Two Constitutional Amendments Disappear—By Accident?
This week, the Library of Congress accidentally removed two key sections from the U.S. Constitution online, sparking public outrage and suspicion. On August 6, viewers noticed that Sections 9 and 10 of Article I, which include the vital Habeas Corpus provision, had vanished from the digital copy.
What’s Missing?
For those unfamiliar, the original signed Constitution remains safely displayed at the National Archives in Washington, D.C., unchanged and intact. The missing sections guarantee a person’s right to challenge unlawful detention and require the government to justify imprisonments.
How Did This Happen?
The Library of Congress quickly explained the disappearance resulted from a “coding error” on their website. They assured the public via social media that they are working to fix the problem and expect a resolution soon.
Why the Concern?
Despite this explanation, many remain skeptical. Social media users criticized the incident, with some accusing officials of tampering with the Constitution. Comments ranged from claims that “history is being rewritten” to warnings that such actions are “dangerous and unconstitutional.”
Context: Political Tensions Surround Habeas Corpus
This digital blunder comes amid heightened political controversy. Since his January inauguration, former President Trump has pushed aggressive immigration policies. These include controversial expansions of ICE’s powers, attempts to end birthright citizenship, and plans to house immigrants in a new Florida detention facility nicknamed “Alligator Alcatraz.”
Suspicious Links to Political Moves
Although no proof connects Trump directly to the website error, his White House Deputy Chief of Staff, Stephen Miller, suggested suspending Habeas Corpus during times of crisis to aid deportation efforts. In May, Miller told Rolling Stone they are “actively looking” at that option.
Trump’s Homeland Security Secretary, Kristi Noem, also argued that the president has constitutional authority to remove people from the country — a stance that some view as stretching constitutional limits.
