Talk:Constitution of the United States/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Articles on individual amendments

Naming

Some of the current amendment articles are now actually quite good, such asUnited States Constitution/Amendment Twelve. However, I think we should get rid of the subpages. However, there are some options for the new name, and I don't know which one is the best:

1. Amendment Twelve of the United States Constitution
2. Amendment 12 of the United States Constitution
3. Twelfth Amendment of the United States Constitution
4. 12th Amendment of the United States Constitution

Any suggestions? Jeronimo

The more famous ammendments should simply be at First Amendment, Twelfth Amendment and the like, unless there is any need to disambiguate, in which case I'd go with the third format above: Twelfth Amendment of the United States Constitution. (I came here just to say that the subpages should be renamed, so I'm glad someone's already raised it :) -- Sam

Of doesn't sound right to me. I vote for Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Tokerboy

IMO option 3 is best for all. "First Amendment" and other famous ones, could redirect to the longer titles. But each one should be named using the same convention in order to reduce confusion lest somebody erroneously links to a not-so-famous Amendment via the shortened syntax. --mav

I agree "to" is even better. --mav

Problem with editing 12th Amend. §

In the process of making this (IMHO, ill-advised) change, some original explanatory text from the 12th amendement article was removed. Additionally, links are being redirected to this general, and less useful page. For example, if someone is specifically interested in the 12th amendment, they are now redirected to the U.S. Constitution page, whereas before, they actually got the 12th amendment and historical context. sigh.

Here's the text, in hopes that someone figures out how to integrate it.

This amendment was motivated by the Presidential election of 1800. Prior to ratification of the Twelfth Amendment, votes for President and Vice President were not listed on separate ballots. Thomas Jefferson and his running mate Aaron Burr tied in the number of electoral votes received, neither receiving a majority of votes. The House of Representatives voted over thirty times to a tie vote before a deal was struck and Jefferson was elected.

The amendment itself was a subject of a constitutional dilemma. On June 15, 1804, the amendment received the constitutionally-required ratification by three-fourths of the state legislatures when New Hampshire ratified the amendment. However, on June 20, the Governor of the state vetoed the amendment. Since the Constitution doesn't mention anything about governors, it's questionable whether their veto matters. The issues was resolved when Tennessee ratified the amendment on July 27, 1804.

-- RobLa July 20, 2002

Original texts on Wikipedia

I note that Constitution of Canada has gone on the chopping block due to it being just a source text ported over to Wikipedia. I agree with this verdict, I've campaigned vociferously against source texts myself in other places. However, as a good red-blooded Canadian, I feel it is my duty to put United States Constitution up for the same treatment. Fair's fair, after all. :) Since this page gets linked to more frequently, though, I don't want to just go in and clear out great swaths without warning or consultation. Anyone have any comments or suggestions before I convert the US constitution to external links? Bryan Derksen, Friday, June 14, 2002

Go for it. Vicki Rosenzweig, Saturday, June 22, 2002

I strongly disagree. If it's put into the Wiki in such a way that context can be added, then it's a good thing to have the source text as well (note, for example, the Twelfth Amendment article). I also think the Canadian Constitution should be in Wikipedia as well. Any decent encyclopedia includes the full text of at least the U.S Constitution. RobLa, Saturday, June 22, 2002

The problem--other than the imbalance of chopping the Canadian constitution but keeping the US--is that *everything* here can be edited. That makes the Wikipedia a poor location for any source text--someone looking up the text of the US constitution needs to know that they're going to see the precise document, not something someone fiddled with because the commas in the Second Amendment don't work by 21st century standards, or something with a line missing because someone got careless. Or, worse, someone decided they disagreed with the people who wrote the thing, and took it on themselves to leave here what they think our constitution should be. Vicki Rosenzweig, Saturday, June 22, 2002

I also concur -- source texts like these are useless unless the reader can be reasonably sure that what is on the screen is actually what the original authors wrote. Small selections that are commented on are fine entire documents are most certainly not appropriate -- this is especially important with legal documents. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that tollerates some almanac-type list information, it is not a library. Rob, please see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not number 12 and also some comments at talk:Macbeth. --maveric149

Cunctator has developed some ideas on separate project to handle the wikification of source texts, and I added a few thoughts. If anyone's interested, check out m:Project Sourceberg (his name, not mine ;-) over at the meta. --Stephen Gilbert

No need for to go through the trouble of having a separate project. What is needed is separate namespace that has special default properties -- such as only being able to be edited by "trusted hand" or greater users and be able to be called upon by other articles with the following or similar syntax: [[source:Origin of Species/Chapter 1{1-15}] (where "1-15" are line numbers) and also serve as stand-alone wikified texts. Of course, there would have to be strongly enforced policies to only correct OCR errors and to wikify the text. See my idea at wikipedia:feature requests. --maveric149

Personaly, I (and others, based on comments on the Sourceberg page) don't think that primary sources are well suited for permanent wiki life. Once they are corrected and linked to articles, there's not need to keep them in an editable state. Also, I think it's important to for the Wikipedia project to remain focused on producing encyclopedia articles. Inputing, correcting, and linking source texts, while very interesting and useful, doesn't fall under that mandate. I think, if enough people are interested, that the wikification of sources is best left to a closely related but separate sister project. --Stephen Gilbert

---

I've redirected all the original-text pages here, except for United States Constitution/Article One, which is protected. Can any sysop help me with redirect that to this page? jheijmans, Friday, July 19, 2002

---

Cunctator, please look at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not # 12:

"Mere collections of public domain or other source material; such as entire books, original historical documents, letters, laws, proclamations (...)"

Please restore the previous status. Jeronimo 11:19 Aug 10, 2002 (PDT)

jheijmans, the amendments are of enough historical signicance to have their own pages. Whether or not the source text is quoted on them is less of a concern (they are short enough that it doesn't do harm), but they all have histories associated with them. As you can see from this long talk thread, I was pretty upset to see the amendments get redirected, and was quite relieved to see Cunctator's action. -- RobLa

Maybe the US constitution is interesting enough for an encyclopedia article, but who guarantees the page is not edited here at Wikipedia? Just because the constitution is not copyrighted, there's no need to paste it in. Instead, it would be far more interesting to read about the meaning of the constitution to the country, the people, the world; its history and evolution.

I will restore the redirect version when I have the time for it. Jeronimo 11:19 Aug 10, 2002 (PDT)

You aren't getting it, are you? There is no justification for having an article about the 12th amendment redirect back to a general page about the constitution. None. This isn't about having source text or not, it's about whether or not the amendments deserve separate articles. -- RobLa

How about if I remove the text from each amendment page, leaving a link to http://www.archives.gov/exhibit_hall/charters_of_freedom/constitution/constitution_transcription.html and a stub describing the basic gist of the amendment's content? I don't know a lot about the history of the various amendments, and their detailed implementation throughout history, so that would be left to future editors to flesh out. Bryan Derksen 16:36 Aug 10, 2002 (PDT)

That sounds good to me Bryan. The amendments shouldn't be in an editable state and we accomplish nothing by being yet another mirror for them. We are making an encyclopedia here. --mav

That's better. As I said before, my biggest beef was with nuking the separate articles. That said, I think it's humorous that people think hyperlinks to external sites are more reliable than source text. Other websites change their URL structure all of the time. Heck, the recent change from nara.gov to archives.gov broke all of the constitution links. I think it's blind orthodoxy to have a black and white policy prohibiting source text. -- RobLa

Hey, I want the text there. It's not like it's a burden, and it's very useful. And I dare you to find a paper encyclopedia that doesn't include any excerpts from major documents. --The Cunctator

Excerpts are fine. At issue here is if the entire text should be in here --- which is a public editable website. The text is worthless without some reasonable assurance that it is exactly the same as the original. Therefore the stubs and external links. --mav

This sort of thing has been discussed lots of times in the past, see WikiBiblion and associated talk for example. Obviously, I agree with Maveric here. Bryan Derksen

Obviously I agree with RobLa here. There's plenty of a reasonable assurance that the text is exactly the same as the original. Find the differences. It's not like someone can sneak in changes. --The Cunctator

Looks like the Cunctator is willing to fight this edit war longer than I intend to stay up tonight. But unless someone comes up with some good reason for this particular source text to be left in Wikipedia while all the others are being removed, I'll resume work on it again later. Bryan Derksen

Same here. Let him have it for another day. Perhaps the extra time will give him some time to cool off. I have more interesting things to do right now than fight an edit war. --mav

So do I.==The Cunctator

I dont know why you just don't leave it the way it is. its fine why change soemthing that is fine. its a waste of time. just leave it the way it is. In my persanol opinion wikipedia should be more tnhan an encyclpedia it should contain more facts and bits and bobs than any other encyclopedia, factfinder ever contained. I also thing there should be a dictionary section. Maybe links like this for defenitions: WikiDictionary\abnormal.

But no one ever likes my opinons or idea so its prob a wate of my time wrting this . - fonzy.

---

Cunctator and RobLa: an encyclopedia is to look up information ABOUT various subjects. If I look up the Bible, I don't expect to find a verbatim copy of the text there. I want to know what signficance the book has, who wrote it, why it is so important. Such a discussion may use some quotes from the book itself, though they would need to be explained. If I would simply get the full text instead, I'd probably go away to some other encyclopedia instead. The same for the (US) constitution. If I wanted to read the full text, I'd probably search for it specifically and not bother to look it up in an encyclopedia anyway. In stead, I expect to find something about the history, the significance etc. of the US constitution. And yes, even the individual articles or amendments may be of interest (f.e. the gun-bearing amendment). And in some cases, if the text is short, that could even include a full copy of the text while remaining interesting, such as the Article 9 of the Constitution of Japan article. So, if you have something to write about the constitution, please do, but do a little more than just the plain text. Jeronimo 12:29 Aug 11, 2002 (PDT)

Section on impeachment

I edited the section on impeachment and added a comment to it a disputed section. A senator may have been expelled but not impeached. That raises a question as to the accuracy of the claim that there were 16 impeachments (now 15). Guanaco

Re: RickK According to Article 1, Section 5, it requires a two-thirds vote to "expel" a member of either house of Congress. That vote is taken within that house. Since expulsion and impeachment are two different things, I removed the reference to the impeachment of a senator. See [1]. The number of impeached officials as shown in the edited paragraph is what is disputed. Since part of it has already been proven to be incorrect, it is risky to assume that the rest will be. Guanaco 05:11, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Since you have no specific objection to any specific section of that section, I am removing the header. RickK | Talk 05:30, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Senator William Blount was impeached in 1798. The Senate did not convict him because they had already expelled him, but he was impeached by the House. See also [2].--Jwolfe 11:53, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Bill of Rights Joke?

Someone placed this in the section about the bill of rights. I italicized the text in question. I won't delete it, though. Someone should notice this. If not, then it proves that theory about the quantity over quality arguement against Wikipedia. I hope someone removes it.

Originally, the Bill of Rights was not intended to apply to the states; for instance, some states in the early years of the nation officially established a religion. This interpretation of these Amendments remained until 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was passed, which stated, in part, that:

I'm so caught up got me feelin it caught i dont know what it is, but this girl she got me twisted im so caught up got me feelin it caught up im losin control this girls got a hold on me

EDIT: This must have been a problem with my browser. Why did I see this. Then, after viewing the page again, it was replaced with:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

What happened was that somebody vandalized the page, and by the time you refreshed, someone else had caught it and gone back to the correct version. This is one of the beauties of a wiki--although content can be vandalized, it can also be fixed quickly and easily. Meelar (talk) 02:22, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

What the heck... I'm scared now... watch out, ladies! --Luigifan 20:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this has been noticed. --Luigifan 20:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Temporary lock

On top of going around and vandalizing pages, this bradymail.org guy has the gall of calling ME the vandal. I have placed a temporary lock on the page against anonymous users; if the guy wants to get into an edit war, let him register! -- Dullfig 20:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Dullfig.. only admins can protect pages. This article is not protected from editing currently. And semi-protection is only intended to stop anonymous vandalism, it is never used to gain an advantage in a dispute over article content. Thanks. Rhobite 22:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

is this a joke? a flag background for "We The People"?

is this a joke? there's an american flag behind the words "We the people" in the iconic jpg on the top right of the wiki. who is the marketing flunkie who thought this would be a good idea? there's obviously way too many stars, for a document put together in the 18th century, not to mention the design of the flag itself, which is an idiotic anachronism. is this supposed to be an encyclopedia article, or is this supposed to be the COVER to a VHS video cassette of a silly documentary? it's embarrassing. not only is it totally fantastic-- pure fantasy-- but the projected implications about the modern day reality of the union, and the scope of the thought of the framers,...... is just, i don't even want to get into it.

this kind of nonsense needs to be cleaned up. 128.119.236.79 04:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Hemp

Isn't the physical document a piece of hemp paper? If this is in fact true then I would like to see it mentioned in the article here.

No, it isn't. The Constitution is written on parchment. This is treated animal skin, typically sheepskin. Steve802

Actually the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, let alone a lot of clothing and paper from earlier generations prior to the 1930's was made of Hemp. Hemp (English word) was a major product of the colonies in fact, whereas it was illegal not to grow it at one time. During the 1930's a campaign was conducted by the Hearst Corporation to label Hemp as the 'devil weed' and they picked the Spanish word Marijuana(sic) to demonize this hearty and very versitle plant.

Here are some facts:

[Copyright violation (possibly taken from http://www.world-mysteries.com/marijuana1.htm) deleted — Mateo SA (talk | contribs) 14:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)]

NORTHMEISTER

I hope that information is in hemp, but it's completely irrelevant here. —Tamfang 00:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

True. --Northmeister 23:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

According to the National Archives it is made of parchment, and a great deal of time and money is spent preserving it for future generations.

Preserving the Past, U.S. News & World Report, September 22, 2003, SPECIAL REPORT; 100 DOCUMENTS THAT SHAPED AMERICA

DIGITIZING THE CONSTITUTION TO CHECK THE RAVAGES OF TIME, Business Week, May 18, 1987, SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY

Jjjjjjjjjj 07:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Section on impeachment

I edited the section on impeachment and added a comment to it a disputed section. A senator may have been expelled but not impeached. That raises a question as to the accuracy of the claim that there were 16 impeachments (now 15). Guanaco

Re: RickK According to Article 1, Section 5, it requires a two-thirds vote to "expel" a member of either house of Congress. That vote is taken within that house. Since expulsion and impeachment are two different things, I removed the reference to the impeachment of a senator. See [3]. The number of impeached officials as shown in the edited paragraph is what is disputed. Since part of it has already been proven to be incorrect, it is risky to assume that the rest will be. Guanaco 05:11, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Since you have no specific objection to any specific section of that section, I am removing the header. RickK | Talk 05:30, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Senator William Blount was impeached in 1798. The Senate did not convict him because they had already expelled him, but he was impeached by the House. See also [4].--Jwolfe 11:53, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

On the description of the 13th amendment

On the description of the 13th amendment:

It appears to me that the text "except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted" can equally well be taken to refer to "slavery and involuntary servitude" and to "involuntary servitude" alone. Historically this exception appears to have been used in order to allow prison work, which surely falls under the rubric of "involuntary servitude" rather than slavery. Moreover, the Supreme Court has established many times that the amendment "abolishes slavery" in no uncertain terms. Some of the quotes are here: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/constitution/amdt13.html Therefore, I think it justified to simply say that the amendment abolishes slavery.

Comments? --AV

I believe AV's assesment is totally correct. --Daniel C. Boyer

I hadn't thought of the other interpretation. Too bad they didn't have wikipedians around to say "but hey, it could have this second unintended meaning too." --KQ

Amending the US Constitution

The recent edits (see page history between 27 and 29 Feb 2004) about the difficulty amending the US Constitution are mildly interesting but despite several rounds of editing (including my own best efforts) were not presented in a NPOV way. The implied value judgement that it is "too hard" always came through. If someone wants to discuss the amendment process in more detail, I would recommend moving it into a completely new article instead. Rossami 01:29, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)\

I'll start that now. Meelar 01:39, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I agree with taking that section out of the lead, but after consideration, I decided to add a rephrased note in the "Amending the Constitution" section. See my changes for details. Also, a semi-related note--is "The Constitution owes its staying power to its simplicity and flexibility" really NPOV? To say nothing of "its basic provisions were so soundly conceived that..." Meelar 01:47, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I thought about that some as well. I came to the conclusion that those clauses just barely meet the NPOV rule because they are (to the best of my knowledge) universally held judgements among serious constitutional scholars. Rossami 13:24, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I don't understand exactly what alternative is being referred to in article 5 in the following text from the top of the section on Unratified Amendments: "Backers of some amendments have attempted the alternative, and thus far never-utilized, method mentioned in Article Five. In two instances—reapportionment in the 1960s and a balanced federal budget during the 1970s and 1980s—these attempts have come within just two state legislative "applications" of triggering that alternative method."Johnor 10:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it is referring to the process of constitutional amendment through constitutional convention. The constitution allows for two-thirds of the state to call for such a convention. Article 5 should have some more detail about the process. So far, it has never actually been used to amend the constitution. sebmol 23:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

New Intro

I think there actually is some controversy over this topic (beyond the borderline vandalism this article has been undergoing), so I rewrote the intro to more accurately reflect both sides. Comments? Meelar 21:13, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

I changed "inalienable" to "unalienable"--see [5]. Meelar 20:04, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

the oldest comprehensive written national constitution on Earth still in force??? so what are all these amendments people talk about? It isn't still in force if it has been changed? --BozMo 23:25, 9 May 2004 (UTC)(talk)

It's considered to be still in force, even though it has been amended, it's just in force in a slightly different form. If the amendments had, say, eliminated Congress, than there might be grounds to claim otherwise, but thus far, they haven't altered the fundamental structures of government to the point that they're unrecognizable. Meelar 02:18, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

"the oldest comprehensive written national constitution on Earth still in force" - Why is the reference to Earth there? Are there national constituions (that we know of :) anywhere else? It seems to me like a useless term trying to make the fact seem more grand. I think it should be removed as it serves no purpose. Objections? --153.1.3.150 13:54, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

How about "in the world" instead of "on earth"? older≠wiser 14:00, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

more bill of rights detail

Anyone have a big problem if I work these facts into the United States Constitution#Bill of Rights (1-10) section?

• the second amendment is in fact interpreted as being an individual right by the SCOTUS and the meaning of militia and the people are no longer an issue (I know, the sentence in the current article is about the controversy, whether those gnashing their ignorance about it understand current case-law or not); and maybe I can slide in the famous phrase "an individual right but not an absolute one" as regards the determination of who may be excluded and what weapons are protected...I don't want to repeat everything at the Gun Politics article (hell, I don't even want to look at the Gun Politics article because I know I'm going to be disgusted at both sides' ignorance of the SC's rulings...), I just think these things are at least as important to mention as the asides already included in the article.
• the least-contested of the first 10 amendments is the 3rd, having been tested only once, and only a few decades ago, in a case involving the displacement of prison guards from their government housing to quarter scabs during a strike.

...Maybe tomorrow if the Steelers game isn't too exciting... Blair P. Houghton 00:55, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

....The oldest written consitution still in force is that of San Marino (adapted 1600). Compare wikipedia 'San Marino'

San Marino's isn't codified, take a look at Institutions here: [6]

Entire section missing

Nice article, but I can't believe it got FA with no section (nor a subarticle) on constitution effects outside USA - i.e. how it influenced the development of other nations constitution and the worldwide spread of the democratic political system. There is only a single sentence in lead and served as a model for numerous other nations' constitutions. When I expanded it with including the second oldest in the world, the May Constitution of Poland which was written in 1791. it got promptly removed by User:Mateo SA with the advice mention of Polish constitution not appropriate for intro - try incorporating that fact later in the article. Unfortunately, there is not a single appopriate section in the entire text for this, or for mentioning the French constitution, other constitution based on USA, the appeal of the USA constitution to the new nations, comparison with other type of constitutions, etc. Please adress this quick, or I feel that this article will have to go through the FA Removal Candidates process for being incomplete. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 12:56, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Mateo is right; it is not appropriate for the introduction and should be incorporated elsewhere in the article. I have created a new section, "International impact", and incorporated the information there. Feel free to expand to discuss influence on other countries besides Poland and France. —Lowellian (talk) 23:42, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

I agree a separate section is a better place then lead fot that kind of info. Unfortunately I am no consitution specialist, so I can hope that the team which made the current article FA will work on that section as well. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:17, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Question of Derivation

The second amendment mentions a "well rounded militia". Might this be the National Guard, or has this body been dissolved over time? And if it is the National Guard, why do I not see any links to them in the amendment? TomStar81

You don't see links because this issue is discussed in the articles Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and militia, not here. —Lowellian (talk) 23:45, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

OK, that makes sense. Thanks for the fill in. TomStar81 03:21, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Also, the actual phrase is "well-regulated". – Mateo SA | talk 03:24, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

constitution or current state of government?

the "constitution" intro section in the article was already far afield, in my opinion. now it's been expanded to discuss, of all things, the federal reserve! anybody else think that entire section should be tightened and brought back to discussing the subject of the article? SaltyPig 01:55, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)

Corsican constitution of 1755

Any info on this document and how it influenced the US Constitution? An explanation why it cannot be considered the first constitution would be nice. See Talk:Polish_Constitution_of_May_3,_1791#Corsican_constitution for info I googled so far. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 12:05, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Democracy

I note that "democracy" isn't mentioned at all in the article, even though the Constitution and its amendments created democratic institutions (albeit highly mitigated; less mitigated over time) in a republican framework. The article doesn't seem complete without mentioning that the Constitution outlines democratic institutions without mentioning the word "democracy" once. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 18:50, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

right -- democracy isn't mentioned in the constitution, so why should it be mentioned in the article? unless you want to mention that the founders were well aware of what a nasty, dangerous thing democracy is, and that's why the constitution prohibits it. what does "democratic institutions in a republican framework" mean anyway? you got that from the constitution? what institutions are you talking about, and where in the constitution are these "democratic" institutions outlined? SaltyPig 19:05, 2005 May 11 (UTC)

The House of Representatives, elected directly by the people. Universal suffrage, outlined by Amendments. Direct election of Senators, provided by Amendment. If you want to say that the founders totally rejected democracy, there would be denial going on there. They avoided the word "democracy", but they instilled democratic institutions within the republican framework. This is fact. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 02:42, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

The bottom line is, the Constitution provided a way for the people to change their government regularly. That's democracy. The U.S. is a republic, but the U.S. has a democracy. Otherwise, you're calling G.W. Bush a liar every time he refers to the U.S. as a democracy. You wouldn't be doing that, would you? :) — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 02:51, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

universal suffrage is more a modification of part of the framework of the republic, but you're correct in aim (more below). and yes, it's a fact that the founders did generally reject democracy (using precision in language there). i do not agree with your claim that the constitution "provided" (past tense) a way for the people to change government regularly (again using precision). however, your point of direct election of senators is valid; it did take the US toward democracy, as did the 16th amendment. if you would add that to the article with care (not ascribing democratic intent to the prior constitution), i support the mod. to answer your question, which i guess was perhaps a joke: yes, i believe GW Bush is a liar and a tyrant when he presumes for the sake of popularity with the ignorant that democracy is good, but i don't see that it matters much to an article about the constitution (other than a new section about its general ineffectiveness in preventing tyranny). on the subject at hand, i would welcome a tight reference in the article to democracy, but not one that attempts to roll previous republican aspects into what we have now. please keep it in historical context and objective, and i'm cool, as i hope most people would be. you're of course right that we do have a democracy now, but mostly because of the failure of the earlier version of the constitution, not its originally stated or historical intent. SaltyPig 03:09, 2005 May 12 (UTC)

I'm not interested in changing the article--It seems to be too tangly for my skills, so I'll leave that up to others. I just wanted to mention that the framers didn't wholly distance themselves from 'democracy' as is often claimed. The House of Representatives was intended to be a directly elected democratic institution from the very beginning. And I generally agree with your position on Bush, but that's another matter. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 17:49, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with past comments, the constitution was not meant to set up a democracy. They purposely put the senate in and had senators elected by the state legislature to insulate the government from democracy and keep it elitist. Only a few of the "founding fathers" as they are called believed in democracy, most were at least partially opposed to it (if not completely opposed). While the constitution has become slightly more democratic, I think it is absurd to say the US was or is a democracy--republic maybe, but democracy, no. And republics suck anyway, just look at the US!

NPOV disputed

NOTE: because these are heated subjects, i am attempting to follow wiki policy to the letter. i ask that all participating in any debate or edits do the same. if i've failed in that regard (new at this), please let me know here or on my talk page, and i'll attempt to fix quickly. SaltyPig 02:20, 2005 May 12 (UTC)

History

This government lacked, for example, any power to impose taxes as it had no method of enforcing payment. It could not even control commerce between the states, leading to a series of conflicting tax laws and tariffs between states. the word "even" indicates bias, implying certain minimum federal control of commerce on which all agree. the phrase "leading to" is not factual, and also shows bias. it could be changed to "allowing", but the entire sentence should be rewritten.

Not only this, but the Articles required unanimous consent from all the states before any changes could take effect. "Not only this" is the language of somebody with an agenda -- argumentative. it has no place here.

All this was criticized as far exceeding the convention's mandate, and being extralegal besides, but the paralysis of the Articles of Confederation government was evident and the Congress agreed to submit the proposal to the states despite the exceeded terms of reference. "but the paralysis of the Articles of Confederation government was evident"? to many it was not. the statement is biased, and simply a rewrite of history based on which side won (federalists). this and the statements mentioned above presume the correctness of the action that was taken. not objective, and not NPOV. far from offsetting, the following "after fierce fights over ratification in many of the states" is contradictory.

...the Constitution guarantees the legitimacy of the American state by invoking the American electorate. the constitution may attempt such a thing, but it hardly guarantees it. SaltyPig 23:36, 2005 May 12 (UTC)

proposed changes

This government lacked, for example, any power to impose taxes as it had no method of enforcing payment. It could not even control commerce between the states, leading to a series of conflicting tax laws and tariffs between states. Not only this, but the Articles required unanimous consent from all the states before any changes could take effect. States took it so lightly that their representatives were often absent, and the national legislature was very frequently blocked from doing anything, even ineffectual things, pending appearance of a quorum.

to

This government lacked, for example, any power to impose taxes, as it had no method of enforcing payment. It had no authority to override tax laws and tariffs between states. The Articles required unanimous consent from all the states before any changes could take effect. States took the central government so lightly that their representatives were often absent. For lack of a quorum, the national legislature was frequently blocked from making even ineffectual changes. SaltyPig 05:34, 2005 May 26 (UTC)

---

All this was criticized as far exceeding the convention's mandate, and being extralegal besides, but the paralysis of the Articles of Confederation government was evident and the Congress agreed to submit the proposal to the states despite the exceeded terms of reference.

to

These actions were criticized as exceeding the convention's mandate and existing law. However, Congress, noting dissatisfaction with the Articles of Confederation government, agreed to submit the proposal to the states despite the exceeded terms of reference. SaltyPig 05:34, 2005 May 26 (UTC)

Principles of government

if the word "rights" is to refer both to natural rights and to allowances under the constitution, delineation would be helpful and accurate. i am including this as an NPOV dispute because there are many who explicitly presume that the constitution grants rights to the people when it does not. it's POV. the assertion that State actors acting in the name of the people have the right to change their form of national government by means defined in the Fifth Article of the Constitution itself implies that rights (not allowances) flow from the constitution. that is contradicted by the constitution (e.g., amendments 1, 2, 4, 9). a seemingly minor point to some, but it wasn't minor to the framers. their language tended toward precision on the matter. SaltyPig 23:36, 2005 May 12 (UTC)

proposed change

State actors acting in the name of the people have the right to change their form of national government by means defined in the Fifth Article of the Constitution itself.

to

By means defined in the Fifth Article of the Constitution, Congress may propose amendments to the Constitution. Moreover, any two thirds of the states may themselves initiate a convention for proposing amendments. When ratified as specified, all amendments are considered part of the Constitution. SaltyPig 06:02, 2005 May 26 (UTC)

Amendments

This relatively small number is usually attributed to the simplicity and flexibility of the document: it is written in broad terms that are continually reinterpreted by the courts. should be modified so that it doesn't imply that all reinterpretation by the courts is over "broad terms". there is explicit language in the constitution that has been "reinterpreted" to mean something other than what it clearly says. some may argue that the statement i just made is non-NPOV; however, it's no more non-NPOV than the blanket "broad terms" assertion. the statement needs balance, if not simply accuracy. SaltyPig 23:37, 2005 May 12 (UTC)

proposed change

This relatively small number is usually attributed to the simplicity and flexibility of the document: it is written in broad terms that are continually reinterpreted by the courts.

to

This relatively small number is usually attributed to the simplicity and flexibility of the document, as much of it is written in broad terms. The Constitution is continually reinterpreted by the courts, and there is often dispute over these rulings. Some argue that judges cross from mere interpretation to rewriting, thereby bypassing the prescribed amendment process (see Judicial activism). Others counter that broad judicial interpretation is essential for the Constitution to remain relevant to changing times.

not happy with this proposed change myself, and i expect there will be opposition. perhaps it might help to say that i was almost gagging when i wrote it! anyway, please give suggestions for improvement that at least cut down somewhat on the POV of the current version. SaltyPig 03:37, 2005 May 29 (UTC)

I don't think the subject of judicial activism really belongs in an analysis of the constitution. That's an article for another page. The flexibility of the document means that Congress has considerable latitude to legislate in light of new situations. (For example, using the interstate commerce clause to legislate telecommunications.)

You might change the statement to something like: "This relatively small number is usually attributed to the simplicity and flexibility of the document. The Constituion gives Congress considerable freedom to create laws which deal with new situations not forseen by the Constitution's authors, subject to judicial review e.g., using the interstate commerce clause to create legislation regulating telecommunications."

Most situations where the courts review the constitutionality of laws are not controversial and "broad judicial interpretation" ignored the justices who advocate a very narrow reading of the Constitution. Any attempt to include "judicial activism" (a spurious charge at best considering both sides levy it against each other) results in an injection of bias. Better to just discuss the flexibility to create new legislation and leave it at that. Kbrooks 03:56, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)

thanks for the comments. i believe you're arguing for your personal bias here though. many people (the principal author of the constitution among them) disagree that the constitution gives such "considerable freedom" as in your example of claiming that the commerce clause covers telecommunications. though i don't like my proposed change, it does cover two major opinions and doesn't claim either is correct. i don't have any problem not using the loaded term (or link) "judicial activism", but i also don't think it's true to state, as the article does now, that there's a blanket flexibility there. much of what the courts have ruled over the years violates the constitution directly (e.g., mccain-feingold, about which several supreme court justices said as much themselves), or at least takes it into territory which people such as james madison said explicitly is not flexible in the least. i don't agree with your claim that "Most situations where the courts review the constitutionality of laws are not controversial". do you have a suggestion which doesn't get into this territory in any way (rather than just one way)? the article as it stands on this subject is POV, showing only the "do what thou wilt" school of constitutional law -- a point of view. it is not wikipedia's concern what "both sides" do (not sure what that means); the article should discuss the constitution and how its followed or not. there seems to be a view in this country that whatever is allowed to be done must be constitutional. i hope that's not a view you want the article to hold. BTW, i am for removing this section if a balance can't be reached. SaltyPig 04:54, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)

Actually, I'd say it's just better to leave the sentence out altogether. The issue--whether judicial interpretation affects the frequency of amendment--is only peripherally relevant to the issue of the Constitution's amendments, and is ultimately speculative. Wikipedia does not offer opinions--it only describes existing information. We should be skeptical of offering speculation like this. When we do provide it, it should be backed up with specific references, so readers know it is not just a contributor's opinion.

That being said, the issue of interpretation of the Constitution belongs elsewhere in the article. There should be an article describing the issue of "Strict Constructionism" vs. the "Living Constitution"; how the Constitution is interpreted very broadly in practice today, but how many criticize that practice.

I also think that the reference to "judicial activism" is POV. It puts too much emphasis on the judicial branch. In many cases—such as with the Second Amendment—the issue is whether the legislative or executive branches are going beyond the limits imposed by the Constitution. In cases like that, the critics are actually alleging "judicial passivism". Mateo SA | talk 05:09, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

i agree with most of that. barring objection, let's remove it from this part; anybody who wants to write a more complete analysis can. SaltyPig 05:32, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)

I'd agree with removing the statement entirely. After reading the comments, I'd have to agree with Mateo that any mention of judical activism injects POV. Kbrooks 06:10 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)

The Bill of Rights (1–10)

the section states fairly objectively that the supreme court has interpreted the 14th amendment "to extend some, but not all, parts of the Bill of Rights to the states." however, 2 paragraphs later, it states, "The ten amendments collectively known as the Bill of Rights remain as they were adopted two centuries ago." this is after the article asserts correctly, "Unlike most constitutions, amendments to the U.S. constitution are appended to the existing body of the text, rather than being revisions of or insertions into the main articles."

if there is no provision to revise the literal text of the constitution, then the statement that the first ten amendments "remain as they were adopted two centuries ago" is meaningless, and implies that the bill of rights has not been trammeled. considering that millions of US citizens disagree, especially lately, and considering that the article itself asserts explicitly that the 14th amendment and the supreme court changed the practical meaning of the bill of rights, the claim should be rewritten or stricken. it is not NPOV. SaltyPig 23:38, 2005 May 12 (UTC)

it's often claimed, and the article does it as well, that the bill of rights wasn't "intended" to apply to the states. however, here is another internal contradiction of the article; it discusses guarantees for judicial matters which seem quite strongly to be mostly, if not entirely, state related. this is a contradiction practiced generally, but it shouldn't be ignored simply because most gloss over the problem; if the article is not going to address the contradiction, the previous claim that the bill of rights wasn't intended to apply to the states should be removed. SaltyPig 23:38, 2005 May 12 (UTC) SaltyPig 23:38, 2005 May 12 (UTC)

Huh? The judicial matters could easily apply to Federal courts. Anyway, I wouldn't be surprised if the intent of the BOR to apply only to the Federal government were a matter of historical record. In any case, I do know that that was the accepted judicial interpretation of their intent until the courts began applying them to the states after the 14th amendment.

historical record of intent or not, the document contains no such general restrictions on applicability. the all-inclusive language of most of the BOR, combined with the supremacy clause, requires that all arguments on general inapplicability to the states go extra-constitutional. that's fine, but what the constitution itself says is at least as important for this article. SaltyPig 08:53, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)

proposed change

Originally, the Bill of Rights was not intended to apply to the states; for instance, some states in the early years of the nation officially established a religion. This interpretation of these Amendments remained until 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was passed, which stated, in part, that:

to

It is commonly understood that the Bill of Rights was not originally intended to apply to the states, though except where amendments refer specifically to the Federal Government or a branch thereof (as in the first amendment, under which some states in the early years of the nation officially established a religion), there is no such delineation in the text itself. Nevertheless, a general interpretation of inapplicability to the states remained until 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was passed, which stated, in part, that: SaltyPig 08:53, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)

first amendment

The first guarantees freedom of worship, speech, and press; the right of peaceful assembly; and the right to petition the government to correct wrongs. It also prohibits Congress from passing "any law respecting an establishment of religion"—making this amendment a battlefield in the late-20th century culture wars. the first amendment does not guarantee anything except that congress shall make no law regarding those matters (even there the "guarantee" failed). further, the paragraph is self-contradictory when it states that the first amendment "also prohibits Congress from passing" anything. the prohibition on congress is on congress alone, and it applies to everything listed in the first amendment. if the article is to discuss here 20th century interpretation by the courts, it needs to be labeled correctly. as written, it is not factual, and is a point of view. what is wrong with simply stating exactly what the first amendment says, even if in abridged form? as written, this part of the article is interpretation. SaltyPig 23:38, 2005 May 12 (UTC)

Mateo SA, i like much of your 1st amend changes, but i think it has a small interpretation problem in a different way now. new version: "The first amendment addresses the rights of freedom of speech and the press; the right of peaceful assembly; and the right of petition. It also addresses freedom of religion, both in terms of prohibiting government establishment of religion and protecting the right to free exercise of religion."

it's good that you didn't try to cover everything. my only quibble is with the "prohibiting government establishment of religion" part. the amendment merely prohibits congress from making a law respecting it -- a point that's often ignored these days. seems a small tweak (one that avoids mentioning congress and government) could bring the entire thing into line with the actual text while also avoiding any potential POV claims for volatile territory. what do you think? SaltyPig 05:20, 2005 May 29 (UTC)

I've adjusted the relevant sentence to read as follows: "It also addresses freedom of religion, both in terms of prohibiting thegovernment establishment of religion and protecting the right to free exercise of religion." My intent in rewriting the paragraph was to provide a completely neutral description of the amendment—i.e., to describe the concepts it addresses, without adopting one particular POV regarding its interpretation and application. I prefer that it said something like "literally, the amendment prevents Congress from respecting the establishment, etc.; it has been applied and interpreted in the following ways: . . ." However, I'm not sure there is a way to describe all the issues surrounding the amendment in a way that's both neutral and succinct enough for this article. Perhaps we could try expanding the description a little more, while directing readers to see the main article on the First Amendment (though that article also needs work). Mateo SA | talk 04:36, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

i think it's fine. i like the idea of keeping it very simple while also, when possible, avoiding simply quoting the constitution. that's a difficult task though, as we've seen. it may be that this section would be better as a direct quote, but with wikilinks. as it stands, however, it's improved. still, it's hard to say the same thing as the constitution in a different way without making it longer. anyway, i look forward to your future changes. it would be nice for the article eventually to offer avenues for the more considerate disagreements over the constitution -- linking to geekier articles both at wikipedia and outside. the first amendment, for example, is so simple and clear, yet it's one of the most over-invoked and least understood pieces of law in history. maybe wikipedia can help reduce that strange disconnect. SaltyPig 05:27, 2005 May 30 (UTC)

second amendment

The second guarantees the right to keep and bear arms to a well-regulated militia (well-regulated meaning fit for a purpose and militia meaning the body of citizens likely to be of service in defense of the state). this is not correct. it's an interpretation, and should be marked as such. there are many problems with this section (including the use of the word "guarantees", and the offered definition of "well-regulated"), but using the militia clause to restate militias as the primary subject of the amendment is POV. the language of the amendment is clear, in that the right is explicitly coupled to the people ("the right of the people to keep and bear Arms"). if this section is intending to state what some courts have held as the interpretation of the amendment, it must be clear what it's doing, otherwise it's POV and not factual.

here is an example rewrite which might bother some people, but which is accurate with regard to what the amendment says (not somebody's, or even my, interpretation): "The second amendment prohibits the infringement of the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and lists 'a well regulated Militia' as the reason."

uncomfortable? that's what it says! SaltyPig 23:38, 2005 May 12 (UTC)

No, that is not what it says. The amendment says: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. The amendment does not "list" the militia as the "reason" for the amendment; it simply places two statements side-by-side. Your proposed description interprets the amendment as much as the original description. Mateo SA | talk 01:29, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

that's an absurd claim (for english speakers anyway), but you raise a great point: if the only thing that people can agree on is the literal text, put that as the only attempt to say what it says. it's short enough. i'm all for it. SaltyPig 03:23, 2005 May 13 (UTC)

If it's an absurd claim, why do you feel the need to provide your own redefinition of the amendment? The English language is inherently imprecise (though maybe the "english" language is not). If a sentence (like the second amendment) has only one possible meaning, then no other sentence can stand in its place. Your interpretation of the amendment as listing a reason relies on assumptions about the context of the amendment and the intention of its authors. You assume that the drafters of the amendment intended the first part simply as an offhand remark on the purpose of the amendment, and that that part can consequently be ignored. If that is so, then the drafters were not very precise or careful in writing the second amendment—which would contradict your own assertion that the amendment is unambiguous. My problem is that you insist that the amendment has only one possible meaning: the one you prefer. Mateo SA | talk 05:16, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

i don't see how you get pretty much any of what you say — about the amendment, about what i wrote above, or your claim that there's only one precise construction under which a sentence may keep its meaning. i do love to argue about things like that (off the article talk pages), but not with people who imply that it's relevant or meaningful that i don't cap "english". relevant here is that i obviously don't "feel the need" to provide my interpretation of the amendment, as my edit to the article shows quite well. do you have a problem with that section now (in the article, not here)? my only problem with it is pre-existing material i kept in the interest of making as few changes as possible. i'll leave it, assuming no objection. remember, the issue here is the article, not our opinions on the second amendment, which will probably always disagree. i'm done editing the second amendment part if it's okay. please comment here, or make desired changes to the article directly. i take it from your assertions that we at least agree that the prior interpretation should not stand as it was (unmarked). thanks. SaltyPig 06:40, 2005 May 15 (UTC)

Further discussion on the Second Amendment's grammatical structure might use this analysis produced last year by the Department of Justice. Any analysis of the amendment should include arguments from the individualist, collective and quasi-collective schools of thought. Kbrooks 06:19 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)

Kbrooks, i think we solved this, though the argument's still there. have you seen the current version? probably the only solution is to quote the second amendment verbatim and get out as quickly as possible. the arguments over syntax have no end. if you have changes though, make 'em and we can bat it around. SaltyPig 06:40, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)

Thanks, Salty. Looks fine to me. Just didn't know if this was an ongoing topic, or not. Kbrooks 06:51 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)

I split the actual amendment text from the opening phrase to parallel the rest of the amendments in the bill of rights. I think the amendment deserves coequal treatment, though it often doesn't get such treatment. Personally, I don't really see a need to rehash the definition of any of the amendments, since most of them are worded pretty clearly (more clearly than this one); I'd rather see supporting text that discusses how the amendment has been interpreted by the various branches of the government, particularly the supreme court. I don't honestly know of the second amendment being used in any supreme court cases, though. Warren Dew 14:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Subsequent amendments (11–27)

Sixteenth Amendment (1913)

"Authorizes the income tax." should be changed to "Authorizes taxes on incomes." "the income tax" unnecessarily implies that phrase as we recognize it today, and also has the faint odor of a sequential conflict (cart before horse). using the language of the amendment is simple and precise, allowing for disputes without getting into it. a fine point, admitted, but there's nothing lost in making the change. SaltyPig 23:39, 2005 May 12 (UTC)

Twenty-sixth Amendment (1971)

the text: "Establishes right of eighteen-year-olds to vote." the description for the nineteenth amendment is: "Ensures right of women to vote." the relevant language of the two amendments is identical, and presumes a pre-existing right. should be changed to "Ensures right of eighteen-year-olds to vote." (or similar, with the 19th and 26th in agreement) SaltyPig 23:39, 2005 May 12 (UTC)

I decided to be bold and make some clarifications to the descriptions in this section (inlcuding SaltyPig's suggestions above), which I hope are not too controversial (the 21st amendment situation in particular is a bit tricky because of the recent Supreme Court opinion that limits import restrictions). Ddye 00:15, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

NPOV and democracy

i plan to edit within a few days all the sections listed in my NPOV dispute above. i also will try to put in something about democracy and the changes to the constitution in that regard, as suggested by Stevietheman. if anybody has any objection on principle, it'd be helpful to hear it sooner rather than later, though of course some objections will need to wait until the edits are done. if anything now, please speak up. thanks. SaltyPig 20:31, 2005 May 14 (UTC)

While I think there are some NPOV issues in the article, it is also quite clear that no article can be written without any point of view. In fact, wikipedia specifically follows a position of "neutral point of view", which does not imply that no arguments can be presented but that wikipedia won't take a position. With a document as often reinterpreted as the US constitution, it is particularly difficult to present the content without also covering some interpretations.

So what I would suggest is this: put your proposed changes on this talk page, give it a day for comments, and, if there are no concerns, place them in the actual article. sebmol 21:16, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

okay. i don't have a problem with proposed edits going straight into the article after advance general notice like i've given, but i don't mind putting them here first if you think that's better. BTW, i agree very much with what you say about NPOV; sometimes it's spoken of as an achievable thing, when it's more just an idealized target. still, i think there's room to straighten this article out a bit, especially in those first couple of statements. i already edited the 2nd amendment section, in case you hadn't seen that; it keeps interpretations, but only those so identified. covert interpretations presented as fact should be removed/edited when possible. SaltyPig 00:05, 2005 May 15 (UTC)

proposed Democracy addition

No form of the word democracy is found in the Constitution. Some framers of the document argued (perhaps most notably in the Federalist Papers, especially 10 and 51) that democracy in its pure form is a danger to liberty, and that the natural impulses of factions and majority should be dampened via a republican framework. Hence, for example, Senators were to be elected to 6-year terms by their respective state legislatures, and President and Vice President were to be chosen via "electors". This isolated these offices somewhat from transient public opinion. The three branches of the Federal Government were also thought to contribute a dampening effect, as they would naturally oppose and offset one another to a degree. The Constitution guarantees "to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government..."

Though not specified in the Constitution, voting in the U.S. was mostly limited to white, male landowners. Beginning with the fourteenth (ratified under duress in 1868), many amendments were added which brought the U.S. closer to a direct democracy: Amendment fifteen prohibits denial or abridgement, on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude, of the right to vote. Amendment sixteen gives Congress the power to tax incomes directly. Amendment seventeen transfers the elective power for senators to the people of their respective states (from the state legislatures). Amendment nineteen prohibits denial or abridgement, on account of sex, of the right to vote. Amendment twenty-three allows for the participation of the District of Columbia in the election of President and Vice President. Amendment twenty-four prohibits denial or abridgement, by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax, of the right to vote in elections for federal office. Amendment twenty-six prohibits denial or abridgement, on account of age, of the right of those eighteen years of age or older to vote. SaltyPig 10:54, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)

This proposal is extraordinarily POV, and is logically inconsistent. It also contains a number of factual errors and misrepresentations.

I should first point out the meanings of the words "democracy" and "republic" have shifted over time, both before and after the American Revolution. The Federalist Papers defined democracy as a system in which in the people (i.e., those permitted to vote) as a whole participate directly in government. They defined a republic as a system in which the government is run by representatives elected by the people, and in which there are various limitations on the power of government. In particular, they focused on republics as protecting the rights of political minorities against the majority. Modern definitions of "democracy", (e.g., [7]) however, simply define it as a category of government in which political power is in the hands of the people in general, rather than a select group. This definition includes both "direct" democracy and representative government. This proposal uses both of those meanings, shifting between them to make its arguments.

The first paragraph of the proposal generally refers to the definitions used in the Federalist Papers. It focuses on the idea that government should be limited, and the principle of majority rule be balanced by the idea of minority rights. It is generally accurate. (It does ignore the basic discrepancy in the Federalist Papers: the writers argued for rule by the people, rather than a specific class, but limited the definition of the people to a narrowly defined group.)

The second paragraph, however, shifts away from this definition, although it specifically uses the term "direct democracy". It focuses on the types of people permitted to vote. This has nothing to do with the concept of representative vs. direct popular government. What does determining who is permitted to vote have to do with whether the voters participate directly or indirectly? This definition does have more to do the modern definition of democracy: government by the people as a whole, rather than a select group. But it directly contradicts the arguments of the first paragraph.

Some specific logical inconsistencies:

• The Fourteenth Amendment does nothing to shift government toward direct democracy. In fact, by protecting the rights of political minorities, it arguably moves the constitution more towards "republicanism".
• Why isn't the Thirteenth Amendment included in this definition? It expanded the types of people permitted to participate in government.
• "The Constitution guarantees "to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government..."" - This is incorrect. The Constitution instructs the "United States" to guarantee "to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government...". (By the way, this is the only part of the constitution that uses any form of the word "republic"—and this only refers to state governments, not the federal government.)

Mateo SA | talk 16:15, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

the reversion of this edit makes me wonder why i bothered posting anything here first. it was sitting here, complete with the issues you object to, while you were active at wikipedia and in the article. anyway, re your objections:

extraordinarily POV? i think you're wrong on that and several of your claims (see below). argument? i wasn't trying to make an argument. what you wrote about changing definitions is true; how it relates to this section isn't clear to me though. widening the group of voters does relate to the "directness" of democracy. otherwise, one could argue that a monarchy is a really really really limited democracy. is it perhaps a subtle influence? yes. but bear in mind that no amendment listed in the section is purported to be a drastic move toward direct democracy. rather, they contribute. further, amendments 16 and 17 do take the US government cleanly toward a "directer" democracy.

my reply to your bullets:

• 14th: the fourteenth amendment apparently penalized states that limited the voting of any 21+ aged male. it's a very weak aspect, and one reason why i didn't even go into it. still, i think that's the best starting point.
• 13th: not sure i agree with that, but don't object to it being added as the start of the move.
• guarantee of republican form: i shared until recently your new opinion on the word "guarantee", but considering its similar use elsewhere in the article (including in edits by you), i defer to a plausible definition of the word: a stated assurance or promise. and no, the assertion that it "only refers to state governments" is incorrect. the constitution guarantees to the states a republican form of government. there is no specification that the republican form of government is only within the states. since the states are governed by the central government as well as themselves, it is logically a constraint on the federal government (that it must be republican), perhaps even more so than on states. FTR (in case you're implying it), i made no claim that the moves toward democracy violate the constitution itself; i don't believe it is technically possible for an amendment to violate the constitution (not sure about that though).

reminder: it was not i who proposed adding a democracy section to the article. but now that it's composed, i do see value to its inclusion, even if in drastically shortened form from what i wrote. i'd appreciate it if you'd address these issues and edit accordingly. if you feel there should be no section specifically addressing the subject of democracy, then please state that flat out so we don't waste time arguing over points you don't want in the article anyway. thanks. SaltyPig 16:57, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)

I apologize for not responding to this proposal sooner, but I was trying to think of a way to respond to it. I did not expect you to stick it into the article so quickly, without any favorable comments.

A direct democracy is defined as a system in which the people directly participate in government. That is, the people gather together in a "town meeting," individuals make proposals, and the assembled people vote on the proposals. The central issue here is whether those permitted to vote govern directly, or indirectly, through representatives. The issue of who is permitted to vote at all is separate, and was not considered by the Federalist Papers. The Papers focused in particular on ancient Greek city-states as examples of "pure" democracies, putting them as perfect illustrations. The Greek democracies severely limited the types of people who were permitted to participate in the democracy (excluding women, slaves, etc.), but were still considered pure democracies by the writers of the Papers.

widening the group of voters: "widening the group of voters does relate to the "directness" of democracy. otherwise, one could argue that a monarchy is a really really really limited democracy." Flipping your argument around, you must logically conclude that the perfect republic, one that is not at all democratic, is a monarchy. I.e., the wider the group of voters, the more the system moves toward direct democracy and away from republicanism; conversely, the narrower the group of voters, the more the system moves towards republicanism, and therefore the most republican government is one that has only one voter—a monarchy. The answer to this paradox is that the issue of who is allowed to vote is not a feature that distinguishes between republics and democracies, at least not using the definitions used in the Federalist papers and in your proposal.

The Sixteenth Amendment: "amendments 16 and 17 do take the US government cleanly toward a "directer" democracy." (Did you mean clearly?) How does the Sixteenth Amendment do that? What does an income tax have to do with whether people participate in government directly or indirectly?

guarantee of republican form: I am not referring to the defintion of the word guarantee. I am referring to the first 4 words of Article IV, Section 4: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government. The Constitution does not itself guarantee the Republican form of government—it tells the "United States" (which, in the Const., usually means the federal govt.) to do that. I am using the same "precision" that you have insisted on elsewhere. And to remind you of the current state of the article (as you have done to me before), I have since revised those changes that included the word "guarantee".

I think some mention of the concepts of democracy should be included in the article, but it should be far more logically thought out than this proposal. I don't think that we need to discuss the concept of democracy right now. It is not directly relevant to the article, as it is a comment on the constitution, rather than a discussion of it. I think it should be avoided for now, until someone can research the concept more closely. Mateo SA | talk 18:38, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Mateo SA | talk 18:02, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

i don't think you'll find anywhere in the proposed section that i claim the US is a direct democracy. seems to be what you're implying.

yes, i agree with your monarchy argument as long as you don't call it perfect republic. i would call it an extreme republic, and not necessarily desirable, though perhaps hardly less desirable than the current mess of US government. i think you're fixating on this direct democracy extreme. if one accepts that it's reasonable to put republicanism and direct democracy on two sides of a rough continuum (not mathematically, but generally), then i don't see that there's much to get hung up on in what i wrote. widening the group of voters moves more toward the direct democracy side. that's all i said, but you seem to have it that i'm making some wild claims. it wasn't that revolutionary.

no, i did mean "cleanly", not "clearly". the 16th takes it there because direct taxation is a direct involvement in the government, in a way that indirect taxation, and sometimes even voting, can't approach. again, is it literal "direct democracy"? of course not. however, the taxation side is quite powerful, and can influence government in the same way as a vote. the aggregate loss of individual tax income (an option that some are choosing now) perhaps has more effect on government than voting (and should probably be used more than it is). i stand behind the inclusion of the 16th. it's not a "logical" problem on my side.

on the guarantee part, thanks for that clarification. i see what you meant now. well, keep that in mind when you refine the democracy section! LOL. i've done my part, though i hope you don't leave out entirely the framers on democracy (whatever form you want to call what they weighed in against), and how that affected the original and current versions of the constitution. it's relevant. SaltyPig 18:34, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)

maybe somebody'll find the time/inclination to work this up. considering how much people yap about "democracy" these days, probably worth a mention here, at least with regard to why it's not mentioned at all in the constitution. i don't feel like running the gauntlet on it, considering the payoff. SaltyPig 18:49, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)

O.K. I apologize for reacting so strongly. I probably should have made at least a basic comment about your proposal earlier than I did. Hopefully, this topic can be addressed in the future. Mateo SA | talk 03:38, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

Two questions

Primacy of US Constitution or primacy of international law in US ? --80.127.169.179 08:50, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I do not understand what you are asking. Please write in complete sentences. Mateo SA | talk 22:31, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

If there is any discrepancy between the international treaties signed by US and the US Constitution, which one will prevail ?

The Constitution prevails in all cases. Ratified international treaties come second.Ddye 12:53, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Is US President entitled to submit legislative proposals to Congress ?

Only members of Congress can introduce bills into Congress. But anyone can suggest or submit legislative proposals to those members. The President is not more or less entitled than anyone else. Mateo SA | talk 22:55, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

That is correct, under Congressional rules only members actually submit proposed bills, but there are two points worth noting. First, the "state of the union" clause in article 2 section 3 does give the President a unique position to propose legislation "He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient...". Second, in the modern budget process the President is required by law to submit an annual budget to Congress, though the actual appropriation measures are still proposed by members. Ddye 12:53, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Bill of rights

On the Bill_of_Rights_1689 page it says:

"The (British) Bill of Rights 1689 is a predecessor of the United States Constitution"

Either this should be mentioned on the United States Constitution page, or it should be deleted from the Bill_of_Rights_1689 page. I've added it to the constitution page for the moment, anyhow.

At the moment the article implies that the constitution was just dreamed up out of thin air, which simply isn't true. It is a collection of the best legal principles and rights from elsewhere. Magna Carta was also influential - that's one of the reason's it's on display next to the United States Constitution in the National Archives.

Rnt20 19:51, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

though i question the logic above ("Either this should be mentioned on the United States Constitution page, or it should be deleted from the Bill_of_Rights_1689 page."), the problem is larger with regard to accuracy and support. "predecessor" can mean only that it came before. precedence doesn't necessarily mean influence. is it likely? maybe. still shouldn't be stated as fact here w/o better reference. mere similarity doesn't prove influence.

anyway, your new version is improved. can you maybe find (and add) sources though to support that stated ties go beyond similarity? also, it might be good, if influence is substantiated, to say that a source influenced parts of, for example, the bill of rights, rather than the entire constitution. you did improve that aspect though. thanks. and good job zapping the "human rights" blah blah there; it's far removed from the US constitution. SaltyPig 01:43, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)

Page Moved

I feel it is incorrect for this page to be at United States Constituation, and not the constitution of the united states. The latter is how it is refered to in the document itself. A similar change has been made to Congress of the United States (from United States Congress). I know this new title is a little more wordy, but it is historically acurate. Afterall, this is an encyclopedia. The other articles that reference the constituion have to be moved as well.

For your reference I have included that actual text of the preamble. We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, 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. --Gpyoung ^talk 02:42, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Look carefully at the words you have bolded. They say "this Constitution for the United States of America". By your logic, the "correct" name for the article should be "Constitution for the United States of America". But the "official" name of the Constitution is not really relevant to naming this article. A major guideline for naming an article in Wikipedia is to use the most common name for the subject of the article, so that users of Wikipedia can find it easily. This also lets writers of other articles link to the article quickly, without the need for redirects. Mateo SA | talk 03:56, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

the implicit claim that how a document refers to itself in its text must be what others call it is quite shaky. the original constitution had no title; a title was added later for printing. this location thing was discussed before, and arguments hashed over google counts for various titles. such research, however unscientific, shows that the current title is the most popular name. is that a clear reason to keep the current title? i'd say it's no less reason than arbitrary arguments to the contrary. the title to an article about a document is not less historical or encyclopedic if it uses a title other than one suggested by the document. the article should be called what the article is about. in other words, there are several options here. why not use the unique option that most people will naturally enter (i.e., not simply "[[[Constitution]]")? it should stay as it is. SaltyPig 04:32, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

We should move it to "American Constitution".Cameron Nedland 23:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

allegedly POV 10th amendment addition

y'know, i saw 71.48.140.120's edit last night and busted out laughing. it did appear so obviously to be POV. but then i stopped to really analyze it (more than just the knee-jerk thing), and was hit with a thought: what if we were talking objectively about, for example, the practical adherence to the constitution of some third-world country? i looked damned hard at the addition, and could not, apart from the obviously redundant and somewhat sloppy language, pin the typical POV label on it. i concede that i edited it somewhat as a joke, to see what others would do. however, i am beginning to see that what passes for NPOV at wikipedia is not always NPOV, but rather the popularly "acceptable" POV. apart from some mildly extravagant turns of phrase, most of what 71.48.140.120 wrote, in substance, is easily demonstrated to be fact, especially since the 10th amendment has few to no holes for the "interpretation" crowd to fly away with.

yes, i know that what he wrote will probably never stand here, but i ask those claiming to protect the article against POV if perhaps there's a bit of sticking heads in the sand in this regard. the obvious state of affairs in the US is that the 10th amendment is not followed — to an extreme, almost ludicrous extent. and yet, stating the obvious so abruptly makes people think that the declaration is violently wrong or inappropriate. the 10th amendment could not be more clear; it is an almost universal legal limit on federal power — a legal limit that is violated increasingly. i think there's significant POV in the practical wikipedia conclusion that we can never openly admit that the constitution is being violated routinely; it must always be danced around with only limited acknowledgement.

i hope everyone will take a look at the addition and examine it objectively (i.e., not under the presumption that this country's government would never allow wholesale deviation from the constitution). eventually, an honest encyclopedia must deal with this elephant in the room. i am not proposing that the addition be kept as written, but i think it must be considered for the objective truth it does have. while wikipedia isn't a storehouse for raw truth, but rather a compendium of prior knowledge, the article should be no less strenuous than if we were writing about something less sacred. a factual balance for this article, in my opinion, is far away from the current version. it reads very much like a sacred cow. SaltyPig 20:30, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

The argument is certainly an interesting one. From the outsider's view, it would seem that the US has evolved far more into a centralised form of government. To remain it would have to be almost entirely rewritten to use more moderate language. It would certainly need some examples of where the federal government has legislated on issues not assigned to it by the constitution (Defense of Marriage Act perhaps?). However discussion of it would probably be more appropriate on the amendment's page where I note there is a section entitled Federalism controversy which covers this issue. Maybe we could make a mention of the discussion on this page however, something like:

The effect of the 10th amendement has been somewhat reduced since its passing, through the federal government withdrawing funding from states who do not legislate to support a national policy (eg the national speed limit or national drinking age) or legislating under the commerce clause if it can be shown that the issue in some way affects inter-state commerce. For a fuller discussion of this, see the Tenth Amendment page.

what do you think? MrWeeble 22:10, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Much more encyclopedic and balanced tone, the examples help a lot, and it's more appropriately succinct since the issue is covered in more detail on the other page. My concern was only about the language being used to present the issue (combined with my being to lazy to attempt a re-write myself); nothing to do with trying to deny or whitewash the trend. Niteowlneils 22:44, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Much more encyclopedic and balanced tone

and that is exactly my complaint. what is being called "balanced" is simply the artificial skewing of an obvious truth so that it doesn't appear as bad as it really is. that's not balance! it's watering down. it's like saying that the world trade center was "somewhat damaged" on 9/11, then claiming that to say what really happened would be POV. i know you're just offering up an example, MrWeeble, but "somewhat reduced" is the sort of ameliorative, misleading language i'm talking about.

i didn't want my little speech to be mistaken as a call to improve merely this one section. i'm speaking more generally about most of the power-centric sections of the constitution. for example, another quite obvious encroachment and failure to follow the constitution is in the clear language of the 1st amendment. can anybody seriously allege that congress has made no law respecting blah blah blah? there should be nothing wrong with stating flat out in this article (or perhaps, as Niteowlneils and MrWeeble mentioned, in the amendment article) that the amendment is essentially toothless. this is a much bigger problem than just for the 10th, but the sample rewrite for the 10th highlights the weakness pretty well. frankly, i'm surprised more people aren't disgusted by the failure of the constitution to do what it claims to do. SaltyPig 22:59, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Probably the "somewhat" should be removed. My main objections are the colloquialisms and, um, sarcastic? tone in passages such as "...a hollow platitude on a piece of parchment, which has been turned on its nose." or "...dictates policies...by controlling the purse strings of disbursed federal funds...". While colorful, that seems more appropriate in an op-ed piece than an encyclopedia. Niteowlneils 23:47, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

no argument on the op-ed language style. SaltyPig 23:56, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I chose "somewhat" mainly because I am not a constitutional lawyer and don't know how much reduced the effect has been. I am assuming that as it is still in the constitution there must be some effect that I was unable to quantify. It was basicly a "weasel word" (Sorry). I was aiming more for a neutral introduction to lead to a full discussion on the main page. Aiming for the middle ground often leads to blandness. <TANGENT>There's actually a really good west wing episode kind of about this, how neither side (liberal or conservative) is able to end up with the supreme court appointments they want and always end up with bland moderates. Their solution is to appoint two justices at the same time. is this of any relevence? no. Just a recommendation for a good programme.</TANGENT> maybe "much reduced" would be better (if we can back it up)?

I'd be interesting in knowing when and what the last law was that the supreme court struck down for being unconstitutional under this amendment (if ever). MrWeeble 10:09, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

TONA

is there something in the water today? how did this paragraph become ripe for interminable screwing with suddenly? Mateo SA, if retrying a previously reversed edit by someone else, please at least explain yourself, in the summary or here. the twice-attempted insertion of a congressional permission clause with regard to "any Title of Nobility or Honour" is not correct, nor is it necessary to duplicate or attempt to paraphrase this entire amendment. we've seen from many tries before elsewhere in the article that attempts to paraphrase briefly are usually deficient. there's no need to convey every detail of the amendment here as long as what's included is correct of itself. it's entirely accurate to state that the amendment would have "ended the citizenship of any American accepting 'any Title of Nobility or Honour' from any foreign power." as the law is written, there's no exception for permission in that respect, and any mention of permission necessarily brings in the relevant clause for that part — then we're back to duplicating most or all of the amendment when all that's needed in this context is a brief and accurate bookmark for orientation. as i mentioned in an edit summary today, the link is right there is somebody wants to geek some amendment that is apparently not even part of the constitution. SaltyPig 18:28, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I didn't look at the edit history when I made that addition, so I apologize for causing confusion. I wasn't intending to make any significant changes. Mateo SA | talk 23:06, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Duelling sources for Second Amendment

Over the past few days, there has been a small edit war going on over the exact text of the Second Amendment between O^O and myself. The text that was originally in this article, and which I restored based on the National Archives was this:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

O^O had originally changed it to:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

(Note the differing capitalization and use of commas.) After I referenced the National Archive, O^O changed it again, this time based on the Government Printing Office:

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

It would seem that we have duelling sources. However, the National Archives site has two things going for it. First, the National Archives are where the actual Constitution and Bill of Rights are stored; it seems hard to believe that they would muff the transcription of one of their crown jewels. Moreover, the GPO isn't even consistent. Their PDF version of the Constitution of the United States and the Declaration of Independence, Pocket Edition agrees with the National Archives.

BTW, I would like to thank O^O for sourcing his punctuation variant. I'm happy anytime I see someone being open to argument, and I hope, if he has other arguments for his preferred punctuation, that he will raise them here.

— DLJessup (talk) 21:00, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Hello DLJessup. Thanks for stepping forward and bringing your questions to the talk pages. Without any discussion, we don't have any way of knowing what each other was thinking.

I'm against using the National Archives as the primary source for the Second Amendment, and perhaps for other parts of the Constitution and Bill of Rights as well. While I don't doubt that the National Archives took great care to transcribe the paper copies that they hold, the problem is that the scribe who wrote those copies took liberty with adding punctuation and capitalization that were not in the text passed by the legislature.

The Journal of the House of Representatives contains multiple instances of the exact text of the Second Amendment, as it was passed by the Congress. Pages 305 and 308 have correspondences from the States of New York and Maryland respectively, in which each state documents the text of the Bill of Rights that they have ratified. Both the Annals of Congress and the Senate Journal document the final version, as it was passed by the Congress. Finally, the Statutes at Large, which is the official source for all acts of Congress, show the final version as it was passed.

All of these above versions are the "single comma" version. It was the "single comma" version that was passed by the House, passed by the Senate, was ratified by the States, and is cited by the official source.

However, when house clerk William Lambert prepared the first parchment copy of the Bill of Rights, he made several small changes in punctuation, spelling, and capitalization. It is this parchment copy that hangs in the National Archives. Transcriptions that faithfully reproduce the text of this copy will also reproduce the errors in this copy.-O^O

P.S. - An interesting exercise would be for someone to exhaustively compare the version passed to the version scribed, to see where else Lambert made changes. -O^O

Wow! I learn something new every day.

I was going to suggest that somebody fix the copy on Wikisource, but I see you've already done that….

Thank you very much.

BTW, I'd be willing to bet that your interesting exercise has already been done as somebody's dissertation.

— DLJessup (talk) 00:10, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Don't be hasty. The SCOTUS uses "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." U.S. v. Miller, 307 US 174 (1939). That's also the version in the law books. The law is the law is the law. I'm changing the article text.Saltyseaweed 23:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree - don't be hasty. The law is indeed the law. And the official source for laws and resolutions passed by Congress is the Statutes at Large. And you can read the text of the official source here. Also, of course, the subtleties of this have been discussed elsewhere. - O^O 04:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Whatever your argument is, the official language of the law today is the more well-known version. that's the version in the US Congress website, as well as any every statute books I have come across. It is also used by the U.S. Supreme Court, as I said. Revisions and corrections are routinely made after the passage by congressional clerks, and those changes are usually accepted as being the official law. Also, the document in your link appears to be a page of a treaty not an official statute, as evinced by the editorial footnotes (I do realize the site is kosher, it's just that the particular document looks odd).Saltyseaweed 17:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Saltyseaweed; I don't want this (and related) articles to undergo another edit war over this. There are ample government websites that use both versions, so posting competing links isn't going to be particularly fruitful. In the interest of harmony, I will not object leaving your version in place until I can bring additional information forth. My next trip to the library is a couple weeks away. Depending on what I find, I'll be back to bolster my case. - O^O 01:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Not the oldest constitution

The US constitution is not the oldest written national constitution still in force. That goes to San Marino --Dlatimer 07:59, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

no legislative power

I removed the recent addition "thus predicating that no legislative power is to be wielded by the executive and judicial branches of the federal government". It is sometimes argued that it is unconstitutional for the legislature to delegate legislative powers to another branch, and because of the use of the word "wielded", I thought this sentence came close to making this argument.

The Constitution was written specifically with a "non-delegation doctrine" as explained more fully in the Article One annotation. I summarized what the annotation said because I think that particular information is highly relevant to the overview. --Zephram Stark 19:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

From that article, what about this sentence: Since 1937, however, the court has granted Congress much more latitude to delegate regulatory powers to executive agencies. Now, Congress need merely provide an "intelligible principle" to guide the executive branch. ? -O^O 19:40, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

We are talking about the Constitution, not its implementation. If you have questions about the original meaning and text of the Constitution—-that it divides the three branches with no overlap—-I can cite sources. A later implementation has no bearing on the text and meaning of the first article at the time that it was written. The overview only talks about the Constitution's original intent. --Zephram Stark 19:51, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Agreed that we are talking about the Constitution and not its implementation (or interpretation). One could say that the "thus predicating that no legislative power is to be wielded..." sentence is an interpretation. Is there some way it could be restated differently? We (wikipedia) cannot assert what the "original intent" was, but we could quote someone on that intent - O^O 19:53, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

There is no better source than the document itself. In fact, nobody seems to have any viable information about meaning of the Constitution other than the actual document. Luckily, the parts of the Constitution relevant to your question are written as clearly as any document could be. "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress." The Constitution simply doesn't grant legislative power to any other body. Can federal power come from any other source? Can the legislative branch, as you suggest, grant legislative power? Amendment ten of the Bill of Rights says, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." That doesn't leave any wiggle room. The federal government simply doesn't have any power except that which is granted by the Constitution, and the Constitution does not give Congress the power to delegate legislative power to another branch. Those founding fathers were on top of their game, wouldn't you say? They saw us coming a mile away and covered all the bases.

Reading just the text of the Constitution, there is no other way for it to be taken: the executive and judiciary have no enumerated power to make law, and Congress has no enumerated power to constitute them as lawmakers. Powers enumerated by the Constitution are the only powers that the federal government has. The source I'm citing is the Constitution itself. --Zephram Stark 23:35, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

If there is no more discussion on the subject, I would like to reinstate that highly-relevant part of the Constitutional overview. --Zephram Stark 16:20, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

• No, let's try to keep these sections short, without a lot of interpretation. Use Article One of the United States Constitution for information on how the text has been interpreted over the years. --JW1805 18:21, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

The separation of legislative power is the first and most important thing that the Constitution establishes. Yet you have stripped everything about the separation of power from the overview of Article One.

"All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."

The Supreme Court did not claim any other "interpretation" of that sentence. It would be ridiculous for them to have tried to say that the words were ambiguous or could possibly mean anything else. Instead, the Supreme Court ruled that "ever changing and more technical problems" required "an ability to delegate power under broad general directives." That ruling does not change the Constitution. The words of the Constitution stayed exactly the same. A 1989 ruling could not possibly be an "interpretation," nor does it claim to be. What are they going to say? That nobody understood the real meaning of the Constitution for the last 202 years? That the members of Congress who drafted the Constitution didn't "interpret" their own words correctly in the 1700s? That it took the Supreme Court a couple of centuries to decipher that the Constitution was really talking about an "intelligible principle?" Give the Supreme Court a little credit. They are not so stupid that they would call their 1989 ruling an interpretation of the Constitution, and neither should you.

Mistretta v. United States is not an "interpretation" of the Constitution, nor does it claim to be, nor does it change the Constitution. The overview of Article One is not about a 1989 court ruling. It is about Article One of the Constitution. --Zephram Stark 15:50, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure we can agree that something needs to be said about the separation of legislative power in the overview of the Article One. I would like to work with you on the wording of that overview. --Zephram Stark 16:05, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

• The doctrine of Separation of powers is based on several parts of the Constitution, not just Article One. Anyway, it is already mentioned in the "Principles of government" section.--JW1805 16:52, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not talking about any doctrine that could be argued or confused. I'm talking about the actual text. The summary of the first article fails to mention anything about the first and most important sentence: "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives." If you're not going to summarize it, at least quote it and let people decide for themselves. A court ruling 203 years later doesn't change the actual text of Article One. Pretending it no longer exists is incorrect and deceptive. --Zephram Stark 17:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

• None of the other subsections have quotations. These are just brief summaries. It says "Article One establishes the legislative branch...", and the other two say "Article Two describes the presidency...", and "Article Three describes the court system...". More complete summaries are available in the specific articles.--JW1805 17:30, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Are you arguing that because the other sections incorrectly summarize their article that we should incorrectly summarize Article One as well? There is a gaping hole in the summary. Every other concept of Article One is addressed, but any mention of the first and most important sentence is skipped. Why is this? Because the other summaries are equally deficient? I don't think so. Allowing for the best of intentions, I would have to say that mention of the first sentence is skipped because it is too controversial. Yet, the summary isn't about controversy, vague doctrines, or late rulings. It is a summary of the text. As such, it fails. If you want to help word something that will make it succeed, I would be happy to do that with you. If not, I will improve the summary with those who are interested in having it accurately represent the text of Article One. --Zephram Stark 17:43, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

The sections are not incorrect. "Legislative" means "lawmaking", meaning this is the lawmaking branch of the government. This section is not the place for a long essay about the separation of powers (a doctrine that flows from several sections, not just this one). This is also not the place for an essay about the Nondelegation doctrine, or opinions about how the courts have subverted it. I'm not going to be drawn into another pointless argument with Zephram Stark. Other users can examine Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zephram Stark for an idea of this user's editing philosophy.--JW1805 18:39, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

As I'm sure you know, the arbitration has already been opened, but you tried to hide that fact because the unsubstantiated claims in the request for arbitration serve your purposes better than the truth. The same goes for the information you're trying to keep out of the summary of the Constitution. The actual text of the Constitution is relevant to the summary. As I've said many times, I'm willing to work with you to reach a consensus about what it should say, and as you know, I'm very flexible when it comes to opinions. But blatantly misrepresenting the facts, as you have done in regard to me and to the content of Article One, is not something I'm flexible about. I make sure that corruption is exposed. --Zephram Stark 20:16, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Table alternation

I apologize if my comment is useless -- I am not a native english speaker so I may be wrong.

Under "Ratification", at the following table, votes are categorized as "Yay" and "Nay". I suppose that this is american slang, but it seems like a case of vandalism to me.

Galanom 23:36, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

good eye. it's been corrected. the "Yay" should have been "Yea". "Nay" is correct. not so much slang as it is old-style for audible voting. sounds fancy or whatever, so they keep it. Wbfl 01:04, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Links

Why does Mr. Barry Krusch get two links to his writings? Both have very similar viewpoints, and it rather clutters up the links section (as well as implies that 2/5ths of advocacy groups possess similar thought to Mr. Krusch's, which seems to me to border on POV). Rather, ought we just link to one, or perhaps a homepage of his?

if you want to remove one, i suggest you make it the 21st century constitution, which is far less accessible than the first amendment material.

it seems to me like these links should be removed altogether and replaced with a link to the more respectable "Constitution in the 21st Century" - http://www.acslaw.org/c21 Chris Straw 20:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

"removed altogether"? "more respectable"? please direct me to the part of acslaw.org which you allege covers the same material as krusch's excellent analysis of the first amendment. why would you even mention one as a replacement for the other? makes no sense. krusch's site is unique and important. 65.143.91.51 10:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

wikified quotes

i object to the wikification of direct quotes from the constitution (as in recent edits to preamble). it implies that the links are in line with the words. as is obvious from the history of this and similar pages, agreement on these words is scarce. direct quotes should be left unaltered. please comment here. Wbfl 01:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• I guess you're talking about this edit of mine. I just thought it was more concise. Especially since the preamble is basically already a list, there was no need to follow it with another list that just repeated what was in the actual text. --JW1805 02:18, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

i'm glad you zapped that bullet list (and i hope it stays zapped). i just don't agree with modifying quotes in any way where avoidable. re the preamble, too much fuss is made out of that anyway. shorter the material on the preamble, the better. i'd like to see the text disappear too — so overdone, while the meat of the constitution (e.g., 10th amendment) is entirely ignored by most. Wbfl 02:28, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

If you want to see a real sick perversion of the actual words of a document, look at this one: Principles of the U.S. Declaration of Independence. Click on the link to "unalienable rights," in the Declaration, and it takes you to an uncited primary source that says "'We hold these truths to be self-evident' has been accused of being simply a more elegant version of 'Because we said so,'" and goes on to call the principles of the Declaration "a non sequitur and an example of the naturalistic fallacy." It doesn't cite any source for this. The author just made it up, but JW1805 defends it with his life. --Zephram Stark 02:48, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

wow, this wikification stuff is out of control. horrid. i oppose it strongly. but on the other hand, i don't take wikipedia seriously for controversial issues, mostly because of this type of inane hooliganism. the hooligans will always win in an open edit. still, if somebody doesn't kill these wikifications, i'm going to. just because they suck. Wbfl 03:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Links are good, and one of the main advantages to an internet encyclopedia over a paper one. When in doubt, add links, I say. They don't hurt anybody. (Although, this is a bit much). --JW1805 18:12, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I think the quotes should be free of links. After all, quotes are meant to be left to interpretation by the reader, since people don't always agree upon what the Founding Fathers intended. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 22:44, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Seals

I thought the seals looked nice, and added a little color to what was a long section of text. --JW1805 03:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I totally agree. They look very nice and make the article very readable, especially how the seals are centered vertically on each summary. --Zephram Stark 03:18, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

yeah, i'm not sure how the seals are "irrelevant", as claimed in the edit summary for the removal. i don't like them, nor what they represent, but they're a great visual mark for helping constitution newbies understand the structure of the first 3 articles quickly and easily. biggest problem i had with them is that article 3 is about the federal judiciary, not just the supreme court. Wbfl 03:20, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have started problems by editing out the seals. I should have asked folks.--Mark Adler 22:21, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I think the seals are just unnecessary on an article regarding the Constitution. The images of the document itself, the Syng inkstand, etc. are quite relevant and illustrative, whereas the seals pertain mostly to the President, Congress, and the Supreme Court. How about moving them, instead to Federal government of the United States? That article would be much more appropriate, I think. --Mark Adler 22:22, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I think they might look more apropos if they were the original seals. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 22:44, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

wikification of partial dates

this article has many wikified partial dates. any reason? if not, i will conform them all to wikipedia MoS. Wbfl 02:29, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind, but I went ahead and wikified any dates of the forms "month day", "month day, year", and "month year" that I could find.

— DLJessup (talk) 00:15, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

i'm puzzled why you would respond to my comment that way. i noted, or at least implied, that wikifications of partial dates can be undesirable, and that i plan to remove them... so you add more for me to undo? the MoS is clear on date formatting:

If the date doesn't contain a day and a month, then date preferences won't work, and square brackets won't respond to your readers' auto-formatting preferences. So unless there is a special relevance of the date link, there's no need to link it. This is an important point: simple years, decades and centuries should only be linked if there's a strong reason for doing so.

so unless somebody provides a strong reason for linking single years, months, and "month year", i'm going to undo them. they never should have been wikified. why people wikify them is a mystery to me, though i guess it's a natural result of a pretty dumb, confusing protocol (linking merely for pref formatting). perhaps the only thing stupider in the system is the case sensitivity — well, that and the average admin. Wbfl 02:14, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I thought that the partial applied to the wikification, not the dates; it's clear that I've been dealing with the mangled grammar of this place for far too long. I thought I understood what you were doing and didn't bother to actually check the MoS. It is also, shall we say, less than intuitive that they would offer the formats "16:12, 2001 January 15" and "2001-01-15 16:12:34" and then not offer the ability to flip the year and month for dates of format "January 2001". Sorry about that. I've fixed the "month year" wikifications.

— DLJessup (talk) 04:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

It's actually worse than is implied by the MoS quote: if you set your preferences to either of the formats "16:12, 2001 January 15" or "2001-01-15 16:12:34", only dates containing both the "month day"/"day month" and "year" links order properly; the "month day" or "day month" links don't conform to preferences.

— DLJessup (talk) 05:10, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

yup. the MoS mentions that problem briefly before the part i quoted. surprised some bot writer hasn't gone after this one. it's all over the place. Wbfl 18:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Layout issue

In my browser, the first two pages of the Constitution obscure the Contents menu. It appears this is because the two pages are not below the "Founding Documents of the United States" menu. Can they be moved lower so they do not obstruct each other? - Runnerupnj 21:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Article two

I edited a typo I found there. It said : procedures for the selection of the president, qualifications for office, the oath to be affirmed, the powers and duties of the office and procedures for selection I changed it to : "procedures for the selection of the president, qualifications for office, the oath to be affirmed and the powers and duties of the office." The typo was the double statement concerning "procedures for selection" Deletion 02:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)deletion