News and views about philosophy, the academic profession, academic freedom, intellectual culture, and other topics. The world’s most popular philosophy blog, since 2003.
Andrei Rodin is circulating a letter demanding the liberation of Svetlana Mesyats: https://philomatica.org/2026/05/open-letter-in-support-of-svetlana-messiats/. The prosecution has demanded a sentence of…
Carlos Alberto Sánchez’s A Sense of Brutality: Philosophy after Narco-Culture (Amherst College Press, 2020) is a finalist for the 2026…
Georgy Maksimovich pointed me to this article in Russian: https://novayagazeta.ru/articles/2026/05/25/antisovetskie-filosofskie-kontratseptsii
David J. Gunkel «Person, Thing, Robot: A Moral and Legal Ontology for the 21st Century and Beyond» (MIT, 2023) Link:…
Giovanni Molteni Tagliabue (Italy) Rationalized and Extended Democracy – The REDemo Project. Foreword by Gilberto Corbellini. Firenze University Press 2023.…
Porphyry of Tyre on Theology and Theurgy (Harvard University Press & Center for the Study of World Religions, 2026) Permanently…
[…] Brian Leiter (Chicago), The American Bar Association Needs to Investigate Texas Tech Law School for Violating the First Amen…:…
Jerry Dworkin (Philosophy, UC Davis) writes:
You may have heard the(well-attested) story that when Godel ws studying the Constitution for his citizenship exam he claimed to have discovered an "inconsistency" that allowed the possibility of a dictatorship. This may have been just craziness, but can you think what he might have had in mind? You might offer this as a contest for your readers.
Comments are open. Does anyone know what Godel meant?
Peter Suber (Philosophy, Earlham College) provides a nice description of the basis of Gödel's conclusion: see section 16(B) of his book, The Paradox of Self-Amendment: A Study of Law, Logic, Omnipotence, and Change. Suber has posted the entire text of his book on-line: http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/writing/psa/index.htm
Michael
I have heard somewhere that Goedel pointed out that the wording of article five is such that even that article is open to amendment. Thus the constitution could be changed and immunized from further changes, as it were.
I read long ago, (I can't remember where) that when Godel was about to become a naturalized U.S. citizen, the judge who was presiding over the ceremony said something to the effect that U.S. Constitution guaranteed a democratic form of government. Godel was about to voice his objections, (due to the Consitution's amendability) and Einstein, who was sitting next to Godel, physically prevented him from doing so, so as not to jeopardize Godel's taking the oath.
I read Suber's description, and I was wondering if someone could tell me how exactly Gdel was wrong?
The current issue of the New Yorker has the story. As Godel was studying the constitution in preparation, he told Einstein of his discovery of a flaw in it that would permit a dictatorship to take root here. Einstein advised Godel not to talk about that during his citizenship exam. Godel restrained himself, until the presiding judge commented that the US, unlike Germany, would never have a dictator. At this point Godel explained to the judge how indeed this could happen. He still got his citizenship.
Couldn't he just have meant that Congress and the states could amend the constitution so that the president was a dictator, remove the clauses referring to the existence of any branch of government other than the president, and then remove the possibility of further amendment?
I stand corrected. Thanks for the info!
As smart as Godel was, I would be surprised to learn that he was the first to recognize the rather obvious possibility, however remote, that the amendment process might be used to institute dictatorship. Fortunately, the framers of the American Constitution showed great foresight in making the amendment process cumbersome, greatly reducing the prospects for dictatorship. Germany's Weimar Constitution, by contrast, could be amended merely by a 2/3 vote of the Reichstag.
the scholarly article makes the following argument: the 10th amendment to the united states constitution (and later ones as well) limit the powers of Article V. this would (by paradox of self-amendment) prove the 18th amendment (end of prohibition) unconstitutional. but numerous court decisions upheld the 18. for our case only Leser v. Garnet, 258 U.S. 130 (1922) is interesting, because it features the following decision:
"[T]he function of a State legislature in ratifying a proposed amendment to the Federal Constitution, like the function of Congress in proposing the amendment, is a federal function derived from the Federal Constitution; and it transcends any limitations sought to be imposed by the people of a State."
By giving congress the right to amend the constitution as they see fit, as well as giving congress the right to allow state legislature ratification, as well as denying it to the people, effectively 2000 or so people (federal and state legislators) rule the land. oligarchy. but more important Leser v. Garnet's wording of "transcends any limitations" gives implicit power to strip the people of every constitutional right.
In this context the article mentions:
"Gödel studied the U.S. constitution in preparation for his oral citizenship examination in 1948. He noticed that the AC had procedural limitations but no substantive limitations; hence it could be used to overturn the democratic institutions described in the rest of the constitution."
KEYWORDS:
Primary Blog
————–
if you want to know more, read the whole section or even the whole article… it is an interesting read, if you like law… *g*
No amendment is necessary to derive a contradiction from the US Constitution. Consider the following proposition: The US Congress is required to convene on January 3rd, 2007 and the US Congress is required not to convene on January 3rd, 2007. If such a proposition were true, then an actual contradiction would have been derived from the constitution. From a contradiction, any proposition may be derived. The propostion above can be constructed. The first conjunct results from Amendment XX. The second conjunct under conditions covered by Article 2, Section 3. If the President convenes a session under "extraordinary" circumstances, and there is disagreement on when to adjourn, "he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper."
Leave a Reply