Talk:Constitution of the United States/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Semi-protected edit request on 31 August 2014

I recently viewed at least 5 accounts of Religious notations, God and "In God We Trust" being stated on this Factual account of the United States Constitution as true and factual accounts and quotes from the founding fathers who wrote and signed it. Those have all been removed, might I ask why? It is not opinion, when stating fact, why remove it? I would like to see the facts put back in place about the fact that our country was founded Under God by a bunch of Christians. I do not want this due to any other reason than to keep the facts in place. I do not subscribe to any one religion, but facts are facts and should remain in place for historical factual accounting. I have collected data and facts from Presidential quotes available at .gov and other reputable websites and would like some of them placed on this page since they are facts and accounts of this time, when the constitution was signed, plus continuing accounts of stating God as a part of Government belief. What are your requirements to include these facts? I would like to request a section be placed on this page to answer all queries from people now-a-days who do not have the facts straight about how the USA was founded by Christians and God fearing men. Here are some quotes that I feel should be placed in the section "Religious Men who were a part of developing and signing the constitution as well as other quotes about God and Religion by politicians in the USA".

Below are some of the thousands of quotes endorsing God in government by our Founding Fathers and others in American history. American children have prayed and read the Holy Bible in schools for 355 years (1607 – 1962), Congress recommended Bibles for America and funded Christian missionaries, the third verse of our national anthem says, “And this be our motto, ‘In God is our trust”.

George Washington - First President of the United States of America

“It is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor.” - George Washington

“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable.” - George Washington

We beseech God to pardon our national and other transgressions… - George Washington, Thanksgiving Proclamation 1789

True religion affords to government its surest support. - George Washington

It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible. - George Washington (this quote is unconfirmed)

Samuel Adams - Signer of the Declaration of Independence

I … [rely] upon the merits of Jesus Christ for a pardon of all my sins. - Samuel Adams

We have this day [Fourth of July] restored the Sovereign to whom all men ought to be obedient. He reigns in Heaven, and from the rising to the setting of the sun, let His Kingdom come. - Samuel Adams

The name of the Lord (says the Scripture) is a strong tower; thither the righteous flee and are safe (Proverbs 18:10). Let us secure His favor and He will lead us through the journey of this life and at length receive us to a better. - Samuel Adams

The rights of the colonists as Christians…may be best understood by reading and carefully studying the institutes of the Great Law Giver and Head of the Christian Church, which are to be found clearly written and promulgated in the New Testament. - Samuel Adams

United States Congressional Endorsement of the Bible and God

Congress printed a Bible for America and said:

“The United States in Congress assembled … recommend this edition of the Bible to the inhabitants of the United States … a neat edition of the Holy Scriptures for the use of schools.” - United States Congress 1782

Congress passed this resolution:

“The Congress of the United States recommends and approves the Holy Bible for use in all schools.” - United States Congress 1782

By Law the United States Congress adds to US coinage:

“In God We Trust” - United States Congress 1864

John Adams -President of the United States of America, First Vice President, Signer of the Declaration of Independence, Signer of the Bill of Rights, and Signer of First Amendment

The Declaration of Independence laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity. - John Adams

The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God. - John Adams

The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected, in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity. - John Adams

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. - John Adams

I have examined all religions, and the result is that the Bible is the best book in the world. - John Adams

The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity and humanity. - John Adams

[The Fourth of July] ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. - John Adams

As the safety and prosperity of nations ultimately and essentially depend on the protection and the blessing of Almighty God, and the national acknowledgment of this truth is not only an indispensable duty which the people owe to Him. - John Adams

Patrick Henry - Early America Leader

There is a book [the Bible] worth all the other books ever printed. - Patrick Henry

John Jay - First Chief-Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court

Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is their duty – as well as privilege and interest – of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers. - John Jay

The Bible is the best of all books, for it is the word of God and teaches us the way to be happy in this world and in the next. Continue therefore to read it and to regulate your life by its precepts. - John Jay

John Hancock – Signer of the Declaration of Independence

…that all may bow to the scepter of our Lord Jesus Christ and that the whole Earth may be filled with his glory. - John Hancock, as Governor of Massachusetts 1791

Benjamin Franklin

“Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.” - Benjamin Franklin

Thomas Jeferson – President

God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever. - Thomas Jefferson, Jefferson Memorial

The Christian religion is the best religion that has ever been given to man - Thomas Jefferson, Jefferson Memorial

Daniel Webster – Early American Politician

Education is useless without the Bible. - Daniel Webster

Noah Webster - “Schoolmaster of the Republic”

Education is useless without the Bible. The Bible was America’s basic text book in all fields. God’s Word, contained in the Bible, has furnished all necessary rules to direct our conduct. - Noah Webster

In my view, the Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government ought to be instructed … No truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people. - Noah Webster, Preface Noah Webster Dictionary, 1828

Joseph Story – Supreme Court Justice

“I verily believe Christianity necessary to the support of civil society. One of the beautiful boasts of our municipal jurisprudence is that Christianity is a part of the Common Law … There never has been a period in which the Common Law did not recognize Christianity as lying its foundations.” - Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, Harvard Speech, 1829

United States of America National Anthem - Francis Scott Key

“And this be our motto, ‘In God is our trust’” - USA National Anthem, Third Verse

USA Constitution – First Amendment

“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…” - US Constitution, Before signature text declaring our Christian Nation

Note: “Year of our Lord” means Jesus Christ is Lord of the USA. (Founding fathers didn’t use year of the Lord)

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion Christian denomination, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” - US Constitution, First Amendment (Christian religious freedom brackets added)

Andrew Jackson – President of the United States of America

“The Bible is the rock on which our Republic rests.”

- Andrew Jackson

Abraham Lincoln – President of the United States of America

In regards to this great Book [the Bible], I have but to say it is the best gift God has given to man. All the good the Savior gave to the world was communicated through this Book. But for it we could not know right from wrong. All things most desirable for man’s welfare, here and hereafter, are found portrayed in it. - Abraham Lincoln

I am busily engaged in study of the Bible. - Abraham Lincoln

This nation under God - Abraham Lincoln, Gettysburg Address and inscribed on Lincoln Memorial

And whereas it is the duty of nations as well as of men, to own their dependence upon the overruling power of God … and to recognize the sublime truth, announced in the Holy Scriptures and proven by all history, that those nations only are blessed whose God is the Lord. - Abraham Lincoln

Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh. (Matthew 18:7) - Abraham Lincoln, Lincoln Memorial

We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution. - Abraham Lincoln, Lincoln Memorial

Whereas, the Senate of the United States, devoutly recognizing the Supreme Authority and just Government of Almighty God, in all the affairs of men and of nations, has, by a resolution, requested the President to designate and set apart a day for National prayer and humiliation… - Abraham Lincoln

“Intelligence, patriotism, Christianity, and a firm reliance on Him who has never yet forsaken this favored land, are still competent to adjust in the best way all our present difficulties.” - Abraham Lincoln, President, March 4, 1861 inaugural address

United States Supreme Court

“This is a Christian nation” - United States Supreme Court Decision in Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 1892

“Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian…This is a Christian nation” - United States Supreme Court Decision in Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 1892

Washington Monument

Holiness to the Lord (Exodus 28:26, 30:30, Isaiah 23:18, Zechariah 14:20) - Washington Monument

Search the Scriptures (John 5:39) - Washington Monument

The memory of the just is blessed (Proverbs 10:7) - Washington Monument

May Heaven to this Union continue its beneficence - Washington Monument

In God We Trust - Washington Monument

“Praise be to God” (engraved on the monument’s capstone in Latin as “Laus Deo”) - Washington Monument

James Madison – A Primary Author of the Constitution of the United States of America

“We have staked the whole future of our new nation, not upon the power of government; far from it. We have staked the future of all our political constitutions upon the capacity of each of ourselves to govern ourselves according to the moral principles of the Ten Commandments.” - James Madison

“Religion is the basis and foundation of Government” - James Madison

“Cursed be all that learning that is contrary to the cross of Christ.” - James Madison

Northwest Ordinance - July 13, 1787

Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged. - Northwest Ordinance, Article 3

Original Harvard University Student Handbook 1636

Let every student be plainly instructed and earnestly pressed to consider well: the main end of his life and studies is “to know God and Jesus Christ, which is eternal life” (John 17.3), and therefore to lay Christ in the bottom, as the only foundation of all sound knowledge and learning. And seeing the Lord only giveth wisdom, let everyone seriously set himself by prayer in secret to seek it of Him (Prov. 2.3). - Original Harvard University Student Handbook

William McGuffy – author of McGuffy Reader, which was used for over 100 years in American schools as the primary textbook

The Christian religion is the religion of our country. From it are derived our nation, on the character of God, on the great moral Governor of the universe. On its doctrines are founded the peculiarities of our free Institutions. From no source has this author drawn more conspicuously than from the sacred Scriptures. From all these extracts from the Bible, I make no apology. - William McGuffy, author of McGuffy Reader

Congress – First Prayer in Congress

O LORD, OUR HEAVENLY FATHER, high and mighty King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, who dost from Thy throne behold all the dwellers on earth, and reignest with power supreme and uncontrolled over all the kingdoms, empires and governments; look down in mercy we beseech Thee, on these American States, who have fled to Thee from the rod of the oppressor, and thrown themselves on Thy gracious protection, desiring henceforth to be dependent only on Thee; to Thee they have appealed for the righteousness of their cause; to Thee do they now look up for that countenance and support which Thou alone canst give; take them, therefore, Heavenly Father, under Thy nurturing care; give them wisdom in council and valor in the field; defeat the malicious design of our cruel adversaries; convince them of the unrighteousness of their cause; and if they persist in their sanguinary purpose, O let the voice of Thy own unerring justice, sounding in their hearts, constrain them to drop the weapons of war from their unnerved hands in the day of battle! Be Thou present, O God of wisdom, and direct the counsels of this honorable assembly; enable them to settle things on the best and surest foundation, that the scene of blood may be speedily closed, that order, harmony and peace may be effectually restored, and truth and justice, religion and piety prevail and flourish among Thy people. Preserve the health of their bodies and vigor of their minds; shower down on them, and the millions they here represent, such temporal blessings as Thou seest expedient for them in this world, and crown them with everlasting glory in the world to come. All this we ask in the name and through the merits of Jesus Christ, Thy Son, Our Savior. Amen.

- First Prayer in Congress September 7, 1774, Jacob Duche, Carpenters Hall, Philadelphia

Calvin Coolidge- President of the United States of America

“The foundations of our society and our government rest so much on the teachings of the Bible that it would be difficult to support them if faith in these teachings would cease to be practically universal in our country.” - Calvin Coolidge

Harry S. Truman – President of the United States of America

“The fundamental basis of this Nation’s law was given to Moses on the Mount. The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings which we get from Exodus and St. Matthew, from Isaiah and St. Paul.” - Harry S. Truman

“This Nation was established by men who believed in God. … You will see the evidence of this deep religious faith on every hand.’ - Harry S. Truman

Dwight D. Eisenhower – President of the United States of America

“Without God there could be no American form of government, nor an American way of life. Recognition of the Supreme Being is the first, the most basic, expression of Americanism. Thus, the founding fathers of America saw it, and thus with God’s help, it will continue to be.” - Dwight D. Eisenhower

“I believe that the next half century will determine if we will advance the cause of Christian civilization or revert to the horrors of brutal paganism.” - Theodore Roosevelt, President

“This is a Christian nation.” - Harry Truman, President

“[The United States is] founded on the principles of Christianity” - Franklin D. Roosevelt, President

Ronald Reagan – President of the United States of America

Of the many influences that have shaped the United States into a distinctive nation and people, none may be said to be more fundamental and enduring than the Bible. - Ronald Reagan

Deep religious beliefs stemming from the Old and New Testaments of the Bible inspired many of the early settlers of our country, providing them with the strength, character, convictions, and faith necessary to withstand great hardship and danger in this new and rugged land. These shared beliefs helped forge a sense of common purpose among the widely dispersed colonies — a sense of community which laid the foundation for the spirit of nationhood that was to develop in later decades. - Ronald Reagan

The Bible and its teachings helped form the basis for the Founding Fathers’ abiding belief in the inalienable rights of the individual, rights which they found implicit in the Bible’s teachings of the inherent worth and dignity of each individual. This same sense of man patterned the convictions of those who framed the English system of law inherited by our own Nation, as well as the ideals set forth in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. - Ronald Reagan

For centuries the Bible’s emphasis on compassion and love for our neighbor has inspired institutional and governmental expressions of benevolent outreach such as private charity, the establishment of schools and hospitals, and the abolition of slavery. - Ronald Reagan

“The Congress of the United States, in recognition of the unique contribution of the Bible in shaping the history and character of this Nation, and so many of its citizens, has by Senate Joint Resolution 165 authorized and requested the President to designate the year 1983 as the ‘Year of the Bible.’”‘ - Ronald Reagan

Inside the Bible’s pages lie the answers to all the problems that mankind has ever known. I hope Americans will read and study the Bible. - Ronald Reagan

Is any of this addition possible for the facts to be confirmed that some politicians in history of the Constitution and USA political parties were and still are Christians. 2601:0:780:E7:ADDA:FEEC:8796:2BEC (talk) 23:54, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Based on your message it looks like you are asking for thoughts on this matter. Also, in the future please shorten your requests to a "change X to Y" format. I will also say that Wikipedia should only write about information that has already discussed by others in reliable sources. Wikipedia does not synthesize primary sources to advance a point of view. Do you have any secondary reliable sources that verify the information you would like added? Mz7 (talk) 04:28, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

The founding fathers certainly agreed that the tenets held in common by the Christian sects were the foundation of the personal virtue in society required for a successful large-scale republic. And the church structures which allowed a “priesthood of all believers” to actively participate in governance in the Calvinist traditions was certainly important in the structures of governance instituted at the founding.

Appeals to those sensibilities at the founding were requisite to persuade majorities to get anything done among the democratic branches of government. If it is the case as John Adams said, "The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity and humanity.”, it is also true that members of all religions prosper here under a tolerant regime, allowing for each, their contributions of wisdom and virtue in the civil sphere.

It is not that faith is of no importance, it is that here it is of such great importance that no man or creation of man can be allowed to interfere with individual conscience and its individual relationship with the Creator. In the modern day, that is often translated as removing any reference to any contemplated form of superior being outside the self. But it need not be so, especially in the History of the United States Constitution article, where it may be more appropriate to explore the belief and character of the founders. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:38, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Half the intro is about amendments

Seems to me the paragraph could be improved by losing half or a quarter of it. Jim.henderson (talk) 11:43, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Without changing the sense, I copy edited for conciseness, leaving all links and references in tact. The attempt is as follows:

Since the Constitution came into force in 1789, it has been amended twenty-seven times.[2] In general, the first ten amendments, known collectively as the Bill of Rights protect individual liberty and justice, and safeguard a balance between the federal government, states and the people within. The majority of the seventeen later amendments expand individual civil rights. Others address issues related to federal authority or modify government processes and procedures. Amendments to the US Constitution, unlike ones made to many constitutions world-wide, are appended to the end of the document. At seven articles and twenty-seven amendments, it is the shortest written constitution in force.[3]

This copy edit is meant only as a first draft. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:53, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Nicely done TVH. One point though; in the 2nd sentence above, I think something needs to be added to identify what (the balance of what) is being safeguarded. I'll leave the phrasing to you, but here's sort-of what I was thinking ...

...and safeguard the political power sharing arrangement between the federal government, states and the people within. OR ...and safeguard the shared sovereignty of the federal government, states and the people within. OR ...and safeguard federalism. Drdpw (talk) 19:31, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I chose "safeguard federalism" and moved Dhtwiki's sentence from the article summary into the section "Ratified Amendments" lead intro per Dhtwiki's edit summary, "replacing what seems legitimately informative, rather than mere excess verbiage, although it might not have to be in the lead", the sentence being"

Structurally, the Constitution's original text and all prior amendments remain untouched. The precedent for this practice was set in 1789, when Congress considered and proposed the first several Constitutional amendments.

Hope that answers the mail. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:59, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Splendidly. The whole world, or anyway the whole Wikipedia, ought to be like this, full of smarter people than me who take my suggestions. Jim.henderson (talk) 01:14, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Intro characterizing First Ten Amendments

The first ten amendments "preserve federalism as a balance among the federal government, states and the people within", they are not limited to restraining the federal government, especially the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, but in any case, all do not proscribe the federal government alone, "Congress shall make no law". TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:17, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

As later amendments and the Supreme Court, through the doctrine of incorporation, have extend the scope of many parts of the Bill of Rights to cover the power exercised by state and local governments, I've modified my edit from earlier today and offered citations for my choice of words. Drdpw (talk) 00:19, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

It seems POV to cherry pick sources to imply the Founders did not limit the sovereignty of the states in the Constitution or its amendments. Although I suppose it is enough to say it reflects the thinking of post-Civil War Jefferson Davis in his "Rise and Fall of the Confederate States of America". I do not think balance is being preserved, but if it is good enough for a high school curriculum, it may be good enough here. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:26, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2014

correctional messsags may remove after specifyd time it may affect wikipeedias reliability badly

Cia fbi (talk) 07:11, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Stickee (talk) 07:54, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposed US Constitution WikiProject

Hi everybody! The is currently a proposed WikiProject called WikiProject: United States Constitution, which would focus on article related to the United States constitution. If you want to support the creation of the group, visit Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/United States Constitution. Thank you! CookieMonster755 (talk) 20:49, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Influence of Iroquois Great Law of Peace

The discussion in the section United States Constitution: Influences: Native Americans regarding the relative influence of the Iroquois Great Law of Peace seems rather incomplete; it also contradicts the information given elsewhere in Great Law of Peace: Influence on the United States Constitution, and I've tagged it as such. Basically, this article treats the influence of the Iroquois Confederacy as a given, while the latter article treats this as a controversial hypothesis. I tend to think the later is likely the case, and that both sides of this argument should be given here, and that the respective sections in both articles should be brought more in line with one another. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 20:24, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's in need of fixing. No, it doesn't need more information in this already long article. Rather, less. This material should be cut to one or two sentences, lose its header, move to the top of the parent section, and be joined there by similarly brief mentions of other confederacies well known and more often discussed by colonial gentlemen of the time such as Switzerland, the Netherlands and the ancient Achaean League. Jim.henderson (talk) 22:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree. The existing verbiage could be blue lined to the following passage about quarter the size without changing the effect.

The Iroquois nations' political confederacy and democratic government under the Great Law of Peace have been credited as influences on the Articles of Confederation and the United States Constitution.[25] While John Rutledge (SC) quoted Iroquoian law to the Constitutional Convention, [28 the Iroquois experience with confederacy was both a model and a cautionary tale. Their "Grand Council" had no coercive control over the constituent members, and decentralization of authority and power frequently plagued the Six Nations.[29]

Otherwise, the section might be removed whole to the History of the United States Constitution article, along with explanation there of the influences of the republics of Switzerland, Netherlands, Venice and Achaean League. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:47, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

"the executive, consisting of the President"

Call me crazy, but I'm pretty sure the executive branch consists of more entities than just the President. Article Two does say that "the executive power shall be vested in a President", but that's still quite different from consisting of. I'd propose changing the phrasing to "headed by". 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:C421:D27F:537:E61E (talk) 19:25, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Constitutionally the president is the executive branch, but I think the wording could be changed a bit, to be less repetitive, as "consisting" gets a workout and may not be the best choice where the power is vested in a single person, or just to contrast with those branches where the power is vested jointly. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:57, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps it could read "... consisting of a President." Another possibility might be "... consisting of the office of President." Drdpw (talk)

Preamble regarding Welfare

There is no provision in the preamble providing for any form of welfare. The explicit purpose, as written, was to promote the general welfare, which is quite a different matter. "Provide for" would establish a duty to ensure every person's basic needs were met. Promote requires a reduced duty of advocating processes that could potentially enhance the welfare of an individual or group. There was never any intention by the authors of the document that the government should bankrupt the treasury to feed, cloth and house the masses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.223.246.3 (talk) 00:20, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

OK; where in this article is that misconception stated? I don't see it anywhere. Drdpw (talk) 00:53, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Summary of Article I, Section 8: To tax, borrow, pay debt and provide for the common defense and the general welfare; the US generally has paid down its debt; only in the last two wars have taxes not been raised to an appropriate level to retire it promptly at the conclusion of the conflict. In the modern era one year under Johnson, two years under Carter, six years under Clinton, national debt was retired -- what is your point? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:55, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Summary of Article I, Section 8.

I provided a summary encyclopedic style to substitute for the extended direct quote for the Article I, section 8.

To tax, borrow, pay debt and provide for the common defense and the general welfare; to regulate commerce, bankruptcies, and coin money; to provide for naturalization, standards of weights and measures, post offices and roads, and patents; to define and punish piracies and offenses against the Law of Nations, to declare war and make rules of war; to directly govern the federal district and cessions of land by the states for forts and arsenals.

TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

With the specific enumerations of powers listed under Article Two, I've reverted your edits to assist those without an understanding of the relationship between the branches to understand the nature and number of powers of the legislature as compared to the same of the executive. Should encyclopedic style be preferred it should be used throughout the article, as opposed to listed enumeration of one branch's powers and a paragraph-style enumeration of another branch's powers. Endeavor51 (talk) 01:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the specific enumerations for Article II should be rewritten. Encyclopedic style should be used throughout the article. The original document is found at a sister wiki project in full. There used to be a link. We are agreed the First Branch is Congress. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:37, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Second draft, following a summary encyclopedic style to conform with the WP Manual of Style,

Financially, Congress has the power to tax, borrow, pay debt and provide for the common defense and the general welfare; to regulate commerce, bankruptcies, and coin money. To regulate internal affairs, it has the power to regulate and govern military forces and militias, suppress insurrections and repel invasions. It is to provide for naturalization, standards of weights and measures, post offices and roads, and patents; to directly govern the federal district and cessions of land by the states for forts and arsenals. Internationally, Congress has the power to define and punish piracies and offenses against the Law of Nations, to declare war and make rules of war. The final Necessary and Proper Clause, also known as the Elastic Clause, expressly confers incidental powers upon Congress without the Articles' requirement for express delegation for each and every power. ---

Of course the Second Article summary should also follow the WP:MOS, conveying meaning in a paragraph without the use of bullets. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:32, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Summary of Article II, Section 2,3.

Following the Manual of Style MOS:LISTBULLET, a paragraph describing a summary of Article II, Sections 2 and 3:

The president is the Commander in Chief of the United States Armed Forces and state militias when they are mobilized. He makes treaties with the advice and consent of a two-thirds quorum of the Senate. To administer the federal government, he commissions all the offices of the federal government as Congress directs; he may require the opinions of its principle officers and make ”recess appointments” while Congress is not in session. The president is to see that the laws are faithfully executed, though he may grant reprieves and pardons except regarding Congressional impeachment of himself or other federal officers. The president reports to Congress on the State of the Union, and by the Recommendation Clause, recommends “necessary and expedient” national measures. He may convene and adjourn Congress under special circumstances.

Please discuss here at Talk. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:07, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Summary of Article II, section 1.

Proposal for Article II, section 1.

Article Two describes the office, qualifications and duties of the President of the United States and the Vice President. It is modified by the 12th Amendment which tacitly acknowledges political parties, and the 25th Amendment relating to office succession. The president is to receive only one compensation from the federal government only. The inaugural oath is specified to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.

Please discuss here. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:05, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Error Re Treaties

The requirement is not merely that 2/3 of the senators present ratify the treaty -- or a treaty could be ratified if only 3 of the 100 senators were present, with 2 of the 3 voting in favour.

Rather, the requirement is that 2/3 of the Senate a quorum being present must ratify a treaty for it to be valid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.162.218.153 (talk) 07:06, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Ten Years Max as President?

The Twenty-second Amendment (1951) limits an elected president to two terms in office, a total of eight years. However, it is possible for an individual to serve up to ten years as president.

I don't think the claim that ten years is the maximum that anyone can serve as president is true. Suppose a person is repeatedly elected VP and succeeds to the presidency, without ever running for president. I don't think there's any maximum that that person would run into. —Spencersoft (talk) 07:36, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Theoretically, but certainly not probably. But, to be within the bounds of the theoretically possible, that passage could be reworked, to indicate better how finishing less than 1/2 of presidential term doesn't count toward the two-term limit. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:55, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

6.2 Sixth Amendment--Miranda warning

Why is this included with the sixth amendment? Doesn't it fit more appropriately as part of the fifth amendment? 2601:18F:1:2ED:60F5:6767:5A90:FD4A (talk) 18:03, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

It derives from both amendments. Having In 1966, the Supreme Court ruled that the Fifth Amendment requires what has become known as the Miranda warning in the section on the Sixth Amendment does seem confusing. Changing to "Fifth and Sixth..." and adding a similar mention to the section on the Fifth A. seems wordy and of undue weight. The Miranda warning is discussed farther down, so that the confusing mention could be struck without completely neglecting the subject. Dhtwiki (talk) 12:36, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I've changed the language to make the mention appear less out-of-place in the section. Dhtwiki (talk) 01:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 July 2015

Establishment

When John Marshall .... The Marshall Court's landmark Barron v. Baltimore held that the Bill of Rights restricted only the federal government, and not the states.[86]

Please link 'Barron v. Baltimore' to wiki link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barron_v._Baltimore

ThePremeau (talk) 20:12, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Done Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:16, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Typo: The Articles Congress > The Continental Congress

Under Historical Context, Articles of Confederation, there appears to be a minor typo in the second to the last paragraph, fifth sentence, which begins, "The Articles Congress had "virtually ceased trying to govern".[18]" I believe it should read, "The Continental Congress had "virtually ceased trying to govern".[18]"

Intor1 (talk) 16:59, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Minor Typo in Fifth amendment paragraph

The paragraph on the fifth amendment states that it
"establishes a requirement that a trials for a major crime"
This should either be changed to
"establishes a requirement that a trial for a major crime"
or
"establishes a requirement that trials for a major crime"
2003:45:4650:4462:9941:98be:a88e:5dae (talk) 06:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

 Done Have changed sentence to make better sense. Thank you. Dhtwiki (talk) 13:23, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 August 2015

Please excise from the Preamble heading the paragraphs I've reproduced below, in which the text of the Preamble is dissected, needlessly, and made subject to a myriad of specious editorial claims that are not and will never be substantiable, no matter how many sources one tacks on after the period. The text of the Constitution is the text of the Constitution. To assume that "a more perfect union" refers back to the government under the Articles of Confederation is to take a liberty that the context doesn't allow. The phrase may be referencing England or France or the Ottoman Empire. It may be an expression of the founder's desire to create a union more perfect than all the unions that have come before and all the unions that have yet to come. Unfortunately, the Constitution doesn't explain what exactly it means by "a more perfect union" and as a result neither can we. In addition to being groundless, the analysis is riddled with nonsense terms, such as "the powers of the earth," "social contract of democratic philosophy," and "things of a general welfare." The final sentence of the second paragraph is plainly incoherent.

Ultimately, my request is that the paragraphs at issue be deleted and replaced with the text of the Preamble verbatim.

---"One people" dissolved their connection with another, and assumed among the powers of the earth, a sovereign nation-state. The scope of the Constitution is twofold. First, "to form a more perfect Union" than had previously existed in the "perpetual Union" of the Articles of Confederation. Second, to "secure the blessings of liberty", which were to be enjoyed by not only the first generation, but for all who came after, "our posterity".[27]

It is an itemized social contract of democratic philosophy. It details how the more perfect union was to be carried out between the national government and the people. The people are to be provided justice, civil peace, common defense, those things of a general welfare that they could not provide themselves, and freedom. A government of "liberty and union, now and forever", unfolds when "We" begin and establish this Constitution. ---- Stronggreaved (talk) 08:06, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

 Not done The encyclopedia is not to be a mirror of primary documents, but a narrative of sourced interpretation and understanding, in this case using the reliable scholarly publication of Mortimer J. Adler. The Founders did not refer to themselves as intellectual inheritors of the Ottoman Sultan, you have been misled by unsourced speculation. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:48, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I Concur w/TheVirginiaHistorian regarding the sentence drawn from Adler. I Also agree w/Stronggreaved regarding the "itemized social contract" paragraph. It's an incoherent paragraph that doesn't belong in this overview subsection on the preamble. It may fit elsewhere in the article, but it's extraneous and not pertinent here. I have removed the sentences. I have also added a sentence regarding the purpose of the preamble and a reference note. Drdpw (talk) 16:54, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on United States Constitution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150816050642/http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/constitution/ to http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/constitution/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080509141821/http://www.c-span.org/questions/weekly54.asp to http://www.c-span.org/questions/weekly54.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:54, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Sixteenth Amendment

The Brushaber, 240 U.S. 1 (1916), case clearly identifies that the sixteenth amendment did not create any new taxing powers at page 11

"We are of opinion, however, [240 U.S. 1, 11] that the confusion is not inherent, but rather arises from the conclusion that the 16th Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation; that is, a power to levy an income tax which, although direct, should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes."

and at page 12

"This result, instead of simplifying the situation and making clear the limitations on the taxing power, which obviously the Amendment must have been intended to accomplish, would create radical and destructive changes in our constitutional system and multiply confusion."

and at page 19

"Indeed, from another point of view, the Amendment demonstrates that no such purpose was intended, and on the contrary shows that it was drawn with the object of maintaining the limitations of the Constitution and harmonizing their operation."

The Brushaber case was written to attack the many averments to the law. The Brushaber case is not easy to follow but upon reading the above sections, no new taxing authority was created by the sixteenth amendment and the Constitution for the United States of America was not changed as the sixteenth amendment dose not identify the section or clauses that were changed where page 19 of Brushaber says "...the object of maintaining the limitations of the Constitution and harmonizing their operation". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.8.5.43 (talk) 22:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2002

65.129.64.142 (talk) 16:12, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done No request included except in comments, and they are irrelevant since this article doesn't mention the constitution of India. Also, it's 2016, not 2002. —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:18, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Introduction clarification tag

The Introduction clarification tag at "the first constitution of its kind [clarification needed tag]" has been removed with the clarification: "adopted by the people’s representatives for an expansive nation".

It is meant to distinguish the U.S. Constitution from previously written constitutions for city states, from those authored by representatives of tribal or merchant families, and from that for a state adopted by Virginia in 1776 prior to the Declaration of Independence (North Carolina, Georgia and New Hampshire had prior constitutions written contingent on resolution of the dispute with Parliament). TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:03, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Citation needed in Ratification section

In the Ratification section, there is "In every state, the Federalists proved to be more united, and only they coordinated action among different states; the Anti-Federalists were localized and did not attempt to reach out to other states.[citation needed]" This is unlikely to be found, since both Rhode Island and North Carolina had Anti-Federalsist who successfully opposed ratification until a Bill of Rights. As I remember Maier's "Ratification", newspapers circulated widely, with much reprinting of arguments at each ratification convention, so I am not sure a scholar will find a counter-claim that Anti-federalists "did not attempt to reach out to other states". TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:28, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I was unaware; no big surprise as it's a detail. Rather than expanded the discussion to correct the details in this article, better to delete the sentence, and give the question as much analysis as it deserves in History of the United States Constitution. Jim.henderson (talk) 11:43, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

 Jim.henderson (talk) 01:56, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

25th Shortest Constitution

According to the Comparative Constitutions Projects, the United States is the 25th shortest constitution in the world by word count and not the shortest. This should be fixed in the article: http://comparativeconstitutionsproject.org/ccp-rankings/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Computermichael (talk • contribs) 21:24, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

That claim has been there for over a year (Revision history search seems down), and, no, it doesn't look right, now that you've pointed it out. Perhaps some other measurement was meant, as the sentence dwells on number of articles and amendments. Or, someone substituted "shortest" for "oldest", as the sentence's wording of "in force" is reminiscent of "oldest written still in force", which is closer to being right (leaving aside Magna Carta, which is the basis of the British constitution, which is often characterized as unwritten). There's also the fact that the proximate reference for that sentence also claims oldest, not shortest. Dhtwiki (talk) 02:15, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I have removed that specific claim from the introduction and included additional text along with a better citation. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 22:33, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

We Should decide here first what to change. I think that we only need to change a few words, from "shortest" to, say, "one of the oldest". What you've put up is WP:COPYVIO, or close to it, and isn't the clearest statement. What does "the world's longest surviving written charter of government" mean when considering the Magna Carta, never mind the Constitution of Athens? Dhtwiki (talk) 01:32, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

No, there's no reason to make this a bigger deal than it is. The statement is demonstrably false, and needs to be removed. Simple. There was no need to revert my edit and add it back. Regarding changing "shortest" to, say, "one of the oldest" is unnecessary and redundant, because there's already a statement in the next paragraph, about it being "the first constitution of its kind". Given all this, I'm going to remove the inaccurate sentence, "At seven articles and twenty-seven amendments, it is the shortest written constitution in force." Drdpw (talk) 18:05, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Now 6 yrs later, can we add "Closing endorsements" under "Original frame"?

Six years ago, the section in the main article that today is labeled "Original frame" was labeled "Articles". So, in "Talk", I requested that we rename the "Articles" section, because by labeling this overview section "Articles", we then excluded a subsection for the preamble (because it wasn't an Article) and we also excluded a subsection on the closing endorsements (because they weren't an Article). Yet logically, both should be presented in this overview section. So the "Articles" section was renamed to "Original frame", and the Preamble was then added there. But now, I am asking (because I'd rather not make such a big edit myself) for a concluding subsection to be added under "Original frame", which would be labeled perhaps "Closing endorsements", to address the "done in Convention..." section of the Constitution.

And just as a reminder, here's what I wrote here in "Talk" back in 2010:

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 its 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)

Bob Enyart, Denver KGOV radio host (talk) 16:52, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done – Bob, excellent suggestion; I have added a Closing endorsement subsection to the Original frame section. Also, you might be interested to know that there is now an main space article on the Signing of the United States Constitution. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 17:28, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Drdpw, well done. Also, this is the perfect place for WP readers (including me :) to learn about the Signing of the United States Constitution article. Bob Enyart, Denver KGOV radio host (talk) 17:35, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2016

Under the Original Frame -> Preamble -> 3rd sentence "This echoes the Declaration of Independence." Please link to Declaration of Independence wiki link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence

Jon3laze (talk) 21:32, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done--JayJasper (talk) 21:38, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14th November 2016

The third paragraph of the lead contains puffery where it says "..its framers 'wisely' seperated and balanced..". I understand that this is because it was copied wholesale from the senate.gov website. For this reason, I'd like to suggest that the third paragraph either begin with "According to the United States Senate," or that the puffery itself be deleted.VineFynn (talk) 07:49, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — Andy W. (talk) 08:13, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 November 2016

Can somebody add the Start date and age template from "September 17, 1787" to {start date and age|1787|9|17} to correspond to the U.S. Constitution's foundation 173.73.227.128 (talk) 02:25, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I have added an effective date line and attached the age template to that date, which is the most important date in the infobox, even though not included until now. Appreciate your drawing my attention to this oversight. Drdpw (talk) 03:18, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Title change to '50 United States Constitution'

I suggest that the title of this article be changed to '50 United States Constitution' as this is a more accurate term and is possibly how it is referred to in financial transactions.194.61.223.53 (talk) 15:36, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

The country is typically called the "United States", not the "50 United States". What financial transactions refer to "50 United States Constitution"? And what do you mean by "possibly"? Either they do or they don't. Largoplazo (talk) 15:58, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

The full name of the United States is the "United States of America". Both are extremely common, and the current title certainly meets WP:COMMONNAME. I'm not sure this "proposal" is even in good faith, but assuming it is, it certainly is not the common name by any stretch. - BilCat (talk) 16:07, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Wut. The correct official name is in fact "Constitution of the United States" (in the same vein as "President of the United States", "Supreme Court of the United States", etc), so if any title change happens that should be it. 207.98.198.84 (talk) 04:32, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Would someone please add this as an external link

http://www.senate.gov/civics/constitution_item/constitution.htm is the official government link to a text of the US Constitution. Please, someone, add it to the bottom of this article as an external link. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.116.73.134 (talk) 20:21, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Not much profit to this, as the site denies access for me and presumably most readers. Jim.henderson (talk) 14:14, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done · 94.116.73.134, I was able to view the Senate webpage and have included it in the external link section. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 16:13, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Haudenosaunee Influences

What does this mean to everyone here? Just curious after reading the U.S. Congress bill: https://www.congress.gov/bill/100th-congress/senate-concurrent-resolution/76 216.223.90.33 (talk) 20:28, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Interesting, but this page really isn't the proper forum for such a discussion. As it says at the top, "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the United States Constitution article". Drdpw (talk) 20:45, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I understand. Basically (I am Nundayowanno-Seneca), I heard from our elders that a basic form of tribalism was incorporated by the founding fathers in that 'building of physical peace (reconciliation)' can form dialect with 'keeping of the good word (communication)' where above all, values, equity, justice, power, etc, form the 'Tribunal.' I also know that almost every single (probably every) nation on Earth has a time when hunters stopped gathering and started keeping grains and building. After reading Paul Mason's 'Post-Capitalism,' it is very important to note that the tributary of these sort of notions or concepts can seep into almost every faucet of philosophy, i.e. a) Rosa Luxembourg's concept of economics in that 'building of colonies' allows bearing and 'keeping of military' allows state to both influence transportation of energy (physics). Seems like it goes all over the place and I haven't really lloked into researching this topic so I'll leave it to ya'll! 216.223.90.33 (talk) 17:04, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

"The first constitution of its kind"

I think the phrasing "The first constitution of its kind" should be more clear. There are the Constitution of San Marino, dated october 8, 1600 and the Corsican Constitution of 1755, both predating it and unmentioned (if not - unbeknown to them or not - nationalistically ignored by most US sources). Plus, saying "of its kind" seems at best evasive language. Now I am not an expert of the US constitution, or the US in general, but is it possible to fix this unfortunate wording?--Nickanc (talk) 16:50, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Were both of those adopted by "the people's representatives"? Or by a single ruler, a body of nobles, or some other group? Though I think the connection should be clearer (my first reaction was to ask, "First constitution of what kind?"), I think that's the intended claim, that it was the first constitution adopted by "the people's representatives". Largoplazo (talk) 19:31, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Almost all republics claim to some extent to represent their people, but intending representatives as an elected body by all males over a certain age, San Marino does not qualify because between 1571 and 1906 the Grand and General Council members were chosen by co-option with some degree of freedom for the direct democratic assembly, called Arengo, so no election. However Corsica seems to qualify, the constitution was apparently adopted by a provisional assembly of the people's representives called Consulta generale di Corte (see fr:Constitution corse).--Nickanc (talk) 08:24, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Could we perhaps say "the oldest constitution adopted by the people's representatives still in force and the second in history after the corsican constitution" (not sure Corsica is that relevant to be mentioned in the opening paragraph, but listing it prevents reverting it to "the frist constitution in history" which frankly is false)?--Nickanc (talk) 08:31, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

We solve that problem with "the first constitution of its kind" with better usage and style. It is not false, but true, backed by reliable sources. Unsourced ethnocentric POV asserting that all in modern constitutional history since 1500 is derivative from the Roman Empire and its descendants is not admissible here. Its sort of like the proposition that all of western civilization is of Greek derivation, as parodied in the movie, My Great Big Fat Greek Wedding.

Scholars point to the widespread literacy in the United States and the ratification process as reported in the widely available press and discussed among the people as being a "first of its kind". That is not the same as a clique of feudal war lords proclaiming themselves masters of an Italian city state and its illiterate people without consent of the governed. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:11, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Your analysis seems to cover San Marino quite squarely, but the story of Corsica's constitution seems to be grounded in a heavily democratic context. Am I wrong? Largoplazo (talk) 13:36, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I am not here to push any POV, I was questioning. I am not an expert of Corsica, but AFAIK it is as Largoplazo says.--Nickanc (talk) 21:29, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Interesting to see some reliable sources on the subject to overthrow the existing consensus. The article should not be modified on an unsubstantiated offhanded whim. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 02:50, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

The Corsican Constitution of 1755 was drafted by politician Pasquale Paoli (1725-1807), based on Enlightenment ideals. It was ratified by the Corsican population and declared the short-lived Corsican Republic (1755-1769) to be a representative democracy. "A national parliament, or Diet, was composed of delegates elected from each district for three-year terms. Suffrage was extended to all men over the age of 25. Traditionally, women had always voted in village elections for podestà i.e. village elders, and other local officials, and it has been claimed that they also voted in national elections under the Republic."

The Corsican example apparently served as an inspiration for some American colonists. The Hearts of Oak militia in the Province of New York called themselves "the Corsicans" when formed in 1775. Members included minor American politicians and soldiers, such as Nicholas Fish, Robert Troup, and Alexander Hamilton.

Based on the article on Pasquale Paoli, he was seen as a hero in the United States. Despite the man using catchphrases such as "Either we shall be free or we shall be nothing" and "Either we shall win or we shall die (against the French), weapons in hand"

"The American Sons of Liberty movement were inspired by Paoli. Ebenezer McIntosh, a leader of the Sons of Liberty, named his son Paschal Paoli McIntosh in honor of him. In 1768, the editor of the New York Journal described Paoli as "the greatest man on earth". Several places in the United States are named after him. These include:

• Paoli, Pennsylvania, which was named after "General Paoli's Tavern" a meeting-point of the Sons of Liberty and homage to the "General of the Corsicans".
• Paoli, Indiana
• Paoli, Wisconsin
• Paoli, Oklahoma
• Paoli, Colorado"

We have sources across several articles. What I don't get is why Americans were inspired by a revolutionary politician who spend his life trying to create a free Corsican state, struggling against the perceived tyranny of the Republic of Genoa and the Kingdom of France. Paoli famously failed to accomplish his goal, and (despite irridentist attempts) Corsica never did regain its independence. Dimadick (talk) 14:33, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

This is great! Perhaps we should have it in this article that the U.S. Constitution is the "first permanent constitution of its kind", with a footnote to explain the Corsican Constitution and links to the Paoli article.

I find this unheralded factoid absolutely delightful. We just need a reliable scholarly source that also makes the connection that seems so obvious on the face of it. I have always been intrigued by the Mediterranean influences in American war making including the Civil War Zouaves and the U.S. Marine Corps officer's Mameluke sword.

The Americans who were inspired by Paoli were probably Enlightenment readers of Locke, Sidney and Milton or at least of their popularizers in the colonial press. That is of course complete speculative WP:OR on my part without sourcing the connection. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:41, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree on saying "first permanent" with a footnote. As for sources: the britannica article on Pasquale Paoli essentially covers most of what Dimadick said ( britannica), and for a source specifically on the connection there is this article by the president of a Pasquale Paoli foundation in Corsica. This very sourced article could be cited too, albeit centered on Paoli, not specifically on the connection Paoli-American Constitution. Following its footnotes it seems that as early as 1769 Paoli was very popular and the Pennsylvania Gazzette praised him to the point they wrote "that Mr. Wilkes in England; Dr. Lucas in Ireland; and Paschal Paoli in Corsica, are the three greatest Patriots in their respective Countries". Concerning French revolution, where sources are easier to find, Paoli's contribute and example was in person and very notorious, whereas for American history, he did not took part directly, but was regarded as an important source and example for the American revolution - also on the grounds that there were not many universal suffrage polities at the time - and was inspirational in some aspects more than in France, because American revolution was an independence war too, as Corsican. So not only Corsican Constitution precedes Amercan one, but inspired the American revolutionary movement. A link between actual articles of the two constitutions is perhaps possible, but I have not found anything on the matter. My guess would be that it could be extremely difficult to establish whether some statements are drawn from the Corsican constitution or directly from Enlightenment philosophy in general, but a general acknowledgement of the two movements is definitely established.--Nickanc (talk) 17:16, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Proposed introductory statement revised to: "United States Constitution is the first permanent constitution of its kind."

Note: An earlier Enlightenment Constitution was drafted by Pasquale Paoli for the Corsican Republic, which was in force from 1755 to 1769.

Citation: Ruppert,Bob. "Paoli: hero of the Sons of Liberty” in the Journal of the American Revolution, viewed May 22, 2017.

Reliable source explanation: Journal of the American Revolution reports itself as "the leading source of knowledge about the American Revolution and Founding. Appealing to scholars and enthusiasts alike, we feature meticulous, groundbreaking research and well-written narratives from scores of expert writers. Our work has been featured by the New York Times, TIME Magazine, History Channel, Discovery Channel, Smithsonian, Mental Floss, Mount Vernon, and more. Journal of the American Revolution also produces annual hardcover volumes and its own book series.” TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:55, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Judicial review; Subsequent Courts; William Howard Taft.

"Taft successfully sought the expansion of Court jurisdiction over non- states such as District of Columbia and Territories of Arizona, New Mexico, Alaska and Hawaii."

Apparently the author of the above sentence was blissfully unaware that both New Mexico and Arizona became states in 1912, nine years before W.H.Taft became Chief Justice and Thirteen years before passage of Judiciary Act of 1925.

Anyone want to comment before I remove New Mexico and Arizona from this sentence? Jonel469 (talk) 03:56, 13 June 2017 (UTC)