Talk:Constitution of the United States/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Preamble section

Re: Freoh's comment — I would be happy with Maxxhiato's proposal to move this content to the Preamble to the United States Constitution article.

The Preamble section is very short to begin with, so there is no pressing reason, or consensus, to be moving its basic content from the Constitution article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:24, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

The section is short, but the article is long. The main reason I suggested the transfer is because the Preamble to the United States Constitution article has a section on the interpretation of The People. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 12:09, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

By saying "the section is short, but the article is long", it would seem that you're suggesting that more content be added to the Preamble section here, yet you want to transfer what little content that exists here to the Preamble article, as if the latter is lacking something, so your reply is a little difficult to understand. If anything we could mention that the preamble has received a varied interpretation by some historians, always keeping due weight in mind, not over-shadowing what the simple term We the People has come to be understood as by the people at large and mainstream scholarship, new and old. Also, many articles have, or should have, a healthy proportion of contextual overlap. Simply because something is mentioned in one article, doesn't mean it can't be covered, in due proportion, in another. This is often practiced in various chapters of a given book. Any biography about e.g.George Washington, will reiterate the fact, in any number of chapters, that he was the Commanding General of the Continental Army. i.e.The various articles about the Constitution are like chapters about that subject, often covering the same idea in each. If anything, more should be said about the Preamble in this main article about the Constitution. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:31, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

My intent was not to say that overlap cannot exist or that we should remove most of the content in this section. It is more that any extended points of discussion or interpretations of what The People means should preferably go to the section of another article devoted to explaining it in more detail. Mentioning that such a discussion exists here is fine and probably expected at this point. Apologies if I was unclear. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 18:05, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

 Disagree with Gwillhickers. The preamble is short, this article is long, and I agree with Maxxhiato that the points of view are too complicated here to be worth discussing the controversy (or prioritizing a nationalist interpretation, as in Allreet's proposal). I have been asking for months, and you have still not justified your view that the simple term We the People has come to be understood as by the people at large and mainstream scholarship, new and old.  — Freoh 14:32, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion, we've heard it before often enough, and you still have not come close to demonstrating your view, and continue to ignore many leading and reliable sources in the process. Narrow opinions from socialists like Beard and Communists like Zinn, and other like minded individuals, have roundly been refuted by multiple and reputable historians, and shown for what they are. Once again, we need to say more about the Preamble for the simple reason that this is the main article for the Constitution. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:20, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Note. It's understood that various anti-federalists felt that the Constitution gave the federal government too much authority, which prompted the Bill of Rights, and though they may have disagreed with the idea that We The People did not refer to them, and others, it was still authored in a Preamble and included as such to a Constitution which is still in existence to this day. If this was not true the people would not have stood for it and the idea of ratification would not even had made it to the table. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:15, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

I'll add just two things:

• The content in question is not a proposal. It's the published text.
• What justifies the published text is the preponderance of sources supporting it and the dearth of sources that disagree.

Allreet (talk) 18:18, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

The history regarding the colonial mindset towards privy or hereditary rulership and an acceptable Constitution is also what justifies it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:51, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

I do not ignore many leading and reliable sources. I recognize that there are differing opinions about what the people means in the preamble and to what extent it is legitimate. I have made several proposals that include both points of view, and others that include neither. You two continue to ignore the sources that I have provided, and there is no dearth of them. Your sources disagree with mine, but that does not mean that my sources have been refuted. Other sources refer to "Taney's narrowly juridical understanding of the preamble's invocation of 'We, the People'". This is too complicated an issue to summarize with Allreet's proposed text, which is both vague and one-sided. Why do you oppose moving this controversy to the Preamble to the United States Constitution article, where we can flesh it out in greater detail?  — Freoh 01:49, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

The literature on popular sovereignty and the Constitution is vast, but the basic details in the Preamble section are simple, to the point, and completely in line with the writings of nearly every major historian of the past 50 years. Should we want to "flesh out" the complexities of the subject—for example, its philosophical development and the concept's bearing on the founders' intentions—yes, that would require more real estate, in which case, the Preamble article would be the perfect place for it. Allreet (talk) 07:13, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

You keep saying essentially the same thing: that your sources are mainstream while mine are fringe. You have provided sources that agree with your point of view, and I have provided sources that disagree. As Maxxhiato pointed out, you have not demonstrated any sort of academic consensus for your point of view, so I do not understand why you repeatedly assert that nearly every major historian agrees with you. To repeat, I have three main concerns with your proposal:

• It is unclear which people the Constitution includes (and did include) when it discusses the people. I have given two sources that explain this ambiguity, and you have given none that refute it.
• There is academic disagreement about to what degree the people is valid. Some sources confirm its validity, while some dismiss it as propaganda. I have not seen an academic consensus either way.
• It is redundant to include the full text of the preamble and then even longer text that mostly repeats what is already stated in the preamble itself, especially for an article this long.

Repeatedly calling your proposal mainstream and mine fringe is not going to work unless you have sources to back it up.  — Freoh 12:07, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

To further clarify my point and reading of WP:AC, it seems like someone would have to have a source that explicitly states it is the academic consensus. From what I've read (confession—I have not read all the sources here because there are a lot of them), that does not seem to be entirely the case. I know some people will write "some scholars..." and then put all the sources at the end of the claim. I'm not sure if even that's best practice, and we should really write the names of the scholar and their opinion in this case. Otherwise, I'm worried about it being considered our research (stating it's the academic consensus independently of anyone else).

This is another reason why I considered the moving of material as an alternative solution. Ultimately, I am considering putting down the different views in the Preamble article. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 12:44, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

References
References

Bill of Rights

Currently the below passage is located in the Influences section.

The United States Bill of Rights consists of 10 amendments added to the Constitution in 1791, as supporters of the Constitution had promised critics during the debates of 1788.[80] The English Bill of Rights (1689) was an inspiration for the American Bill of Rights. Both require jury trials, contain a right to keep and bear arms, prohibit excessive bail and forbid "cruel and unusual punishments." Many liberties protected by state constitutions and the Virginia Declaration of Rights were incorporated into the Bill of Rights.

It is the only particular topic in the Constitution that is covered in this section, which otherwise lends itself to how various people and ideas influenced the formation of the Constitution. The passage would be better placed as part of an opening paragraph to the Amendments section.. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:35, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

The Bill of Rights is already mentioned in the article's lede, so the question is, should it be included here in the Influences section and if so, in what regard? The English Bill of Rights was no doubt an influence, while a much more distant origin was the Magna Carta. However, the immediate (meaning direct) inspirations were the state constitutions of the 1770s-1780s and the Virginia Declaration of Rights, which was separate from Virginia's constitution.

Given these connections, it makes sense to me that the Bill of Rights is part of this section. But Gwillhickers's observation that the roots of other specific provisions of the Constitution aren't mentioned is well taken. What occurs to me, then, is why not? For example, the idea of a bicameral legislature most likely was drawn from Britain's House of Commons and House of Lords. The concept of a chief executive also may have come from England, its prime minister, but what other countries had leaders who weren't royal or dictatorial in nature? And where'd the brilliant idea come from that the constitution was mutable, a living document that could be amended not just because of weaknesses or oversights but because the country's needs were bound to change with the times?

That's my two cents. What say others? Allreet (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

I didn't address the main point about the Amendments section. The Bill of Rights is already covered there, in detail, not its influences but its provisions. Allreet (talk) 13:14, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

• The Influences section should just be confined to that, esp since the B.O.R. came after ratification, and all that influenced its outcome. Yes, why aren't other items there -- i.e.because they are covered elsewhere in the appropriate sections. That the B.O.R. is mentioned in the lede has no bearing on whether it should be covered in the Influences section. Many topics are rightly mentioned in the lede. The question, though, is in what sections should these topics be covered? Re: The United States Bill of Rights consists of 10 amendments... This summary statement, albeit a major detail, but a detail nonetheless, occurs no where else in the article except in the Influences section, and has nothing to do with influencial ideas that occurred during drafting and ratification. Imo, this definitive statement should be part of the opening paragraph in the Amendments section, not as some detail mentioned elsewhere. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:15, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
• The Influences section. is lacking citations in five of its paragraphs. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:12, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Influences

• Below are some quotes/sources that should help get the Influences section up to speed: Others should follow. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:48, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

• The influence that Blackstone and his book had on legal instruction in England, the American colonies, and later the United States cannot be exagerated.
• For the English, therefore, as William Blackstone, the great eighteenth-century jurist, pointed out, there could be no distinction between the “constitution or frame of government” and “the system of laws.” All were of a piece: every act of Parliament was part of the constitution and all law, both customary and statute, was thus constitutional. “Therefore,” concluded the English theorist William Paley, “the terms constitutional and unconstitutional, mean legal and illegal.”
• Throughout the Revolution the Blackstonian doctrine of “legislative omnipotence” was in the ascendant. Marshall read Blackstone, and so did Iredell.
• The amendments to the Constitution that Congress proposed in 1791 were strongly influenced by state declarations of rights, particularly the Virginia Declaration of Rights of 1776, which incorporated a number of the protections of the 1689 English Bill of Rights and the Magna Carta.
• The idea and practice of limited government— the rule of law itself—proved the most important political part of the English legal heritage. It had shaped the complex of institutions, rules, practices, and customs that make up the English constitution. Its bounds included the Magna Carta, the source of modern substantive and procedural due process. ... To this legacy of constitutionalism, the colonists added their unique codicil: the written state-ment of basic law, which was to come to full flower with the drafting of the Articles of Confederation in 1778 and the Federal Constitution in 1787.
• The most frequently cited writers during the founding era were Montesquieu, Blackstone, Locke, and Hume.
• One does not need to know anything about what happened in the Federal Convention of 1787, where the common law was again and again relied upon and where the authority of William Black- stone, as the great eighteenth-century expositor of the common law, could be routinely invoked.
• The "fundamental" rights that the framers were anxious to secure were those described by Blackstone — personal security and the freedom to move about and to own property. .
• Those who proposed the Constitution of the United States saw the problem of legislation in much the same terms as Montesquieu had.
• Jefferson’s theory followed a line of thought already marked out during the English revolution by Milton, Sidney, and Locke. This body of thought, adopted by Colonial writers and developed by Jefferson in the direction of minimized government and popular control, represents the major influence of political writing upon his political ideas.

Citations and Sources

Alschuler, Albert (1994). "Sir William Blackstone and the shaping of American law". New Law Journal. 144 (6653). ISSN 0306-6479. Anastaplo, George (1989) [1986]. The Constitution of 1787: a commentary. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 978-0-8018-36060. Caldwell, =Lynton K. (1944). The Administrative Theories of Hamilton & Jefferson: Their Contribution to Thought on Public Administration. New York: Rusell & Rusell inc.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) Cohler, Anne M. (1988). Montesquieu's comparative politics and the spirit of American constitutionalism. Lawrence, Kansas: University Press of Kansas. ISBN 978-0-7006-0376-3. Hickok, Eugene W. (1991). The Bill of Rights: original meaning and current understanding. University Press of Virginia. ISBN 978-0-8139-1336-0. Lutz, Donald S. (1988). The origins of American constitutionalism. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press. ISBN 0-807114790. "Magna Carta: Muse and Mentor; Magna Carta and the U.S. Constitution". Library of Congress. Retrieved May 10, 2023. Randall, Richard S. (2003). American constitutional development. New York: Longman. ISBN 978-0-8013-2019-4. Roos, Dave (September 30, 2019). "How Did Magna Carta Influence the U.S. Constitution?". History. Retrieved May 10, 2023. Wood, Gordon S. (1979). The Confederation and the Constitution: The Critical Issues. Washington, DC: University Press of America. ISBN 978-0819-10821-0. Wood, Gordon S. (2011). The Idea of America: Reflections on the Birth of the United States. The Penguin Press. ISBN 978-1-59420-290-2. Zeydel, Walter H. (October 1966). "Sir William Blackstone and His Commentaries". The Quarterly Journal of the Library of Congress. 23 (4). Library of Congress: 302–312. JSTOR 29781237.

Gwillhickers, nice work identifying the section's needs and tracking down additional references. Allreet (talk) 15:28, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. As always, going through the many sources, while offering well established ideas, sometimes is something of an adventure. The following statement from the Influences section, which on the surface seems simple enough, is actually sort of a tough one to nail down with a source that says this specifically:

Several ideas in the Constitution, however, were new. These were associated with the combination of
consolidated government along with federal relationships with constituent states.

There are sources that say that the idea of unalienable rights is a first, while there are some sources that also say that the Scottish Enlightenment played a significant role in advancing original governmental precepts. Sometime soon I'll post some of the quotes and their respective sources to get some feed back on that one. As it is, this statement remains uncited. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:04, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Scottish Enlightenment

@Allreet, Randy Kryn, and Rjensen: — Francis Hutcheson, David Hume, Henry Home, Lord Kames, Montesquieu, John Locke, and others were Scots and Englishmen who contributed greatly to the Scottish Enlightenment and American Enlightenment, whose works on moral, spiritual and political philosophy were routinely read by Madison, Franklin, Adams and other founders.

• "Benjamin Franklin was acquainted with Scottish philosophers- Kames, Hume, Smith, etc- and helped the next generation of Americans study in Britain. Many Scottish intellectuals, governors, clergymen, doctors, merchants, and laborers migrated to America..., and in the process there was an active and ongoing exchange of ideas and political philopshy.

• "Madison wrote the plan for a Federal Republic upon the suggestion of Hume. Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations introduced the thesis of "commerce and liberty." The Scottish Enlightenment supported its American counterpart, American independence (1776), the making of the US Constitution (1787), and the forging of the American Nation. This paper examines the correspondence between the two enlightenments."

• "When the definitive book on the ideological origins of the American Constitution is written it should not ignore the remarkable similarities between the political and social theory of Madison and that of the Scottish Enlightenment thinkers"

• "A large body of research conducted over a period of many years demonstrated the enormous contribution that Scottish thought made to Early America. . . . By 1946, Herbert W. Schneider concluded that the Scottish Enlightenment was "probably the most potent single tradition in the American Enlightenment.

• "Provincialism, democracy, and nationalism worked together to filter ideas, blur their sharpness, and mellow their impact. Yet these characteristics of the American scene occasionally put Americans in a unique position to use ideas in new and creative ways. This is illustrated in what is often considered the classic document of the American Enlightenment, the Federalist Papers . . . "

Below are a few sources added to the US Const Bibliography. There are others and more are likely to follow. Imo this aspect of the Influences that bore upon the founders needs to be covered with a short summary paragraph, at least. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:10, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Upon reflection it seems the idea that the Scottish and English social-political scientists/philosophers during the Enlightenment of the eighteenth century had anything but a passing influence on the founders is an idea that may be, to some, something that is perhaps a remote or otherwise abstract idea in terms of what inspired the arduous forging the Constitution. With the idea that no one school of thought can take credit for 'inventing the political wheel', it seems we can't dismiss this advent as something more or less relatively inconsequential to the founding. e.g.According to many credible sources Madison and Franklin were steeped in enlightenment ideas. If there are no objections, or reservations, a proposed paragraph to this idea needs to be included in the Influences section. With all the commonality between the Americans and the British, it's something of a wonder how King Charles III simply ignored all the appeals of the colonists who cited English Common Law and the rights of Englishmen as it concerned everyone on both sides of the Atlantic. - - Gwillhickers (talk) 04:01, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

If the information presented in § Influences may have been more or less relatively inconsequential to the founding, then I would prefer trimming the questionable parts (or cutting the section entirely) rather than expanding the section with more speculation. If we are including influences that are not universally accepted, then we should include non-white influences as well.  — Freoh May 17, 2023 (UTC)

Please pay more attention to what was actually written. i.e. . . . it seems we can't dismiss this advent as something more or less relatively inconsequential to the founding. There are a multitude of reliable sources that cover the events, influences, that led to the Constitution. If you know of any "non white" influences that are covered by reliable sources please present them. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:43, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Miller admits that "American Indian" influence is not "universally accepted." Donald Grinde and Bruce Johansen in Exemplar of Liberty appear to be the most ardent supporters of Native influence on US political theory during the colonial period. However, this topic is not without its discussion. Samuel Payne Jr, William Starna & George Hamell, and Philip A. Levy have written or critiqued the subject.

Payne examined the issue from multiple angles and came to the conclusion that there was no noteworthy impact, and specifically calls out the three divisions of power as not being like the three branches of government as drafted in the US Constitution (618).

Starna & Hamell come to a similar conclusion and also admit that the scholarship is presently "inadequate." (427, first page).

Levy is mostly no different, claiming that Grinde and Johansen have "A crazy quilt of inaccurate assessments." (603).

At best, to me, this appears as a Black Athena type of situation, where the claim, no matter how speculative or intriguing, has resulted in renewed interest in examining Native political theory, especially regarding its relationship to American political theory.

Later edit: Grinde and Johansen reply to critique. Whether or not one agrees with the evaluation should not, I believe, dissuade inclusion, as it has been presented as a valid theory with some weight and discourse. Should it be in this article? I'm not sure. I would say 'no,' if pressed to decide. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 13:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

That said, this isn't necessarily a vote against potential inclusion. I think there has been enough writing on the subject to warrant a mention (and the subsequent rebuttals). However, I'm not sure if this is the best article for it. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 13:44, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

There are hundreds of reliable sources that cover the political and philosophical influences exerted on the Founders, through the works of John Locke, Montesquieu, William Blackstone, David Hume and the Enlightenment thinking of the eighteenth century altogether – not to mention the Magna Carta.These authors were often cited by name during the debates, drafting and ratification of the Constitution. Seeking other such political philosophers simply on the basis that they may be "non white" is not the way to approach matters Such an effort would only invoke due-weight issues if someone was actually able to dig up such a source in some reaching effort to make the point. If a reliable source can be presented to this effect we can entertain the idea, but no such example was offered in the first place.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:38, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I do not suggest incorporating non-white influences simply on the basis that they may be "non white". Indigenous American influence on the constitution is notable, and I have seen no academic consensus for the exceptional idea that only white people were notable influences.  — Freoh 13:23, 28 May 2023 (UTC)::

Here is your exact quote: If we are including influences that are not universally accepted, then we should include non-white influences as well. The philosophers were not selected because they were white, but because they had a major impact on the thinking that went into the founding. You are the one who introduced race into the discussion. If you are not familiar with the philosophers referred to you should read up on them, as they are cited in numerous reliable sources. Again, if you can find other such individuals who were non-white, who had a direct influence on the debates and founding, cited by as many reliable sources, per due weight, by all means, please present them, instead of going to my Talk page and accusing me that I accused you of "racial discrimination". -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:01, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

I am familiar with the Europeans whom you cite. I introduced race into the discussion because I believe that you have inadvertently fallen victim to systemic bias, and I have no reason to believe that you intentionally selected them on the basis of race. I still do not see why you want to prioritize direct influence from white people over indirect influence from non-white people, given how notable and significant the latter was.  — Freoh 15:57, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

We are referring to major influential individual people, notable political philosophers and scientists, whose ideas.were often incorporated into the Constitution Certainly there are all sorts of people of different races and other events that indirectly had some sort of influence on the founding. If you would like to touch on other indirect influences and such, you are welcome to do so if you can support any such ideas with reliable sources.
Once again, the philosophers in question were chosen because they are widely notable among historians and covered by numerous reliable sources. I don't have to explain why none of them are "non-white". Again, if you can locate any "non-white" individuals who impacted the founders as much Montesquieu, Hume, Locke, Plato, etc, and if they are covered by reliable sources, please present them, rather than accusing me of "systemic bias", simply on the basis that no "non-white" individuals were involved in said capacity. If this is not true, please present your own examples -- no one is stopping you. This will be the third time you've been asked, and you still have not produced anything, so we can only wonder whose the one really subjected by bias. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:54, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

The idea of American Indian influence on the Constitution has been expanded on, while to what extant this influence had is still a matter of debate among some historians. The Iroquois Confederacy was admired by Jefferson who noted that it was a form of limited government that represented its peoples. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:06, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. I had some reservations about including it, but then I figured that the topic had received enough attention that it did deserve a mention. If people do want to learn more about the potential influences, then the link to the Great Law of Peace is the best article for it since it has an entire section on it. While I know there are more scholars who promote this theory, I could only easily find Grinde and Johansen's work on it, which is probably not too surprising, since they are arguably the most ardent supporters of this theory. There were web history articles, but those are rarely what I would call scholarly. So, the scale it's at right now seems appropriate. Though, I also wonder if the topic could be made into its own article. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 19:29, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

We must remember that throughout history, groups of people banned together in times of need and when imminent threats were looming, and in the process they of course organized amongst themselves to one degree or another. Both the colonists and the Indian peoples, as we know, had their own concerns to deal with and banned together for their own reasons. Of the main issues the colonists banned together over were the Stamp Act and the Intolerable Acts, which is what summoned them together to form the Continental Association, calling for a nation wide boycott of British goods. To effect this they organized, with delegates from each colony, and in the process the first form of a representative government, independent of Britain, emerged. This would have occurred by sheer necessity, without any inspiration from the Iroquois, but this is not to say that the colonists and the Indian peoples didn't 'compare notes' on matters of government and the people it was supposed to serve. The Iroquois councils were no doubt an added inspiration to the founders, but to think any one group of people 'invented the political wheel' all by themselves would be underestimating matters all the way around. From what I've read thus far, such an advent forms the basis of the criticism as to the extent of credit due to the Iroquois in terms of any influence they had on the founding. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:27, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Citations & Sources on the Enlightenment

Branson, Roy (April–June 1979). "James Madison and the Scottish Enlightenment". Journal of the History of Ideas. 40 (2). University of Pennsylvania Press: 235–250. doi:10.2307/2709150. JSTOR 2709150. Howe, Daniel Walker (July 1989). "Why the Scottish Enlightenment Was Useful to the Framers of the American Constitution". Comparative Studies in Society and History. 31 (3). Cambridge University Press: 572–587. JSTOR 178771. Bailyn, Bernard (January 1962). "Political Experience and Enlightenment Ideas in Eighteenth-Century America". The American Historical Review. 67 (2). Oxford University Press: 339–351. doi:10.2307/1843427. JSTOR 1843427. Tanaka, Hideo (June 2010). "The Scottish Enlightenment and Its Influence on the American Enlightenment". The Kyoto Economic Review. 79 (1). Kyoto University: 16–39. JSTOR 43213383. Reck, Andrew J. (March 1991). "The Enlightenment in American Law I: The Declaration of Independence". The Review of Metaphysics. 44 (3). Philosophy Education Society Inc.: 549–573. JSTOR 20129058. —— (June 1991). "The Enlightenment in American Law II: The Constitution". The Review of Metaphysics. 44 (4). Philosophy Education Society Inc.: 729–754. JSTOR 20129097. —— (September 1991). "The Enlightenment in American Law II: The Bill of Rights". The Review of Metaphysics. 45 (1). Philosophy Education Society Inc.: 57–87. JSTOR 20129137.

Typo in Table of Contents?

I think "Civic religion" is supposed to be "Civil religion". 2605:59C8:1557:CA00:1DCB:DBCF:3CB9:7776 (talk) 21:13, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

It can be either. The linked topic mentions both, and does not provide a reliable source to indicate which is more common. TEDickey (talk) 23:26, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2024

Please undo the last edit as no sources are provided and names were changed by a new editor with only 12 edits under them. They left no edit summary which leads me to believe they are putting their own information in and not sourcing or researching it. 2600:8801:CA09:CC00:68C7:9529:C153:B1AF (talk) 07:58, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the concern.

@Rbarua3368 Do you have any sources for the pertaining edits? Urropean (talk) 20:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I made two edits to the page. I had forgotten to write a comment before publishing my first edit, and in my second edit I wrote an explanation of my changes. But, I do apologize for not sourcing the information I added. I have now added this source to the article.

[1]https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/nominations/a-chief-justice-rejected.htm Rbarua3368 (talk) 22:53, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! The summary is appreciated but a source is always ideal. Honestly, the original text (from before your edit was made) should've already been sourced, regardless... Thanks for adding one! Urropean (talk) 22:56, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Full Faith and Credit Clause#Requested move 21 January 2024

This requested move to lowercase clause's of the Constitution is already in a relisting, editors and readers of this page may have an interest. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

DC > 10 square miles

“As its final act, the Congress of Confederation agreed to purchase 10 square miles from Maryland and Virginia for establishing a permanent capital.” I think this should be 100 square miles, i.e., the “ten Miles square” (10 miles x 10 miles) from Article I, Section VIII, Clause XVII. (The Virginia portion was given back in the 1846 retrocesssion.) 2601:1C2:100:80A:5A70:DF9A:4D2D:B7B8 (talk) 19:51, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at WT:MOSCAPS § Founding Fathers of the United States

 You are invited to join the discussion at WT:MOS § Founding Fathers of the United States on whether the expression "founding fathers" should be in lower or upper case. Thanks. Allreet (talk) 22:30, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 April 3#Template:Historical American Documents

This discussion affects this page and may be of interest to topic editors. It concerns the navbox {{Historical American Documents}}. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:50, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2024

(U.S. government sources The Constitution of the United States Explained, U.S. Congress: legal analysis and interpretation based primarily on Supreme Court case law) Change | https://www.congress.gov/constitution-annotated/ | with | https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/ | Because the link is dead, the second one is very good and is the new one. 190.141.81.136 (talk) 13:34, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done --Ferien (talk) 15:41, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Obvious grammatical error

'was became operational' isn't proper. Who writes this stuff? 100.15.215.166 (talk) 22:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Now corrected. Dhtwiki (talk) 02:56, 25 May 2024 (UTC)