I might have heard that in Godel's library there was a book with the note: "I have a truly marvelous proof that the U.S. Constitution is unstable, but the margin of this book is too small to write it out."
More seriously, this is actually a bit reminiscent of Fermat's famous comment. I suppose when the lawbots become operational in a few years, we'll get a full logical analysis of the Constitution and find the loophole(s).
Godel's loophole is technicality of minor importance if its entirely
confined to the constitution.
The real loophole likely relates to presidential powers in relation
to constitution itself: the expansion of executive in 20th century
and executive orders that have not been found contradicting the law,
might allow a precedent to create an "emergency powers" system to bypass constitution itself and rule by decree('executive orders').
halting problem doesn't say you can't prove a program halts;
it says you can't write a program to prove every program halts (or doesn't), because you can construct pathological programs to intentionally foil it.
you can certainly prove some programs halt, or don't.
int main(){
return 0;
}
int main(){
while(true){}
}
and presumably, the constitution has not been written in such a way that it cannot be proven halt-able, one way or the other. In which case, it's finite, and all paths can be evaluated
More seriously, this is actually a bit reminiscent of Fermat's famous comment. I suppose when the lawbots become operational in a few years, we'll get a full logical analysis of the Constitution and find the loophole(s).