Talk:Popular sovereignty

message: I have made some changes:
*I changed the name of the section on the United States to 'Popular sovereignty in the United States', and moved most of the information that was provided there to a new article by the same name.
*I removed the second paragraph from the lead and pasted in on the talk page of the new article so that it can be incorporated into the main text there.
I will expand the general base of this article when I get a chance, but I have some other projects on Wikipedia that I am giving priority. If someone else is able to get started now, though, please do! By the way, it's SJL, not "JSL". ;) –  SJL 04:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ) love satan  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.96.164.190 (talk) 16:42, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Update

message: This article certainly muddies up the concepts of consentof the governed and popular sovereignty. Even more unbelievably, Locke is mentioned, who never wrote of Popular Sovereignty, yet Abraham Lincoln, who wrote\spoke extensively on the subject, is omitted. I find it highly unlikely that this oversight is accidental.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.15.167.185 (talk) 02:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: ) love satan  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.96.164.190 (talk) 16:42, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: <nowiki>= End Cynical Patriot discussion =</nowiki>

message: I added the NPOV tag because of this sentence: "Popular sovereignty expresses a concept and does not necessarily reflect or describe a political reality."
There was a reference cited, but the sentence is an opinion, and a reference does not help to legitimize it, since it is not a fact. For the person who added that sentence or any person who wishes to defend it, *in what way* does it not reflect or describe a political reality? That seems nonsensical to me. Please explain. It won't make sense to most people, and it doesn't seem coherent enough to be included in the opening paragraph of the article. 66.69.194.16 (talk) 22:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it does. That is EXACTLY how citations work. Now maybe it wasn't a good citation because you're right it should expand on why the writer holds that opinion and the source should be reliable and hopefully the writer notable in st least this topic. But "opinion" is not the problem here 47.44.49.171 (talk) 05:36, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality

message: I don't agree with the merge from consent of the governed. Consent of the governed, if unanimity is required, can refer to individual sovereignty. The U.S. Declaration of Independence was somewhat ambiguous on that point. Tisane (talk) 00:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge from [[consent of the governed]] 

message: I`ve made a few changes on that section, but I think other changes are needed. First, there`s no sense in calling the section "history" if the subsequent sections are also about history. I would propose changing the title to "Origins". Secondly, i don`t think the mention of Robert the Bruce is relevant at all. The power of noblemen over a king is not exceptional during the middle ages. The holy roman emperors and the polish-lithuanian commonwealth come to mind, but this is all really just derivatives from the traditional germanic relation between a war leader/king and his war officials/noblemen. Popular sovereignty is not about aristocracy vs. monarchy disputes. In fact, the magna carta would be a better introduction to the transition between nobles` rights and peoples` rights.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marco.natalino (talk • contribs) 08:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  history and social contract 

message: Currently the article states "The American Revolution marked a departure in the concept of popular sovereignty as it had been discussed and employed in the European historical context".
However it is called the American Revolution because it was thought to be a revolution (in the old English sense as used before the French revolution), and little is new under the sun. The English Commonwealth vested its sovereignty in the people and then proceeded to ignore them! (see s:Act declaring England to be a Commonwealth May 19, 1649) 
So perhaps the sentence in this article needs to be rewritten as it is misleading to ignore the Interregnum. -- PBS (talk) 15:40, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: "and then proceeded to ignore them!" --yes, that is exactly what did NOT happen in the USA. all the American states held regular popular elections. Rjensen (talk) 05:15, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[English Commonwealth]] 

message: Fundamental Liberties Interests 2604:2D80:D10B:BD00:1964:7201:D8A9:B8FC (talk) 01:52, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parental fundamental liberties