Talk:Bricker Amendment

message: This article is extremely inaccurate, and paints non-interventionism as xenophobic, when non-interventionists tended to favor open borders.  The Alien and Sedition Acts have nothing to do with non-interventionism and their inclusion in this article is misleading.  Non-interventionism is based on the idea that countries can engage in private commerce and cultural activities without killing each other.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.10.161.4 (talk) 13:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is not about non-interventionism; it is about the Bricker Amendment, and distinguishes quite adequately between nationalism and non-interventionism. --Orange Mike  |  Talk 20:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Prejudice

message: Is this June 2014 case relevant to the article and worthy of a mention? See discussion at http://www.newrepublic.com/article/118059/bond-v-us-supreme-court-resists-radical-takeover-foreign-policy, and case at http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-158_6579.pdf. 
WP has an old article at Bond v. United States (2011), which is a different issue, pertaining to standing. Milkunderwood (talk) 01:40, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Carol Anne Bond v. United States'' 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Bricker Amendment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060502035633/http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/49.htm to http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/49.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070921014711/http://ftp.ibiblio.org:80/hyperwar/Dip/PaW/083.html to http://ftp.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/Dip/PaW/083.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060929173143/http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/genocide.htm to http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/genocide.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928015042/http://www.eisenhowermemorial.org/presidential-papers/first-term/documents/684.cfm to http://www.eisenhowermemorial.org/presidential-papers/first-term/documents/684.cfm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:14, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Is there value in a short section on international comparisons? Two main issues seem to be raised by this topic.
The US Constitution's provision that treaties become law of the land [generally automatically] second only to the Constitution itself, was historically very unusual and may still be relatively rare. So:
1. Self-executing treaties as a justiciable element of domestic law in the US would be an unusual situation by world standards. [The Chemical Weapons Convention in the cited Bond cases was not this- it had to have the enabling act by Congress. But other treaties have been.]
2. Treaties like the CWC, given enabling acts by Congress for foreign policy or other national purposes, would before Bond have also entered into domestic life and state jurisdiction much more than is common in most sovereign states, including federations. 
The utility of such a section in this article might be to observe that the US has historically put itself in a relatively unusual position vis a vis international law and this provides some additional context for the subject of the Bricker Amendment[s] as well as some of the relevant court cases in more recent years. Unfortunately, although equipped to raise it this far, I am not an ideal person to write such a section. Random noter (talk) 14:43, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  International comparison? 

message: As part of an effort to review old FAs, I'm checking whether this article (a 2006 FA) complies with the featured article criteria. I have several concerns about the sourcing. First of all, there are a few places where it's absent altogether. I've tagged these with "citation needed" tags; such places need citations to comply with the sourcing criterion. More importantly, though, the quality of much of the sourcing does not appear to be "high-quality" per the criteria. There are a lot of places where material is cited only to primary sources, such as court cases, statutes, or memoirs. Per WP:PRIMARY, these sources should only be used (if at all) for "straightforward, descriptive statements of fact" that are stated clearly in the primary source. There are many places in the article where that does not occur, particularly in the "Legal Background" section. Statements of analysis/evaluation, such as , are cited only to Missouri v. Holland, which does not support the statement. There are a number of places like that, so this doesn't appear to be a one-off issue. In sum, I have serious concerns about whether this article continues to meet the featured article criteria. If these issues are not addressed, the article may be taken to featured article review, where editors will consider whether to delist it. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:56, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  URFA