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.
No, it couldn't. Again, just erasing sections of laws from websites is not how it is done. It's dumb to conflate what authoritarian regimes do to memory hole historical events (which, to be clear, I think the current US administration has done or at least attempted to do) with just thinking "Yep, we'll just delete this law from the website and then we'll be good."
This was obviously a clerical/administrative screw up, if only because the consequences are so clearly benign.
Y'all act like the administration didn't rename the Gulf of Mexico like it changes the physical gulf or ownership status. Or direct museums about how to portray history. Or, historically, sharpie on a weather map. Removing or changing information as they find convenient is entirely reasonable to expect from the admin.
That said, they rolled it back, so likely someone effed up.
No, we aren't. Those are two different things - heck, I literally said "which, to be clear, I think the current US administration has done or at least attempted to do", and I was referring to specific instances of stuff like this, https://www.npr.org/2025/02/05/nx-s1-5286299/nsa-museum-dei-....
My whole point is that raising your pitchforks over obvious clerical errors makes it that much harder to identify real attempts of deception. I think tptacek hit the nail on the head with his "I think you may be arguing with people who are disappointed that this is benign" comment.
The best advice I've ever heard, I'm going to proffer to you: remove the word "obvious" from your vocabulary.
I actually don't really care whether it's benign or not. Not everyone cares about this as much as you do. I just think soapbox warrioring needs to be addressed.
To accomplish that they demand 100 changes all over the place to official words/documents. Then on "the day" they command everyone to do all the changes.
This particular incident, is a mistake by some web admin, who forgot to hold off until "the day" it is all suppose to change
It is an accidental glimpse into what they are putting real effort into, its unbelievable what they are already getting away with and what will keep coming
This is just people wanting to be het up about something. How would this particular Constitutional heist even work?
Probably just another less-important thing tossed out there to keep the distraction index high.
For example from this Trump personal defense attorney → Deputy AG → freshly minted federal judge whose team "made a mistake" in allowing planes to take off despite court orders: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/emil-bov...
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...
Yeah, this is likely an accident or mistake, but it's also one of the first steps that someone would take if they wanted to dismantle the existing structure.
If this were ten years ago I'd agree. Given today's climate, I'd say wait and see what happens.
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)
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.
First, this is a link to the Constitution Annotated, a legal treatise that explains the Constitution and its written by the Congressional Research Service, a division inside the Library of Congress. They are NOT subject to Trump administration orders because they are a Legislative branch agency. There is a very live issue about the independence of the Library (that I've previously [written about](https://firstbranchforecast.substack.com/p/a-constitutional-...)), but at the moment the acting Library of Congress is independent and is not a Trump appointee.
Second, the addition or removal of information on the CONAN website has no legal effect and it's not an effort to conceal anything. More likely than not, it's an error on the part of the folks administering the website. You can find the print version of the document on the Government Publishing Office's website.
How do I know about this? Well, I used to work at CRS as a legislative attorney and sat next to the guy who edited the treatise. And then starting in 2009, when I was working at a non-profit, I began advocating for the CONAN to be published online, only to be rebuffed by the Library for more than a decade. Here are my [letters](https://github.com/DanielSchuman/Policy/wiki/Constitution-An...) on the topic.
It is entirely appropriate to be freaking out about the White House's efforts to take over the Legislative branch. I've written about that [here](https://firstbranchforecast.substack.com/p/submission-accomp...). But the CONAN website is not the thing to freak out about.
If you have concerns with the Congress dot gov website, and I have more than a view, use the LC's [feedback website](https://www.research.net/r/congress-gov-feedback) to let them know there's an issue.
(Apparently markdown doesn't work for formatting. Sorry.)
It's puzzling to me as the document doesn't change often (someone mentioned 1992 as the last time it changed), so why is anyone even touching it.
--------------------------
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;–And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Section 9
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
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.
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.
No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.
No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.
No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.
Section 10
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
It also seems like it could be taken out for sections of the country to seceded from the union.
"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;"
The level of paranoia here is unreal. We should be laughing at these idiots for being unable to manage a simple website, not spinning apocalyptic nonsense about how this will materially alter the constitution as applied in the courts.
To provide and maintain a Navy; To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
etc from their website.
Time to pack up the Carriers and Subs boys, the Congress.gov intern deleted the authorization for maintaining a Navy! It was a good run while it lasted!
Some of these things that were removed are things that the current administration would probably find useful if they didn't exist.
I don't disbelieve that it can be a coding error, but I do doubt it just because I am finding it weird to imagine a scenario where this happens.
Arguments against it being malicious:
stuff has also been removed that maybe current administration wouldn't want removed - for example:
>To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
>To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
I think they'd want to leave it in.
Coding error Scenarios:
Parts of Section 8 and Section 9 were removed. What scenario could create this. Doubt it's some sort of DB error given the parts of Section 8 removal.
So I would think some sort of text munging system, perhaps XML or SGML and there were some external entities that could not be resolved. That the whole thing works and doesn't have any sort of leftover bits of text in the current version implies they have some sort of cleanup.
I would have been more expecting to see something like "&sec8_29987; &sec9_complete;" or something like that in the right hand side of the diff but nope.
That would imply external entities are saved somewhere that maybe was not available at generation time, that is to say the end of section 8 and section 9 are currently offline.
That would be a kind of explanation, but of course I doubt it because uh Why?!
Is there some sort of publishing system where these entities are used, then I would expect that articles about that part of Section 8 and Section 9 at https://constitution.congress.gov/ would also have those parts missing in the articles - like there would be a quote and it would instead say "text retrieval error" or something similar.
But then I also doubt it because why just those parts.
And anyway when I look at https://constitution.congress.gov/search/%22section%209%22 it seems like information about Section 9 is still available.
Question: how often has this online version of the Constitution had these problems over the years? Is this the only time this kind of bug has happened.
Has there ever been coding errors when section 8 got repeated.. or similar types of problems.
I mean it's not unheard of that there are rare bugs that happen just the one time that alert you there is an instability in a long running system, but it's not common either hence the use of the word "rare" to describe bugs of this sort.
Obviously I have made a number of assumptions here, for example I assume this system was not redesigned a month ago and is not currently The U.S Constitution - powered by React! It looks to me like a long running system, but maybe I'm wrong.
But if you assemble documents you have two common types of bugs: missing parts of document bugs and parts of document repeating bugs.
