Talk:Constitutionalism

message: I think this article would be improved by a section or paragraph at least on Eastern Europe or other communist states, all of which had or have constitutions which certainly did not prevent governments acting arbritrarily against their own populations.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.59.159 (talk) 21:07, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Eastern Europe

message: New to this site! Little C or big C! PubliusDaughter 03:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Constitutionalism  

message: I edited the constitutionalism entry to move a July 14 change made to the article.  The paragraph that was added on the 14th, appeared to propound a prescriptive understanding of constitutionalism.  It might be better to place that paragrpah under the heading of Examples of Prescriptive Use of constitutionalism.  It would be more useful to a reader to have the general definitions of constitutionalism, as it existed before the July 14 entry.  I also sought to add to in this revised version of the entry, supplementing the explanation so as to remove any feared "ambiguity" in the statement of the general concept.  It would seems that to use as the first introductory item a rather specific (and not verified) explanation of constitutionalism might do the reader a disservice.  In any event, I think that the moved paragraph, which is now located under the Examples of Prescriptive Use of Constitutionalism, should be verified by citation to a reliable source in compliance with Wikipedia policy.  
I also took the preexisting text and broke it out into further categories -- so that descriptive uses of constitutionalism were not mixed with prescriptive uses.  As a final note, almost all the entires under the Examples of Prescriptive Uses of Constitutionalism are not verified, except for the one explaining the example of the United Kingdom.  In addition, I cut external links from the article that simply referred readers to particular views of the US Constitution because the concept of constitutionalism is much broader than the American context.  It seemed more helpful to reader to provide external links that helped them understand the concept of constitutionalism, rather than understand a particular constitution (which can easily be found in the other Wikipedia entries on constitutions or the U.S. Constitution).  Finally, I removed the category of Paleoconservatism -- while many who articulate paleoconservative views claim to have a vision of "constitutionalism" - they are not unique in making such a claim, and there is no reason to point them out in particular.  The same goes for the Minarchism category - those views may be consistent with constitutionalism, but it is not necessarily so.  Again, I did not see any need in particular to associate the Constitutionalism entry them them than with many others who have a vision of fundamental limitations on government.   Rushlite (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 04:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The changes are an improvement of the article.  While substantial editing will no doubt continue, I believe the dualist framework of prescriptive and descriptive is a helpful analytical frame on which we might encyclopedically cover the important topics in constitutional literature.N2e (talk) 12:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Adjustments Made On July 16, 2008

message: I made a number of edits more of a technical nature:
First, I struck a reference to Brazilian "Constitutionalist Revolution" that was at the top of the page.  Except for using a derivation of the term "constitutional" there is no indication in the materials cross-referenced that the revolution concerned principles of constitutionalism - ideas, attitudes, and patterns of behavior elaborating the principle that the authority of government derives from and is limited by a body of fundamental law -- rather than the movement to adopt a specific constitution.  
Second,  I restored what would today be considered a misspelling.  The article quotes historian Gordon S. Wood.  Wood was quoting various pamphlets in teh 1790s about the nature of constitutions.  The original source Wood quoted referred to the constitution as a "sett of fundamental rules."  A later editor edited the term "sett" with what is the appropriate spelling today, "set."  Because the passage is quoting the original 1790s text, I restored the word to its spelling in the 1790s and in the form presented by Wood.  
Third, in text describing the contribution of Walter Bagehot to the study of the British Constitution, I removed the word "policy" and inserted the word "polity" which is the word used by Bagehot and included in the footnote the quoted text in which it is clear that he is describing the separation of powers as a principle of the British "polity" and not as a British policy.
Fourth, in the citation to the book by Don E. Fehrenbacher, I struck out a parenthetical that "bracketed numbers [had been] added" because the bracketed numbers had been eliminated, so that there is no need for this parenthetical and it would be incorrect to leave it in.  
Fifth, in the quotation from David Fellman on constitutionalism, I changed the word "embedded" back to "imbedded."  The spelling used by Fellman, as can be confirmed by checking the link, was the later spelling and not the former.
Sixth, I changed the citation on the National Municipal League, so that it did not go to the same web page as the draft for its Model State Constitution, but rather put in a citation to the only book that provides an extensive history of the National Municipal League. 
Rushlite (talk) 21:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Technical edits on Dec 11, 2008 

message: Some legal theorists have posited that the opposite of constituionalism is called legicentrism, since it focuses on the rule of law instead of the corporate and evolving functioning of the State. One of the reasons that constitutionalism became more influential after WW2 was aparently because legicentrism made it much easier for authoritarian regimes to remain in power.   ADM (talk) 23:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Legicentrism vs. Constitutionalism

message: Much of this article has been reproduced in the book now listed at the top of the page, which also copies considerably from Bureaucracy. See Talk:Bureaucracy for more detail. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Use in book

message: I just edited the main article because I found a problem in the definition of "American Constitutionalism."  It says something about "kuta," which can't possibly be right.  I don't know how to report a problem, so I'm just trying to bring someone's attention to this false information.  Also, I don't know the actual definition, otherwise I would put it there.
Now someone seems to have fixed the error.  Thank you to whomever it was.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.13.163 (talk) 00:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kuta? 

message: This article reeks of right wing conservative fanaticism. It belongs in the dust heap of garbage. This is sickening how radical trolls are able to steal and dictate new meanings to words in order to promote their political agenda. -- Calif.DonTracy (talk) 01:35, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased article 

message: There is a sentence in the Criticisms section which begins "Constitutions are not just about retraining and limiting power". I believe "retraining" is a typo; that it should read "restraining". I would fix it myself, but here at work my IP address is blocked from editing.
Mark Hagerman (talk) 20:24, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typographical error 

message: Questioni e teorie sul costituzionalismo is an important essay on the doctrines and history of constitutionalism published by the prestigious Utet publishing house and has studied many profiles also of the crisis of contemporary constitutionalism, thanks  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.170.120.58 (talk) 22:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: What makes it important, though? Is it widely cited or read? Taught in schools? And why is it important to give readers of the English Wikipedia a pointer to an article that they almost certainly will not be able to read?- MrOllie (talk) 22:49, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly as MrOllie states above. I will be removing the link again as its significance remains unclear.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:50, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

text: Are you related to this book or its author somehow? - MrOllie (talk) 15:55, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientific clarification