It should hopefully go without saying that as shocking as this is, this is not the legally binding version of the Constitution. Nor is it the only version hosted on a US Government website.
I don't think it's shocking at all. It's a fuckup, so what? All of the conspiracy theories and online discourse around this just show how stupid most conspiracy theories are and how braindead so much online discourse has become.
Just look at the Reddit thread on this, which currently has nearly 50k votes, and one of the top comments is "Treasonous", https://old.reddit.com/r/law/comments/1mj3ttx/constitution_o.... Like I wholeheartedly believe that the current administration may want to (and, IMO, already has) subvert large parts of the Constitution, but deleting a few paragraphs from the Library of Congress' online version of the Constitution is not how they're going to go about it. What, do people not think there are, I don't know, a couple million copies of the Constitution out and about? Do they think some judge is just going to open the Library of Congress website and go "Oh well, I know that part was there yesterday, but it's gone now so I guess we can't have a navy anymore."
No one is supposing this is the way they'll do it, only that this could be a way they do it. As you've already suggested, they're also already doing it other ways.
There's a reason authoritarian regimes are known for destroying and modifying records. It's because they often destroy and modify records.
It's a bit odd that the deletion starts midway through section 8. In a perfect world I'd first assume a software bug, then an accident, then incompetency. In the current political climate, … I don't even know what to think.
It's an interesting chunk to remove. Some highlights:
The President could command the armed forces without statutory limits. The Writ of Habeas Corpus could be suspended at any time, even without rebellion or invasion. Congress would no longer have exclusive legislative control over Washington, D.C. or military installations.
The executive could spend from the Treasury without congressional approval. The executive branch could favour certain ports or states in commerce, allowing economic favouritism, punishing or rewarding states.
The federal government might override state-level agreements without needing to respect boundaries. Congress would lose its broad enabling clause to legislate on powers not explicitly listed elsewhere.
The funny part: this means that states could create their own militaries, treaties, or currencies. So in theory that would grant the power for a far-more-independent California state that would have an easier time seceding.
Nobody removed anything from the Constitution. Someone removed a chunk of a website about the Constitution. Rhode Island doesn't get to form its own Navy now, sorry.
> The funny part: this means that states could create their own militaries, treaties, or currencies. So in theory that would grant the power for a far-more-independent California state that would have an easier time seceding.
This is getting mentioned like it would be some downside in the traditional red vs blue paradigm, but if you view this through the lens where this administration is working to break up the United States, it's right on brand.
Any such military development would also serve as grounds for escalation, and as we've already seen the actual laws don't matter but rather it's all about how they can manage public opinion through sensationalist trolling. California delenda est has been a rallying cry for decades now, so I wouldn't assume one instance of the National Guard being deployed against the People is going to be the end of it.
Yup "It's just a software bug! Don't be dramatic!" Yeah. A software bug that just happens to cover the part of the constitution the current administration has been criticized over violating and other parts that just happen to be in line with the war (like "war on drugs"-- well until it potentially escalates) on the blue states they've been alluding to? As if the current regime wouldn't be so blatant as to point to a website version of the constitution and then go "See it's not in the constitution. We did nothing wrong, all the media outlets reporting the constitution has been illegally altered are spreading fake news." Then there will be a flurry of articles "Trump is in shock at what people are saying he did" for two weeks and then the next disaster will have arrived where the same fanfare will be repeated and nothing will actually be done.
What about the "current political climate" is exceptional compared to - for example - the jingoistic garbage we got in 2002? Just look at the crap we were being fed back then to convince us to go to war: https://lukebennett13.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/...
I'm sorry but it appears our world perceptions are sufficiently misaligned to make discourse difficult and HN comments aren't a reasonable place to work through such a misalignment.
(= I can't easily rationalize a view that doesn't see the current state as exceptional.)
They truncated Article 1 starting with "To provide and maintain a Navy" (which is a really weird place to start) with no other diff highlighted. I'm gonna file this one under incompetence rather than malice.
Creating a constitutional crisis by digitally memory-holing the existing constitution is an interesting approach. I don't recall any regimes attempting this in the past.
Just noting for posterity that on August 6 2025 people believed you could create a "constitutional crisis" by removing pages from the LOC's online annotated constitution. You all get that we have the original handwritten constitution, right?
My heart goes out to the poor dev that's having to fix this ASAP while multiple stressed out managers keep calling and asking for an update, before it becomes a completely unnecessary news cycle.
I bet the text is right on the backend and something is screwing it up between the source (don't wanna use the word "origin" here because that would imply things about their architecture that I don't know are true) and the systems that spew it upon any web browser that asks.
To detain political opponents without cause or proof. To do the same to critics, comics, anyone that has ever posted/said anything negative about the admin, and on and on.
Removal of Habeus Corpus means you can be detained without cause, and you do not get a chance to defend yourself.
There's probably a few guys at in a shipyard who checked twitter during lunch and are cracking jokes about spending the afternoon fishing or whatever while putting on a bunch of hot PPE right about now.
Readit News
NARA's, for example, still seems complete: https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcri...
So is the Senate's: https://www.senate.gov/about/origins-foundations/senate-and-...
Just look at the Reddit thread on this, which currently has nearly 50k votes, and one of the top comments is "Treasonous", https://old.reddit.com/r/law/comments/1mj3ttx/constitution_o.... Like I wholeheartedly believe that the current administration may want to (and, IMO, already has) subvert large parts of the Constitution, but deleting a few paragraphs from the Library of Congress' online version of the Constitution is not how they're going to go about it. What, do people not think there are, I don't know, a couple million copies of the Constitution out and about? Do they think some judge is just going to open the Library of Congress website and go "Oh well, I know that part was there yesterday, but it's gone now so I guess we can't have a navy anymore."
It's all just so dumb.
There's a reason authoritarian regimes are known for destroying and modifying records. It's because they often destroy and modify records.
Deleted Comment
Dead Comment
https://x.com/librarycongress/status/1953109733633597634?s=4...
Of course government doesn't work that way so we'll never see anything.
The President could command the armed forces without statutory limits. The Writ of Habeas Corpus could be suspended at any time, even without rebellion or invasion. Congress would no longer have exclusive legislative control over Washington, D.C. or military installations.
The executive could spend from the Treasury without congressional approval. The executive branch could favour certain ports or states in commerce, allowing economic favouritism, punishing or rewarding states.
The federal government might override state-level agreements without needing to respect boundaries. Congress would lose its broad enabling clause to legislate on powers not explicitly listed elsewhere.
The funny part: this means that states could create their own militaries, treaties, or currencies. So in theory that would grant the power for a far-more-independent California state that would have an easier time seceding.
Also issue letters of marque!
This is getting mentioned like it would be some downside in the traditional red vs blue paradigm, but if you view this through the lens where this administration is working to break up the United States, it's right on brand.
Any such military development would also serve as grounds for escalation, and as we've already seen the actual laws don't matter but rather it's all about how they can manage public opinion through sensationalist trolling. California delenda est has been a rallying cry for decades now, so I wouldn't assume one instance of the National Guard being deployed against the People is going to be the end of it.
(= I can't easily rationalize a view that doesn't see the current state as exceptional.)
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-1/
http://web.archive.org/web/20250721170235/https://constituti...
The amount of actual work might be X, but the amount of emails, calls, status checks, etc is probably 50X.
"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."
Removal of Habeus Corpus means you can be detained without cause, and you do not get a chance to defend yourself.
This is what dictators do.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44808145 (9 comments)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44811733 (162 comments, [flagged])
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44814204 (28 comments, [flagged])
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44816077 (41 comments, [flagged])
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44818241 (7 comments)