Internet critics are not accepting the U.S. government’s reason for removing Section 9 and Section 10 from the Constitution Annotated website.Archive searches earlier on Wednesday suggested the White House had scrubbed Sections 9 and 10 (pertaining to Habeas Corpus and judicial review of unlawful de...
This came up in the thread last night. Why would you dynamically load content that, practically, never changes?
It ACTUALLY never changes. Even if it’s Amended, the Amendment is an addition, nothing gets removed.
See: Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3:
“Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.”
Yup, even the ban on alcohol is still an amendment (the 18th). It’s just cancelled out by the 21st.
That’s what the s html element is for:
<s>strikethrough</s>strikethrough(not to be confused with
/sfor sarcasm)That and using # for Trump headers like so:
TRUMP ISN’T RACIST, YOU’RE RACIST!
So hot right now.
Still waiting on that tag to be canonical
<sarcasm>sorry not sorry</sarcasm>The default CSS style should do a text transform to:
AbsoFUKANlutely
you can also use markdown to strikethrough by putting two swintons on each sideHa! That took me a little longer than I care to admit, but I actually lol’d.
It’s annotated, so it’s possible that the annotations could change.
Annotations could be a separate call based on a simple section tag with an id, very compatible.
So brown people can be detained and deported easier. Duh.
because this is an annotated version of the constitution with legal analyses. those texts need to be updated occasionally with new case law.
It’s almost like the base document can be loaded without annotations and never change. Then have the annotations load separately on top of the base page preventing even this odd “could be a tech issue” problem.
Don’t accept their blaming tech for it. There is no reason that those annotations should even have been updated at this particular point anyway.
I mean, there’s been court cases pertaining to those sections recently.
I said nothing about accepting tech problems or assigning blame. it’s simply a sensible design for a website that is occasionally updated to use dynamically loaded elements.
If the tech issue is real, it’s because they were changing these annotations to basically the same effect, downplaying or deleting these sections of the constitution. (Not currently capitalized.)
Because not all documents are immutable and it doesn’t make sense to have a one off system. It is the same reason that most websites use the same CMS system for the “about us” page that might change one every two years as well as every single article and calendar.
But also… having an immutable document also feels like one of the best unit/sniff tests you can have.
Yes, the correct way to display a short simple document like this is plain html with bog-standard structure and indexing/metatext markup plus device and accessibility targeted css. That is it. Any scripts or references should fail fully gracefully back to web 1.0.
I would not be surprised if some 20 year old “vibe coder” touched it, since they don’t know shit about computers they made bad choices.