Constitution of the United States Website has removed sections

What Changed on the Site

• Users noticed the Congress/Constitution Annotated site had Article I truncated: parts of Section 8 onward (including habeas corpus, emoluments, limits on states, and Navy-related clauses) were missing.
• Archived diffs confirmed the bottom part of Article I and the corresponding “explainers”/annotations 404’d, while older snapshots were intact.
• Later in the thread, links show the Library of Congress acknowledging a “coding error,” and the missing sections were restored.

Bug vs Deliberate Action

• One camp sees this as almost certainly a technical error or sloppy deployment (e.g., structural screw‑up in content management, possibly tied to missing explainer content).
• Another camp argues that, given the political climate and which clauses vanished, assuming “just incompetence” is naïve; they see it as at least aligned with authoritarian interests.
• Some propose a middle ground: the removal might be the intentional act of a low‑level loyalist or protester, but still operationally incompetent.

Authoritarianism, Fascism, and “Old US is Gone”

• Several commenters frame the incident as symptomatic of a deeper slide into authoritarianism: Trump as effectively above the law, institutional capture of Congress, courts, and possibly military.
• Others push back, calling treason talk and coup framing “wildly alarmist,” especially over a website, and note that the actual constitutional text and many other references remain untouched.
• There is disagreement over how many Americans support the current direction (estimates range from 5% to 40% active support, with large apathy cited).

Treason, Immunity, and Institutions

• Debate over when actions cross into “treason” or justify defense against “domestic enemies.”
• Some argue the line was passed long ago (Jan 6, political violence, ignoring courts); others quote the constitutional definition and stress how narrow treason is.
• The recent Supreme Court immunity ruling is dissected: technically limited (core powers vs unofficial acts), but critics argue it’s functionally broad enough to enable serious abuses.

Version Control for Laws

• Some see this incident as a strong argument for formal version control of legal texts (e.g., git‑like systems to track exact changes, authors, and history).
• Others say git specifically is ill‑suited to legislative workflows, which involve append‑only traditions, complex procedures, and non‑text‑file processes.
• A sub‑thread notes that many legislative problems stem from treating law as something other than structured text and that better tooling could reduce confusion and opacity.

AI, LLMs, and Information Integrity

• A notable theory: a developer used an LLM to refactor or edit page content and it silently dropped the tail of Article I when there was no explainer text to match.
• Skeptics call this explanation contrived, but others say it fits observed LLM behavior (random deletions, hallucinated restructuring) and the “explanation pages missing” pattern.
• Separate concern: even if this case was benign, altering canonical online sources could, over time, pollute training data for future models, subtly rewriting “downstream reality.”

Meta: Outrage, Skepticism, and Moderation

• Some commenters admit they no longer give this administration the benefit of the doubt, seeing a pattern of “test the limits, walk back when caught.”
• Others emphasize Hanlon’s razor and warn that reflexively assuming malice fuels unproductive outrage cycles.
• There is frustration over the post being flagged as “too political,” alongside claims that partisan users are gaming flags to suppress discussion.