Talk:United States Constitution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

United States Constitution is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.

United States Constitution appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 15, 2005.

	United States Portal This article is supported by the United States WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to United States-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Socsci article has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale.

Archives: /Bill of Rights Joke?, /Failed amendments, /Original texts on Wikipedia, /Problem with editing 12th Amend. §, /Articles on individual amendments, /Miscellaneous

Contents 1 temporary lock 2 is this a joke? a flag background for "We The People"? 3 Hemp 4 Section on impeachment 5 On the description of the 13th amendment 6 Amending the US Constitution 7 New Intro 8 more bill of rights detail 9 Entire section missing 10 Question of Derivation 11 constitution or current state of government? 12 Corsican constitution of 1755 13 Democracy 14 NPOV disputed 14.1 History 14.1.1 proposed changes 14.2 Principles of government 14.2.1 proposed change 14.3 Amendments 14.3.1 proposed change 14.4 The Bill of Rights (1–10) 14.4.1 proposed change 14.4.2 first amendment 14.4.3 second amendment 14.5 Subsequent amendments (11–27) 14.5.1 Sixteenth Amendment (1913) 14.5.2 Twenty-sixth Amendment (1971) 15 NPOV and democracy 15.1 proposed Democracy addition 16 Two questions 17 Bill of rights 18 Page Moved 19 allegedly POV 10th amendment addition 20 TONA 21 Duelling sources for Second Amendment 22 Not the oldest constitution 23 no legislative power 24 Table alternation 25 Links 26 wikified quotes 27 Seals 28 wikification of partial dates 29 Layout issue 30 Article two 31 How many words? 32 ALERT: WRONG CONSTITUTION! 33 Deleting a related template 34 TfD nomination of Template:United States Constitution ratification vote 35 Preamble interpretation 36 Who's this 141.156.208.66 guy?! 37 Where is John Hancock? 38 That was me 39 Second Amendment POV removed 40 Suspending the Constitution 41 Fun facts about the text 42 Conclusion of the United States Constitution 43 "Undemocratic Nature of the Constitution" in the Criticism section 44 Restored the Criticism section 45 Writers' Section 46 Text variations 47 Right to Overthrow? 48 About the Above 49 Bricker Amendment 50 Blackhole in WP Con Law Pages 51 Ratified by "The People" or "the States"? 52 Wording of introduction re State Sovereignty not clear 53 magna whata? 54 Write a new Constitution 54.1 Not a Blog 54.2 Repeat: Not a Blog 54.3 Not convinced 54.4 Study wikiPolicy 54.5 Article content 55 Legality section --very poor quality 56 San Marino? Not 57 Missing sections

[edit] temporary lock

On top of going around and vandalizing pages, this bradymail.org guy has the gall of calling ME the vandal. I have placed a temporary lock on the page against anonymous users; if the guy wants to get into an edit war, let him register! -- Dullfig 20:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Dullfig.. only admins can protect pages. This article is not protected from editing currently. And semi-protection is only intended to stop anonymous vandalism, it is never used to gain an advantage in a dispute over article content. Thanks. Rhobite 22:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] is this a joke? a flag background for "We The People"?

is this a joke? there's an american flag behind the words "We the people" in the iconic jpg on the top right of the wiki. who is the marketing flunkie who thought this would be a good idea? there's obviously way too many stars, for a document put together in the 18th century, not to mention the design of the flag itself, which is an idiotic anachronism. is this supposed to be an encyclopedia article, or is this supposed to be the COVER to a VHS video cassette of a silly documentary? it's embarrassing. not only is it totally fantastic-- pure fantasy-- but the projected implications about the modern day reality of the union, and the scope of the thought of the framers,...... is just, i don't even want to get into it.

this kind of nonsense needs to be cleaned up. 128.119.236.79 04:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hemp

Isn't the physical document a piece of hemp paper? If this is in fact true then I would like to see it mentioned in the article here.

No, it isn't. The Constitution is written on parchment. This is treated animal skin, typically sheepskin. Steve802

Actually the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, let alone a lot of clothing and paper from earlier generations prior to the 1930's was made of Hemp. Hemp (English word) was a major product of the colonies in fact, whereas it was illegal not to grow it at one time. During the 1930's a campaign was conducted by the Hearst Corporation to label Hemp as the 'devil weed' and they picked the Spanish word Marijuana(sic) to demonize this hearty and very versitle plant.

Here are some facts:

[Copyright violation (possibly taken from http://www.world-mysteries.com/marijuana1.htm) deleted — Mateo SA (talk | contribs) 14:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)]

NORTHMEISTER

I hope that information is in hemp, but it's completely irrelevant here. —Tamfang 00:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

True. --Northmeister 23:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

According to the National Archives it is made of parchment, and a great deal of time and money is spent preserving it for future generations.

Preserving the Past, U.S. News & World Report, September 22, 2003, SPECIAL REPORT; 100 DOCUMENTS THAT SHAPED AMERICA

DIGITIZING THE CONSTITUTION TO CHECK THE RAVAGES OF TIME, Business Week, May 18, 1987, SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY

Jjjjjjjjjj 07:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Section on impeachment

I edited the section on impeachment and added a comment to it a disputed section. A senator may have been expelled but not impeached. That raises a question as to the accuracy of the claim that there were 16 impeachments (now 15). Guanaco

Re: RickK According to Article 1, Section 5, it requires a two-thirds vote to "expel" a member of either house of Congress. That vote is taken within that house. Since expulsion and impeachment are two different things, I removed the reference to the impeachment of a senator. See [1]. The number of impeached officials as shown in the edited paragraph is what is disputed. Since part of it has already been proven to be incorrect, it is risky to assume that the rest will be. Guanaco 05:11, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Since you have no specific objection to any specific section of that section, I am removing the header. RickK | Talk 05:30, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Senator William Blount was impeached in 1798. The Senate did not convict him because they had already expelled him, but he was impeached by the House. See also [2].--Jwolfe 11:53, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] On the description of the 13th amendment

On the description of the 13th amendment:

It appears to me that the text "except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted" can equally well be taken to refer to "slavery and involuntary servitude" and to "involuntary servitude" alone. Historically this exception appears to have been used in order to allow prison work, which surely falls under the rubric of "involuntary servitude" rather than slavery. Moreover, the Supreme Court has established many times that the amendment "abolishes slavery" in no uncertain terms. Some of the quotes are here: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/constitution/amdt13.html Therefore, I think it justified to simply say that the amendment abolishes slavery.

Comments? --AV

I believe AV's assesment is totally correct. --Daniel C. Boyer

I hadn't thought of the other interpretation. Too bad they didn't have wikipedians around to say "but hey, it could have this second unintended meaning too." --KQ

[edit] Amending the US Constitution

The recent edits (see page history between 27 and 29 Feb 2004) about the difficulty amending the US Constitution are mildly interesting but despite several rounds of editing (including my own best efforts) were not presented in a NPOV way. The implied value judgement that it is "too hard" always came through. If someone wants to discuss the amendment process in more detail, I would recommend moving it into a completely new article instead. Rossami 01:29, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)\

I'll start that now. Meelar 01:39, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I agree with taking that section out of the lead, but after consideration, I decided to add a rephrased note in the "Amending the Constitution" section. See my changes for details. Also, a semi-related note--is "The Constitution owes its staying power to its simplicity and flexibility" really NPOV? To say nothing of "its basic provisions were so soundly conceived that..." Meelar 01:47, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I thought about that some as well. I came to the conclusion that those clauses just barely meet the NPOV rule because they are (to the best of my knowledge) universally held judgements among serious constitutional scholars. Rossami 13:24, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I don't understand exactly what alternative is being referred to in article 5 in the following text from the top of the section on Unratified Amendments: "Backers of some amendments have attempted the alternative, and thus far never-utilized, method mentioned in Article Five. In two instances—reapportionment in the 1960s and a balanced federal budget during the 1970s and 1980s—these attempts have come within just two state legislative "applications" of triggering that alternative method."Johnor 10:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it is referring to the process of constitutional amendment through constitutional convention. The constitution allows for two-thirds of the state to call for such a convention. Article 5 should have some more detail about the process. So far, it has never actually been used to amend the constitution. sebmol 23:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Intro

I think there actually is some controversy over this topic (beyond the borderline vandalism this article has been undergoing), so I rewrote the intro to more accurately reflect both sides. Comments? Meelar 21:13, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

I changed "inalienable" to "unalienable"--see [3]. Meelar 20:04, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

the oldest comprehensive written national constitution on Earth still in force??? so what are all these amendments people talk about? It isn't still in force if it has been changed? --BozMo 23:25, 9 May 2004 (UTC)(talk)

It's considered to be still in force, even though it has been amended, it's just in force in a slightly different form. If the amendments had, say, eliminated Congress, than there might be grounds to claim otherwise, but thus far, they haven't altered the fundamental structures of government to the point that they're unrecognizable. Meelar 02:18, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

"the oldest comprehensive written national constitution on Earth still in force" - Why is the reference to Earth there? Are there national constituions (that we know of :) anywhere else? It seems to me like a useless term trying to make the fact seem more grand. I think it should be removed as it serves no purpose. Objections? --153.1.3.150 13:54, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

How about "in the world" instead of "on earth"? older≠wiser 14:00, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] more bill of rights detail

Anyone have a big problem if I work these facts into the United States Constitution#Bill of Rights (1-10) section?

• the second amendment is in fact interpreted as being an individual right by the SCOTUS and the meaning of militia and the people are no longer an issue (I know, the sentence in the current article is about the controversy, whether those gnashing their ignorance about it understand current case-law or not); and maybe I can slide in the famous phrase "an individual right but not an absolute one" as regards the determination of who may be excluded and what weapons are protected...I don't want to repeat everything at the Gun Politics article (hell, I don't even want to look at the Gun Politics article because I know I'm going to be disgusted at both sides' ignorance of the SC's rulings...), I just think these things are at least as important to mention as the asides already included in the article.
• the least-contested of the first 10 amendments is the 3rd, having been tested only once, and only a few decades ago, in a case involving the displacement of prison guards from their government housing to quarter scabs during a strike.

...Maybe tomorrow if the Steelers game isn't too exciting... Blair P. Houghton 00:55, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

....The oldest written consitution still in force is that of San Marino (adapted 1600). Compare wikipedia 'San Marino'

San Marino's isn't codified, take a look at Institutions here: [4]

[edit] Entire section missing

Nice article, but I can't believe it got FA with no section (nor a subarticle) on constitution effects outside USA - i.e. how it influenced the development of other nations constitution and the worldwide spread of the democratic political system. There is only a single sentence in lead and served as a model for numerous other nations' constitutions. When I expanded it with including the second oldest in the world, the May Constitution of Poland which was written in 1791. it got promptly removed by User:Mateo SA with the advice mention of Polish constitution not appropriate for intro - try incorporating that fact later in the article. Unfortunately, there is not a single appopriate section in the entire text for this, or for mentioning the French constitution, other constitution based on USA, the appeal of the USA constitution to the new nations, comparison with other type of constitutions, etc. Please adress this quick, or I feel that this article will have to go through the FA Removal Candidates process for being incomplete. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 12:56, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Mateo is right; it is not appropriate for the introduction and should be incorporated elsewhere in the article. I have created a new section, "International impact", and incorporated the information there. Feel free to expand to discuss influence on other countries besides Poland and France. —Lowellian (talk) 23:42, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

I agree a separate section is a better place then lead fot that kind of info. Unfortunately I am no consitution specialist, so I can hope that the team which made the current article FA will work on that section as well. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:17, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Question of Derivation

The second amendment mentions a "well rounded militia". Might this be the National Guard, or has this body been dissolved over time? And if it is the National Guard, why do I not see any links to them in the amendment? TomStar81

You don't see links because this issue is discussed in the articles Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and militia, not here. —Lowellian (talk) 23:45, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

OK, that makes sense. Thanks for the fill in. TomStar81 03:21, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Also, the actual phrase is "well-regulated". – Mateo SA | talk 03:24, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] constitution or current state of government?

the "constitution" intro section in the article was already far afield, in my opinion. now it's been expanded to discuss, of all things, the federal reserve! anybody else think that entire section should be tightened and brought back to discussing the subject of the article? SaltyPig 01:55, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)

[edit] Corsican constitution of 1755

Any info on this document and how it influenced the US Constitution? An explanation why it cannot be considered the first constitution would be nice. See Talk:Polish_Constitution_of_May_3,_1791#Corsican_constitution for info I googled so far. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 12:05, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Democracy

I note that "democracy" isn't mentioned at all in the article, even though the Constitution and its amendments created democratic institutions (albeit highly mitigated; less mitigated over time) in a republican framework. The article doesn't seem complete without mentioning that the Constitution outlines democratic institutions without mentioning the word "democracy" once. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 18:50, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

right -- democracy isn't mentioned in the constitution, so why should it be mentioned in the article? unless you want to mention that the founders were well aware of what a nasty, dangerous thing democracy is, and that's why the constitution prohibits it. what does "democratic institutions in a republican framework" mean anyway? you got that from the constitution? what institutions are you talking about, and where in the constitution are these "democratic" institutions outlined? SaltyPig 19:05, 2005 May 11 (UTC)

The House of Representatives, elected directly by the people. Universal suffrage, outlined by Amendments. Direct election of Senators, provided by Amendment. If you want to say that the founders totally rejected democracy, there would be denial going on there. They avoided the word "democracy", but they instilled democratic institutions within the republican framework. This is fact. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 02:42, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

The bottom line is, the Constitution provided a way for the people to change their government regularly. That's democracy. The U.S. is a republic, but the U.S. has a democracy. Otherwise, you're calling G.W. Bush a liar every time he refers to the U.S. as a democracy. You wouldn't be doing that, would you? :) — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 02:51, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

universal suffrage is more a modification of part of the framework of the republic, but you're correct in aim (more below). and yes, it's a fact that the founders did generally reject democracy (using precision in language there). i do not agree with your claim that the constitution "provided" (past tense) a way for the people to change government regularly (again using precision). however, your point of direct election of senators is valid; it did take the US toward democracy, as did the 16th amendment. if you would add that to the article with care (not ascribing democratic intent to the prior constitution), i support the mod. to answer your question, which i guess was perhaps a joke: yes, i believe GW Bush is a liar and a tyrant when he presumes for the sake of popularity with the ignorant that democracy is good, but i don't see that it matters much to an article about the constitution (other than a new section about its general ineffectiveness in preventing tyranny). on the subject at hand, i would welcome a tight reference in the article to democracy, but not one that attempts to roll previous republican aspects into what we have now. please keep it in historical context and objective, and i'm cool, as i hope most people would be. you're of course right that we do have a democracy now, but mostly because of the failure of the earlier version of the constitution, not its originally stated or historical intent. SaltyPig 03:09, 2005 May 12 (UTC)

I'm not interested in changing the article--It seems to be too tangly for my skills, so I'll leave that up to others. I just wanted to mention that the framers didn't wholly distance themselves from 'democracy' as is often claimed. The House of Representatives was intended to be a directly elected democratic institution from the very beginning. And I generally agree with your position on Bush, but that's another matter. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 17:49, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with past comments, the constitution was not meant to set up a democracy. They purposely put the senate in and had senators elected by the state legislature to insulate the government from democracy and keep it elitist. Only a few of the "founding fathers" as they are called believed in democracy, most were at least partially opposed to it (if not completely opposed). While the constitution has become slightly more democratic, I think it is absurd to say the US was or is a democracy--republic maybe, but democracy, no. And republics suck anyway, just look at the US!

[edit] NPOV disputed

NOTE: because these are heated subjects, i am attempting to follow wiki policy to the letter. i ask that all participating in any debate or edits do the same. if i've failed in that regard (new at this), please let me know here or on my talk page, and i'll attempt to fix quickly. SaltyPig 02:20, 2005 May 12 (UTC)

[edit] History

This government lacked, for example, any power to impose taxes as it had no method of enforcing payment. It could not even control commerce between the states, leading to a series of conflicting tax laws and tariffs between states. the word "even" indicates bias, implying certain minimum federal control of commerce on which all agree. the phrase "leading to" is not factual, and also shows bias. it could be changed to "allowing", but the entire sentence should be rewritten.

Not only this, but the Articles required unanimous consent from all the states before any changes could take effect. "Not only this" is the language of somebody with an agenda -- argumentative. it has no place here.

All this was criticized as far exceeding the convention's mandate, and being extralegal besides, but the paralysis of the Articles of Confederation government was evident and the Congress agreed to submit the proposal to the states despite the exceeded terms of reference. "but the paralysis of the Articles of Confederation government was evident"? to many it was not. the statement is biased, and simply a rewrite of history based on which side won (federalists). this and the statements mentioned above presume the correctness of the action that was taken. not objective, and not NPOV. far from offsetting, the following "after fierce fights over ratification in many of the states" is contradictory.

...the Constitution guarantees the legitimacy of the American state by invoking the American electorate. the constitution may attempt such a thing, but it hardly guarantees it. SaltyPig 23:36, 2005 May 12 (UTC)

[edit] proposed changes

This government lacked, for example, any power to impose taxes as it had no method of enforcing payment. It could not even control commerce between the states, leading to a series of conflicting tax laws and tariffs between states. Not only this, but the Articles required unanimous consent from all the states before any changes could take effect. States took it so lightly that their representatives were often absent, and the national legislature was very frequently blocked from doing anything, even ineffectual things, pending appearance of a quorum.

to

This government lacked, for example, any power to impose taxes, as it had no method of enforcing payment. It had no authority to override tax laws and tariffs between states. The Articles required unanimous consent from all the states before any changes could take effect. States took the central government so lightly that their representatives were often absent. For lack of a quorum, the national legislature was frequently blocked from making even ineffectual changes. SaltyPig 05:34, 2005 May 26 (UTC)

---

All this was criticized as far exceeding the convention's mandate, and being extralegal besides, but the paralysis of the Articles of Confederation government was evident and the Congress agreed to submit the proposal to the states despite the exceeded terms of reference.

to

These actions were criticized as exceeding the convention's mandate and existing law. However, Congress, noting dissatisfaction with the Articles of Confederation government, agreed to submit the proposal to the states despite the exceeded terms of reference. SaltyPig 05:34, 2005 May 26 (UTC)

[edit] Principles of government

if the word "rights" is to refer both to natural rights and to allowances under the constitution, delineation would be helpful and accurate. i am including this as an NPOV dispute because there are many who explicitly presume that the constitution grants rights to the people when it does not. it's POV. the assertion that State actors acting in the name of the people have the right to change their form of national government by means defined in the Fifth Article of the Constitution itself implies that rights (not allowances) flow from the constitution. that is contradicted by the constitution (e.g., amendments 1, 2, 4, 9). a seemingly minor point to some, but it wasn't minor to the framers. their language tended toward precision on the matter. SaltyPig 23:36, 2005 May 12 (UTC)

[edit] proposed change

State actors acting in the name of the people have the right to change their form of national government by means defined in the Fifth Article of the Constitution itself.

to

By means defined in the Fifth Article of the Constitution, Congress may propose amendments to the Constitution. Moreover, any two thirds of the states may themselves initiate a convention for proposing amendments. When ratified as specified, all amendments are considered part of the Constitution. SaltyPig 06:02, 2005 May 26 (UTC)

[edit] Amendments

This relatively small number is usually attributed to the simplicity and flexibility of the document: it is written in broad terms that are continually reinterpreted by the courts. should be modified so that it doesn't imply that all reinterpretation by the courts is over "broad terms". there is explicit language in the constitution that has been "reinterpreted" to mean something other than what it clearly says. some may argue that the statement i just made is non-NPOV; however, it's no more non-NPOV than the blanket "broad terms" assertion. the statement needs balance, if not simply accuracy. SaltyPig 23:37, 2005 May 12 (UTC)

[edit] proposed change

This relatively small number is usually attributed to the simplicity and flexibility of the document: it is written in broad terms that are continually reinterpreted by the courts.

to

This relatively small number is usually attributed to the simplicity and flexibility of the document, as much of it is written in broad terms. The Constitution is continually reinterpreted by the courts, and there is often dispute over these rulings. Some argue that judges cross from mere interpretation to rewriting, thereby bypassing the prescribed amendment process (see Judicial activism). Others counter that broad judicial interpretation is essential for the Constitution to remain relevant to changing times.

not happy with this proposed change myself, and i expect there will be opposition. perhaps it might help to say that i was almost gagging when i wrote it! anyway, please give suggestions for improvement that at least cut down somewhat on the POV of the current version. SaltyPig 03:37, 2005 May 29 (UTC)

I don't think the subject of judicial activism really belongs in an analysis of the constitution. That's an article for another page. The flexibility of the document means that Congress has considerable latitude to legislate in light of new situations. (For example, using the interstate commerce clause to legislate telecommunications.)

You might change the statement to something like: "This relatively small number is usually attributed to the simplicity and flexibility of the document. The Constituion gives Congress considerable freedom to create laws which deal with new situations not forseen by the Constitution's authors, subject to judicial review e.g., using the interstate commerce clause to create legislation regulating telecommunications."

Most situations where the courts review the constitutionality of laws are not controversial and "broad judicial interpretation" ignored the justices who advocate a very narrow reading of the Constitution. Any attempt to include "judicial activism" (a spurious charge at best considering both sides levy it against each other) results in an injection of bias. Better to just discuss the flexibility to create new legislation and leave it at that. Kbrooks 03:56, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)

thanks for the comments. i believe you're arguing for your personal bias here though. many people (the principal author of the constitution among them) disagree that the constitution gives such "considerable freedom" as in your example of claiming that the commerce clause covers telecommunications. though i don't like my proposed change, it does cover two major opinions and doesn't claim either is correct. i don't have any problem not using the loaded term (or link) "judicial activism", but i also don't think it's true to state, as the article does now, that there's a blanket flexibility there. much of what the courts have ruled over the years violates the constitution directly (e.g., mccain-feingold, about which several supreme court justices said as much themselves), or at least takes it into territory which people such as james madison said explicitly is not flexible in the least. i don't agree with your claim that "Most situations where the courts review the constitutionality of laws are not controversial". do you have a suggestion which doesn't get into this territory in any way (rather than just one way)? the article as it stands on this subject is POV, showing only the "do what thou wilt" school of constitutional law -- a point of view. it is not wikipedia's concern what "both sides" do (not sure what that means); the article should discuss the constitution and how its followed or not. there seems to be a view in this country that whatever is allowed to be done must be constitutional. i hope that's not a view you want the article to hold. BTW, i am for removing this section if a balance can't be reached. SaltyPig 04:54, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)

Actually, I'd say it's just better to leave the sentence out altogether. The issue--whether judicial interpretation affects the frequency of amendment--is only peripherally relevant to the issue of the Constitution's amendments, and is ultimately speculative. Wikipedia does not offer opinions--it only describes existing information. We should be skeptical of offering speculation like this. When we do provide it, it should be backed up with specific references, so readers know it is not just a contributor's opinion.

That being said, the issue of interpretation of the Constitution belongs elsewhere in the article. There should be an article describing the issue of "Strict Constructionism" vs. the "Living Constitution"; how the Constitution is interpreted very broadly in practice today, but how many criticize that practice.

I also think that the reference to "judicial activism" is POV. It puts too much emphasis on the judicial branch. In many cases—such as with the Second Amendment—the issue is whether the legislative or executive branches are going beyond the limits imposed by the Constitution. In cases like that, the critics are actually alleging "judicial passivism". Mateo SA | talk 05:09, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

i agree with most of that. barring objection, let's remove it from this part; anybody who wants to write a more complete analysis can. SaltyPig 05:32, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)

I'd agree with removing the statement entirely. After reading the comments, I'd have to agree with Mateo that any mention of judical activism injects POV. Kbrooks 06:10 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)

[edit] The Bill of Rights (1–10)

the section states fairly objectively that the supreme court has interpreted the 14th amendment "to extend some, but not all, parts of the Bill of Rights to the states." however, 2 paragraphs later, it states, "The ten amendments collectively known as the Bill of Rights remain as they were adopted two centuries ago." this is after the article asserts correctly, "Unlike most constitutions, amendments to the U.S. constitution are appended to the existing body of the text, rather than being revisions of or insertions into the main articles."

if there is no provision to revise the literal text of the constitution, then the statement that the first ten amendments "remain as they were adopted two centuries ago" is meaningless, and implies that the bill of rights has not been trammeled. considering that millions of US citizens disagree, especially lately, and considering that the article itself asserts explicitly that the 14th amendment and the supreme court changed the practical meaning of the bill of rights, the claim should be rewritten or stricken. it is not NPOV. SaltyPig 23:38, 2005 May 12 (UTC)

it's often claimed, and the article does it as well, that the bill of rights wasn't "intended" to apply to the states. however, here is another internal contradiction of the article; it discusses guarantees for judicial matters which seem quite strongly to be mostly, if not entirely, state related. this is a contradiction practiced generally, but it shouldn't be ignored simply because most gloss over the problem; if the article is not going to address the contradiction, the previous claim that the bill of rights wasn't intended to apply to the states should be removed. SaltyPig 23:38, 2005 May 12 (UTC) SaltyPig 23:38, 2005 May 12 (UTC)

Huh? The judicial matters could easily apply to Federal courts. Anyway, I wouldn't be surprised if the intent of the BOR to apply only to the Federal government were a matter of historical record. In any case, I do know that that was the accepted judicial interpretation of their intent until the courts began applying them to the states after the 14th amendment.

historical record of intent or not, the document contains no such general restrictions on applicability. the all-inclusive language of most of the BOR, combined with the supremacy clause, requires that all arguments on general inapplicability to the states go extra-constitutional. that's fine, but what the constitution itself says is at least as important for this article. SaltyPig 08:53, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)

[edit] proposed change

Originally, the Bill of Rights was not intended to apply to the states; for instance, some states in the early years of the nation officially established a religion. This interpretation of these Amendments remained until 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was passed, which stated, in part, that:

to

It is commonly understood that the Bill of Rights was not originally intended to apply to the states, though except where amendments refer specifically to the Federal Government or a branch thereof (as in the first amendment, under which some states in the early years of the nation officially established a religion), there is no such delineation in the text itself. Nevertheless, a general interpretation of inapplicability to the states remained until 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was passed, which stated, in part, that: SaltyPig 08:53, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)

[edit] first amendment

The first guarantees freedom of worship, speech, and press; the right of peaceful assembly; and the right to petition the government to correct wrongs. It also prohibits Congress from passing "any law respecting an establishment of religion"—making this amendment a battlefield in the late-20th century culture wars. the first amendment does not guarantee anything except that congress shall make no law regarding those matters (even there the "guarantee" failed). further, the paragraph is self-contradictory when it states that the first amendment "also prohibits Congress from passing" anything. the prohibition on congress is on congress alone, and it applies to everything listed in the first amendment. if the article is to discuss here 20th century interpretation by the courts, it needs to be labeled correctly. as written, it is not factual, and is a point of view. what is wrong with simply stating exactly what the first amendment says, even if in abridged form? as written, this part of the article is interpretation. SaltyPig 23:38, 2005 May 12 (UTC)

Mateo SA, i like much of your 1st amend changes, but i think it has a small interpretation problem in a different way now. new version: "The first amendment addresses the rights of freedom of speech and the press; the right of peaceful assembly; and the right of petition. It also addresses freedom of religion, both in terms of prohibiting government establishment of religion and protecting the right to free exercise of religion."

it's good that you didn't try to cover everything. my only quibble is with the "prohibiting government establishment of religion" part. the amendment merely prohibits congress from making a law respecting it -- a point that's often ignored these days. seems a small tweak (one that avoids mentioning congress and government) could bring the entire thing into line with the actual text while also avoiding any potential POV claims for volatile territory. what do you think? SaltyPig 05:20, 2005 May 29 (UTC)

I've adjusted the relevant sentence to read as follows: "It also addresses freedom of religion, both in terms of prohibiting thegovernment establishment of religion and protecting the right to free exercise of religion." My intent in rewriting the paragraph was to provide a completely neutral description of the amendment—i.e., to describe the concepts it addresses, without adopting one particular POV regarding its interpretation and application. I prefer that it said something like "literally, the amendment prevents Congress from respecting the establishment, etc.; it has been applied and interpreted in the following ways: . . ." However, I'm not sure there is a way to describe all the issues surrounding the amendment in a way that's both neutral and succinct enough for this article. Perhaps we could try expanding the description a little more, while directing readers to see the main article on the First Amendment (though that article also needs work). Mateo SA | talk 04:36, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

i think it's fine. i like the idea of keeping it very simple while also, when possible, avoiding simply quoting the constitution. that's a difficult task though, as we've seen. it may be that this section would be better as a direct quote, but with wikilinks. as it stands, however, it's improved. still, it's hard to say the same thing as the constitution in a different way without making it longer. anyway, i look forward to your future changes. it would be nice for the article eventually to offer avenues for the more considerate disagreements over the constitution -- linking to geekier articles both at wikipedia and outside. the first amendment, for example, is so simple and clear, yet it's one of the most over-invoked and least understood pieces of law in history. maybe wikipedia can help reduce that strange disconnect. SaltyPig 05:27, 2005 May 30 (UTC)

[edit] second amendment

The second guarantees the right to keep and bear arms to a well-regulated militia (well-regulated meaning fit for a purpose and militia meaning the body of citizens likely to be of service in defense of the state). this is not correct. it's an interpretation, and should be marked as such. there are many problems with this section (including the use of the word "guarantees", and the offered definition of "well-regulated"), but using the militia clause to restate militias as the primary subject of the amendment is POV. the language of the amendment is clear, in that the right is explicitly coupled to the people ("the right of the people to keep and bear Arms"). if this section is intending to state what some courts have held as the interpretation of the amendment, it must be clear what it's doing, otherwise it's POV and not factual.

here is an example rewrite which might bother some people, but which is accurate with regard to what the amendment says (not somebody's, or even my, interpretation): "The second amendment prohibits the infringement of the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and lists 'a well regulated Militia' as the reason."

uncomfortable? that's what it says! SaltyPig 23:38, 2005 May 12 (UTC)

No, that is not what it says. The amendment says: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. The amendment does not "list" the militia as the "reason" for the amendment; it simply places two statements side-by-side. Your proposed description interprets the amendment as much as the original description. Mateo SA | talk 01:29, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

that's an absurd claim (for english speakers anyway), but you raise a great point: if the only thing that people can agree on is the literal text, put that as the only attempt to say what it says. it's short enough. i'm all for it. SaltyPig 03:23, 2005 May 13 (UTC)

If it's an absurd claim, why do you feel the need to provide your own redefinition of the amendment? The English language is inherently imprecise (though maybe the "english" language is not). If a sentence (like the second amendment) has only one possible meaning, then no other sentence can stand in its place. Your interpretation of the amendment as listing a reason relies on assumptions about the context of the amendment and the intention of its authors. You assume that the drafters of the amendment intended the first part simply as an offhand remark on the purpose of the amendment, and that that part can consequently be ignored. If that is so, then the drafters were not very precise or careful in writing the second amendment—which would contradict your own assertion that the amendment is unambiguous. My problem is that you insist that the amendment has only one possible meaning: the one you prefer. Mateo SA | talk 05:16, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

i don't see how you get pretty much any of what you say — about the amendment, about what i wrote above, or your claim that there's only one precise construction under which a sentence may keep its meaning. i do love to argue about things like that (off the article talk pages), but not with people who imply that it's relevant or meaningful that i don't cap "english". relevant here is that i obviously don't "feel the need" to provide my interpretation of the amendment, as my edit to the article shows quite well. do you have a problem with that section now (in the article, not here)? my only problem with it is pre-existing material i kept in the interest of making as few changes as possible. i'll leave it, assuming no objection. remember, the issue here is the article, not our opinions on the second amendment, which will probably always disagree. i'm done editing the second amendment part if it's okay. please comment here, or make desired changes to the article directly. i take it from your assertions that we at least agree that the prior interpretation should not stand as it was (unmarked). thanks. SaltyPig 06:40, 2005 May 15 (UTC)

Further discussion on the Second Amendment's grammatical structure might use this analysis produced last year by the Department of Justice. Any analysis of the amendment should include arguments from the individualist, collective and quasi-collective schools of thought. Kbrooks 06:19 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)

Kbrooks, i think we solved this, though the argument's still there. have you seen the current version? probably the only solution is to quote the second amendment verbatim and get out as quickly as possible. the arguments over syntax have no end. if you have changes though, make 'em and we can bat it around. SaltyPig 06:40, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)

Thanks, Salty. Looks fine to me. Just didn't know if this was an ongoing topic, or not. Kbrooks 06:51 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)

I split the actual amendment text from the opening phrase to parallel the rest of the amendments in the bill of rights. I think the amendment deserves coequal treatment, though it often doesn't get such treatment. Personally, I don't really see a need to rehash the definition of any of the amendments, since most of them are worded pretty clearly (more clearly than this one); I'd rather see supporting text that discusses how the amendment has been interpreted by the various branches of the government, particularly the supreme court. I don't honestly know of the second amendment being used in any supreme court cases, though. Warren Dew 14:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Subsequent amendments (11–27)

[edit] Sixteenth Amendment (1913)

"Authorizes the income tax." should be changed to "Authorizes taxes on incomes." "the income tax" unnecessarily implies that phrase as we recognize it today, and also has the faint odor of a sequential conflict (cart before horse). using the language of the amendment is simple and precise, allowing for disputes without getting into it. a fine point, admitted, but there's nothing lost in making the change. SaltyPig 23:39, 2005 May 12 (UTC)

[edit] Twenty-sixth Amendment (1971)

the text: "Establishes right of eighteen-year-olds to vote." the description for the nineteenth amendment is: "Ensures right of women to vote." the relevant language of the two amendments is identical, and presumes a pre-existing right. should be changed to "Ensures right of eighteen-year-olds to vote." (or similar, with the 19th and 26th in agreement) SaltyPig 23:39, 2005 May 12 (UTC)

I decided to be bold and make some clarifications to the descriptions in this section (inlcuding SaltyPig's suggestions above), which I hope are not too controversial (the 21st amendment situation in particular is a bit tricky because of the recent Supreme Court opinion that limits import restrictions). Ddye 00:15, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV and democracy

i plan to edit within a few days all the sections listed in my NPOV dispute above. i also will try to put in something about democracy and the changes to the constitution in that regard, as suggested by Stevietheman. if anybody has any objection on principle, it'd be helpful to hear it sooner rather than later, though of course some objections will need to wait until the edits are done. if anything now, please speak up. thanks. SaltyPig 20:31, 2005 May 14 (UTC)

While I think there are some NPOV issues in the article, it is also quite clear that no article can be written without any point of view. In fact, wikipedia specifically follows a position of "neutral point of view", which does not imply that no arguments can be presented but that wikipedia won't take a position. With a document as often reinterpreted as the US constitution, it is particularly difficult to present the content without also covering some interpretations.

So what I would suggest is this: put your proposed changes on this talk page, give it a day for comments, and, if there are no concerns, place them in the actual article. sebmol 21:16, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

okay. i don't have a problem with proposed edits going straight into the article after advance general notice like i've given, but i don't mind putting them here first if you think that's better. BTW, i agree very much with what you say about NPOV; sometimes it's spoken of as an achievable thing, when it's more just an idealized target. still, i think there's room to straighten this article out a bit, especially in those first couple of statements. i already edited the 2nd amendment section, in case you hadn't seen that; it keeps interpretations, but only those so identified. covert interpretations presented as fact should be removed/edited when possible. SaltyPig 00:05, 2005 May 15 (UTC)

[edit] proposed Democracy addition

No form of the word democracy is found in the Constitution. Some framers of the document argued (perhaps most notably in the Federalist Papers, especially 10 and 51) that democracy in its pure form is a danger to liberty, and that the natural impulses of factions and majority should be dampened via a republican framework. Hence, for example, Senators were to be elected to 6-year terms by their respective state legislatures, and President and Vice President were to be chosen via "electors". This isolated these offices somewhat from transient public opinion. The three branches of the Federal Government were also thought to contribute a dampening effect, as they would naturally oppose and offset one another to a degree. The Constitution guarantees "to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government..."

Though not specified in the Constitution, voting in the U.S. was mostly limited to white, male landowners. Beginning with the fourteenth (ratified under duress in 1868), many amendments were added which brought the U.S. closer to a direct democracy: Amendment fifteen prohibits denial or abridgement, on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude, of the right to vote. Amendment sixteen gives Congress the power to tax incomes directly. Amendment seventeen transfers the elective power for senators to the people of their respective states (from the state legislatures). Amendment nineteen prohibits denial or abridgement, on account of sex, of the right to vote. Amendment twenty-three allows for the participation of the District of Columbia in the election of President and Vice President. Amendment twenty-four prohibits denial or abridgement, by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax, of the right to vote in elections for federal office. Amendment twenty-six prohibits denial or abridgement, on account of age, of the right of those eighteen years of age or older to vote. SaltyPig 10:54, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)

This proposal is extraordinarily POV, and is logically inconsistent. It also contains a number of factual errors and misrepresentations.

I should first point out the meanings of the words "democracy" and "republic" have shifted over time, both before and after the American Revolution. The Federalist Papers defined democracy as a system in which in the people (i.e., those permitted to vote) as a whole participate directly in government. They defined a republic as a system in which the government is run by representatives elected by the people, and in which there are various limitations on the power of government. In particular, they focused on republics as protecting the rights of political minorities against the majority. Modern definitions of "democracy", (e.g., [5]) however, simply define it as a category of government in which political power is in the hands of the people in general, rather than a select group. This definition includes both "direct" democracy and representative government. This proposal uses both of those meanings, shifting between them to make its arguments.

The first paragraph of the proposal generally refers to the definitions used in the Federalist Papers. It focuses on the idea that government should be limited, and the principle of majority rule be balanced by the idea of minority rights. It is generally accurate. (It does ignore the basic discrepancy in the Federalist Papers: the writers argued for rule by the people, rather than a specific class, but limited the definition of the people to a narrowly defined group.)

The second paragraph, however, shifts away from this definition, although it specifically uses the term "direct democracy". It focuses on the types of people permitted to vote. This has nothing to do with the concept of representative vs. direct popular government. What does determining who is permitted to vote have to do with whether the voters participate directly or indirectly? This definition does have more to do the modern definition of democracy: government by the people as a whole, rather than a select group. But it directly contradicts the arguments of the first paragraph.

Some specific logical inconsistencies:

• The Fourteenth Amendment does nothing to shift government toward direct democracy. In fact, by protecting the rights of political minorities, it arguably moves the constitution more towards "republicanism".
• Why isn't the Thirteenth Amendment included in this definition? It expanded the types of people permitted to participate in government.
• "The Constitution guarantees "to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government..."" - This is incorrect. The Constitution instructs the "United States" to guarantee "to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government...". (By the way, this is the only part of the constitution that uses any form of the word "republic"—and this only refers to state governments, not the federal government.)

Mateo SA | talk 16:15, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

the reversion of this edit makes me wonder why i bothered posting anything here first. it was sitting here, complete with the issues you object to, while you were active at wikipedia and in the article. anyway, re your objections:

extraordinarily POV? i think you're wrong on that and several of your claims (see below). argument? i wasn't trying to make an argument. what you wrote about changing definitions is true; how it relates to this section isn't clear to me though. widening the group of voters does relate to the "directness" of democracy. otherwise, one could argue that a monarchy is a really really really limited democracy. is it perhaps a subtle influence? yes. but bear in mind that no amendment listed in the section is purported to be a drastic move toward direct democracy. rather, they contribute. further, amendments 16 and 17 do take the US government cleanly toward a "directer" democracy.

my reply to your bullets:

• 14th: the fourteenth amendment apparently penalized states that limited the voting of any 21+ aged male. it's a very weak aspect, and one reason why i didn't even go into it. still, i think that's the best starting point.
• 13th: not sure i agree with that, but don't object to it being added as the start of the move.
• guarantee of republican form: i shared until recently your new opinion on the word "guarantee", but considering its similar use elsewhere in the article (including in edits by you), i defer to a plausible definition of the word: a stated assurance or promise. and no, the assertion that it "only refers to state governments" is incorrect. the constitution guarantees to the states a republican form of government. there is no specification that the republican form of government is only within the states. since the states are governed by the central government as well as themselves, it is logically a constraint on the federal government (that it must be republican), perhaps even more so than on states. FTR (in case you're implying it), i made no claim that the moves toward democracy violate the constitution itself; i don't believe it is technically possible for an amendment to violate the constitution (not sure about that though).

reminder: it was not i who proposed adding a democracy section to the article. but now that it's composed, i do see value to its inclusion, even if in drastically shortened form from what i wrote. i'd appreciate it if you'd address these issues and edit accordingly. if you feel there should be no section specifically addressing the subject of democracy, then please state that flat out so we don't waste time arguing over points you don't want in the article anyway. thanks. SaltyPig 16:57, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)

I apologize for not responding to this proposal sooner, but I was trying to think of a way to respond to it. I did not expect you to stick it into the article so quickly, without any favorable comments.

A direct democracy is defined as a system in which the people directly participate in government. That is, the people gather together in a "town meeting," individuals make proposals, and the assembled people vote on the proposals. The central issue here is whether those permitted to vote govern directly, or indirectly, through representatives. The issue of who is permitted to vote at all is separate, and was not considered by the Federalist Papers. The Papers focused in particular on ancient Greek city-states as examples of "pure" democracies, putting them as perfect illustrations. The Greek democracies severely limited the types of people who were permitted to participate in the democracy (excluding women, slaves, etc.), but were still considered pure democracies by the writers of the Papers.

widening the group of voters: "widening the group of voters does relate to the "directness" of democracy. otherwise, one could argue that a monarchy is a really really really limited democracy." Flipping your argument around, you must logically conclude that the perfect republic, one that is not at all democratic, is a monarchy. I.e., the wider the group of voters, the more the system moves toward direct democracy and away from republicanism; conversely, the narrower the group of voters, the more the system moves towards republicanism, and therefore the most republican government is one that has only one voter—a monarchy. The answer to this paradox is that the issue of who is allowed to vote is not a feature that distinguishes between republics and democracies, at least not using the definitions used in the Federalist papers and in your proposal.

The Sixteenth Amendment: "amendments 16 and 17 do take the US government cleanly toward a "directer" democracy." (Did you mean clearly?) How does the Sixteenth Amendment do that? What does an income tax have to do with whether people participate in government directly or indirectly?

guarantee of republican form: I am not referring to the defintion of the word guarantee. I am referring to the first 4 words of Article IV, Section 4: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government. The Constitution does not itself guarantee the Republican form of government—it tells the "United States" (which, in the Const., usually means the federal govt.) to do that. I am using the same "precision" that you have insisted on elsewhere. And to remind you of the current state of the article (as you have done to me before), I have since revised those changes that included the word "guarantee".

I think some mention of the concepts of democracy should be included in the article, but it should be far more logically thought out than this proposal. I don't think that we need to discuss the concept of democracy right now. It is not directly relevant to the article, as it is a comment on the constitution, rather than a discussion of it. I think it should be avoided for now, until someone can research the concept more closely. Mateo SA | talk 18:38, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Mateo SA | talk 18:02, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

i don't think you'll find anywhere in the proposed section that i claim the US is a direct democracy. seems to be what you're implying.

yes, i agree with your monarchy argument as long as you don't call it perfect republic. i would call it an extreme republic, and not necessarily desirable, though perhaps hardly less desirable than the current mess of US government. i think you're fixating on this direct democracy extreme. if one accepts that it's reasonable to put republicanism and direct democracy on two sides of a rough continuum (not mathematically, but generally), then i don't see that there's much to get hung up on in what i wrote. widening the group of voters moves more toward the direct democracy side. that's all i said, but you seem to have it that i'm making some wild claims. it wasn't that revolutionary.

no, i did mean "cleanly", not "clearly". the 16th takes it there because direct taxation is a direct involvement in the government, in a way that indirect taxation, and sometimes even voting, can't approach. again, is it literal "direct democracy"? of course not. however, the taxation side is quite powerful, and can influence government in the same way as a vote. the aggregate loss of individual tax income (an option that some are choosing now) perhaps has more effect on government than voting (and should probably be used more than it is). i stand behind the inclusion of the 16th. it's not a "logical" problem on my side.

on the guarantee part, thanks for that clarification. i see what you meant now. well, keep that in mind when you refine the democracy section! LOL. i've done my part, though i hope you don't leave out entirely the framers on democracy (whatever form you want to call what they weighed in against), and how that affected the original and current versions of the constitution. it's relevant. SaltyPig 18:34, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)

maybe somebody'll find the time/inclination to work this up. considering how much people yap about "democracy" these days, probably worth a mention here, at least with regard to why it's not mentioned at all in the constitution. i don't feel like running the gauntlet on it, considering the payoff. SaltyPig 18:49, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)

O.K. I apologize for reacting so strongly. I probably should have made at least a basic comment about your proposal earlier than I did. Hopefully, this topic can be addressed in the future. Mateo SA | talk 03:38, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Two questions

Primacy of US Constitution or primacy of international law in US ? --80.127.169.179 08:50, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I do not understand what you are asking. Please write in complete sentences. Mateo SA | talk 22:31, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

If there is any discrepancy between the international treaties signed by US and the US Constitution, which one will prevail ?

The Constitution prevails in all cases. Ratified international treaties come second.Ddye 12:53, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Is US President entitled to submit legislative proposals to Congress ?

Only members of Congress can introduce bills into Congress. But anyone can suggest or submit legislative proposals to those members. The President is not more or less entitled than anyone else. Mateo SA | talk 22:55, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

That is correct, under Congressional rules only members actually submit proposed bills, but there are two points worth noting. First, the "state of the union" clause in article 2 section 3 does give the President a unique position to propose legislation "He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient...". Second, in the modern budget process the President is required by law to submit an annual budget to Congress, though the actual appropriation measures are still proposed by members. Ddye 12:53, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bill of rights

On the Bill_of_Rights_1689 page it says:

"The (British) Bill of Rights 1689 is a predecessor of the United States Constitution"

Either this should be mentioned on the United States Constitution page, or it should be deleted from the Bill_of_Rights_1689 page. I've added it to the constitution page for the moment, anyhow.

At the moment the article implies that the constitution was just dreamed up out of thin air, which simply isn't true. It is a collection of the best legal principles and rights from elsewhere. Magna Carta was also influential - that's one of the reason's it's on display next to the United States Constitution in the National Archives.

Rnt20 19:51, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

though i question the logic above ("Either this should be mentioned on the United States Constitution page, or it should be deleted from the Bill_of_Rights_1689 page."), the problem is larger with regard to accuracy and support. "predecessor" can mean only that it came before. precedence doesn't necessarily mean influence. is it likely? maybe. still shouldn't be stated as fact here w/o better reference. mere similarity doesn't prove influence.

anyway, your new version is improved. can you maybe find (and add) sources though to support that stated ties go beyond similarity? also, it might be good, if influence is substantiated, to say that a source influenced parts of, for example, the bill of rights, rather than the entire constitution. you did improve that aspect though. thanks. and good job zapping the "human rights" blah blah there; it's far removed from the US constitution. SaltyPig 01:43, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)

[edit] Page Moved

I feel it is incorrect for this page to be at United States Constituation, and not the constitution of the united states. The latter is how it is refered to in the document itself. A similar change has been made to Congress of the United States (from United States Congress). I know this new title is a little more wordy, but it is historically acurate. Afterall, this is an encyclopedia. The other articles that reference the constituion have to be moved as well.

For your reference I have included that actual text of the preamble. We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. --Gpyoung ^talk 02:42, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Look carefully at the words you have bolded. They say "this Constitution for the United States of America". By your logic, the "correct" name for the article should be "Constitution for the United States of America". But the "official" name of the Constitution is not really relevant to naming this article. A major guideline for naming an article in Wikipedia is to use the most common name for the subject of the article, so that users of Wikipedia can find it easily. This also lets writers of other articles link to the article quickly, without the need for redirects. Mateo SA | talk 03:56, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

the implicit claim that how a document refers to itself in its text must be what others call it is quite shaky. the original constitution had no title; a title was added later for printing. this location thing was discussed before, and arguments hashed over google counts for various titles. such research, however unscientific, shows that the current title is the most popular name. is that a clear reason to keep the current title? i'd say it's no less reason than arbitrary arguments to the contrary. the title to an article about a document is not less historical or encyclopedic if it uses a title other than one suggested by the document. the article should be called what the article is about. in other words, there are several options here. why not use the unique option that most people will naturally enter (i.e., not simply "[[[Constitution]]")? it should stay as it is. SaltyPig 04:32, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

We should move it to "American Constitution".Cameron Nedland 23:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] allegedly POV 10th amendment addition

y'know, i saw 71.48.140.120's edit last night and busted out laughing. it did appear so obviously to be POV. but then i stopped to really analyze it (more than just the knee-jerk thing), and was hit with a thought: what if we were talking objectively about, for example, the practical adherence to the constitution of some third-world country? i looked damned hard at the addition, and could not, apart from the obviously redundant and somewhat sloppy language, pin the typical POV label on it. i concede that i edited it somewhat as a joke, to see what others would do. however, i am beginning to see that what passes for NPOV at wikipedia is not always NPOV, but rather the popularly "acceptable" POV. apart from some mildly extravagant turns of phrase, most of what 71.48.140.120 wrote, in substance, is easily demonstrated to be fact, especially since the 10th amendment has few to no holes for the "interpretation" crowd to fly away with.

yes, i know that what he wrote will probably never stand here, but i ask those claiming to protect the article against POV if perhaps there's a bit of sticking heads in the sand in this regard. the obvious state of affairs in the US is that the 10th amendment is not followed — to an extreme, almost ludicrous extent. and yet, stating the obvious so abruptly makes people think that the declaration is violently wrong or inappropriate. the 10th amendment could not be more clear; it is an almost universal legal limit on federal power — a legal limit that is violated increasingly. i think there's significant POV in the practical wikipedia conclusion that we can never openly admit that the constitution is being violated routinely; it must always be danced around with only limited acknowledgement.

i hope everyone will take a look at the addition and examine it objectively (i.e., not under the presumption that this country's government would never allow wholesale deviation from the constitution). eventually, an honest encyclopedia must deal with this elephant in the room. i am not proposing that the addition be kept as written, but i think it must be considered for the objective truth it does have. while wikipedia isn't a storehouse for raw truth, but rather a compendium of prior knowledge, the article should be no less strenuous than if we were writing about something less sacred. a factual balance for this article, in my opinion, is far away from the current version. it reads very much like a sacred cow. SaltyPig 20:30, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

The argument is certainly an interesting one. From the outsider's view, it would seem that the US has evolved far more into a centralised form of government. To remain it would have to be almost entirely rewritten to use more moderate language. It would certainly need some examples of where the federal government has legislated on issues not assigned to it by the constitution (Defense of Marriage Act perhaps?). However discussion of it would probably be more appropriate on the amendment's page where I note there is a section entitled Federalism controversy which covers this issue. Maybe we could make a mention of the discussion on this page however, something like:

The effect of the 10th amendement has been somewhat reduced since its passing, through the federal government withdrawing funding from states who do not legislate to support a national policy (eg the national speed limit or national drinking age) or legislating under the commerce clause if it can be shown that the issue in some way affects inter-state commerce. For a fuller discussion of this, see the Tenth Amendment page.

what do you think? MrWeeble 22:10, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Much more encyclopedic and balanced tone, the examples help a lot, and it's more appropriately succinct since the issue is covered in more detail on the other page. My concern was only about the language being used to present the issue (combined with my being to lazy to attempt a re-write myself); nothing to do with trying to deny or whitewash the trend. Niteowlneils 22:44, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Much more encyclopedic and balanced tone

and that is exactly my complaint. what is being called "balanced" is simply the artificial skewing of an obvious truth so that it doesn't appear as bad as it really is. that's not balance! it's watering down. it's like saying that the world trade center was "somewhat damaged" on 9/11, then claiming that to say what really happened would be POV. i know you're just offering up an example, MrWeeble, but "somewhat reduced" is the sort of ameliorative, misleading language i'm talking about.

i didn't want my little speech to be mistaken as a call to improve merely this one section. i'm speaking more generally about most of the power-centric sections of the constitution. for example, another quite obvious encroachment and failure to follow the constitution is in the clear language of the 1st amendment. can anybody seriously allege that congress has made no law respecting blah blah blah? there should be nothing wrong with stating flat out in this article (or perhaps, as Niteowlneils and MrWeeble mentioned, in the amendment article) that the amendment is essentially toothless. this is a much bigger problem than just for the 10th, but the sample rewrite for the 10th highlights the weakness pretty well. frankly, i'm surprised more people aren't disgusted by the failure of the constitution to do what it claims to do. SaltyPig 22:59, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Probably the "somewhat" should be removed. My main objections are the colloquialisms and, um, sarcastic? tone in passages such as "...a hollow platitude on a piece of parchment, which has been turned on its nose." or "...dictates policies...by controlling the purse strings of disbursed federal funds...". While colorful, that seems more appropriate in an op-ed piece than an encyclopedia. Niteowlneils 23:47, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

no argument on the op-ed language style. SaltyPig 23:56, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I chose "somewhat" mainly because I am not a constitutional lawyer and don't know how much reduced the effect has been. I am assuming that as it is still in the constitution there must be some effect that I was unable to quantify. It was basicly a "weasel word" (Sorry). I was aiming more for a neutral introduction to lead to a full discussion on the main page. Aiming for the middle ground often leads to blandness. <TANGENT>There's actually a really good west wing episode kind of about this, how neither side (liberal or conservative) is able to end up with the supreme court appointments they want and always end up with bland moderates. Their solution is to appoint two justices at the same time. is this of any relevence? no. Just a recommendation for a good programme.</TANGENT> maybe "much reduced" would be better (if we can back it up)?

I'd be interesting in knowing when and what the last law was that the supreme court struck down for being unconstitutional under this amendment (if ever). MrWeeble 10:09, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] TONA

is there something in the water today? how did this paragraph become ripe for interminable screwing with suddenly? Mateo SA, if retrying a previously reversed edit by someone else, please at least explain yourself, in the summary or here. the twice-attempted insertion of a congressional permission clause with regard to "any Title of Nobility or Honour" is not correct, nor is it necessary to duplicate or attempt to paraphrase this entire amendment. we've seen from many tries before elsewhere in the article that attempts to paraphrase briefly are usually deficient. there's no need to convey every detail of the amendment here as long as what's included is correct of itself. it's entirely accurate to state that the amendment would have "ended the citizenship of any American accepting 'any Title of Nobility or Honour' from any foreign power." as the law is written, there's no exception for permission in that respect, and any mention of permission necessarily brings in the relevant clause for that part — then we're back to duplicating most or all of the amendment when all that's needed in this context is a brief and accurate bookmark for orientation. as i mentioned in an edit summary today, the link is right there is somebody wants to geek some amendment that is apparently not even part of the constitution. SaltyPig 18:28, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I didn't look at the edit history when I made that addition, so I apologize for causing confusion. I wasn't intending to make any significant changes. Mateo SA | talk 23:06, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Duelling sources for Second Amendment

Over the past few days, there has been a small edit war going on over the exact text of the Second Amendment between O^O and myself. The text that was originally in this article, and which I restored based on the National Archives was this:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

O^O had originally changed it to:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

(Note the differing capitalization and use of commas.) After I referenced the National Archive, O^O changed it again, this time based on the Government Printing Office:

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

It would seem that we have duelling sources. However, the National Archives site has two things going for it. First, the National Archives are where the actual Constitution and Bill of Rights are stored; it seems hard to believe that they would muff the transcription of one of their crown jewels. Moreover, the GPO isn't even consistent. Their PDF version of the Constitution of the United States and the Declaration of Independence, Pocket Edition agrees with the National Archives.

BTW, I would like to thank O^O for sourcing his punctuation variant. I'm happy anytime I see someone being open to argument, and I hope, if he has other arguments for his preferred punctuation, that he will raise them here.

— DLJessup (talk) 21:00, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Hello DLJessup. Thanks for stepping forward and bringing your questions to the talk pages. Without any discussion, we don't have any way of knowing what each other was thinking.

I'm against using the National Archives as the primary source for the Second Amendment, and perhaps for other parts of the Constitution and Bill of Rights as well. While I don't doubt that the National Archives took great care to transcribe the paper copies that they hold, the problem is that the scribe who wrote those copies took liberty with adding punctuation and capitalization that were not in the text passed by the legislature.

The Journal of the House of Representatives contains multiple instances of the exact text of the Second Amendment, as it was passed by the Congress. Pages 305 and 308 have correspondences from the States of New York and Maryland respectively, in which each state documents the text of the Bill of Rights that they have ratified. Both the Annals of Congress and the Senate Journal document the final version, as it was passed by the Congress. Finally, the Statutes at Large, which is the official source for all acts of Congress, show the final version as it was passed.

All of these above versions are the "single comma" version. It was the "single comma" version that was passed by the House, passed by the Senate, was ratified by the States, and is cited by the official source.

However, when house clerk William Lambert prepared the first parchment copy of the Bill of Rights, he made several small changes in punctuation, spelling, and capitalization. It is this parchment copy that hangs in the National Archives. Transcriptions that faithfully reproduce the text of this copy will also reproduce the errors in this copy.-O^O

P.S. - An interesting exercise would be for someone to exhaustively compare the version passed to the version scribed, to see where else Lambert made changes. -O^O

Wow! I learn something new every day.

I was going to suggest that somebody fix the copy on Wikisource, but I see you've already done that….

Thank you very much.

BTW, I'd be willing to bet that your interesting exercise has already been done as somebody's dissertation.

— DLJessup (talk) 00:10, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Don't be hasty. The SCOTUS uses "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." U.S. v. Miller, 307 US 174 (1939). That's also the version in the law books. The law is the law is the law. I'm changing the article text.Saltyseaweed 23:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree - don't be hasty. The law is indeed the law. And the official source for laws and resolutions passed by Congress is the Statutes at Large. And you can read the text of the official source here. Also, of course, the subtleties of this have been discussed elsewhere. - O^O 04:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Whatever your argument is, the official language of the law today is the more well-known version. that's the version in the US Congress website, as well as any every statute books I have come across. It is also used by the U.S. Supreme Court, as I said. Revisions and corrections are routinely made after the passage by congressional clerks, and those changes are usually accepted as being the official law. Also, the document in your link appears to be a page of a treaty not an official statute, as evinced by the editorial footnotes (I do realize the site is kosher, it's just that the particular document looks odd).Saltyseaweed 17:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Saltyseaweed; I don't want this (and related) articles to undergo another edit war over this. There are ample government websites that use both versions, so posting competing links isn't going to be particularly fruitful. In the interest of harmony, I will not object leaving your version in place until I can bring additional information forth. My next trip to the library is a couple weeks away. Depending on what I find, I'll be back to bolster my case. - O^O 01:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not the oldest constitution

The US constitution is not the oldest written national constitution still in force. That goes to San Marino --Dlatimer 07:59, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] no legislative power

I removed the recent addition "thus predicating that no legislative power is to be wielded by the executive and judicial branches of the federal government". It is sometimes argued that it is unconstitutional for the legislature to delegate legislative powers to another branch, and because of the use of the word "wielded", I thought this sentence came close to making this argument.

The Constitution was written specifically with a "non-delegation doctrine" as explained more fully in the Article One annotation. I summarized what the annotation said because I think that particular information is highly relevant to the overview. --Zephram Stark 19:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

From that article, what about this sentence: Since 1937, however, the court has granted Congress much more latitude to delegate regulatory powers to executive agencies. Now, Congress need merely provide an "intelligible principle" to guide the executive branch. ? -O^O 19:40, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

We are talking about the Constitution, not its implementation. If you have questions about the original meaning and text of the Constitution—-that it divides the three branches with no overlap—-I can cite sources. A later implementation has no bearing on the text and meaning of the first article at the time that it was written. The overview only talks about the Constitution's original intent. --Zephram Stark 19:51, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Agreed that we are talking about the Constitution and not its implementation (or interpretation). One could say that the "thus predicating that no legislative power is to be wielded..." sentence is an interpretation. Is there some way it could be restated differently? We (wikipedia) cannot assert what the "original intent" was, but we could quote someone on that intent - O^O 19:53, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

There is no better source than the document itself. In fact, nobody seems to have any viable information about meaning of the Constitution other than the actual document. Luckily, the parts of the Constitution relevant to your question are written as clearly as any document could be. "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress." The Constitution simply doesn't grant legislative power to any other body. Can federal power come from any other source? Can the legislative branch, as you suggest, grant legislative power? Amendment ten of the Bill of Rights says, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." That doesn't leave any wiggle room. The federal government simply doesn't have any power except that which is granted by the Constitution, and the Constitution does not give Congress the power to delegate legislative power to another branch. Those founding fathers were on top of their game, wouldn't you say? They saw us coming a mile away and covered all the bases.

Reading just the text of the Constitution, there is no other way for it to be taken: the executive and judiciary have no enumerated power to make law, and Congress has no enumerated power to constitute them as lawmakers. Powers enumerated by the Constitution are the only powers that the federal government has. The source I'm citing is the Constitution itself. --Zephram Stark 23:35, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

If there is no more discussion on the subject, I would like to reinstate that highly-relevant part of the Constitutional overview. --Zephram Stark 16:20, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

• No, let's try to keep these sections short, without a lot of interpretation. Use Article One of the United States Constitution for information on how the text has been interpreted over the years. --JW1805 18:21, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

The separation of legislative power is the first and most important thing that the Constitution establishes. Yet you have stripped everything about the separation of power from the overview of Article One.

"All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."

The Supreme Court did not claim any other "interpretation" of that sentence. It would be ridiculous for them to have tried to say that the words were ambiguous or could possibly mean anything else. Instead, the Supreme Court ruled that "ever changing and more technical problems" required "an ability to delegate power under broad general directives." That ruling does not change the Constitution. The words of the Constitution stayed exactly the same. A 1989 ruling could not possibly be an "interpretation," nor does it claim to be. What are they going to say? That nobody understood the real meaning of the Constitution for the last 202 years? That the members of Congress who drafted the Constitution didn't "interpret" their own words correctly in the 1700s? That it took the Supreme Court a couple of centuries to decipher that the Constitution was really talking about an "intelligible principle?" Give the Supreme Court a little credit. They are not so stupid that they would call their 1989 ruling an interpretation of the Constitution, and neither should you.

Mistretta v. United States is not an "interpretation" of the Constitution, nor does it claim to be, nor does it change the Constitution. The overview of Article One is not about a 1989 court ruling. It is about Article One of the Constitution. --Zephram Stark 15:50, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure we can agree that something needs to be said about the separation of legislative power in the overview of the Article One. I would like to work with you on the wording of that overview. --Zephram Stark 16:05, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

• The doctrine of Separation of powers is based on several parts of the Constitution, not just Article One. Anyway, it is already mentioned in the "Principles of government" section.--JW1805 16:52, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not talking about any doctrine that could be argued or confused. I'm talking about the actual text. The summary of the first article fails to mention anything about the first and most important sentence: "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives." If you're not going to summarize it, at least quote it and let people decide for themselves. A court ruling 203 years later doesn't change the actual text of Article One. Pretending it no longer exists is incorrect and deceptive. --Zephram Stark 17:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

• None of the other subsections have quotations. These are just brief summaries. It says "Article One establishes the legislative branch...", and the other two say "Article Two describes the presidency...", and "Article Three describes the court system...". More complete summaries are available in the specific articles.--JW1805 17:30, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Are you arguing that because the other sections incorrectly summarize their article that we should incorrectly summarize Article One as well? There is a gaping hole in the summary. Every other concept of Article One is addressed, but any mention of the first and most important sentence is skipped. Why is this? Because the other summaries are equally deficient? I don't think so. Allowing for the best of intentions, I would have to say that mention of the first sentence is skipped because it is too controversial. Yet, the summary isn't about controversy, vague doctrines, or late rulings. It is a summary of the text. As such, it fails. If you want to help word something that will make it succeed, I would be happy to do that with you. If not, I will improve the summary with those who are interested in having it accurately represent the text of Article One. --Zephram Stark 17:43, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

The sections are not incorrect. "Legislative" means "lawmaking", meaning this is the lawmaking branch of the government. This section is not the place for a long essay about the separation of powers (a doctrine that flows from several sections, not just this one). This is also not the place for an essay about the Nondelegation doctrine, or opinions about how the courts have subverted it. I'm not going to be drawn into another pointless argument with Zephram Stark. Other users can examine Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zephram Stark for an idea of this user's editing philosophy.--JW1805 18:39, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

As I'm sure you know, the arbitration has already been opened, but you tried to hide that fact because the unsubstantiated claims in the request for arbitration serve your purposes better than the truth. The same goes for the information you're trying to keep out of the summary of the Constitution. The actual text of the Constitution is relevant to the summary. As I've said many times, I'm willing to work with you to reach a consensus about what it should say, and as you know, I'm very flexible when it comes to opinions. But blatantly misrepresenting the facts, as you have done in regard to me and to the content of Article One, is not something I'm flexible about. I make sure that corruption is exposed. --Zephram Stark 20:16, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Table alternation

I apologize if my comment is useless -- I am not a native english speaker so I may be wrong.

Under "Ratification", at the following table, votes are categorized as "Yay" and "Nay". I suppose that this is american slang, but it seems like a case of vandalism to me.

Galanom 23:36, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

good eye. it's been corrected. the "Yay" should have been "Yea". "Nay" is correct. not so much slang as it is old-style for audible voting. sounds fancy or whatever, so they keep it. Wbfl 01:04, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Links

Why does Mr. Barry Krusch get two links to his writings? Both have very similar viewpoints, and it rather clutters up the links section (as well as implies that 2/5ths of advocacy groups possess similar thought to Mr. Krusch's, which seems to me to border on POV). Rather, ought we just link to one, or perhaps a homepage of his?

if you want to remove one, i suggest you make it the 21st century constitution, which is far less accessible than the first amendment material. Wbfl 20:26, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

it seems to me like these links should be removed altogether and replaced with a link to the more respectable "Constitution in the 21st Century" - http://www.acslaw.org/c21 Chris Straw 20:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

"removed altogether"? "more respectable"? please direct me to the part of acslaw.org which you allege covers the same material as krusch's excellent analysis of the first amendment. why would you even mention one as a replacement for the other? makes no sense. krusch's site is unique and important. 65.143.91.51 10:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] wikified quotes

i object to the wikification of direct quotes from the constitution (as in recent edits to preamble). it implies that the links are in line with the words. as is obvious from the history of this and similar pages, agreement on these words is scarce. direct quotes should be left unaltered. please comment here. Wbfl 01:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• I guess you're talking about this edit of mine. I just thought it was more concise. Especially since the preamble is basically already a list, there was no need to follow it with another list that just repeated what was in the actual text. --JW1805 02:18, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

i'm glad you zapped that bullet list (and i hope it stays zapped). i just don't agree with modifying quotes in any way where avoidable. re the preamble, too much fuss is made out of that anyway. shorter the material on the preamble, the better. i'd like to see the text disappear too — so overdone, while the meat of the constitution (e.g., 10th amendment) is entirely ignored by most. Wbfl 02:28, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

If you want to see a real sick perversion of the actual words of a document, look at this one: Principles of the U.S. Declaration of Independence. Click on the link to "unalienable rights," in the Declaration, and it takes you to an uncited primary source that says "'We hold these truths to be self-evident' has been accused of being simply a more elegant version of 'Because we said so,'" and goes on to call the principles of the Declaration "a non sequitur and an example of the naturalistic fallacy." It doesn't cite any source for this. The author just made it up, but JW1805 defends it with his life. --Zephram Stark 02:48, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

wow, this wikification stuff is out of control. horrid. i oppose it strongly. but on the other hand, i don't take wikipedia seriously for controversial issues, mostly because of this type of inane hooliganism. the hooligans will always win in an open edit. still, if somebody doesn't kill these wikifications, i'm going to. just because they suck. Wbfl 03:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Links are good, and one of the main advantages to an internet encyclopedia over a paper one. When in doubt, add links, I say. They don't hurt anybody. (Although, this is a bit much). --JW1805 18:12, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I think the quotes should be free of links. After all, quotes are meant to be left to interpretation by the reader, since people don't always agree upon what the Founding Fathers intended. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 22:44, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Seals

I thought the seals looked nice, and added a little color to what was a long section of text. --JW1805 03:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I totally agree. They look very nice and make the article very readable, especially how the seals are centered vertically on each summary. --Zephram Stark 03:18, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

yeah, i'm not sure how the seals are "irrelevant", as claimed in the edit summary for the removal. i don't like them, nor what they represent, but they're a great visual mark for helping constitution newbies understand the structure of the first 3 articles quickly and easily. biggest problem i had with them is that article 3 is about the federal judiciary, not just the supreme court. Wbfl 03:20, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have started problems by editing out the seals. I should have asked folks.--Mark Adler 22:21, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I think the seals are just unnecessary on an article regarding the Constitution. The images of the document itself, the Syng inkstand, etc. are quite relevant and illustrative, whereas the seals pertain mostly to the President, Congress, and the Supreme Court. How about moving them, instead to Federal government of the United States? That article would be much more appropriate, I think. --Mark Adler 22:22, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I think they might look more apropos if they were the original seals. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 22:44, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] wikification of partial dates

this article has many wikified partial dates. any reason? if not, i will conform them all to wikipedia MoS. Wbfl 02:29, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind, but I went ahead and wikified any dates of the forms "month day", "month day, year", and "month year" that I could find.

— DLJessup (talk) 00:15, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

i'm puzzled why you would respond to my comment that way. i noted, or at least implied, that wikifications of partial dates can be undesirable, and that i plan to remove them... so you add more for me to undo? the MoS is clear on date formatting:

If the date doesn't contain a day and a month, then date preferences won't work, and square brackets won't respond to your readers' auto-formatting preferences. So unless there is a special relevance of the date link, there's no need to link it. This is an important point: simple years, decades and centuries should only be linked if there's a strong reason for doing so.

so unless somebody provides a strong reason for linking single years, months, and "month year", i'm going to undo them. they never should have been wikified. why people wikify them is a mystery to me, though i guess it's a natural result of a pretty dumb, confusing protocol (linking merely for pref formatting). perhaps the only thing stupider in the system is the case sensitivity — well, that and the average admin. Wbfl 02:14, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I thought that the partial applied to the wikification, not the dates; it's clear that I've been dealing with the mangled grammar of this place for far too long. I thought I understood what you were doing and didn't bother to actually check the MoS. It is also, shall we say, less than intuitive that they would offer the formats "16:12, 2001 January 15" and "2001-01-15 16:12:34" and then not offer the ability to flip the year and month for dates of format "January 2001". Sorry about that. I've fixed the "month year" wikifications.

— DLJessup (talk) 04:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

It's actually worse than is implied by the MoS quote: if you set your preferences to either of the formats "16:12, 2001 January 15" or "2001-01-15 16:12:34", only dates containing both the "month day"/"day month" and "year" links order properly; the "month day" or "day month" links don't conform to preferences.

— DLJessup (talk) 05:10, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

yup. the MoS mentions that problem briefly before the part i quoted. surprised some bot writer hasn't gone after this one. it's all over the place. Wbfl 18:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Layout issue

In my browser, the first two pages of the Constitution obscure the Contents menu. It appears this is because the two pages are not below the "Founding Documents of the United States" menu. Can they be moved lower so they do not obstruct each other? - Runnerupnj 21:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Article two

I edited a typo I found there. It said : procedures for the selection of the president, qualifications for office, the oath to be affirmed, the powers and duties of the office and procedures for selection I changed it to : "procedures for the selection of the president, qualifications for office, the oath to be affirmed and the powers and duties of the office." The typo was the double statement concerning "procedures for selection" Deletion 02:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)deletion

[edit] How many words?

How many words are in the Constitution before amendment? How many with the amendments?

I count 4309 in the Philadelphia text, 2958 in the amendments – not counting labels like "Article N", "section N", and not counting the last paragraph "Done in Convention ...." or the signatures. —Tamfang 22:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ALERT: WRONG CONSTITUTION!

Hey, you guys are talking about the wrong constitution. You are calling it "The Constitution of the United States" instead of the correct title "The Constitution for The United States of America".
If you ever go into court and use "The Constitution of the United States" you will loose, plain and simple. Because by calling it "The Constitution of the United States" you have established the fact that it was created by the United States. THEY CAN DO WHATEVER THEY WANT TO DO WITH SOMETHING THEY CREATED!!!

NarrowPathPilgrim 10:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Whatever. I'd link to an article that explains what this guy's talking about, but he'd probably mess it up. Gazpacho 10:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Gazpacho, a quick google search will give you links to articles on this subject, here is one I found in a few seconds of searching! NarrowPathPilgrim 10:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

A wacky conspiracy rant on a Liechtenstein website. Now that's authoratative! Deli nk

Narrowpath is incorrect. The US Congress - the authority in this matter - states that it is the Constitution OF the United States of America. The following is the link that should settle this:

Constitution of the United States

The constitution of X is that which constitutes X; thus it cannot be made by X. While it's true that you'll generally lose if you stand on the rights that the BoR purports to defend, it's not because you used the wrong magic formula, it's because the courts are controlled by members of an interest group known as Government. —Tamfang 21:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting a related template

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:United States Constitution ratification vote

Template:United States Constitution ratification vote has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:United States Constitution ratification vote. Thank you. —Mark Adler (markles) 18:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Preamble interpretation

I reverted the following (actually Bkonrad beat me to it, but anyway):

The Preamble is expressive of the purpose of the United States government which is intended to be an incorporation (corporation) of the will of the people and hence provides for extensive power by that public Corporation of the people (US Government) to do all that is 'necessary and proper' to establish equal Justice, provide for the defense of the Union, promote economic expansion and industry (See American System of Capitalism), and to secure Liberty (the right to do all you wish to do so long as you do no harm to others) for the Citizens (We the People) of the country. The preamble, especially the first three words ("We the people"), is one of the most quoted and referenced sections of the Constitution.

Interpreting the preamble may be appropriate for this article if such an interpretation is based on the actual words of the preamble itself. The interpretation provided by the anonymous poster doesn't fall into that category. The preamble has no reference to the words "corporation", "incorporation", and "necessary and proper", "industry", "economic expansion", "citizens" (although that is in the constitution, it's in article I, not the preamble). Furthermore, such loaded terms as "justice" and "liberty" should probably not be interpreted by half a sentence in parantheses, nor should they be linked to general WP articles about the term without qualification. Hence, it was my opinion that this interpretation is wholly inadequate for WP and therefore subject to removal. If anyone disagrees, please let me know here. I'd especially like to hear from the original author what his or her thoughts were when producing this. sebmol 19:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The above preamble exlanation was badly worded I admit. But the intention was to display what the meaning of each phrase meant. In particular the phrase 'to promote the general Welfare' has much meaning if you read the Founders on this. It was an economic point made. The Confederate constitution did not contain that clause because it infered(sic) that the Federal government was created in part to ensure that Industry, Commerce, and Agriculture (read Hamilton one of the men who helped write the Constitution and one of the authors of the Federalist Papers) could be promoted by the government using protective tariffs, subsidies or bounties as it were, and other devices including and not limited to a Bank of the United States to establish credit and so on. There is a long tradition of 'promoting the general Welfare' going back to the ideas of the Renaissance. NORTHMEISTER

I resubmitted an edit in the preamble updating my language, check it and see what you think. I want it to remain neutral but represent the Founder's intentions based on what they read and wrote, including the major work of Vattel on international law. -NORTHMEISTER

The problem with the interpretation you provided isn't just a question of wording. The problem I see with it is that it tries to infer an interpretation in a certain way. Especially, the usage of words not contained in the preamble like 'corporation' (which has a very distinct legal meaning) needs to be in a very careful manner. If you believe that the interpretation you provide is correct, you have got to cite specific sources that acknowledge that. Redefining the word 'union' as 'corporation', for example, is not warranted unless you have some other reputable source that did so.

Another problem I find is with the interpretation "to secure liberty for the citizens of the country" with wiki links to the generic articles for "liberty", "citizen", and "country". The Constitution at many different places makes a distinction between people and citizens which have led to many still standing precedents that people who are not citizens still have certain rights under the constitution (most notably the right to due process). Furthermore, the understanding of the term "liberty" for example as meant in the preamble may or may not entail everything the Liberty article. Providing an unqualified link just to Liberty alone is inappropriate and misleading, in my opinion. I'm going to revert your addition and hope that we can come to some sort of agreement here before posting back into the original article. sebmol 07:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

You bring up excellent points and I accept your reasoning behind not linking to generic articles on Liberty for example, the link to country was appropriate because the Constitution is intended for the United States of America and not for elsewhere, on "Citizens" I also accept your argument as legitimate as you make an excellent point about due process. The explanation there, now, is inadequate concerning the preamble as per the Supreme Court's decisions concerning its intent. The preamble is loaded with symbolic and meaningful words especially for the time it was written. One of the reasons the Confederate States of America took out the words 'promote the general Welfare' was because the meanings intention was very well known to the early generations of Americans as the expressive power of the Federal government to promote and protect the economy as expressed later on in the Constitution with specific delegated powers to "lay and collect imposts, duties...", "promote useful arts and sciences", etc. So the reverted explanation is lacking. It was a grant of very general purposes and powers on the specific purposes of the Constitution and nation. Essentially this part of the article should outline the phrases and their meaning more clearly to modern readers, so as to understand them. I do agree with your revert for now. I would like to work with you on the proper wording for neutrality, clearness, cites and to ensure an accurate explanation beyond what exists at present and what I posted. --Northmeister 12:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Who's this 141.156.208.66 guy?!

the following is copied from the 2nd Amendment discussion page

Seems to be some kind of anti-gun rights troll; if you look at his list of contributions, has gone on a rampage changing many gun-related pages into gun control blather. I vote he be banned.

Dullfig 05:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

AHA!! reverse dns lookup points to www.bradymail.com. Cute. Real cute. These guys don't give up. Typical left wing stuff, can't discuss issues on the merits, have to go vandalizing. I'm not surprised. Dullfig 06:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Yabbut try whois bradymail.com — it's Brady Corporation of Milwaukee, not the Brady Campaign to Monopolize Gun Violence. —Tamfang 06:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

This is a sockpuppet for mail.bradymail.org (141.156.208.66) using traceroute. His IP should be banned. Yaf 16:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

and, oops, bradymail.org (unlike bradymail.com) is connected with the Entity Formerly Known As National Coalition to Ban Handguns (see whois). —Tamfang 19:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

end of copied comments from Second Amendment discussion page Yaf 15:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Lets stop the edit war and discuss the 2nd Amendment portion, or else ban the 141.156.208.66 IP, as multiple editors have had to undo the repeated vandalism caused by this bradymail.org computer again and again and again. Text including the claim of "unincorporated" has been included, and referenced in the current text. Yet this individual continues to attempt to re-write history. Yaf 21:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Where is John Hancock?

I am puzzled because when I look at the Constitution on other sites, his signature is very clear...however the version shown on WIKI doesn't show his signature. The signatures ,in fact, all look different. WHats' up with that?

Have you tried this document? --69.115.162.232 02:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] That was me

asking about why the pictures of Constitution look different on different sites (where's John Hancock?) I am serious and hope somebody answers me. Thanks

[edit] Second Amendment POV removed

I have removed lengthy and argumentative POV comments from the heading for the Second Amendment. There is a separate article dealing just with the Second Amendment, and that is the place for a detailed explanation of the law relating to this amendment. Many other amendments have much more case law clarifying their legal effect, but they all have just a sentence or two in this article. I do not believe it is appropriate for this amendment to have a much longer description. In addition, the tone of the removed material, which described one position as persons who seek to "abolish private ownership of guns in America" and described another position as being supported by "scholarly research" was not neutral. The separate article on the Second Amendment is the appropriate place to go into the debate on the scope and effect of the Second Amendment Kmorford 18:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Have reverted the deletion. There is considerable debate on the content of the 2A in the 2A article. However, there is also a need here for discussion of the 2A relative to the rest of the Constitution. The two cover different material related to the 2A. Yaf 18:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted the reversion of the deletion, and will continue to do so. The deleted material is not consistent with Wikipedia guidelines. If anyone wants to take this to dispute resolution, I will be happy participate in that process. Kmorford 22:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of major sections arrived at through a lengthy period of edits by numerous edits is vandalism, or borders on it. Have reverted back to the unvandalized version. Yaf 02:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Nonetheless, have attempted to address your argumentative POV concerns, in the latest edit. (The 2nd Amendment article goes more into just the 2nd Amendment; this section, in the US Constitution, addresses more the interactions of the Amendments at the Constitutional level, and the ramification of whether or not incorporation of the 2A has yet occurred.) Yaf 06:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The deletions I have made make the section dealing with the Second Amendment consistent (in length and style) with the sections dealing with the other amendments in the bill of rights. That is not vandalism, it is an improvement of the article. There is no reason why the relationship of the Second Amendment to other parts of the constitution cannot be dealt with in the separate article on the Second Amendment. The small edit you did on one phase did not even come close to removing the objectionable POV problems with the removed sections. Even if you fixed all of the objectionable parts, it would still not be appropritate for inclusion in this article. Put it in the separate article. Here is the removed section, with the objectionable POV parts in capitalized letters.

Current case law, including the few U.S. Supreme Court decisions, tends to assert that the "right of the people to keep and bear Arms" is an individual right but not an absolute right, and that the states and federal government may omit certain classes of people from the general-public sense of the "militia" for cause, such as criminal record, youth or senility, or mental incapacity, and may limit the types of weapons to which the right applies. The Supreme Court first examined the Second Amendment in United States v. Cruikshank (1875), ruling that the right to keep and bear arms, being recognized but not created by the Second Amendment, is not conditional on United States citizenship and thus is not one of the "privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" binding on the member States under the Fourteenth Amendment. (SUCH AN ARGUMENT HAS RARELY IF EVER BEEN APPLIED TO OTHER CLAUSES.)

As a result of the scarcity of case law, SOME WHO SEEK TO ABOLISH PRIVATE OWNERSHIP OF GUNS IN AMERICA HAVE CLAIMED that the Second Amendment is "unincorporated" and hence does not apply to the states. However, SOME SCHOLARS dispute the relevance of this claim; "The almost total incorporation of the Bill of Rights lends support to the theory that incorporation of the Second Amendment is inevitable," according to Regina McClendon of the Public Law Research Institute, in a paper published in 1994. [1] STILL, THIS, AND OTHER LEGAL RESEARCH, DOES NOT PREVENT SOME ANTI-GUN ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS FROM CONTINUING TO CLAIM THAT THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS SOMEHOW INVALID THROUGH VIRTUE OF NOT HAVING YET BEEN FULLY INCORPORATED THROUGH THE CREATION OF A SIGNIFICANT BODY OF CASE LAW AND FULL INCORPORATION INTO THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.

HOWEVER, FOR A DEEPER UNDERSTANDING, ONE MUST LOOK TO Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), before the US Supreme Court in a Fourteenth Amendment case. In the decision for this case, Justice Goldberg wrote a concurring opinion that, "While the Ninth Amendment - and indeed the entire Bill of Rights - originally concerned restrictions upon federal power, the subsequently enacted Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the States as well from abridging fundamental personal liberties. And, the Ninth Amendment, in indicating that not all such liberties are specifically mentioned in the first eight amendments, is surely relevant in showing the existence of other fundamental personal rights, now protected from state, as well as federal, infringement." HENCE THE STATES ARE PROHIBITED FROM ABRIDGING PERSONAL LIBERTIES AS WELL AS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT RELATIVE TO THE SECOND AMENDMENT, BEING THAT THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS PART OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS. [2]

Then edit per your concerns, don't just delete an entire section, arrived at through consensus over many months among editors. Have reverted deletion en masse. Yaf 13:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I have been and will continue to edit per my concerns. My concerns are twofold, first that the section contains extensive POV commentary, and second that it is far too detailed and lengthy for this particular article. There is not consensus regariding the material I have been removing, as I am not first or only person who has removed it. Subject to the three reversion rule, which you will eventually get caught by if you are not careful, I intend to continue to remove the objectionable material. Wikipedia guidelines call for this dispute to be resolved through talk if at all possible, or through dispute resolution mechanisms if talk does not work. So far, you have not had any principled or reasonable response to my point that there is extensive POV material, or that there is another article which is more appropriate for the material which is being deleted. If you are not willing to talk about these issues, I will invoke another dispute resolutuion mechanism. Kmorford 18:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I actually agree with this reasoning. The 2nd amendment portion is unproportionally long and detailed for this article. An extensive discussion should be in included in the 2nd amendment article proper with a short reference to it here. sebmol 18:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Kmorford is right, this should be a short entry like every other amendment entry. Debates about the amendment belong on the amendment's own discussion page, not this page. Do not worry about Yaf's accusation that you vandalized the page. The material deleted was not "arrived at through consensus over many months among editors." It was added without any debate despite the work of many editors to produce a concise, clearly NPOV article. The entry is also wrong - many courts have ruled on the Second Amendment and they have overwhelmingly held that it is not an individual right. The Supreme Court, 1st, 3rd, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th and 11th Circuits have all held that it is not an individual right, while a 5th Circuit panel split 2-1 to hold that it is. But this also is better suited to the discussion pages, not the page on the Constitution. Also, it is simply a fact that the Second Amendment has not been incorporated. Citing one person's opinion from 12 years ago that it may soon be incorporated may be worth the discussion page, but not the main page.

[edit] Suspending the Constitution

I am curious if there's any situation where the U.S. Constitution can be suspended and the U.S. could go into another form of government to deal with an emergency. An example would be would the Constitution have been suspended if the U.S. ever was attacked by nuclear weapons during the Cold War and thus being drawn into World War III. Also, if there is was ever a terrorist attack on Washington D.C., wher the entire Congress was killed, could the Constitution be declared in abeyance. "The Handmaid's Tale" is a book that references the Constitution being suspended, but is that really true? Could it happen? -Husnock 20:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The text itself doesn't really provide for something like that. A very small number of civil rights can be suspended during wartime but the general functioning of the government as described by the constitution can't change. If there was a major disaster (e.g. a nuclear weapon hits DC without warning and eliminates most of the federal government), I would imagine that the states would conduct new elections for a new Congress, the next Person in line becomes President and appoints new Justices, Judges and Secretaries (probably recess appointments until a new Senate is elected) and a barrage of legal cases would make its way through the federal judiciary testing whether all of this was legal.

Since military command is fairly decentraliced in the US and since each state has its own national guard, a suitable military response could be engaged in even if the federal government is inoperable. The constitution gives states the right, for example, to engage in war activities if they have been invaded and no other recourse is available. Also, much more of the day-to-day "running of the country" is done on the state and local level, which would be largely unaffected by such an event.

But, to answer your question directly: no, the constitution doesn't have any provision to allow for its suspension. sebmol 20:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

That's an awesome answer. It probably should be put into the article somehow. Maybe either directly or into a new article about radical changes to the U.S. government. -Husnock 21:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Tom Clancy explored this in Executive Orders. In that book, most of the federal government is wiped out when a Japanese pilot crashes an airliner into the Capitol Building.

Jack Ryan, who was made VP just before the attack, assumes the Presidency and governs via executive orders.

Realistically speaking, it would be almost impossible to wipe out the entire federal government, largely because its never really assembled together at once. During States of the Union, for example, a member of the President's cabinet is randomly chosen to be ushered away to a secure location. I believe some members of Congress are also hidden away.

Now, if *somehow* the entire government were wiped out, the Constitution still wouldn't be suspended. I'd imagine the state governors would assume control and maintain order until emergency Congressional elections could be held. I say Congressional elections, because Presidential ones wouldn't really be needed, because whoever is chosen as the new Speaker of the House would automatically become President. After that, he or she could then just appoint a new cabinet and whamo, solid provincial government until more elections could be held, since the Congressmen elected would probably just finish out the terms of the people they replaced.--Kross^Talk 03:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fun facts about the text

I included a list of facts about the the words in the document. It is interesting to see which things were specifically contemplated. John wesley 14:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

John Wesley, I removed that list of fun facts because I did not think they were encyclopaedic in nature and thus do not belong in this article. Since you reverted it back I would like to hear what others think of this before removing them again. I do not dispute the accuracy of your data but like I said, I feel they have no place in this article.--Kalsermar 14:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I thought this was an article on the text itself. If there is already a separate article on the text then these facts should go there. John wesley 14:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC) There are some quirky stuff in the text, like the one about natural born citizens, except we will make sure that Alexander Hamilton will unambiguously qualify. John wesley 14:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

It is funny you should mention that particular one as it illustrates exactly what I mean. Saying The text allows for non-natural born citizens to become president, but because he must have been alive in 1789, he would need to be very old now hardly raises the quality of this encyclopaedic article. This is an article on the Constitution of the United States and such "facts" are not what one would expect in a serious encyclopaedia but more on a "useless facts website" of which there are plenty.--Kalsermar 15:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, do we have an article like that yet? John wesley 17:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC) Maybe then we should split off these odd facts. :) John wesley 17:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Removed list of trivia; it is non-encyclopedic and is cruft that doesn't belong anywhere in the current article. Yaf 17:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conclusion of the United States Constitution

Why was the conclusion section removed? It is part of the Constitution.

[edit] "Undemocratic Nature of the Constitution" in the Criticism section

The first criticsm from Beard contains no explanation of how the non-democratic nature of the states actually affected how the constitution was written, and the second contains no explanation of substantiation of any kind. I'm not familiar with Beard's book, but someone who is should expand on those arguments or else they should be removed or replaced. Ddye 17:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Have removed this addition, as it appears to be an historical fringe POV with no recent references. Yaf 20:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Restored the Criticism section

First, the section should be called "criticism" -- after all, that's what is there. Second, I have added a link to the book, so if you are unfamiliar with with, here is your chance to get familiar. Third, what does "recent" have to do with anything? Once upon a time there lived x and x wrote the following___________. That's what encyclopedias do: they catalogue all sorts of facts. Fourth, if this is removed, there will be nothing to expand on. Skovoroda 20:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Writers' Section

This article needs a list of the writters. I don't see this anywhere...

[edit] Text variations

I'm thinking about writing something on the variations between the various text copies of the Constitution. Or is there already an existing article on this subject? Should this subject be a section of the main article or a seperate article? Any suggestions for a title? And finally, anyone else want to join in either on the writing or with some source material? MK2 16:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Right to Overthrow?

I known this sounds stupid, but I've heard of something in either the Constitution or the Bill of Rights where if the goverment fails to provide/protect the rights of the people then they have the right to remove it from power and install a new one. I know that sounds far out, but I've heard it multiple times. Anyone know where its from?

I was just thinking earlier, the way this country is going downhill I'm surprised nobody's invoked it yet (like the current gov't would just step aside anyways). Ghostalker 03:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• There's nothing in the Constitution giving the people the right to overthrow the government. The closest thing to that is Article 5, which along with the procedure for making amendments, also outlines the procedure for calling a new convention to rewrite the Constitution. You need to have two thirds of the state legislatures call for a convention; then have the amended Constitution approved by either a three quarters vote at the Convention or by three quarters of the states. MK2 04:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

You may be thinking of New Hampshire's Constitution which includes a "Right of Revolution", however that has nothing to do with the Federal one. 68.39.174.238 03:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About the Above

Yes. I believe it is stated in the Declaration of Independence. But it is most deffinately not "far out." It is one of the most powerful statements in the whole of those documents, as important as "all men are created equal" and others. It gave us our reason for splitting off from England. And if the US ever becomes a government not of the people, we have the stated right to over throw it and create an new one in it's place. Please tell me most people know this. Nothing against you if you just didn't know... but WHO the Heck taught you???????? They didn't do a good job. :( You need to speak to them about this. (Edit: I'm sorry. I was just shocked. You sound smart, it's just that everyone should know this, especially if you're american. if you're not, forgive my out burst.)

You "believe" it is in the Declaration of Independence, or you "know"? You guys should do less wondering and more researching. Provide links that back up your accuracy; educate yourselves in the process. It's not so difficult to Google, instead of taking the sweeping step of questioning a person's education, which did nothing for the soundness of your "belief." We're all responsible for educating each other; how about that? --DavidShankBone 17:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bricker Amendment

For some time I have been working on revisions to the Bricker Amendment article. I finally posted it and have a PR at Wikipedia:Peer review/Bricker Amendment. I'd welcome comments. I know all those references may seem extravagant, but I'm hoping to get it as an FA and those voters want lots of footnotes. PedanticallySpeaking 16:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blackhole in WP Con Law Pages

As a law student, I know that there are different levels of scrutiny in reviewing violations of the Bill of Rights. I don't see these spelled out anywhere on WP. If they exist, can somebody point me to them? If they do not, this should be an article that gets created. After all, it's fundamental to every S.C. review of violations to the Bill of Rights. Unfortunately, I have my hands full at the moment. --DavidShankBone 18:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ratified by "The People" or "the States"?

This is a serious question that was directly addressed in McCulloch v. Maryland, a binding decision of the United States Supreme Court. John Marshall emphatically and unequivocally stated that the Constitution was ratified by the people, not state governments. The distinction is subtle but important. It is true that there was considerable overlap between the identities of state delegates and state legislators, but that is no argument against what follows. Please read and consider the following very carefully if you think that there is any doubt that "We the People" refers to the people assembling in their states, not the state governments acting as sovereign entities.

...the counsel for the State of Maryland have deemed it of some importance, in the construction of the constitution, to consider that instrument as not emanating from the people, but as the act of sovereign and independent states... it would be difficult to sustain this proposition. The Convention which framed the constitution was indeed elected by the state legislatures. But the instrument, when it came from their hands, was a mere proposal, without obligation, or pretentions to it. It was then reported to the then existing Congress of the United States, with a request that it might "be submitted to a convention of delegates, chosen in each state by the people thereof, under the recommendation of its legislature, for their assent and ratification." This mode of proceeding was adopted; and by the convention, by Congress, and by the state legislatures, the instrument was submitted to the people. They acted on it in the only manner in which they can act safely, effectively, and wisely, on such a subject, by assembling in convention. It is true, they assembled in their several states -- and where else should they have assembled? No political dreamer was ever wild enough to think of breaking down the lines which separate the states, and of compounding the American people into one common mass. Of consequence, when they act, they act in their states. But the measures they adopt do not, on that account, cease to be measures of the people themselves, or become the measures of state governments. From these conventions the constitution derives its whole authority. The government proceeds directly from the people; is "ordained and established" in the name of the people; and is declared to be ordained, "in order to form a more perfect union..." The assent of the states, in their sovereign capacity, is implied in calling a convention, and thus submitting that instrument to the people. But the people were at perfect liberty to accept or reject it; and their act was final. It required not the affirmance, and could not be negatived, by the state governments. The constitution, when thus adopted, was of complete obligation, and bound the State sovereignties. The government of the Union, then,... is, emphatically, and truly, a government of the people. In form and substance it emanates from them. Its powers are granted by them, and are to be exercised directly on them, and for their benefit." (emphasis added)

Argyrios 23:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wording of introduction re State Sovereignty not clear

The introduction notes "When delegates in nine states of the then thirteen states ratified the document, it marked the creation of a union of sovereign states, and a federal government to administer that union." I'm reading that, and it can mean either two things: 1) that the states were sovereign prior to the the union, or 2) that the states were sovereign prior to their union and that the Union is composed of states that retain that sovereignty.

If 1) is correct, the sentence should be reworded as "When delegates in nine states of the then thirteen sovereign states ratified the document, it marked the creation of a sovereign Union of states, and a federal government to administer that Union."

If 2) is correct, the sentence should be reworded as "When delegates in nine states of the then thirteen sovereign states ratified the document, it marked the creation of a union of states which retained their sovereignty, and a federal government to administer that union."

Based on the article body, I believe that 1) is the correct interpretation. Patiwat 20:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

No. Actually it is 3) the states were sovereign prior to the union, the Union is composed of states that retain their sovereignty, and the Union has its own sovereignty as well (albeit restricted to just the limited rights defined in the Constitution), and all other rights are retained either by the states (which remain sovereign) or by the citizens (who are also sovereign in their enumerated and unenumerated rights.) For example, it is possible to be a US Citizen and not be a Citizen of a State. Such a person would have rights to a US Passport, for example, but would not have a claim to a right reserved to a citizen of any particular state. For example, consider citizens in Puerto Rico, or in D.C.; they fall into this category. Yaf 04:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] magna whata?

I don't really know what I would write for wikipedia, but hopefully someone will pick this up. Just a little note about the U.S. Constitution being influenced greatly by the Iroquois Confederacy. There is no mention of that at all in the article that exists now, and I think it is seriously lacking because of that oversight. All in all it is a good explanation of the Constitution but if you are going to mention the Magna Carta and the Dutch, then you HAVE to include the Iroquois who had one of the world's oldest democracies and I would say greatly influenced the structure of our own.

[edit] Write a new Constitution

The population of the United States has passed 300 million souls, therefore, a new Constitution is needed to handle the large number of people. The present Constitution was written when the population included slaves and slaveowners. Fewer than four million souls existed; only 13 states existed; England was a threat; cotton was not a cash crop of importance; and so on. Things have changed and values have been re-ordered. Get busy, Congress! GhostofSuperslum 16:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not a Blog

The above comments do not relate to the article and should be deleted as vandalism, preferably by the contributor. This is not a blog. rewinn 16:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

It is related because the present Constitution is decrepit and is unsuited to addressing the needs of the people who have over-populated the present nation. George Washington did not believe in "racial integration," "same-sex marriages" and similar hot-button topics. Modern residents of the United States have accepted such things. A new Constitution would define those activities as being legal (they had been illegal in the past). Give that old Constitution the boot. GhostofSuperslum 19:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect. The article is United States Constitution, not Reasons for Changing United States Constitution. If you want to discuss a new constitution, wikipedia is not the place for it. In addition, advocacy of racism is against wikiPolicy. rewinn 22:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I did not submit any rumors, I wrote down some pertinent facts, as:

• A Slaves and slaveowners existed in 1787 when the Constitution was produced. (Over 1,000 slaveowners and over 500,000 slaves existed in 1787)
• B Fewer than four million people lived in the United States in 1787. That is a fact which has no connection to "racism" or to a "blog."
• C England was a threat; and very little cotton was being produced. The "Constitution" brought together different types of people who pledged to fight as one unit against England. Since England is no longer a threat anymore (the United States owns thousands of atomic bombs), there is no reason for the original "Constitution." The original United States no longer exists. GhostofSuperslum 13:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Repeat: Not a Blog

None of the above has anything to do with improving the article. rewinn 05:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed.

[edit] Not convinced

Saying "not a blog" is not an argument. With the publication of this book, there is very recent and serious scholarship on the subject of re-writing the Constitution. The editors here might want to take it seriously. I'm not saying that a section on this should necessarily be included, but the page would profit from the debate and I'm not hearing anything too impressive from the "not a blog" crowd. Argyrios 02:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Study wikiPolicy

"Not a blog" is shorthand for "wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a bulletin board for discussing what-ever may enter your head". None of the "New Constitution" content has anything to do with improving the article United States Constitution so it does not belong here. If you want to start an article New Constitution for the United States then that's where the discussion should be. rewinn 05:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article content

Yes, Wikipedia is not a blog. But, if there is actual discussion about re-writing the Constitution in academic, polotical, or legal circles, then I think it should be mentioned in the article, as long as it is notable. In addition to the book cited above, there is also [this one], and also Bagehot's classic criticisms in The English Constitution. The current "Criticism" section of this article is ridiculous, there is plenty of room for improvement. --JW1805 (Talk) 15:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, now you're changing the subject --- which is fine. The original "Rewrite" material in Talk:United States Constitution was polemical matter of no relevance to the article. If, however, you are suggesting updating the Criticism section of the article to incorporate contemporary crticism, there is no problem with that ... except it should reflect relevant scholarship, of which little or none has been cited so far. In particular:

• The Lazare work in User talk:JW1805 is not by a constitutional scholar or even a lawyer, but a freelance journalist who writes about race, drugs, and urban policy.
• The English Constitution is about the English constitution
• Someone upthread referenced a book crticizing the constituion but nothing in that article referred to a re-writing; at most, an amending AFAIK. It's a valid concept but, again, this talk page is not the place for polemical discussion as to the advisability even of amendments; Talk is about the Article. Is that a difficult concept? rewinn 20:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not advocating polemical discussion (I didn't see the original material and am not advocating it be put back, I just jumped into this discussion with my own 2 cents). If people are criticizing the Constitution then it should be mentioned in the article (as long as they are notable, as I said). I have never read the Lazare or Levinson books, and don't know if they are notable or not. (The link I provided was a quite negative review). I have read Bagehot, and it does contains lots of material on the US Constituion, specifically comparing it to the English unwritten one, which he believes is much more flexable and far superior (citing the post-Civil War government chaos as example). (From a blurb I saw on the Lazare book, it looks like he basically has a similar argument, but I haven't read it). Bagehot certainly is notable, and influenced Woodrow Wilson, who at one point suggested that the US should adopt a Parliamentary system. It is certainly reasonable that stuff like this could go in the article. --JW1805 (Talk) 01:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

"Someone upthread" was me. From the link I posted:

"Sanford Levinson is the most imaginative, innovative and provocative constitutional scholar of our time,” said attorney Walter Dellinger, the Douglas B. Maggs Professor of Law at Duke University and former acting solicitor general of the United States. “His new sharp critique of the Constitution makes for bracing reading and forces us to confront what we really think of the Constitution. Every American needs to read this book and see if he or she agrees with Levinson that it is necessary to abandon the Framer's work and adopt a fundamentally new system of government. This work cannot be ignored,” said Dellinger, who is also head of the Appellate Practice at O'Melveny & Myers.

The book is written by a greatly respected legal scholar and does in fact propose that we need to write a completely new constitution. Reporting on this scholarship in the criticism section may be appropriate. Argyrios 21:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Legality section --very poor quality

The legality section is offbeat and poor quality. For example, it never mentions that the Continental Congress unanimously voted to send it to the states for ratification and specified how it was to be ratified. The section is meaningless and misleading and has to be dropped. Rjensen 18:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree it was nonsense as written -- I am surprised that I never noticed it. The argument bears a striking resemblance to some tax protester theories, so it may be notable from that vantagepoint. The whole section seems undue weight to a peripheral issue.

I recall that some antifederalists argued at the time that the method of conventions was improper. I am probably remembering this from Catherine Drinker Bowen, whom I recall you dislike as a source, but if we can find a solid source, that is most certainly relevant. Robert A.West (Talk) 18:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Just a thought, although I don't know this to be true or not. But would it make sense if many members of the Continental Congress were also constitutional convention delegates? Does anyone know if this was the case? If it was, then of course the Congress would send the Constitution to the states. (Not that I agree with the claims in the legality section, but if there's much truth to it, maybe it should be included.) Vbdrummer0 19:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Morris Forging the Union (1987) p 299 says the Philadelphia convention sent the document to Congress (which met in New York), and that 1/3 of Congressmen had been at Philadelphia, including Madison. Congress bought Madison's argument and on Sept 28 1787 unanimously sent the new Constitution to the states with rules on how they could vote it up or down. All the states voted for it, and Morris' detailed discussion (pp 299-322) of the debates does not say anyone in the ratifying conventions complained about "illegality." The section of the Wiki article makes no mention of what "scholar" raised this issue. I think Robert A West is right in suggesting this argument was cooked up by "some tax protester theories" Rjensen 20:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Per our article History_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Ratification

The need for only nine states was a controversial decision at the time, since the Articles of Confederation could only be amended by unanimous vote of all the states.

There is no footnote, but this conforms to what I recall: there was grumbling and posturing by some opponents when they didn't get a chance to hold up the measure procedurally in state legislatures. They then showed up at the conventions and no prominent contemporary seems to have questioned the legality of the result. The whole transition was amazingly orderly. Obviously, my recollection is not a source, but I think it firm enough to lend my support to RJensen's deletion. The ratification process could be a whole main article in and of itself. Robert A.West (Talk) 21:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] San Marino? Not

"San Marino does not have an official Constitution as such." according to Fragmentation and the International Relations of Micro-states: self-determination and statehood by Jorri C. Duursma (1996) Page 211. (What happened in 1600 was an Italian Duke sent a chief executive to run the country; there was no written constitution. Of course England has an even older "unwritten constitution". See [6] and [7] Rjensen 00:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Missing sections

What is this, in 5 years time there is still two articles(6 and 7) missing of the presentation. How could this article been given FA status? Lord Metroid 15:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

they where there until a couple of weeks ago, according to page history. I replaced the missing sections. Dullfig 20:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)