So uh, it appears the US constitution's official version on constitution.congress.gov has whole sections removed from it: https://slrpnk.net/post/25696399
Amongst others being the removal of the section saying "habeas corpus shall not be suspended"
Discussion
Loading...
Discussion
@cwebber
I'm reminded of the Shrouded Constitution in "Unsong" by Scott Alexander.
I'm reminded of the Shrouded Constitution in "Unsong" by Scott Alexander.
Uh, this claim is easily disproven by just searching "habeas corpus shall not be suspended" and it's still very much there. I can't add a screenshot, but if you go to this link I think it'll work:
https://constitution.congress.gov/search/habeas%20corpus%20shall
@cwebber TechCrunch wrote something about it: https://techcrunch.com/2025/08/06/key-sections-of-the-us-constitution-deleted-from-governments-website/
@cwebber What a very interesting and oddly specific “coding error”, removing congressional oversight of military, “habeas corpus” rights to fight unjust punishment, the ban on foreign gifts to executives in government, and of course, the ban on titles of royalty in our government.
His Supreme Imperious Excellency would be most pleased if these changes were not questioned, just accepted by all.
@cwebber They put it back and according to my notes and in depth historical knowledge of the film AirBud it still doesn't say any thing about Jets.
"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."
@cwebber
They do seem to have acknowledged it. There's a red banner:
They do seem to have acknowledged it. There's a red banner:
"The Constitution Annotated website is currently experiencing data issues. We are working to resolve this issue and regret the inconvenience."
@TerryHancock
They seem to have fixed it
https://bsky.app/profile/librarycongress.bsky.social/post/3lvqilhwb6k2x
@cwebber
There appears to have been a response on blusky from the library of congress. They claim its a glitch, but how do you fuck up serving text you've been serving for 20 years that badly.
There appears to have been a response on blusky from the library of congress. They claim its a glitch, but how do you fuck up serving text you've been serving for 20 years that badly.
@cwebber well they also removed the part of A1 S8 "To provide and maintain a Navy" as well as "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions."
At least in the non-annotated "Full Text" version at https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/
(As well as the part that gives the federal goverment juristiction over Washington DC.)
@cwebber
Thanks for alerting us to this. After verifying it, I have emailed my rep in congress, to see what they know and can do about it.
@cwebber On the National Archives site, it’s all still there. For now, at least.
https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript
@cwebber i saw that too (from reddit) and had a look. I don't see how that would just happen by accident
@cwebber Flooding the zone with shit. Disgusting! Best wishes to the good people there, it's scary and so dumb.
@cwebber seriously messed up
@tagesschau
@ZDF
Das kommt übrigens nach Missachtung der Gerichte und Beugung des Rechts, wie unser Innenminister, der Kanzler und der Rest der Regierung es derzeit praktizieren.
Nur, damit ihr mal was davon gehört habt.
@cwebber
@ZDF
Das kommt übrigens nach Missachtung der Gerichte und Beugung des Rechts, wie unser Innenminister, der Kanzler und der Rest der Regierung es derzeit praktizieren.
Nur, damit ihr mal was davon gehört habt.
@cwebber
@cwebber Whoa, Section 9 was like the most important part. It's pretty much a summary of the Magna Carta. It's one of the main parts of it that I very explicitly remember being taught and emphasized in grade school (around the time of the US Bicentennial, when Carter was President).
@cwebber Yes this is missing Sections 9 and 10 of Article 1. So, also missing:
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.
@cwebber Surely is must be a formatting bug, surely they wouldn't be so brazen as to just delete section 1 articles 9 and 10.... but its even removed from the annotated version
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-1/
for reference: here's the wayback machine's version from January.
https://web.archive.org/web/20250118140540/https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-1
So uh... Guess we're headed to Orwell, not Huxley. Fuck.
@cwebber Like, even the explanation & history pages are gone!
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S9-C2-1/ALDE_00001087/
wayback from January:
@cwebber At our local No Kings day protest, someone was handing out paper copies of the Constitution, and to think I almost turned it down, because “it’s on the internet”
@cwebber verified, writing congressperson.
@cwebber Might explain the dismissal of the librarian of congress a few months ago. Trump appointed one of his lawyers to the position, which he can't actually do without congressional approval, but did anyway. Kind of like how they can't actually just edit the constitution
@cwebber is trump going after the Constitution with a sharpie now?
@cwebber It looks as if they also got rid of (their copy of) the clause authorizing Congress to fund the Navy.
@cwebber I went directly to Congress’s website and yup. They cut a big chunk out of it! WTF!?!?
uspol, severely alarming
@cwebber
This is stupid as hell because an original physical copy of The US Constitution is on permanent public display at the National Archives for free admission. And as far as I know none of that has changed. So there's nothing stopping me from heading downtown and pointing my finger at it.
This is stupid as hell because an original physical copy of The US Constitution is on permanent public display at the National Archives for free admission. And as far as I know none of that has changed. So there's nothing stopping me from heading downtown and pointing my finger at it.
Here's the Archive's website on it: https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution
@cwebber
I'm hoping in vain this is a mistake, but given TX R's attempt to gerrymander the next nat'l election, and the response from several Blue states saying they'll do the same in response... the timing is a bit odd.
@cwebber
That's such a weird thing to do. It's not like that's the only copy. 🤨
That's such a weird thing to do. It's not like that's the only copy. 🤨
@TerryHancock
This is what I'm saying! One of the most reproduced documents in the country. I have my own copy. What do they think they are trying to pull?
I haven't seen any major news articles about this, but you can see for yourself. Journalists where you at, who's gonna write the first piece
@cwebber since I boosted this, the original text has been restored.
But I did check, and it was indeed removed.
Here's a news article covering it, thx @billseitzhttps://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/did-congress-official-constitution-site-just-delete-references-to-parts-of-article-1/ar-AA1K0QFb
BTW why put the "question" thing up there, just answer the question, yes it was
@cwebber @billseitz wow, that's a first disprove of Betteridge's law of headlines I've ever seen
@cwebber @billseitz usually questions asked in article title tend to have "no" as an answer also
not a solid enough approach
or are they expecting emotional engagement ? 🤷
not a solid enough approach
or are they expecting emotional engagement ? 🤷
@cwebber yeah, i posted about this last night:
@lauren @allelopathy @cwebber In truth, I do think Laura you are probably right on this one in particular. So county me among the potentially-stupid. And yet of course, what they are doing to the Constitution through their many, many illegal acts is entirely deliberate - I think most all of us agree on that. So to me it is symbolic, whether it's intentional or not.
@allelopathy @aadmaa2 @cwebber Think it through. What possible upside is there to doing that on a SINGLE website? Even if you did it on EVERY government website it would blow up immediately. There is absolutely no logical upside, but there are lots of ways it could happen by accident, or an intern screwing around, or whatever. It does NOTHING to actually help the fascist agenda, and in fact does the opposite.
bonfire.cafe
A space for Bonfire maintainers and contributors to communicate
Automatic federation enabled