Gödel's Loophole in the U.S. Constitution

[Fife]

Dateline: Phila., 1787: Sometimes the code in the Simulation looks like it was kind of thrown together. Or it could just be the effect of Hamilton's duplicity, secrecy in the convention, a general excess of strong drink, &c.

What do you all think might happen if we ever get to a for-real Article V convention? I'm ready for that show.

(Does anybody know of any fictional treatment of a modern day Article V convention run amok? )

The mathematician and philosopher Kurt Gödel reportedly discovered a deep logical contradiction in the US Constitution. What was it? In this paper, the author revisits the story of Gödel’s discovery and identifies one particular “design defect” in the Constitution that qualifies as a “Gödelian” design defect. In summary, Gödel’s loophole is that the amendment procedures set forth in Article V self-apply to the constitutional statements in Article V themselves, including the entrenchment clauses in Article V. Furthermore, not only may Article V itself be amended, but it may also be amended in a downward direction (i.e., through an “anti-entrenchment” amendment making it easier to amend the Constitution). Lastly, the Gödelian problem of self-amendment or anti-entrenchment is unsolvable. In addition, the author identifies some “non-Gödelian” flaws or “design defects” in the Constitution and explains why most of these miscellaneous design defects are non-Gödelian or non-logical flaws.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm ... id=2010183

More on Gödel and Incompleteness if you're interested:

https://www.bobmurphyshow.com/ep-7-godel-made-easy/

[TheReal_ND]

So this is the power of the Masonic world order.

[Fife]

More food for thought about the mythical perfection of the Constitution and the conspirators of '87:

The Myth of Intelligent (Government) Design

Can we conclude that government policies and programs work so well, with each intricate part fitting together so seamlessly, that we should credit their designers with sufficient intelligence to trust still more decisions to them? And if not, why should we believe in demanding that government “do something” about every perceived problem, old or new, real or imaginary?

. . .

When you spend your own money, you don’t delegate crucial decisions to designers with extensive records of failure. They are not intelligent enough in the relevant ways to let them decide for you. But saying we need the government to do more—on no better evidence, as so many candidates in the midterm elections did—is no more sensible. Intelligent government design is not established, and the “faulty things” that American public servants create cannot possibly justify our faith in them.

[Speaker to Animals]

Wait. We can just wipe the whole thing out with an amendment to Article V without the huge hurdles of a convention? I am lost here.

[Fife]

Are you looking at that paper in the OP? Interesting stuff. I think that a convention is necessary to start the ball rolling though. But then the DNA of the whole charter is up for grabs. That's putting far to broad of a cut on it, though. Godel fascinates the shit out of me, but he doesn't just jump up and grab you. The payoff on breaking free of the counter-intuitive stuff is well worth it, though; IMNSHO.