherwise.

So while it's also an affront to free expression local book bans are primarily bad because the people affected by them may not have other equivalent sources to access that information from. That's comically untrue in this case. Again - did a single person on here even know this site existed until they heard about this?

So no, local book bans are not at all the same.

 

[HomerJS]

Look, I like all you guys but you are being crazy here.

So it was just an honest mistake?

Likely a subliminal troll which show their lack of respect for the Constitution. Another seed being planted.

When did we get to the point where the government omitting entire sections of the Constitution is acceptable? In case you didn't catch my frog reference.

 

[HomerJS]

By extension, local book bans are irrelevant because the banned books are available from other sources.

Not irrelevant because when you ban books from school kids growing up will not learn real history.

I bet most red state students don't know about the Tulsa Race Massacre.

 

[pauldun170]

So it was just an honest mistake?

Likely a subliminal troll which show their lack of respect for the Constitution. Another seed being planted.

When did we get to the point where the government omitting entire sections of the Constitution is acceptable? In case you didn't catch my frog reference.

Just as an update, they restored it after being called out.
Yes, it was intentional as they also removed it from the articles explained pages (also now restored)

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-1/#I_S9_C1

 

[fskimospy]

So it was just an honest mistake?

Likely a subliminal troll which show their lack of respect for the Constitution. Another seed being planted.

When did we get to the point where the government omitting entire sections of the Constitution is acceptable? In case you didn't catch my frog reference.

I'm not sure what I'm being unclear about here - even if this is intentional it would be ineffective so it's not worth worrying about when we have far, far bigger fish to fry.

 

[purbeast0]

For someone who "gives zero shits" about this, he sure has posted a lot in this thread, and is the poster with the most posts in this thread.

 

[fskimospy]

For someone who "gives zero shits" about this, he sure has posted a lot in this thread, and is the poster with the most posts in this thread.

Correct - because other people kept insisting that we should give a shit, so I was informing them as to why that's wrong.

Was there some sort of confusion here?

 

[outriding]

Correct - because other people kept insisting that we should give a shit, so I was informing them as to why that's wrong.

Was there some sort of confusion here?

so when someone points to this document as the source of truth who is going to correct them?

the MSM?

Democrats?

You?

Knowledge is power

Neutering knowledge will always be troublesome.

 

[VRAMdemon]

I'm not sure what I'm being unclear about here - even if this is intentional it would be ineffective so it's not worth worrying about when we have far, far bigger fish to fry.

Yes, we do have "bigger fish to fry", and it could just be a fuck up. BUT, knowing this administration, it does seem very "Animal Farm" like to me!

To your point. Yes, in the grand scheme of things this is minor. Although the people paying attention and who care will surely contact their Governor, Senators, and Representative about this. And if this is just a mistake, then it should be fixed quite quickly when pointed out.

The current administration and its stooges in Congress have not earned the goodwill for me to attribute this to a simple, innocent, non-malicious fuck up. How odd that a coding error removed the parts that Stephen Miller and Trump specifically are trying do away with. DOGE strikes again. They got rid of the parts that they feel are waste and they don't intend to follow.

You are correct, it's just text on a website. It's not the actual constitution thats been changed. In my mind this is not a mistake. It's that the regime is signaling its intent to override or ignore the parts it doesn't like. They have already done shit like this already. They are testing the waters even more.

Edit: Never mind

 

[VRAMdemon]

Just as an update, they restored it after being called out.
Yes, it was intentional as they also removed it from the articles explained pages (also now restored)

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-1/#I_S9_C1

Didn't see your post before I responded. Thumbs up! It caught wind in the press pretty quickly. They must have been bombarded. People do care

Physical books are becoming more important if they're just freely editing law databases and hoping people don't notice.

Why would someone even be editing the Constitution Web page anyway? Hmmmm!

 

[Paratus]

Coding error blamed after parts of Constitution disappear from US website

US restores deleted portions after people noticed the Constitution had shrunk.

arstechnica.com

Coding error is being blamed. Make of that what you will.

 

[VRAMdemon]

so when someone points to this document as the source of truth who is going to correct them?

the MSM?

Democrats?

You?

Knowledge is power

Neutering knowledge will always be troublesome.

"Good evening sir, please give me your license and registration. The reason why I pulled you over is available only to EZConstitution™ subscribers, if you sign up now your first month is only $49.99."

 

[purbeast0]

Coding error blamed after parts of Constitution disappear from US website

US restores deleted portions after people noticed the Constitution had shrunk.

arstechnica.com

Coding error is being blamed. Make of that what you will.

As a web developer for 20+ years, this is complete and utter bullshit lol.

 

[NWRMidnight]

Look, I like all you guys but you are being crazy here.

You are appearing to have put blinders on, and don't even realize your stance on this is discredited every argument and every attack you have made against those that have/are falling for false information, manipulation of the truth, and don't believe the real information. Seeming to not realize that the only way to combat disinformation is to call out the source of the disinformation. Our government is supposed to be a trusted source, specially where the constitution is concerned.. yet you don't give a shit.

You are now starting to become part of the problem, rather than someone who once was respected and trusted to help stop it. Because a source they should be trusted, specially where the constitution is concerned, is now the source of disinformation by altering the very document they are supposed to uphold.

 

[NWRMidnight]

It doesn't make sense for it to have been done on purpose, or at least not to any coordinated purpose. (I could see some asshole deciding to delete it though)

1) it's available on Wikipedia, which I bet gets a lot more traffic than that site. It's also available on thousands or millions of other websites around the world. It's one of the most famous documents in the world!

2) from what I've read it wasn't removed on any of the many, many other government websites that have the Constitution on them. If the goal is to hide things from the public, why not?

3) have you read Article 1, Section 9? If a member of the public is ignorant about the powers of Congress and the rights afforded them do you think they're going to read this and understand it? (they will not)

Article One of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I have no idea how this happened, although incompetence is probably the most likely answer. Even if it was malicious though it's a pointless exercise. Like is the theory of action here really that the Trump administration has deleted a specific passage from a single copy of the Constitution as part of an effort to eliminate it from the Constitution or at least the public's knowledge of the Constitution? I find that highly unlikely but honestly I wish it were true because that would mean they are wasting their time doing useless things instead of damaging the constitutional order in a more meaningful way.

Correct - because other people kept insisting that we should give a shit, so I was informing them as to why that's wrong.

Was there some sort of confusion here?

But you haven't shown anything why it's wrong. All you have shown is that it can be found somewhere else. so in you eyes it doesn't matter that out government if putting up a manipulated version of it. How is it you can't grasp why that is bad?

I find it amusing that you are using wikipedia as your go to to support your position. A source that can be edited/altered at any given time by anyone, and has the potential to be abused. Yes, it's moderated by volunteers who try to correct inaccuracies, but there is no peer review if it's information, and those volunteers can be corrupted. What's to prevent MAGA's from becoming such volunteers and allow it to be altered? Nothing!

You have already said that a government web site, which should be the top trusted source, specially where the constitution is concerned, doesn't matter. so I guess if Wikipedia was altered, you would say it doesn't matter, and move on to another source.. If other sites start altering the constitution how many would it take before it matters to you?

We already have stuff being wiped from history books, websites, etc., all of which started from one single point and expanded. I guess it doesn't matter of the constitution is one of them. It baffles me how you can recognize why it's a problem that they are trying to start it on a federal government's web site.

 

[fskimospy]

But you haven't shown anything why it's wrong. All you have shown is that it can be found somewhere else. so in you eyes it doesn't matter that out government if putting up a manipulated version of it. How is it you can't grasp why that is bad?

I think you need to go read the thread again.

I find it amusing that you are using wikipedia as your go to to support your position. A source that can be edited/altered at any given time by anyone, and has the potential to be abused. Yes, it's moderated by volunteers who try to correct inaccuracies, but there is no peer review if it's information, and those volunteers can be corrupted. What's to prevent MAGA's from becoming such volunteers and allow it to be altered? Nothing!

Uhm, what exactly do you think peer review is? What you’re saying here is literally true about all information sources in the world.

You have already said that a government web site, which should be the top trusted source, specially where the constitution is concerned, doesn't matter. so I guess if Wikipedia was altered, you would say it doesn't matter, and move on to another source.. If other sites start altering the constitution how many would it take before it matters to you?

We already have stuff being wiped from history books, websites, etc., all of which started from one single point and expanded. I guess it doesn't matter of the constitution is one of them. It baffles me how you can recognize why it's a problem that they are trying to start it on a federal government's web site.

The idea that people are somehow going to rewrite parts out of the Constitution out of the public consciousness by altering some websites is hysterical, ridiculous nonsense.

My argument remains this is some stupid shit to focus on and it would be better to focus on things they’re doing that lead to vastly worse things than an edited webpage.

 

[mikeymikec]

nvm

 

[NWRMidnight]

I think you need to go read the thread again.

Uhm, what exactly do you think peer review is? What you’re saying here is literally true about all information sources in the world.

The idea that people are somehow going to rewrite parts out of the Constitution out of the public consciousness by altering some websites is hysterical, ridiculous nonsense.

My argument remains this is some stupid shit to focus on and it would be better to focus on things they’re doing that lead to vastly worse things than an edited webpage.

Your arrogance is making you blind. It's much, much more than just an edited web page, and your arrogance won't allow you to see that. You seem to think it has to do with "rewriting" the constitution.. it doesn't.

Yes, I know what a peer review is. Do you? Maybe you should google why it's important where Wikipedia is concerned, since it's clear you don't. It might even make something click so you can see why your argument is faulty. History of information or rather the cause and effect of disinformation in this country already does that already though.

What I said about Wikipedia is most definitely not true for all information resources in the world, specially those that are considered trusted sources. Hate to tell you, but Wikipedia is not, which is why colleges and such, won't accept them as a source. I wonder why?

 

[fskimospy]

Your arrogance is making you blind. It's much, much more than just an edited web page, and your arrogance won't allow you to see that. You seem to think it has to do with "rewriting" the constitution.. it doesn't.

Yes, I know what a peer review is. Do you? Maybe you should google why it's important where Wikipedia is concerned, since it's clear you don't. It might even make something click so you can see why your argument is faulty. History of information or rather the cause and effect of disinformation in this country already does that already though.

Lol I do - you do not. The idea that there would be some sort of journal peer review process for publishing the text of a historical document is laugh out loud ridiculous. The ‘peer review’ would be other people checking to see if the contents reflect the document, which is already done.

If your concern is people could take over the tools of moderation and use it to publish disinformation that’s true about every source ever. It could never be any other way, in fact.

What I said about Wikipedia is most definitely not true for all information resources in the world, specially those that are considered trusted sources. Hate to tell you, but Wikipedia is not, which is why colleges and such, won't accept them as a source. I wonder why?

I genuinely don’t know what to say at this point as you’re dug in. I tried to show you how silly the idea is by asking you to think of it in reverse but I guess it didn’t work.

If you think that out of all the things the Trump administration is doing this is worthy of your time and alarm then by all means enjoy yourself.

 

[Brainonska511]

I feel like this should be treated more like something to leverage for messaging, not hair on fire stuff.... "look at how much contempt Republicans have for your intelligence."

 

[HomerJS]

Who needs to follow the Constitution