Results 1 to 2 of 2
  1. #1 Godel's Constitutional Loophole 
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    669
    Does the Constitution contain a logical flaw?

    Kurt Godel was an Austrian citizen who fled to the United States in the 30's. In the 40's he studied for and applied for citizenship. Here is an exerpt from his citizenship hearing:

    Judge Forman: “Now, Mr. Gödel, where do you come
    from?”
    Gödel: “Where I come from? Austria.”
    Judge: “What kind of government did you have in
    Austria?”
    Gödel: “It was a republic, but the constitution was such
    that it finally was changed into a dictatorship.”
    Judge: “Oh! This is very bad. This could not happen in
    this country.”
    Gödel: “Oh, yes, I can prove it.”
    Judge: “Oh God, let’s not go into this.”
    Now Godel was a bit eccentric and a perfectionist but he was meticulous, honest, and not a crackpot and is arguably the finest logician since Aristotle. His proof was never published but that is no reason to doubt its existence. There has been much speculation, most of it focused on Article V, the amendment process.

    One possibility is that the Congress, with veto proof majorities, could amend the Constitution in any way it pleased by the following process:

    1. Admit new States, as many as necessary, controlled by allies of the Congress.

    2. Propose an amendment allowing Congress to amend the constitution by simple majority vote.

    3. Pass this amendment with the help of the newly formed puppet States.

    Anyway, I find this a fascinating topic. If you are interested, you can find details of his naturalization process and hearing here:

    http://morgenstern.jeffreykegler.com/

    And research into the details of Godel's Loophole here:

    https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....act_id=2010183
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    Senior Member DumbAss Tanker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    4,790
    While that is not technically impossible, it is so cumbersome as to be unworkable. The division of a state would not give it any more representation in the House, and would actually reduce it and apportion its seats over the two resulting states (There being no unclaimed land around to annex and for new states), which means that a House's state delegation would have to go along with this, making it wildly unlikely. Then, in order to amend the Constitution, there would have to be crushing majorities in both Houses, not just in bare Party affiliation but also with all or nearly all of that majority totally on board with the 'Dismantle the Constitution' program.

    In reality, any such crushing majority would no doubt be accompanied by the same party holding the White House, so they really wouldn't need to amend the Constitution to rape all their political opponents and do whatever they wanted, they could just pass ordinary laws and regulations to do that, as examples from the National Recovery Act to the Affordable Care Act show; all they need to make them stick is a continuous run of power long enough to turn about three Supreme Court seats, after which there is little danger of any of their 'Special' laws being overturned in court. If they wanted to make radical changes with a Constitutional amendment, the most effective and salable means would be to term-limit or age-limit the Justices (Such as limiting the term to 30 years instead of life, or age 75), instead of the lifetime term that currently exists, which would almost immediately open enough Supreme Court seats to accomplish that in a single Presidential term, once ratified.

    So yeah, they could technically do that, but it's much easier to take the more traditional approach.
    Last edited by DumbAss Tanker; 01-13-2018 at 06:12 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •