Talk:Constitution of the United States/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Age of the US Constitution

The age of the Constitution has not been changed in two years. Currently the article says that it is 229 years old but as of September 2018 it will be 231. Could this be edited please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.38.31.244 (talk) 14:01, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

You're thinking that the "age" of the constitution should be from the time the document was signed, but the article considers its age from when it came into effect. The template used for the date_effective infobox parameter reads {{Age|1789|03|04}}. The article consistently says the constitution "came into force in 1789". Dhtwiki (talk) 21:55, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

"The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the United States"

If you would take a look at Balzac v. Porto Rico you would see that the full United States Constitution is only applicable to the portions of the United States that have been incorporated into the Union and not the Nation as whole. Should the wording of this article be modified to reflect that? My suggestion would be to change it to the "supreme law of the incorporated United States". But, of course I'm sure others have better ideas. -- Endercase (talk) 16:28, 7 May 2018 (UTC) Does no one else have any thoughts on this? Endercase (talk) 19:47, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

We have a constitutional scholar for the reference “The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the United States.” To change that, you would want to find another scholar who says “…the supreme law of the incorporated United States”, rather than asserting your own personal interpretive authority as a point of view (WP:POV) for applying the Balzac case to the states and territories, incorporated and unincorporated. Then we might have a further discussion as to which author represents the preponderance of scholarship on the matter.

We live in a federal system, which the Supreme Court has held, does allow incorporated and unincorporated territories within the United States under the Constitution, requiring the implementation of the Constitution's "fundamental rights" everywhere. In an op-ed in the Washington Post by Eugene Volokh, August 12, 2014, the author cited a professor Suja Thomas at the University of Illinois College of Law saying a federal judge had ruled that the Seventh Amendment civil jury right is a "fundamental right" and it applies to Puerto Rico, whether as an incorporated or unincorporated territory.

Relative to jury trial, which was the subject of Balzac v. Porto Rico, federal courts for unincorporated territories require juries, and Puerto Rico requires juries for criminal trials. Puerto Rico does not necessarily require juries for civil cases. For small claims cases, neither states nor territories usually require juries. So, the short answer seems to be, the U.S. article introduction should not change its first sentence, unless you find a compelling array of scholarship to the contrary. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:10, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

why no link to text in intro

I find it astonishing beyond belief that link to the text is not in the intro this is a major fail !! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:192:4701:BE80:D178:E4E3:3ECD:B2F4 (talk) 00:16, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 May 2018

Footnote 7: "America's Founding Documents". October 30, 2015. is broken correct link is: https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs 87.183.115.206 (talk) 13:54, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done Well, it wasn't broken -- I was redirected to the correct page. Made the change for you anyway. Thanks! --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:57, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2018

Under "Legislature" and "Government Structure", instead of specifying those things, it says "{{{legislature}}}"and "{{{government structure}}}". It looks like it was meant to be a link to something, but someone forgot to provide the link and the appropriate terms.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.176.9.254 (talk) 14:31, 15 August 2018‎ (UTC)

There was an IP edit to the template without discussion. I reverted it, then fixed a typo. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:45, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 September 2018

write down the original Constitution the one in English/Spanish write down the truth!!!!!! 2606:6000:D950:2400:3899:755:F6B0:F509 (talk) 18:30, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. - BilCat (talk) 19:25, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

date effective in info box

Date effective June 21, 1788 should be March 4, 1789 that when it went into effect [1] "When did the Constitution go into effect?

The Constitution did not go into effect the moment it was signed by the delegates. It needed to be approved by the people through the ratification process. Article VII of the Constitution established the process for ratification, by simply stating that. “The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.” On June 21, 1788, New Hampshire became the ninth state to ratify; and the Confederation Congress established March 4, 1789, as the date to begin operating a new government under the Constitution." 97.127.9.115 (talk) 17:25, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

On June 21, 1788, New Hampshire became the ninth state to ratify so that is date when it went into effect עם ישראל חי (talk) 18:38, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

yet the government did not start operating under it until March 4 1789. Between June 1788 and March 1789 the country was still governed under the Articles of Confederation 97.127.9.115 (talk) 20:21, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

That is correct. Drdpw (talk) 20:37, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2019

The sixth paragraph of the section headed Influences includes the sentence "Supreme Court Justices, the ultimate interpreters of the Constitution, have cited to Montesquieu throughout the Court's history." Please can the obtrusive phrase "cited to" be amended, so that the sentence reads, "Supreme Court Justices, the ultimate interpreters of the Constitution, have cited Montesquieu throughout the Court's history." Thank you. Alternative edits include "referenced" or "referred to". 213.86.16.27 (talk) 19:21, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done – Have change "cited to" to just "cited". Dhtwiki (talk) 05:41, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! 213.86.16.27 (talk) 13:44, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Direct Link plus -Interpretations may be reasonable but direct text should proceede analaysis

Like a comment above from 2018 I find it astounding that there is no easy link - to the full document as well as no links to pages with the particular articles again in each subsection discussing such sections.

In the sections, there is certainly room to have boxes of the articles themselves preceding discussion so within this page the full document can be read. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.222.143.62 (talk) 17:11, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 8 May 2019

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved as proposed, with unanimous support. bd2412 T 03:11, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

United States Constitution → Constitution of the United States – Pretty much all big sources call the constitution “Constitution of the United States” and not “United States Constitution”; the first Google hit, National Archives, Cornell Law School, Encyclopædia Britannica and the White House term it that way. Colonestarrice (talk) 16:58, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

• Move per the above. Also, Constitution of the United States sounds more formal and fluent than United States Constitution. --Biscuit-in-Chief ^{(Talk – Contribs)} 17:19, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
• Move Per nom and Biscuit-in-Chief, "Constitution of the United States" sounds much more fluent and sources concur. Kb03 (talk) 17:48, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
• Move Per WP:COMMONNAME and per nom. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:16, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME as bove and per Google Ngrams evidence. -- Netoholic @ 02:31, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME Rjensen (talk) 02:34, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support for now, per nom and above, although I can see the strength of keeping the name for brevity, familiarity, and the awkward use of a longer name in existing sentences and links. The n-grams show a rapid closing of usage of the two names. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:43, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support. I actually prefer the current title for the sake of conciseness (WP:CONCISE), but I am forced to admit that the proposed title is much more commonly used. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:31, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support per above. --Wow (talk) 06:50, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support Common use. Dimadick (talk) 08:26, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support per common usage and the lack of any clear arguments against moving --DannyS712 (talk) 08:23, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Semi-protected edit request on 23 August 2019

Executive Shoudvbe President Donald Trump instead of just President 209.104.255.147 (talk) 19:46, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

 Not done; there's no indication that it should. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 19:51, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Constitution's 7 Articles written on 4 Pages of Parchment

The Constitution's 7 Articles written on 4 pages of parchment is important and should be added to this article. 73.85.200.207 (talk) 01:44, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Native American Influence

It's common knowledge that the Iroquois Confederacy contributed to the formation of our Constitution. Why is their no mention in the influence section of that contribution? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C50:437F:EEF3:DD73:8BCB:5350:AFB0 (talk) 20:33, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

There probably should be mention of it. However, historians debate the extent of the Iroquois influence.  Politifact has a succinct article about the controversy. Our article about the Iroquois Great Law of Peace also has a section discussing its purported influence on the U.S. Constitution. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:47, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

References

Strongly oppose. Consensus of scholars is negative--and thousands of scholars are aware of the issue. Rjensen (talk) 21:01, 17 February 2020 (UTC).

The Constitution for the United States vs The Constitution of the United States

Hi Folks!

Seems to be a little word art here. The original document created was the Constitution for the United States from what I have read. In fact, the Constitution for the United States was written before there was a federal government, so the Constitution could never be "of" the United States because the government did not create it. Anyone care to chime in? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:2C00:7D00:8D:46E3:89DA:4FC1 (talk) 21:33, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Whilst that is true, it has been overtaken by events. 200 years of common usage have enshrined the wording, "Constitution of the United States." Nevertheless the wording of the original document is of interest and I suggest that brief section be added on the title. Perhaps it could mention that the common name is the US Constitution whereas the Sunday name is Constitution of the US before explaining that the original name is actually Constitution for the US. OrewaTel (talk) 02:15, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

It's the document that literally declares the little-c constitution of the United States--what constitutes it, what it consists of: the people, the states, the parts of its government, the relationships among them, and all their respective powers. It's the document that codifies the constitution of the United States. I don't see what's puzzling about this unless you have an unusually limited understanding of the uses of the word "of". It's like saying you can't put together a documentary called "The Filming of Star Wars" because there wasn't a Star Wars until after filming was finished. Largoplazo (talk) 03:21, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Can "the Twelfth" be explained in the Closing endorsements section?

"The document is dated: 'the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord' 1787, and 'of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth.' This two-fold epoch dating serves to place the Constitution in the context of the religious traditions of Western civilization and, at the same time, links it to the regime principles proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence." So this would be the 12th year since July 4, 1776, when counting inclusively. Is that worth including? I presume many readers may not perceive the meaning of "the Twelfth". Bob Enyart, Denver KGOV radio host (talk) 03:21, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Good point but I think the current wording makes this clear. OrewaTel (talk) 02:21, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Bicameral

Bicameral has never been a part of the United States constitution and will never need to be removed Brock1216 (talk) 07:02, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

The US Constitution provides for two chambers, a Senate and a House of Representatives. "Bicameral" means "having two chambers", correctly describing the Congress as defined. What are you disagreeing with? Largoplazo (talk) 11:31, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Articles

All seven—not 7 or VII—are mentioned in the opening paragraph, and again in the table of contents, with links that also eschew both Arabic and Roman ... Anyway, is it Article Three or Article 3 or Article III? (Inquiring minds yanno.) --Brogo13 (talk) 04:30, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

In the Constitution and customary usage each article's number in the original Constitution is shown as a roman numeral (e.g., "Article V" for the Constitution's amendment procedure). That's the usage that should be used in articles referencing the Constitution's original articles. SMP0328. (talk) 17:30, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Safeguards of liberty (Amendments 1, 2, and 3)

Amendment I is about some basic freedoms. Amendment III is about a specific freedom. These are obviously amendments about liberty. Amendment II on the other hand states very clearly that it is about the security of the state. Nowhere does it say that it is about freedom or liberty. I suggest that a new section be created, "Safeguards of Security" and the second Amendment be moved to that section. I have searched but I cannot find a reliable source that supports the idea that the second Amendment is about Liberty. Even the Heller ruling did not say that. OrewaTel (talk) 02:03, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

It's the liberty to buy guns. ::shrug:: -- Beland (talk) 06:21, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Britannica link

@Goodone121: Regarding this revert: WP:LINKSTOAVOID point 1 says to avoid "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article. In other words, the site should not merely repeat information that is already or should be in the article." Any information that's in a Britannia article should also be covered in a Wikipedia article. They are both general audience encyclopedias, and the articles have the same scope. In some sense, we generally compete with Britannica rather than using it as a reference or a source for more external information. -- Beland (talk) 06:26, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2020

I have some thing to share Chad brosky (talk) 20:56, 24 September 2020 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Dylsss (talk) 21:22, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Discussion of Article III

The discussion of Article III reads like it was written by an energetic toddler who had read a law book or two. Most of its assertions are not fully true. But before I try to take a hand at restructuring and rewriting in whole by an actual legal professional, I wanted to see whether my sense of its facileness and inaccuracy was shared by any others. If I'm alone in this, I would not want to brook the apparent consensus of inaction nor incur the time and effort to indulge only myself. Citizen Sunshine (talk) 04:42, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I haven't been following revisions to this article closely for several years, but once you pointed that out, I just read that section closely right now and I concur that it's poorly written and highly inaccurate. If you want to revise it, go ahead. --Coolcaesar (talk) 05:47, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

San Marino has the oldest constitution

Just making the regular reminder on behalf of the world, that San Marino has an older constitution that the US, and that the claims in this article are American myth making. The editors who follow reality of history, are not from San Marino, nor are they biased for or against any country. 1600 is earlier than 1787 - it's that simple. The editors propagating this myth are American with American sources, based on American myth-making. They invent facts about the San Marinese constitution, such it being "uncodified". There are debates on every archive page, from editors confounded by why the San Marino constitution of 1600 are dismissed. The only real reason the San Marino constitution is dismissed is that it's not modeled on the American constitution.

(1) Talk:United_States_Constitution/Archive_1#Not_the_oldest_constitution (2005) article improved.

(2) Talk:United_States_Constitution/Archive_2#Oldest_constitution.2C_again (2006) claim that the 1600 law was not a constitution because other important laws were later added, which is irrelevant as pointed out at the time.

(3) Talk:United_States_Constitution/Archive_3#San_Marino.3F_not (2007) claim that the status of the 1600 law was was disputed, but concludes "No evidence sofar of a dispute among scholars".

(4) Talk:United States Constitution/Archive 3#Statutes of 1600 (2008) complains the then wikipedia article mentions about a dispute among scholars about San Marino without any evidence.

(5) Talk:United_States_Constitution/Archive_3#San_Marino.2FMedina editors are trying to make sense of why San Marino constitution is being dismissed or disputed. Conclusion: "By what silliness does one country's constitution be counted as 'real' or 'true' but not another?"

(6) Talk:United_States_Constitution/Archive_3#The first constitution No disagreement that San Marino is the oldest constitution.

(7) Talk:United_States_Constitution/Archive_4#The oldest constitution in the world? (2009) It is claimed that San Marino does not have a written constitution, because only parts of it are written (no references offered).

(8) Talk:United_States_Constitution/Archive_4#The oldest one? (2009) "It's only the shortest one, being the oldest the Constitution of San Marino", no further debate.

(9) Talk:United_States_Constitution/Archive_5#Oldest_constitution:_US_vs_San_Marino (2010) argument that "considering the size of the population living under it, makes San Marino rather insignificant by comparison [to the US]" (which is irrelevant)

(10) Talk:United_States_Constitution/Archive_5#Shortest and oldest constitution (2010) "I don't know about shortest, but it definitively isn't oldest.", no further debate.

(11) Talk:United_States_Constitution/Archive_6#San_Marino.27s_constitution.28s.29 (2011) argument that San Marino may not be a self-governing nation-state comparable to the United States, because Italy broadcasts there (irrelevant in 1600) and because the 1600 constitution used Italians as judges (no source provided).

(12) Talk:Constitution_of_the_United_States/Archive_8#San_Marino_has_the_oldest_constitution (2012) An edit to San Marino history "took out the words "San Marino adopted its written constitution on October 8, 1600" !!!

(13) Talk:Constitution_of_the_United_States/Archive_9#Introduction:_“oldest_written_national_constitution” (2012) "The consensus ... was to refer to the United States Constitution as "the oldest constitution of its kind"

(14) Talk:Constitution_of_the_United_States/Archive_10#"The_first_constitution_of_its_kind"" (2017) Proposed introductory statement revised to: "United States Constitution is the first permanent constitution of its kind"

The article is often pushed into neutral territory, with the compromise phrasing "oldest constitution of it's kind" achieved by past consensus. Americans dominate the editing of the page, and objective editors (including some objective American editors) should not be forced to retreat. The current RS is American Polifact[2] who say they contacted an American professor, with no awareness of San Marino's constitutional history. 1.129.109.207 (talk) 02:53, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

What's in the note should be spelled out in the lead, replacing "of its kind", weasel-wording that tells us nothing. But, is it that you believe San Marino's constitution was adopted by an elected body, or is it that you think that that isn't a significant distinction? Largoplazo (talk) 12:02, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to ignore the comment that the San Marinese constitution may have been adopted without legitimacy. Wikipedia shouldn't be written based on belief. It's an encyclopedia. My belief is unimportant. Your belief is unimportant. The belief (or myths) of the American nation should not decide the matter either, but it returns repeatedly due to the predominance of American editors who grow up reciting an oath to defend their constitution. The debate about this matter over 12 years is outlined above. Read the past editors and what they debated. The US constitution is not first, nor is it the oldest, but it is a continuing national constitution that set the standard for what a constitution should be - that is, extremely influential. MOS:WEASEL Words "may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, and the article body or the rest of the paragraph can supply attribution". Of course, there must be a vagueness about "of it's kind" because the matter should not be decided absolutely by Wikipedia, or by Americans, just as the compromise on the San Marino constitution is that it "may be the oldest". The type and features of constitution and the influence it had are detailed in the article. 1.129.108.129 (talk) 02:21, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Since you've said you were going to ignore a comment I hadn't made, then went on about my belief being unimportant when I hadn't expressed any belief, then proceeded to generally criticize and make broad observations rather than point to any one discrete thing you would like to discuss changing, you haven't really created an opportunity for discussion nor given any indication that you'll respond on point to what others say to you, and I'm going to let this go. Largoplazo (talk) 04:26, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Personal comments and feelings should have zero influence. I've answered MOS:WEASEL. The links to the previous editors debates over 12 years, and the previous consensus are more than sufficient to restore the article. 1.129.110.11 (talk) 05:06, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

This dick measuring contest of who technically has the oldest constitution is dumb. All references to it should be removed from wikipedia, including in this article. Mottezen (talk) 07:25, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Missing end quotes in the third paragraph that begins, ‘ According to the United States Senate’

There are no closing quotes nor a citation in the third paragraph that begins, ‘ According to the United States Senate: "The Constitution's first three words—We the People—affirm that the government of the United States exists to serve its citizens.’ Wilkus (talk) 12:58, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing that to our attention. However, the quotation includes the sentence after the one you quote above. The quote is closed appropriately, has a US Senate website page as its source, and the quote seems transcribed without error. Dhtwiki (talk) 14:58, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

where is the complete text?

I can't find anyplace in this article which points me to a single location where all the articles and amendments to the US Constitution are presented - full text.

DId I miss it?

If it's not in this article, it should be, shouldn't it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kquirici (talk • contribs) 15:06, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

There is no complete text kept on record. It is the wording that's official, not a physical document. The originals are kept by the National Archive, but new amendments do not affect them at all. Just like (I think) new laws passed do not need to be physically written in a book anymore.AnandaBliss (talk) 15:17, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Of course the complete text is kept on record, the national archive is a great place to start https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript whether or not something is physically written in a book is irrelevant, Wikipedia neither requires physical sources nor disallows transcripts as sources.

I'm in full support of adding at least a link to the content of the Constitution of the United States. Zamadatix 20:54, 28 January 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zamadatix (talk • contribs)

Constitution OF the United States vs Constitution FOR the United States.

This article is very biased and not historically accurate.

The original Constitution is titled "Constitution FOR the United States" as stated in the document itself. The "Constitution OF the United States" was issued in 1871 with the Organic Act of 1871 that created Washington DC as a Municipal Federal Government Zone. It is VERY disingenuous to say that the Constitution OF the United States is the original from 1787!!! This ("Constitution OF.." going back to 1787) is clearly mis-information being purposefully spread by government agents and confused citizens.

The Constitution OF the United States is NOT the original jurisdiction of the Constitution FOR the united States. It says right on the original document "Constitution FOR the United States". Can people NOT read? Can people NOT see the difference between OF and FOR? very strange.

Why are so many people, even wikipedia, promoting the confusion of "Constitution Of..." vs "Constitution For.."?

The Municipal United States Gov't (initialized in 1871) operate on the "Constitution OF..." and not the original jurisdiction "Constitution For...".

Can we get a separate article for the Constitution FOR the United States being that it is literally a different document? maybe a section in the article documenting this difference? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.89.83.115 (talk) 21:55, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

We call it "Constitution of the United States" because that seems to be the most common wording. Do you have any reliable sources that discuss the importance of "for" as opposed to "of," or which support the claim that they are different documents? If so, please share them here. And please remember to sign your talk page edits by adding four tildes (~) at the end. Squeakachu (talk) 22:38, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

This is sovereign citizen bullshit. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 01:27, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. I wasn't familiar with their fixation with the 1871 Organic Act before I read the above rant, but the tone of the whole thing seemed suspicious, and a quick google search confirmed it. I asked for sources because I was wondering if there was some new article or website in the crazy-o-sphere that might end up driving traffic here or if the IP just happened to read our article and decided to complain. Squeakachu (talk) 06:25, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

facts shouldn't be considered "sovereign citizen bullshit." "sovereign citizen" is a misnomer because one can't be sovereign and a citizen at the same time. anyone using the term is operating on improper definitions. 172.89.83.115 (talk) 04:15, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

the dictionary will illuminate the meaning difference between "of" and "for". The "handle of the pot" is not the same as "handle for the pot", eh? And the constitution itself refers to itself as FOR and not OF. can people not read? The organic act of 1871 clearly creates a second constitution like the original. people that call this suspicious clearly haven't read the historical laws. Nothing sus, nor conspiratorial, nor sovereign citizen. It's your laws that you haven't looked into. calling it crazy-o-sphere only shows where you are regarding actual legal history and shows the bias of wikipedia against legal history that is commonly found disagreeable, yet is undeniably true. 172.89.83.115 (talk) 04:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

As Squeakachu has already requested, please provide reliable sources supporting any specific changes you propose be made to this page. BD2412 T 05:48, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Handwritten document

The printing press was invented in 1440. Can anyone explain why this thing is hand written?2603:8081:403:2000:4877:9CA4:B470:D78C (talk) 10:52, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

It was probably the usual practice at the time, if not a legal requirement, that such a legally binding document be "engrossed" by hand, rather than by printing, the latter yielding a less elegant result that would have been more susceptible to forgery, as it took someone with unusually nice handwriting to create such a document. Dhtwiki (talk) 01:55, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

References

Wonder how many people voted to ratify without having seen the document. If you print copies then all can see. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8081:403:2000:b0ac:1fc9:365f:72db (talk) 11:25, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Oh, there were printed copies. Read this. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 13:49, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Very excellent. My unlimited ignorance has been exposed yet again. So can a short statement be added to the ratify section with your reference?2603:8081:403:2000:E1B4:44BE:F6D7:85C9 (talk) 13:03, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

If the printed versions were false it would have been known eventually. Those would now be collectors treasure. More people should realize that Large scale conspiracy is extremely difficult to make work.2603:8081:403:2000:7D3E:CE35:EB24:999A (talk) 14:42, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Here is a better link https://constitutioncenter.org/experience/exhibitions/feature-exhibitions/public-printing-of-the-constitution2603:8081:403:2000:7D3E:CE35:EB24:999A (talk) 09:37, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

We should have more information on what copies the ratifying conventions worked from and how they made sure they were true copies of what had been agreed to at the convention. Dhtwiki (talk) 10:10, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Uh, why? Have any reliable sources raised this as an issue in any way? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 22:54, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

I was responding to the suggestion that more be included in the article, under ratification. If it is, it should be specific to the ratification process, not the Declaration of Independence or the constitution being engrossed. It would be interesting, if something could be found on how copies were distributed to inform the ratifiers. Dhtwiki (talk) 01:45, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

We actually have a separate article at History of the United States Constitution which discusses its ratification. BD2412 T 04:24, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

That might be a better place for the sort of detail we're discussing here, but it isn't there as of yet. Dhtwiki (talk) 05:42, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Ironic that major bills are now passed without having been read or understood. A complete migration from one mode to another. Hope that anal retentive guy doesn't delete this.2603:8081:403:2000:4C66:1FE3:E7BD:B4D8 (talk) 13:47, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2022

change "even if its constitutionality is seriously in doubt. [119]" to "even if its constitutionality is seriously in doubt.[119]" Rowboat10 (talk) 23:28, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't see a difference what change are you asking for and why? RudolfRed (talk) 23:38, 22 January 2022 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:35, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

The difference between the OP's two extracts was the omission of the space between the text and the citation. I've taken out that space at the article. Dhtwiki (talk) 02:16, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2022

This original information is grossly incorrect. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the United States of America.[3] It superseded the Articles of Confederation, the nation's first constitution.

It should read correctly. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the United States of America.[3] It is an addendum (or whatever word you'd like tyo use) to the Articles of Confederation, the nation's first document which created on November 15, 1777, the PERPETUAL UNION known as "The United States of America."

Supporting evidence: Preamble of the United States Constitution.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for The United States of America.

1. 1. in Order to form a more perfect Union. This wording plainly establishes that the union, known as "the United States of America," had already been established by the "Article of Confederation," and the constitution was an addendum to make that union, more perfect.
2. 2. do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. This wording plainly establishes that the constitution was "FOR" The United States of America and the constitution did not create The United States of America, the Article of Confederation did. All the constitution did was to more definitively define the powers and especially the prohibition of the government of The United States of America.
3. 3. It superseded the Articles of Confederation. The Creation of a perpetual union, The United States of America can not be superseded. Allmightywest2022 (talk) 16:32, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Just... no. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:43, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Article V

In the last paragraph of this section, it is stated that certain clauses in the Constitution are shielded from amendment, one of these being the provision that taxation must be apportioned among the several states. It then goes on to say that that was changed by the adoption of the Sixteenth Amendment. But how? If a clause is shielded from amendment, then how is it changed by the adoption of an amendment? That makes no sense. This needs to be explained because as it stands now, the paragraph is self-contradictory. GnatFriend (talk) 11:38, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Why is a footnote about insular areas not neutral?

A recent edit by @Dhtwiki removed a footnote about insular areas with the justification that it is "not NPOV." What is not neutral about a footnote discussing how the constitution applies to colonial territories? It seems misleading to describe the constitution as the "law of the land," as there is plenty of U.S. land where it does not apply. Freoh (talk) 12:16, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Your phrasing "pretends that the new government stands for everyone", as well as insertion of "wealthy elites" and "imperial subjects" are what struck me as non-neutral. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:21, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

What about that phrasing is non-neutral? And if the phrasing is the problem, why are you removing the footnote entirely rather than fixing the offending phrasing? Freoh (talk) 07:43, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

This article has a lot of content about constitutional protections, but I don't think it's clear enough on who these protections apply to. Do you have any objections to me re-adding the link to insular areas and the bit about constitutional protections not applying to imperial subjects? Freoh (talk) 20:38, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

If you have no objections, I'm going to re-add this content. Freoh (talk) 20:48, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

No, you haven't gained consensus for what you want to add. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:05, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Why do you oppose the wikilink? And why do you oppose mentioning to whom constitutional protections apply? The current presentation is an oversimplification in my view, and omits details that deserve due weight. Freoh (talk) 15:49, 18 (edited 04:58, 19 December 2022 (UTC))

I opposed the language for the reasons I stated. I'm not necessarily going to parse an edit I think is wrong, in order to keep what might be less objectionable. I think that it's as much up to you to see what I'm objecting to and re-propose the less objectionable part. And wait to see that others chime in in support. Just wanting to re-add the entire objected-to edit, which is what you seem to be proposing, is not going to get us anywhere. Dhtwiki (talk) 04:58, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't proposing to add the entire edit; an intermediate edit removed the need for one of the footnotes. Could you explain what is non-neutral about imperial subjects? What terminology would you prefer? Colonized subjects? Residents of colonial territories? Freoh (talk) 11:39, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

What was wrong with what was there before? The United States does/did not refer to the inhabitants of its lands in such ways. Why do you insist on using such non-standard terms? Dhtwiki (talk) 05:45, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

What would you see as a more standard term? The cited source often uses the phrase colonized subjects, and I think it's worth specifying who is protected by the Constitution. Freoh (talk) 14:28, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Dhtwiki, would you be okay with me referring to colonized subjects? I guess I avoided that originally because it sounded repetitive with colonial territories. Is there another way you would prefer I refer to these subjects? Freoh (talk) 19:03, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

All inhabitants of the insular territories are American citizens, according to the linked article. Why would "colonized subjects" be at all appropriate? Dhtwiki (talk) 06:14, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Which linked article? And I'm not talking about Americans in general, but just the people living in U.S. colonies. I think that the term colonized subjects is appropriate, given that it's used throughout the cited source by Immerwahr. To be clear, this is what I'm proposing:

Current	Proposal
In this context, colonial territories held by the U.S. are not considered part of the land, so the constitution does not apply to them.	In this context, insular areas are not considered part of the land, so constitutional protections do not extend to colonized subjects.

Freoh (talk) 12:27, 23 December 2022 (UTC) (edited 19:14, 6 January 2023 (UTC))

See Insular_area#Citizenship:

Congress has extended citizenship rights by birth to all inhabited territories except American Samoa, and these citizens may vote and run for office in any U.S. jurisdiction in which they are residents. The people of American Samoa are U.S. nationals by place of birth, or they are U.S. citizens by parentage, or naturalization after residing in a State for three months. Nationals are free to move around and seek employment within the United States without immigration restrictions, but cannot vote or hold office outside American Samoa.

So, your proposed text makes little sense to me, as well as seemingly making this article inconsistent with one that should carry some weight in this matter. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:59, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

What's inconsistent? I don't understand what's not making sense here. And once again, how would you prefer that I refer to colonized subjects specifically? Freoh (talk) 21:28, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

The linked article doesn't refer to "colonized subjects". The inhabitants apparently are all now US citizens, even if they were not always so in the past. Why do you insist on the term, apparently without qualification? For one thing, "subject" usually implies a monarchy, which would be incorrect here, whatever your opinion is of the despotism of American government. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:33, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't insist on that term. I've asked you a couple times for alternatives and I haven't heard any. A wikilink is not a reliable source, and I think changes could be made to that article as well. Why do you think that "subject" usually implies a monarchy? Freoh (talk) 09:33, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Why would I propose alternatives if I don't see anything wrong with the text, and you seem to be the only one who does? Other articles by themselves are not supposed to be sources, but their sources can be used, and one can by assuming good-faith that those articles reflect proper research, as well as consistency of terminology being a virtue. Any dictionary should give a sense of "subject" as one who is subject to someone else, as in vassalage. One tends not to refer to citizens of a republic as "subjects" for that reason alone, even though my dictionary does admit of subjection to a constitutional authority. Dhtwiki (talk) 10:04, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand that reason alone. How are colonized subjects not subject to someone else? Freoh (talk) 11:48, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Theoretically, citizens of a republic are sovereign, in a monarchy they are by law subject to the sovereignty of another person, the monarch, however constrained that monarch's power may be. For that reason alone, "subject" is not a term I usually see applied to such sovereign citizens, however impoverished or otherwise degraded they may be. Dhtwiki (talk) 07:07, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Could you point me to sources that support your perspective? I'm using the wording directly from my sources, and I've never heard anyone refer to colonized subjects as sovereign citizens. Freoh (talk) 11:27, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Dhtwiki, are you opposed to discussing to whom constitutional protections apply? If so, why? Freoh (talk) 23:07, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

To the extent that you want to discuss it, it is inappropriate here. And you should have adduced my reasons from the replies I've already given. Dhtwiki (talk) 10:04, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

The extent is currently a single footnote. Constitutional protections are described throughout the article without mentioning to whom they apply. Why is it not worth clarifying? Freoh (talk) 11:46, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Because your clarifications are not good ones, IMO, and I don't see others telling me that they are. Dhtwiki (talk) 07:07, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Dhtwiki, I've provided a reliable source that supports my content, and the only argument I've seen against it is your original research about sovereign citizens. Could you clarify your objections? What's "not good"? Freoh (talk) 14:39, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

If your objections are based solely on original research and you won't explain further, then I'm going to add my proposal to the article. Freoh (talk) 22:39, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

You're talking about the proposal in the next section, not the language quoted here, which makes things quite confusing. I see that you've gone ahead and added to the article the text proposed in the next section, although I don't see agreement there either. Dhtwiki (talk) 11:52, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I was trying to talk about this proposal separately. Do you have any objections to my proposal above about colonized subjects that aren't based solely on your original research about sovereign citizens? Freoh (talk) 13:17, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Dhtwiki, I've edited my proposal with an additional reference. If you won't explain your objection, then I'm going to add this edit.     — Freoh 19:14, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I've given my reasons for objecting and see no consensus for your proposal. Where are the others in agreement with what you're proposing? You've added a Yale Law Journal article, which doesn't necessarily represent the consensus of academic thinking. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:13, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I still don't understand your objections. Could you explain a few points for me?

• What is the connection between colonized subjects and sovereign citizens? Do you have a reliable source arguing that residents of colonial territories are not colonized subjects?
• Why are you opposed to clarifying who constitutional protections apply to? How is it outside the scope of this article?
• Are you questioning the reliability of my sources? No single source will necessarily represent the consensus of academic thinking, but I've given a couple of reliable sources supporting my proposal, so the burden is on you to provide contradicting sources.

Please clarify and help me understand.      — Freoh 13:51, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

As before, where are the others who think your changes need to be made? Apparently, others are satisfied with the article as written. Dhtwiki (talk) 15:05, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Dhtwiki, you've argued elsewhere that "citizens" would be a more neutral term than "colonized subjects". Could you point me to which part of WP:NPOV supports this conclusion? My proposal would be nonsensical and inaccurate if it read constitutional protections do not extend to citizens.      — Freoh 17:49, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Additional sources under Further Reading

I've added about 10 sources to the Further Reading section. Of course, many more could be added, but I tried to limit these to ones I consider relatively significant. While that's no doubt subjective, IMO all are important to a study and understanding of the Constitution's development - from historical sources such as Madison and Farrand to more contemporary works by historians such as Jillson and Rakove. That said, anyone is welcome to remove or revert any of these though I would appreciate some indication as to why. Allreet (talk) 20:47, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Article needs revision regarding slavery and possibly other issues

Freoh, I've taken your main contention to heart and I agree. While you may not have put it this way, I'm convinced the article inadequately addresses what was the most contentious issue in the summer of 1787, namely slavery.

How I arrived at my conclusion: My original thought was to add material here and there to satisfy your point about protections. So to assess things, my initial step was to search for the word "slave". Surprisingly, it first appearance was just short of the middle, 5,000 words in. Then I searched for "slavery" and found its first appearance almost 3,000 words later. With that, I didn't need to go any further.

I'm now in the process of a general assessment of the article's use of references, depth of scholarship, POV issues (balance, weight, neutrality), and so forth to get a handle on what needs to be revised besides adding more on slavery. That will take some time but I believe it's necessary, because my longer term thought is to work toward GA and FA.

That's where things stand. I don't think the neutrality discussion needs to continue, but I will note that what other editors have said above about POV guidelines is generally correct since as far as I can see nobody was addressing "protections" or slavery per se. No matter, except I'm pointing this out because I don't want to confuse things.

Meanwhile, thoughts from you and others on what I've just said will be appreciated. Allreet (talk) 19:35, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I agree that the issue of slavery deserves more due weight. The only way to confidently solve these kinds of weight issues is to spend a lot of time reading a lot of sources, so I appreciate that you're willing to put in the time to ensure that this article is balanced. Constitutional law isn't something that I find particularly exciting, which is why I've kept my criticisms more focused on issues of clarity rather than weight. This article has a lot of discussion about "rights" and "liberties", but it should be clear to an average reader that the Framers' notion of "liberty" included the right to enslave and that not all Americans enjoy these rights and liberties. (One potential step toward making the latter clearer is in my proposal above.) I'm not sure exactly what you mean that what other editors have said above about POV guidelines is generally correct since as far as I can see nobody was addressing "protections" or slavery per se, but I'm interested to see your changes.      — Freoh 20:30, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

My reference to other editors was to their comments about balance, due weight, and so forth. So in agreeing with you on the article's failure to adequately address slavery/protections, I wanted to make clear I was not negating what editors had said about those guidelines in relation to your proposals. At the same time I have no interest at the moment in revisiting our disagreements over your footnotes, other than to say they remain.

BTW, I think you'd enjoy Amar's video that I mentioned above. He's a leading expert on Constitutional Law but the subject here is history. I also recommend viewing other lectures available on YouTube on the Constitution's history. As for balance, most of the authors who give these talks are reflecting "the prevailing view", that is, the overview someone would have if they read the major books on the subject (some issues aside). Allreet (talk) 23:12, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Madison, Father of the Constitution...and other bunk

I just posted a stub for Myth America: Historians Take On the Biggest Legends and Lies About Our Past, a collection of essays by leading historians published earlier this month. I don't have the book yet, but I ordered it for the chapter on America's founding by Yale historian Akhil Reed Amar. You can get a jump on the chapter by viewing "Was James Madison Truly Father of the Constitution?", a lecture by Amar. Some key points from his talk:

• Madison, was not the Father of the Constitution. I won't spoil the surprise by saying who qualifies, but I will say Amar seems to have nailed it.
• Charles Beard's 1913 An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States, probably the most influential book on the Constitution published in the 20th century, maintains the document was written to benefit the wealthy 1%. Taught to generations as the gospel, this idea, says Amar, is total bunk.
• The framers, as we all have come to believe, supported the creation of a republic but disdained democracy. To put it crudely, Amar contends this thesis is warm and mushy as well.

I know many reading this will not agree, but the point should be made that history is not only about facts. It is also about interpretations, and those interpretations shift over time as the perspectives of historians change. Allreet (talk) 07:47, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

• Allreet, I've watched most of the video and agree that it's a worthwhile use of time. Thanks. Missing (although presently, and inexplicably, the norm) is Amar's assessment of the Continental Association which was the forerunner of the uniting of the colonies (soon known by their accepted name, United Colonies) which Amar finds key to the existence of forming the new nation protected by a sea barrier rather than by lines in the sand. To unite the colonies, who largely saw themselves as independent nations, took the Constitution, but the foundation had been laid by the Continental Association. Amar's thoughts on this unification of semi-nations has made me more appreciative of the role that the Association played, a role that R. Jensen described as initiating a movement. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:55, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

  Amar is focused more on his specialty, the Constitution. For details on the Continental Association, we need to look to the sources gwillhickers dug up during the RfC, which are still listed on the Founding Fathers talk page. I don't think it's inexplicable that more attention isn't paid. Many significant events occurred during the Revolutionary Era, a two-and-a-half decade period, and the earlier ones—Stamp Act Congress, Tea Party, First Continental Congress—are bound to get less attention than the developments they led to. Allreet (talk) 15:29, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

"and those interpretations shift over time as the perspectives of historians change" That is the essence of historical revisionism, and why once popular ideas have been challenged and replaced by others. Available data change and ideologies are constantly shifting. Dimadick (talk) 18:53, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Disputed inline footnote in middle of Preamble

I am disputing Freoh's good faith footnote which is affixed to the word "liberty" in the middle of the Preamble in the Constitution article:

This liberty did not extend to Africans, as § Article I legally protected the slave trade.

Freoh's reason for applying the footnote appears in a discussion above:

...it should be clear to an average reader that the Framers' notion of "liberty" included the right to enslave and that not all Americans enjoy these rights and liberties.

While I don't disagree with the essential truth of the footnote, I consider the assertion to be judgmental without any concern for neutrality, balance, and what most sources have to say on the subject. Here's a small but representative sample: '

• Bernstein, pp. 177-178: Many later historians and politicians have denounced what they see as the Convention's failure of nerve, moral courage, and ingenuity in dealing with the problem of slavery...(Yet) The delegates knew that a charter that denounced slavery, no matter how mildly, would be rejected by the southern states, at least three of which had economies bound up with the slave system.

• Maier, p. 284: Madison explained that "the Southern States"...would not agree to the Constitution without that temporary continuation of the slave trade. Mason (George Mason of Virginia) was ready to leave those states out of the Union unless they agreed to discontinue "this disgraceful trade," but Madison disagreed. "Great as the evil is," he said, "a dismemberment of the Union would be worse."

• Ellis, p. 202: What strikes us as a poignant failure of moral leadership appeared to Washington as a prudent exercise in political judgment...Whatever his personal views on slavery may have been, his highest public priority was the creation of a unified American nation.

• Collier, p. 141: It was clear that slavery would eventually be ended in the North. By 1787 the Massachusetts courts had abolished it, and the gradual abolition of slavery in other northern states, especially Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Connecticut, was under way. Surely slavery was a dying institution; why cause an uproar over it when it was bound to wither away soon enough?

The Founders however imperfect were hardly villains, and in fact, most were heroes. That's the prevailing view, meaning what most sources have to say. Yes, we should report both sides, but we shouldn't be dropping a one-sided non sequitur into the middle of the Preamble because it suits a particular POV of the Constitution. Allreet (talk) 00:19, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

​Where's the contradiction here? How can the footnote have reliable sources with contradicting facts if you don't disagree with the essential truth of the footnote?      — Freoh 01:42, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

At issue is the lack of balance and neutrality embodied in your footnote. It's also out of context and has no place in the Preamble section. I'm sure there's a way you could explore it further in this section, and that might be proper though it would be difficult for someone to write objectively about this if their starting point was the belief that the Founders' notion of "liberty" included the right to enslave. The "essential truth" is that slavery was allowed to endure - there's no denying that - but there are other essential truths and one of them is that many Founders shared your disgust regarding slavery, but could do little about it. Allreet (talk) 03:57, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I'll ask again: where is the contradiction? If you're adding a tag that says This claim has reliable sources with contradicting facts, then you need to specify the contradiction.      — Freoh 11:37, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

(Have just added this as a reply in an above section and see that it is directly related to this section as well, so will add it here) The editorializing footnotes you want to include were right in the middle of directly quoting the Preamble to the Constitution. Direct quotes are not changed on Wikipedia. Since the Preamble contains neither the footnotes themselves, nor their viewable reference number, the footnotes don't belong there. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:01, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Freoh, I agree with Randy Kryn that this one-sided assertion amounts to editorializing. Please address the aspects of WP:POV I raised instead of focusing on something I did not mention. Balance means acknowledging all significant facts associated with a story, while affording due weight to those facts. Neutrality means presenting a dispassionate account of the facts without taking any side.

I also agree with Randy in regards to the placement of your footnote within the quotation of the Preamble. It's the issue I raised before, and IMO he summed up what's wrong with this more succinctly than I did. Allreet (talk) 13:52, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

From WP:Quotations: Our neutral point of view (NPOV) policy requires editors to avoid biasing content in a direction that is different from that of the original source, whether by censorship, omission, neutralization/neutering or overemphasis. Allreet (talk) 14:08, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

My purpose here is to accurately reflect the intention of the original source. The word Liberty is kind of vague, and it probably means something different to most modern Wikipedia readers than it did to the original Framers. I'm clarifying the meaning, not changing it.      — Freoh 18:12, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

The word "liberty" was as well understood then as it is now. In that regard, many people today may fully grasp the word's meaning yet they still hold racist beliefs and condone discriminatory practices. In any case, the intention of the original source was not what you ascribe, given that he (Gouverneur Morris) was one of slavery's most outspoken opponents. Since all those things are true and what you just said at the top is not, I fail to see how your footnote is accurately reflecting or clarifying anything. Allreet (talk) 20:46, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Freoh: I also suggest taking a look at WP:Civil POV pushing. Several bulleted points on this page describe what's been going on here and elsewhere in the discussions and edits related to neutrality. I'll cite just one: Using Wikipedia as a vehicle for advocacy, or to advance a specific agenda, damages the encyclopedia and disrupts the process of collaborative editing. Allreet (talk) 15:12, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

[Since this page is being overrun with sections and subsection I'll add a post I made above to this section as well, and address it here to the undue suggestion that editorializing about the lack of solving the slavery issue belongs smack in the middle of the direct quote providing the content of the preamble to Wikipedia's readers] The constitution provides a remedy for your concern, a constitutional amendment. Pointing out one of many things that haven't reached the point that some may wish them to reach has nothing to do with a page on the constitution of the United States, other than to point out that they can be (and in this case have been) remedied by the citizens through avenues provided in the document itself. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not using Wikipedia as a vehicle for advocacy or to advance a specific agenda. I'm trying to add neutral information that deserves due weight.      — Freoh 18:09, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

The footnote's statement is not neutral or balanced if it's one-sided - if it omits what the vast majority of sources have to say about the Founders' failure (as I've done with the passages I cited above). And your comment about what you want to make clear to readers indicates a desire to advocate for this view. As a matter of fact, what you said isn't true. It so happens, most Framers even slaveholders recognized the immorality of slavery and many were embarrassed by its inclusion in the Constitution, unmentioned as the word was. Allreet (talk) 20:06, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Allreet, what am I focusing on that you did not mention? The tag you added says that This claim has reliable sources with contradicting facts. Are you retracting that complaint?      — Freoh 18:14, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I would appreciate your response to the items I just bolded. Regarding the dispute template, I applied it based on what the Template:Disputed inline says: This inline template helps highlight a particular disputed statement or alleged fact. The page says nothing about "contradicting facts". In checking back, I see that the template has a hover-over message related to this, but that's not my concern (it's an item created by a programmer). Now please address how the one-sided statement in the footnote you posted conforms with WP:NPOV. Allreet (talk) 19:45, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Moot

 – this footnote and a second footnote that would have resulted in another dispute have been removed. For details, see the following Talk section

Allreet (talk) 01:14, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Neutrality issues in § Preamble

Recent edit warring by Allreet has reintroduced some neutrality issues into § Preamble. In particular, we should not be describing anything as an improvement in wikivoice.      — Freoh 01:59, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Freoh: Actually, what happened was I had reworded parts of the the Preamble section outside the editor and pasted in my revision without noticing I was deleting the additions you had made in the interim. So I was completely surprised when you accused me of edit warring (three times now), and I only figured out what you were referring to by going back through the edit history.

However, had I seen what you added - in effect changing the focus of the Preamble section into an attack on the framers - I would have reverted it on POV, RS, and other grounds. The same applies to your footnote disparaging the word "liberty". Yes, the Constitution goes on to sanction slavery, but that discussion belongs elsewhere, not in the section on the Preamble. Plus you and your sources are ignoring the reality nearly everyone else mentions: that the Union would have dissolved if the framers had done otherwise.

As for "improvement", that's how multiple sources describe Morris's work - in fact, they're even more effusive than that. How significant, then, are the other "neutrality issues"? Please be specific rather than make vague accusations. Allreet (talk) 06:06, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I have already made specific changes (which you reverted) [3] [4]. I believe you that these opinions are common, but that does not mean that they should be presented as fact:

... the phrase improved on the section's original draft ...

Morris's wording provided another improvement ...

... their value is in promoting an understanding for interpreting and applying the purposes of the articles that follow.

Why don't you think that my content belongs in § Preamble? It's relevant to your bit about the blessings of liberty. And if you want to mention that the Union would have dissolved if the framers had done otherwise, then feel free to do so, but that content might fit better in § 1787 drafting.      — Freoh 12:39, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Freoh: When responding, please ping me. The words chosen are fully supported and furthermore my sources are representative of the broad scholarship on the subject, meaning as reliable as they come. The same cannot be said of works that introduce critical race theory into the discussion. Most of what you added is focused on denigration. As for appropriateness, the subject here is the Preamble, whereas slavery falls under other provisions. The analysis you seem determined to offer belongs in a section of its own where both sides can be explored in detail.

My concern, btw, is for the hundreds of thousands who visit this page each year (1.2 million views in 2022, 3,400 per day). In their interest, we have a responsibility to reflect what the vast majority of historians have to say: that the Preamble was an "eloquent" and "brilliant" innovation. That's also true of the Constitution as a whole, despite its obvious failings. While we have a duty to mention those flaws, the "prevailing view" is that the framers didn't do too badly. To say so may or may not be completely neutral, but as I see it, our duty is to accurately report "the record", biased or not.

As for criticizing the framers as an "elite" (another issue you focused on), there's a truth to that. Patrick Henry , for example, called "we, the people" into question on similar grounds. His remarks are fair game and probably should be mentioned. But his was a reactionary argument skewed for rhetorical purposes. Of course the framers were an "elite". Who else gets elected or appointed to high office and who else then gets to "speak for the people" except their representatives? In short, the point is facile and to give it the weight you did could hardly be called neutral. Allreet (talk) 14:47, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Freoh: I just reviewed the latest changes you made. IMO, you're apparently determined to litter this section with your POV as well as templates and footnotes. Assuming good faith, I sincerely believe you don't fully understand neutrality in this context and thus I'm not saying any of this is being done with ill intent. Just to be clear, then, here's what's not neutral, not NPOV, and not commensurate with due weight:

• You've double footnoted the word "liberty" basically labeling it a hypocrisy.
• You've added another footnote, criticizing the framers for being"powerful white men".
• You've accused the Congressional Research Service of having a conflict of interest.
• And you missed the point about "new thought" entirely, that prior to this the states were credited with the authority for adopting a constitution, whereas Morris and his committee were recognizing the people as the source of sovereignty for the first time. Neither I nor the sources (read them) said anything about democracy.

I'll clarify that last point as you requested and remove the template, which you can reinstate if you're still unsatisfied. Since you ignored my previous request about the double footnoting, I'm also going to remove one of the notes per Citation Overkill. IMO, the better source/COI template should also be removed but if you think not, please explain why so I can satisfy whatever complaints remain.

Frankly, while I may have to "take my lumps" for inadvertently deleting your earlier edits, this appears headed toward an RFC. That's painful for other reasons, but apparently we need to have the community formally weigh in on what's neutral, what's polemics, what's reliable, and what's fringe. Otherwise, this seems likely to go around and around forever and in the meantime the article and with that our readers are going to suffer. Allreet (talk) 16:19, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Freoh: On second thought I'm not going to touch your redundant inline note since it's evidence of your apparent determination to paint the Constitution and its framers in a negative light. The same is true of your "powerful white men" note. Neither of these is likely to stand the test of time. For the record, I changed the two words you objected to: value and improvement. Now please tell me what else needs to be changed to remove the NPOV template you've posted over the section? Allreet (talk) 17:26, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I think that your rewording of the "new thought" and your removal of "value" were improvements. However, it still says that the phrase improved on the section's original draft, and you replaced improvement with innovation, another peacock term. If you want to include these opinions, they need to be attributed. I still don't understand why you see my footnotes as non-neutral. The information is supported by more than one reliable source, so it seems like it deserves due weight. I think that your text has the potential to mislead without the clarifications.      — Freoh 18:12, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Freoh: So I'll substitute other synonyms, as accurate as these. And of course they're opinions, very positive ones, but that doesn't mean we can't quote or paraphrase them with similarly positive words. And yes, I did miss the other "improved" but I'll fix that too on second thought I'm going to leave that stand since it says exactly what the source did.

As for your footnotes, both reflect minority views: "an elite of powerful white men" and singling out the word "liberty" to poke a stick in the Preamble's eye. In the first case, 18th century America was a white, male dominated society and this particular group of largely wealthy, well-educated men was as well equipped as any to speak for the people of their states.

In the second case, honing in on the word "liberty" in the Preamble is equally absurd. Morris and the Preamble had nothing to do with slavery. He was outspokenly against the institution, and the Preamble touches on nothing directly related to the enslaved nor should we expect it to. To single out this word, then, is hardly justified, especially when the attack should address the Articles that perpetuated the practice.

As for your belief that this is "information", the truth is that both views are only opinions, no better or worse than saying the Morris's Preamble was an improvement. But given that there are hundreds and hundreds of sources on the Constitution, that puts your "more than one" in an extreme minority. On that note, I refer you to Jimbo Wales's assertion: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true, or you can prove it." Allreet (talk) 20:27, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

​Do you have a reliable source supporting the idea that my footnotes reflect minority views? I don't understand how the facts that Article I legally protected the slave trade and the delegates to the convention were all powerful white men are only opinions. They're widely verifiable facts and relevant to the article. Your text about an innovation that improved ... is an opinion. I don't see how it's relevant here that one of the delegates opposed slavery.      — Freoh 22:00, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Are you saying CRT is not a controversial theory - that it's part of the prevailing historical view? I don't think I need to cite sources to prove what we already know. Anyway, the facts are not in dispute. Your application of them and your sources are.

My point about Morris (the only delegate of relevance) is that nothing he wrote had anything to do with protecting the institution of slavery, meaning the Preamble itself has no direct connection.

By comparison, my use of the word "improved" is a blip and one that's easily fixed. Your footnote? It's a hot potato dropped into the middle of a section whose neutrality is in dispute. Yet you made no attempt to discuss it here or on the NPOV Noticeboard first. Allreet (talk) 22:16, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

​My sources are biased (as are all sources), but they're still reliable sources for the facts that I'm adding. Your argument that nothing he wrote had anything to do with protecting the institution of slavery, meaning the Preamble itself has no direct connection sounds like improper synthesis to me. Can you back this up with sources?      — Freoh 22:53, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I believe your two inflammatory footnotes amount to superficial potshots, meaning your approach is a less than acceptable way to address accusations of this magnitude. More depth and more sources, as well as balance, are needed considering the impressions they leave. As for reliability, your sources represent fringe views and don't have the weight to support these positions on their own. That's not just my opinion but what you were told by other editors early on.

Below are just a few of the sources that document Morris's positions on slavery and his authorship of the Preamble, plus a few positions on the subject of "liberty". These sources, among many others I can cite, reflect the prevailing views of historians, which may have their biases but unlike the leanings of your few sources, are widely shared.

• William Adams 2003: xi-xii, 81, 158-161, 163-164, 275, 295
• Richard Bernstein 1987: 183
• Catherine Bowen 1966: 42, 201, 240-241
• Jack Rakove 1996: 19, 88, 307-309, 335-336

I'll do the something similar for your "powerful white men" when I find the time. The vast majority of sources happen to regard this elite as a plus, not only the best of their generation but perhaps the most able group of representatives ever assembled. As a footnote to that, only a minority supported slavery, 19 delegates, but without their votes passage of the Constitution would have failed and the Union would have been lost. Allreet (talk) 17:21, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

​I looked through a few of those citations and I didn't see anything that contradicted my information. Am I missing something? If you want to describe content as fringe, you have to provide evidence against it. I still don't understand what's superficial; slavery was a huge part of American society at that point in history, and this article is about the Constitution, not Morris.      — Freoh 23:38, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

The question isn't whether other sources contradict the views of the few you're citing. The subject here is neutrality, NPOV, and your sources are outside the mainstream of scholarship. To be neutral, you have to satisfy due weight and balance. Your footnotes don't do either. What you're missing, then, is the story. All you're doing is making two points without any context. White men wrote it, and they left slavery intact. That isn't superficial? Allreet (talk) 10:34, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Are you saying that you'd rather the text be integrated into the paragraphs rather than left in a footnote? That's what I tried to do originally, but you removed it. What story and context are you looking for, exactly?      — Freoh 13:19, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Freoh: Are you saying that you'd rather the text be integrated into the paragraphs rather than left in a footnote? Absolutely, though the discussion doesn't belong in the Preamble section. (I've already considered doing this.) I believe the story of the politicians who wrote the Constitution would more properly be addressed in the History and Influences sections, for example, while the account of how they legally sanctioned slavery, in the Articles, Ratified Amendments (Bill of Rights), and Criticisms sections. While slavery is addressed in those latter sections, a more succinct and focused approach may be needed, meaning in its own section. While a separate article, Slavery in the United States, already exists, the section here would focus on slavery within the context of the Constitution. Allreet (talk) 16:01, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Allreet is correct in this discussion. Due weight would apply, and no need to add negativity to the concept of Liberty as discussed by the framers. The 'white' desciptor is superficial and irrelevant to the page and seems like pushing the focus which has no encyclopedic basis in the historical timeline of the constitution to push. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:29, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Each footnote now has three citations. If this doesn't deserve due weight, then neither does most of the content in this article.      — Freoh 23:43, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Freoh: Finkelman, your third cite, doesn't mention the Constitution's Preamble. I have no idea what Lovegrave has to say about the elite since I can't access his book. Why not try the 50+ works already cited since most are readily accessible? A thought not a mandate. Allreet (talk) 16:10, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

​I added the quote you're looking for.      — Freoh 18:33, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, sincerely. Not at all to be ungracious, I still think this material has no place in the Preamble section. However, I'm about to shift the focus. I started to take a look of where improvements could be made to satisfy your comments by adding to the lead and other sections. This led me to some conclusions that may surprise you, which I'll address in a new sub-section. I won't be able to get to this until later, but at worst by tomorrow. Allreet (talk) 00:35, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I notice that Randy Kryn has removed one of the footnotes. This section now has the same issues that it had before: over-reliance on a primary source for a misleading notion of liberty. To make this more balanced, we should include secondary sources that elaborate on what this liberty actually meant. I don't see how my footnote was "editorializing".      — Freoh 11:45, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

The editorializing footnotes you want to include were right in the middle of directly quoting the Preamble to the Constitution. Direct quotes are not changed on Wikipedia. Since the Preamble contains neither the footnotes themselves, nor their viewable reference number, the footnotes don't belong there. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:57, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I haven't changed the quotation. Wikipedia's guidelines recommend using square brackets for insertions within quotations, so I think it's clear that this is not part of the original quotation.      — Freoh 14:04, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Seems to me, we're getting too deep in the preamble. It's a short bit of text and merely a preamble, an exposition of lofty principles, and yet there's much to say about the text and its background. Most of it belongs not here but in the detail article Preamble to the United States Constitution. The section here more needs shortening than lengthening, if either. Jim.henderson (talk) 15:49, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I would be okay with removing the full text of the Preamble. I just don't think we should promote "liberty" without clarifying the scope of this liberty.      — Freoh 18:20, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Jim.henderson, this discussion relates to the footnote Freoh inserted in the Preamble quote in this article's Preamble section. As for his assertion, nobody is promoting anything about "liberty" or any other word. All I did was quote the passage in full in the interest of readers, and I have no intention nor do I see any justification for removing it. As for the issue of slavery, it should be raised elsewhere where the topic is relevant and can be explored in depth. Allreet (talk) 21:22, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

The justification for removing it is that this article is already too long, and your addition is a primary source.      — Freoh 20:53, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Removal of footnote accusing Framers of being "powerful white men"

I have just removed the second of two footnotes Freoh had added to the Preamble section. The first of these, which dealt with slavery and the word "liberty", was discussed in sections above at great length. As for the second footnote, it accused the Framers of being "powerful white men", and I'll get to the substance of that in a moment.

What prompted my action was a new section on Freoh's Talk page, where an editor, identified only as "Special Contributions" followed by an enigmatic string of characters, described his two footnotes as fairly "blatant violations of WP:NPOV". The editor's complete comments follow:

Footnotes c & d on [the U.S. Constitution], while not entirely incorrect, are pretty blatant violations of WP:NPOV among other policies in their current state. They would be far more appropriate to place in the criticisms section, as leaving them where they are can only be interpreted as bludgeoning the reader with your personal POV.

They are fantastic additions to the article, but very inappropriately placed. <address omitted> 00:39, 28 January 2023

I'm a bit miffed that this was posted four days ago without any acknowledgement in our current discussion. However, I'll leave out Freoh's response to the above, since it's not much different from what's been posted here. I will repeat my comment, since it addresses the second footnote in greater detail:

I have been going around and around with Freoh on the Preamble issue, making these very points, but to no avail. The idea that the word "liberty" in the Preamble is somewhat vague and therefore, the issue of slavery should be interjected to clarify its meaning strikes me as absurd. More pointedly, the assessment above is accurate: the footnote represents a personal POV.

I was also about to apply an inline disputed template to the second footnote, which points out that the Framers were "powerful white men" who were not representative of "the people". Of course they were white, as was the dominant population; male, since women could not serve or be elected to office; and powerful, since being rich, educated, and influential were the main prerequisites for public service two centuries ago - and doesn't hurt today. As for being "representative", if that means being just like the average person, of course not. However, the accusation ignores the fact that the Framers were either elected to represent the people or were appointed by the people's elected representatives. Furthermore, the Constitution was originally a proposal, so "We the people" was meant to be approved if not by the people, then by their representatives.

I disagree, however, that the footnotes are "fantastic additions" by themselves. I do believe both issues are worthy of addressing, but in greater depth, with more balance, and in more appropriate sections. Allreet (talk) 23:53, 1 February 2023

Finally, I must add that that I find disputes in WP to be bewildering experiences that consume an inordinate amount of time, especially given that editors can Wikilawyer subjects endlessly. As a result, few other editors are willing to chime in and if they do, they eventually get frustrated and give up. Accordingly, I must thank Randy Kryn first, for taking WP:Bold to heart and then, for offering his supportive comments on key points. Allreet (talk) 00:38, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm trying to avoid giving preference to the dominant population, and I don't think that it's a personal POV to say that they were powerful white men. That's a pretty universally-acknowledged fact.      — Freoh 20:50, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Your preference regarding the universally-acknowledged fact is a personal POV. Allreet (talk) 01:18, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Are you saying that the Framers were not powerful white men?      — Freoh 01:24, 3 February 2023 (UTC)