Talk:Constitution of the United States/Archive 2

message: 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)
thread_title: How many words?

message: 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)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of Template:United States Constitution ratification vote 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Who's this 141.156.208.66 guy?!

message: 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)
thread_title:  Where is John Hancock? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Yes, do we have an article like that yet? John wesley 17:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title: Fun facts about the text

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Undemocratic Nature of the Constitution" in the Criticism section 

message: 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)
thread_title: Restored the Criticism section

message: 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)
thread_title:  Text variations 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Right to Overthrow? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  About the Above  

message: 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/archive1.  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)
thread_title: Bricker Amendment

message: 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)
thread_title: Blackhole in WP Con Law Pages

message: 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)
thread_title:  Ratified by "The People" or "the States"? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Wording of introduction re State Sovereignty not clear 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Not a Blog

message: None of the above has anything to do with improving the article. rewinn 05:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Repeat: Not a Blog

message: 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)
thread_title: Not convinced

message: "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)
thread_title: Study wikiPolicy

message: "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  and   Rjensen 00:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  San Marino? Not 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Missing sections

message: Seems interesting that we have a Criticism section and no Praise section.  Nevertheless it's disturbing that the limited content in this section should include the thoughts of a man who thinks the Founders were profoundly ignorant of the future when they drafted the document.   --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 12:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism vs Praise

message: Though the images of the original document are quaint, why not present the entire document's TEXT with hyperlinks to specific Articles' pages?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.7.4.102 (talk) 14:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What you are looking for is on Wikisource.  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.  --R'n'B (call me Russ) 18:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is the complete text of the document ABSENT from this page and replaced almost entirely with interpretive explanation? 

message: {{tn|The article now reads: "The Constitution defines the three main branches of government: a legislature, the bicameral Congress; an executive branch led by the President; and a judicial branch headed by the Supreme Court." I propose to change this sentence to read: "The Constitution defines the three branches of the national government ..." The word "main" implies, wrongly, that there are other branches of government. There is a scholarly debate about the relationship between the administrative agencies and the executive, but I think there is no question the agencies are within the executive branch. The addition of the word "national" is a nod to our federal system: the state governments exist independently of the Constitution and are not defined by it, except to the extent the Constitution guarantees each state a republican form of government. Tfolkman (talk) 19:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: sounds ok Tedickey (talk) 20:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Branches of Government 

message: :*From the comments page. Moved in order to be made visible and to keep the Table of Contents Consistent. Adavis444 (talk) 11:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, it is C-class now. What a fall! Adavis444 (talk) 02:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Article is already a featured article

message: I have revised the discussion of the Preamble. The prior version made unsourced assertions about the relationship of the preamble to the powers of the federal government and the retained powers of the people and the states. In fact, the preamble is, on its face, silent about those issues. The discussion in McCulloch v. Maryland, which I reference, is a good authoritative explanation of what seems to me to be the key point of the preamble, namely, that the Constitution emanates from "We, the People," not "We, the states." Tfolkman 17:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Preamble 

message: It's de facto ignored.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.56.159.213 (talk) 03:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should be noted, it's not the supreme law of the land. 

message: This article is one of a small number (about 100) selected for the first week of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue   are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.
The following request appears on that page:
However with only a few hours to go, comments have only been made on two of the pages.  
Please update the Queue page as appropriate.
Note that I am not involved in this project any more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially.
Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 20:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Pending changes

message: "Today, this provision is sometimes taken for granted, especially by citizens who live near state borders; but in the days of the Articles of Confederation, crossing state lines was often a much more arduous and costly process."
Not only is the preceding someone's opinion, it is also false. It is simply that these hypothetical persons may be unaware of the article's existence or meaning. "Taken for granted", in my opinion, carries a connotation of awareness and apathy, whereas this is not the case. I cannot speak to the facts about inter-state travel in a historical context, and therefore consider it simply unsourced. 
Aside from my personal opinion, the sentence also breaks the scholarly flow of overall paragraph by attempting to provide current and historical context. I ask that the sentence be removed, or someone else's opinion on the matter.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fanman904 (talk • contribs) 06:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article IV 

message: The "Criticism of the Constitution" section features one essentially non-partisan criticism (Sabato's recommendations regarding primary elections) and three that are discernibly left wing in their implications and arguments.  If this section is to remain, it should be either: 1) balanced with other criticisms (e.g., criticisms of the broad use of the Commerce Clause as a catch-all for the expansion of federal power; criticisms of over-broad judicial and congressional interpretations of the "enumerated powers" clause by invocation of the "necessary and proper" clause; etc.) that usually emanate from the political right; 2) edited for removal of any criticisms that express a discernible political ideology, left or right; 3) relocated to a separate article where the issue of constitutional critics and criticisms can be discussed in greater detail and with opportunities for criticisms from all political angles to be included; 4) or removed altogether.  As currently written, it violates the Wikipedia "neutral point of view" principle. ~~Michael Higginbotham~~  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.106.227.213 (talk) 04:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have any specific, notable criticisms in mind, for example respected historians and/or political scientists who have such criticisms?  The ones in the article seem quite neutral to me.  I wouldn't find the arguement, for example, against the electoral college to be particularly left wing.  Its been levied by many people throughout history.  Perhaps you could present some sources for people to review from respected political scientists, if you have some ideas of what to add to the article.  All articles, even this one, could benefit from improvement. --Jayron32 04:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Criticism of the Constitution" Section 

message: This article stinks. There is no mentioning whatsoever of the Engrosser/Penman of the U.S. Constitution, Jacob Shallus whose coopy is on display in the National Archives.Yoganate79 (talk) 22:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Jacob Shallus

message: The section on un-ratified amendments states regarding the Corwin Amendment states 
"The Corwin Amendment, proposed by the 36th Congress  on March 2, 1861, would have forbidden any attempt to subsequently amend the Constitution to empower the federal government to "abolish or interfere" with the "domestic institutions" of the states (a delicate way of referring to slavery). It was ratified by only Ohio and Maryland lawmakers before the outbreak of the Civil War. Illinois  lawmakers—sitting as a state constitutional convention at the time—likewise approved it, but that action is of questionable validity. The proposed amendment contains no expiration date for ratification and may yet be ratified. However, adoption of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments after the Civil War likely means that the amendment would be ineffective if adopted."
The statement that the adoption of the 13th,14th and 15th amendments would render the Corwin amendment ineffective if adopted is incorrect. This should be in the least changed to state that it would be ineffective for its originally intended primary purpose, in other words,it would NOT preserve the institution of slavery. Its should also be worded in such a way as to avoid the assumption that its only purpose was to preserve slavery. It should be safe to go with the assumption that most scholars have made that it was primarily intended to preserve slavery,but while slavery was a major factor in the civil war there were other issues of "states rights" that were involved as well and presumably the Corwin amendment may well have been intended to additionally affect those,otherwise why mention state institutions at all rather than saying only that slavery was to be preserved. The Corwin amendment states "No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State." There are many other domestic institutions other than slavery which the Corwin amendment might apply. A constitutional amendment banning gay marriage might well fall under its effect as might the 17th amendment if it were successfully argued that the selection of a states representatives were a domestic institution, and the 26th amendment which makes the voting age universally 18,as state voting laws,so long as they are in compliance with all other applicable parts of the constituion are widely held to be up to each individual state,and thus a domestic institution and perhaps even the 19th amendment for similar reasons.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.27.219.185 (talk) 10:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ratification of the Corwin Amendment 

message: pls delete hanging fragment ", an assistane clerk of the Pennsylvania State Asembly," from the first graph of the "History" section
John R. in Alaska 03:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done for now: I cannot find the text you a referring to. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 05:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I'd already removed it. It was stray text from this edit. I reverted the whole edit, as the information added it really too much detail on tangental information. It probab ly could be included in the text somewhere, but as of now, there appears to no appropriate section. Also, the section on translations seems a bit pointless, so I think we could do without that too. - BilCat (talk) 05:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from 216.137.223.222, 27 September 2010 

message: The link to the Wikisource full text is far down the page and rather hard to find.  I'd like to suggest that a full-text link should be prominently displayed near the top of the article.  This page is very well done - kudos to the editors. Robert Hiller (talk) 06:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to full text made more prominent 

message: The preamble is not an article, so the current title has appeal, but it's incorrect. And that error leads the editors to omit a part of the Constitution itself (since it's not an Article per se). The part incorrectly omitted by this article is the dating sentence, which on the original is in large script similar to that which titles the Articles, and is therefore nothing like the textual corrections which appear to it's left. These improvements and additions are recommended (but I'm too new to this to make these changes myself on such an important article, so instead of putting this in the article, I'm just making this recommendation):
2 Sections of the Constitution
...
2.9 Dating: Done in 1787
Done in convention by the unanimous consent of the states present the seventeenth day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven and of the independence of the United States of America the twelfth. In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,
[After the above, then a separate decision could be made as to whether to add:]
2.10 Names Subscribed: G. Washington, &c.
G. Washington 	- Presidt. and deputy from Virginia
New Hampshire: 	John Langdon, Nicholas Gilman
Massachusetts: 	Nathaniel Gorham, Rufus King
Connecticut: 	Wm. Saml. Johnson, Roger Sherman
New York: 	Alexander Hamilton
New Jersey: 	Wil. Livingston, David Brearly, Wm. Paterson, Jona. Dayton
Pennsylvania: 	B. Franklin, Thomas Mifflin, Robt. Morris, Geo. Clymer, Thos. FitzSimons, Jared Ingersoll, James Wilson, Gouv Morris
Delaware: 	Geo. Read, Gunning Bedford jr, John Dickinson, Richard Bassett, Jaco. Broom
Maryland: 	James McHenry, Dan of St Thos. Jenifer, Danl Carroll
Virginia: 	John Blair, James Madison Jr.
North Carolina: 	Wm. Blount, Richd. Dobbs Spaight, Hu Williamson
South Carolina: 	J. Rutledge, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, Charles Pinckney, Pierce Butler
Georgia: 	William Few, Abr Baldwin  —Preceding unsigned comment added by BobEnyart (talk • contribs) 16:41, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename: Articles of the... to Sections of the Constitution and add 2.9