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."
It's all just so dumb.
estearum · 1h ago
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.
hn_throwaway_99 · 1h ago
> only that this could be a way they do it.
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.
radixdiaboli · 1h ago
This is a really strange take to me. If I go online to look up my rights from an official source, like the Library of Congress, and some of them are missing, that isn't benign. No, it hasn't changed the law, but it changes what I know about the law.
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.
hn_throwaway_99 · 19m ago
> 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...
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.
jerlam · 1h ago
Why would someone be editing a copy of the Constitution in the first place, knowing full well that it doesn't make any real legal change?
tptacek · 39m ago
It's not a "copy of the Constitution"; it's a site about the Constitution. If you Google "US Constitution", the top of the search page will be the National Archives transcription.
This is just people wanting to be het up about something. How would this particular Constitutional heist even work?
tptacek · 1h ago
I think you may be arguing with people who are disappointed that this is benign.
estearum · 1h ago
Meh, I'd be happy to know that. But in several other instances of "honest mistakes" from this administration, we've found out later they were quite deliberate violations of people's rights.
Be cool if we got a PM. It'd be interesting to see what's going on behind the scenes on the Library of Congress website.
Of course government doesn't work that way so we'll never see anything.
eqvinox · 4h ago
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.
mmastrac · 2h ago
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.
rsynnott · 1h ago
> this means that states could create their own militaries, treaties, or currencies.
Also issue letters of marque!
tptacek · 38m ago
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.
mindslight · 2h ago
> 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.
BriggyDwiggs42 · 1h ago
I think it’s a little wink wink to the base. They do cute shit like that every now and then.
panarchy · 56m ago
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.
AlexandrB · 2h ago
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/...
eqvinox · 2h ago
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.)
edgineer · 4h ago
Yikes. They removed that section from this page, too:
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.
tptacek · 2h ago
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?
mmastrac · 2h ago
If you were living in a country with a strong rule of law that wasn't currently in a constitutional crisis, I'd agree.
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.
potato3732842 · 2h ago
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.
tptacek · 2h ago
They erased the No Preference For Ports clause! Clearly the start of something big.
vanger · 8m ago
It is back to nominal already
atonse · 2h ago
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.
0cf8612b2e1e · 2h ago
Uhh it is text? Unless there is some astronaut engineering in place, this is a copy and paste, one minute job. Or (optimistically) a revert.
atonse · 1h ago
Even if it's text, I guarantee you there are way too many angry and stressed phone calls going around.
The amount of actual work might be X, but the amount of emails, calls, status checks, etc is probably 50X.
potato3732842 · 2h ago
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.
wheaties · 4h ago
Why would they remove Habeus Corpus?
"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."
hightrix · 2h ago
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.
This is what dictators do.
tptacek · 2h ago
For the same reason they removed the Navy.
potato3732842 · 2h ago
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.
mindslight · 2h ago
They sold off habeas corpus to OceanGate?
genter · 2h ago
Makes it easier to deport anyone that isn't white.
dylan604 · 1h ago
But the threat of deporting white people has been levied as well.
mindslight · 3h ago
Dead, like habeas corpus rigor mortis.
temp0826 · 2h ago
Carpe corpus, ad mortem
cestith · 2h ago
Great quote.
sockp0pp3t · 1h ago
This is just a barometer for the number of gullible people on HN
mmastrac · 4h ago
This appears to be the removed section:
--------------------------
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.
dschuma · 2h ago
Okay, folks, it's time to stop freaking out.
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.)
aaomidi · 2h ago
I wonder how much of this is to mess with LLMs.
FollowingTheDao · 4h ago
Reallllly hoping this is just a cut and paste error...
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;"
josefritzishere · 3h ago
In light of current events, it does not feel like an accident.
AlexandrB · 2h ago
How so? The removed section is contiguous and includes a bunch of stuff about navies and states making deals with foreign powers. That's exactly what an accident would look like. Never mind that the online version of the constitution has nothing to do with the legal application thereof. It's not like judges and lawyers are going to look at the website and go: "ah well, that part of the constitution is no longer online so I will just ignore it".
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.
chrisco255 · 2h ago
Right, the Library of Congress intentionally removed:
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!
tptacek · 2h ago
Which makes it a very good lesson for how bad our intuitions are about accidents.
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.
This is just people wanting to be het up about something. How would this particular Constitutional heist even work?
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.
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.
--------------------------
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.
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 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!