Talk:Constitution of the Netherlands

message: :In practice, the election is put off until the end of a normal election term, by which time the proposed changes are usually snowed under by the political vagaries of the day.
This does not sound neutral to me.  If it's true, it would be a good idea to say something similar in a neutral fashion, by referring to specific elections in which this happened, and quoting critics expressing this sentiment. -- Beland 04:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm the author of that line. You have a good point. I have added a more factual sentence instead. – gpvos (talk) 20:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POV sentence

message: According to Netherlands copyright law, the Constitution and other government works are not protected by copyright.  The English translation could be added to Wikisource by copying the text out of the PDF, to make it more reader-friendly. -- Beland 04:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Full text

message: I rewrote this section and removed the stub-tag. I don't think an article on the Dutch constitution is the place to say much more about the Statute, apart from the legal relation between the two.--Dengo 21:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Which is quite significant since the Statute leaves a lot of things to that Constitution (Which is still therefore called the Constitution of the Kingdom of the Netherlands"). Gerard von Hebel (talk) 12:58, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Statute of the Kingdom

message: The typical terminology of the trias politica is not absent in the Dutch Constitution. The executive power is attributed to the King and the ministers (in cooperation, while the ministers are responsible for the King): article 42. The legislative power is attributed to the executive (i.e. King + ministers) and the States-General combined (article 81). Judgment in civil, administrative and criminal cases is attributed to the judiciary (articles 112 and 113). It is true that the various institutions are not explicitly created in the Constitution, but the powers are attributed to the organs of the State.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.229.158.129 (talk) 14:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The terminology as such is absent; obviously the executive and legislative powers are attributed — but they are not explicitly mentioned as such.--MWAK (talk) 20:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Absence of a preamble

message: User Tdls has changed "First Chamber" to "Senate" and "Second Chamber" to "House of Representatives". I understand this has the advantage of using concepts that are more commonly used in the English language. However, given that their denotation is unambiguous, I feel that it is superior to use the terminology of the Constitution itself, instead of some interpretation, especially if the equivalence is doubtful: is the First Chamber really a Senate?
Why "General Audit-Office", which is the normal English term, should be replaced by Court of Audit, which is a Belgian/French concept, not a Dutch one, I fail to understand.
An anonymous user has replaced "King" by "monarch"; again this is inferior, because the Constitution itself speaks of a King.--MWAK (talk) 08:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Terminology

message: As far as I understand, somebody mixed this section of the Constitution with its last temporary section. In the section "Revision of the constitution" one has to write the same that is now in the section "Amending the Constitution". --D.M. from Ukraine (talk) 15:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revision of the constitution 

message: From earlier discussions on this Talk Page I understand that this article came about mainly as a summary and translation of a Dutch academic text regarding the constitution. That's fine in and of itself, but someone really has to go through this article and review the use of language (which is rather bad, I'm sorry to say). Right now the article consists partially of "Dutch with English words" and on the whole reads like it was written for legal students.
I've made some changes already, but much more work is needed. -- BenTels (talk) 21:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of language 

message: I somewhat updated the Statute of the Kingdom section to reflect the changes within the kingdom. These (and possibly other sections) should be reviewed by someone with more knowledge about this subject to check if it's correct. Styath (talk) 20:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Dissolution of the Netherlands Antilles]] 

message: If laws can't be tested against the constitution, then how is it a constitution at all? That violates the whole principal of "fundamental law that can't be broken" if there is no system to make sure it isn't broken. 174.58.138.200 (talk) 20:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Because it describes how the laws come about. The fact that laws can't be tested against the constitution by a judge (lawmakers can and have to do it however and are sworn in on an oath to that effect). is a feature of the constitution. Many constitutions throughout the world have similar features. Mostly however to give treaties with a foreign power that right. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 13:13, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's not a real constitution, there is just no better word to translate the word grondwet. They have been trying to change this for decades but the ruling parties decided they wanted an EU constitution. Which ironically is not called a grondwet, while it technically is. 188.206.70.159 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 11:37, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  How is it a constitution? 

message: I'll flag this article for being outdated. The King is no longer involved in forming a new government, at least not to the extent that he used to be. The information from the webiste of the Dutch national government clearly contradicts the article. (http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/kabinetsformatie/formatie-nieuw-kabinet)
I have no legal expertise, so someone else will have to rewrite the article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mostlyniceties (talk • contribs) 18:10, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing in the Constitution changed. The King still appoints the ministers by Royal command. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 21:02, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs update: King no longer involved in forming government 

message: Compared with the article on the German Wikipedia, the history section is too short and awkwardly written. And how were the last changes made in 2005, when the proposed revision was rejected by the Senate? The content section smells of Original Research and seems overly long. For instance, the section on article 23 goes in on the deep end about the peculiarities of the Dutch education system, without citing any sources for its analysis. Oskkar (talk) 18:49, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  History too concise, 'content' section too long and smells of OR