Talk:History of the United States Constitution

Archive

Started since most discussion from 2006 and prior. Gtstricky^{Talk or C}

article 1 section 8

I think that the orders and the resolutions and the votes should be looked at first by a vice president just to see if it was worth it or not but the constitution says "every order,resolution, or vote to which the concurrence of the senate and house of representatives may be necessary ( except on a question of adjournment) shall be represented to the president of the united states;and before the same shall take effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the senate and house of representatives, according to the rules and limitations prescribed in the case of a bill. (from a 12 year old kid)Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.117.41.35 (talk) 00:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

This is great. Your proposal is akin to the "council of revision" to look at legislation before it could go into effect. It was in the Virginia Plan by Edmund Randolph and James Madison. You are in good company. We can't use it here, but stay with it, kid. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Amplification of AntiFederalists

The sections that refer to Antifederalists need to be expanded I think. Over 140 men at some time verbally dissented and refused to support the new constitution. They were labeled "AntiFederalists" by those advocating a strong central government as an answer to shortcomings under the Articles of Confederation (AOC). Source: Preface section,

Birth of the Bill of Rights: Encyclopedia of the Antifederalists, Volume I, Biographies ~ Jon L. Wakelyn Publisher: Greenwood (November 30, 2004) Language: English ISBN-10: 0313331944 ISBN-13: 978-0313331947Big textSo I think the section on the Philadelphia Convention needs to be modified to reflect that dissent. The existing phraseology in that section reads;

"All agreed, however, on the central objectives expressed in the preamble to the Constitution: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common 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."

Many of these things were abhorrent to the Antifederalists. For example: Both Luther Martin and Governor George Clinton (letters from Cato) felt that

• you could not have freedom with a standing federal army in peacetime. Great foreboding was also expressed by many over the idea of a federal court system that would drag citizens to D.C. thousands of miles from their local cultures when no good road system existed. Arguments were made by many, that the proposed central government was contaminated by having the Vice President preside over the Senate and the Senate appointed tasks by the President as destroying checks and balances. This is why many refused to sign.

Source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Complete_Anti-Federalist

I shall wait for you comments before changing it however. SilenceDoogood (talk) 02:07, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't overlook the basics: It's a mistake to think the Anti-Feds wanted less government. The Anti-Feds feared that the NATIONAL gov't would be strong and overshadow the state governments. They wanted strong powerful state governments that could control people and tax them and they resisted limitations on the states. In general the Anti-Feds (like Clinton in NY) were already in control and they wanted to keep it that way. This is why Shays rebellions is so important--the nationalists used it it convince some people there was a risk the state might not be powerful enough and would need help to suppress a rebellion. Rjensen (talk) 02:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Moving Philadelphia

I have been asked to help find ways to trim the overgrown United States Constitution article, of which the 1787 section is the largest and shouldn't be. This smaller article, on the other hand, has a much smaller yet well written section on that topic. So, it seems to me they should swap. The long account in that article should move here, and the short one that we see here should move there. Am I proposing something dreadfully dumb?

Actually that sounds smart. Let's do it. I didn't do any trimming or anything. Let me know if I can do something.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh. I mean to move not only the "Convention" section but also the "Drafting" section. I won't wait a similar interval but will do it a couple hours from now. Jim.henderson (talk) 11:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

So, the move was done back then, on the eve of my contracting a minor illness. Several small improvements followed (mostly expansions, alas) and this morning chunks were skillfully removed. It's still not as small as my preference would have it, but it's a preference based on my fondness for geographical articles and less intensely relevant here. For no particular reason, an ugly paragraph containing the words "radical Whigs" struck my eye and made me wonder whither it could be banished but no, it is important to the context and just needs a bit of beautification and maybe links to other articles.

More to the questions at hand, most of the removed material was about the Philadelphia convention. I certainly would not support a similarly large swap, but it seems to me several parts of the convention's own article provide both smaller and poorer coverage than the material here. This suggests making a few smaller swaps, or by more imaginative methods beefing up the convention article at the expense of the convention section here. Especially the convention article should handle all or most discussion of delegates presenting credentials followed by drifting in and out, and rooming, dining, sweltering and whatever.

7 Articles written on 4 pages

On September 17, 1787, the Constitution with its 7 Articles written on 4 pages was completed - Brad Watson, Miami 71.196.11.183 (talk) 04:01, 20 February 2012 (UTC)