Constitutional Right to Be a Pirate

[RcouF1uZ4gsC]

Based on the privateering clause, it seems Congress could authorize hackers to pwn computers and accounts belonging to an adversary and allow the hacker to keep any gains from that.

[philips]

Haha. And this is why we have got to start amending this document! People are constantly twisting or extending the plain original meaning creatively, like you have done, to squeeze the desired legislation out of courts without amendments.

[Eddy_Viscosity2]

With the immunity ruling, president could authorize this himself now, or anything else for that matter.

[dr_dshiv]

Brilliant. The spirit of the law!

[stork19]

Smart! That is an interesting application of contextualism.

[courseofaction]

You may have just seeded something

[Tao3300]

There was a Congressman recently who wanted to bring back letters of marque to go after Russian oligarchs' megayachts.

https://gooden.house.gov/2022/3/gooden-introduces-bill-autho...

yarrr...

[appplication]

Can someone help me understand why this wouldn’t be desirable? If the sanctions are ineffective, why not pursue more effective strategies with proper incentives?

[fastglass]

lowkey bringing back letters of marque for the [insert current conflict] is a perennial topic

[anon291]

> For more proof that the Constitution is a historical document, please see the Third Amendment, which is about quartering soldiers.

I don't see how this is at all irrelevant. The United States cannot sanction civilian property for military use such as quartering soldiers. Why would anyone think such a prohibition is out of date?

[philips]

I think a more gracious reading would be that the document should be updated regularly to state simply in modern terms the meaning.

A problem, rightfully, of extending “no quartering of soldiers” to mean “no sanctioning of private property for any military use” is that it leaves interpretation to the courts. And we continue to have issue with courts choosing to interpret plain meaning or original intent or twisting the two to their own agenda.

[skybrian]

According to Wikipedia, it’s the amendment that is one of the least controversial and is rarely litigated.

[euroderf]

Quartering is more than dinner and a bed. It is also surveillance and enforcement.

I would read this amendment as permitting no persistent government presence in any home, such as and including electronic surveillance.

[pfdietz]

The third amendment may become relevant again in space. No one could be required to house soldiers in their space habitat.

[monkeyfun]

It's funny that they can't forcibly sanction property in the form of homes... but they can functionally enslave people and potentially send them to their death (conscription) or take property in the form of money and assets (taxes).

[INGSOCIALITE]

the constitution is such a simple document that's been blown out of proportion. it's not a document telling citizens what their rights are or what they can or can't do, it's a document telling the government as a whole what IT can or can't do. the amendments limit the governments reach, not limiting the people.

[skybrian]

Restricting governments from doing things is how legal rights work. That’s what legal rights are for - they are justifications that win in court, such as in a dispute with the government. And hopefully outside the courtroom too. So it does tell people “what their rights are.”

[benkuykendall]

> The amendments limit the governments reach, not limiting the people.

Well... other than the 18th Amendment.

[candiddevmike]

The absurdity in the constitution is getting to be almost biblical, where we have different generations of priests giving their interpretation and reinterpretations of what the founding pantheon ordained. In reality, it was meant to be a living document that evolved with the times, not an immutable ledger of all our misdeeds and misjudgements.

I don't know what the ideal kind of government is, but when the weight of it can crush some and shield others depending on the will of a minority it's no longer a government for the people, by the people.

[IG_Semmelweiss]

The rule of the majority has another name: mob rule.

The framers of the constitution greatly feared this and wanted to create a document precisely to avoid the mob rule of the majority. Thats the reality of the constitution.

You may not like that maine has the same voting power than California. But thats by design. It was meant to create a more equal union. And thats why the united states experiment has outlasted almost all governments [1] that ruled the day when a tiny band of settlers in the boodnocks decided to declare independence from the world's then superpower, UK.

I find it silly that some contemporaries, who cannot begin to even grasp that basic tenet of how the constitution was created in the embers of pure danger, would think that a modern bystander would have a "better" grasp of what the founders meant. It reeks of lack of humility and empathy

[1] I believe only the swiss has had uninterrupted lawful government since 1776.

[philips]

It seems as if the two party system cemented everything until an absolute disaster is at hand. I have hopes that RCV and National Popular Vote can at least add some dynamism to the system.

But, besides that, I am at a loss for solutions.

Although I found this recent discussion with Jon Stewart left some more breadcrumbs in my mind to follow. https://youtu.be/n_EofYXRBnM?si=6GL_bT6siM9A7IHn

[adolph]

their interpretation and reinterpretations of what the founding pantheon ordained.

In reality, it was meant to be a living document that evolved with the times

The paragraph as a whole was written as if the above two claims were contradictory. To the degree that the framers intended the constitution to be a living document, there is provision for a court to interpret the document and for the legislature and states to apply updates. Are there some other unrealized means for a constitution to be more alive?

[samatman]

> In reality, it was meant to be a living document that evolved with the times, not an immutable ledger of all our misdeeds and misjudgements.

The motte of this sort of claim is the essence of English common law, in which precedent and interpretation of the written law is the responsibility of the courts.

The bailey is the premise that judges who dislike the law should disregard it, and rule the country by proclamation of new law which they have claimed to discover within the law as written and understood before their inventions.

I support the first of these, not the second. If you don't care for the law we have, there are mechanisms to change the law of the land. Yes, some of them are difficult. That doesn't give the judiciary the right to cheat the process.

[labster]

Not sure what you mean by almost biblical, it’s all the way there. There are the originalists, who believe in interpreting the Constitution as originally spoken by the prophets, er, founding fathers. Basically sharia constitutional law.

The other side believes in the Logos, the living word of the Constitution, which changes its meaning as our society evolves to a more perfect Union.

Everyone considers the canon to be closed and virtually unamendable barring an act of God. If that all is not a religion, what on earth is?

[Tao3300]

> The absurdity in the constitution is getting to be almost biblical

That seems to be the point of the experiment in TFA, considering that previously this guy did this exact same thing with the Bible.

[anon291]

I mean it changes relatively frequently (every few decades). The last time was 1992 when it was modified by citizen petition to the various state legislatures.

[richrichie]

Tyranny by the majority is the worst. USSR, Nazi Germany and the recent draconian controls and mandated medication are horrifying examples.

Constitution is like morals or guiding principles. They should not change frequently. If the overwhelming majority agrees on a change, then of course it can happen. It has happened many times.

[kiba]

The constitution is not readily amendable. So basically the only way of changing the constitution to fit present day need is to have judges do creative interpretation.

[localfirst]

tbh thought this was about pirating movies and software, instead it was just someone on the long tail end looking to build clout by interpreting constitution the way he wants it to be just like sovereign citizen movement.