Talk:United States Constitution

Biased Text

In the intro it states

"The Constitution is an object of veneration, but those living under it also lawfully overthrow it by Amendment. "

This is very biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.150.204.182 (talk) 17:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm removing the last two sentences:

"The Constitution is an object of veneration, but those living under it also lawfully overthrow it by Amendment. Recent impulses for reform have centered on concerns for extending democracy and power of the purse."

Neither are cited. The first sentence reads quite strangely; I don't think "venerated" is quite appropriate and I think very few would describe amending the document as "overthrowing" it.

On the second sentence, there are some amendments that people are discussing (balanced budget amendment, a federal marriage amendment) but I don't think these warrant inclusion in the introduction, and I have no idea what is in mind for "extending democracy". Equilibrium007 (talk) 01:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

(1) Thank you for a specific itemization of your objections at the time of your edit. I wish more WP editors were as considerate as you have shown yourself to be. It means we can collaborate. (2) WP:LEAD requires the introduction to mention controversies. Please cite a WP policy to support your thinking before altering a section well documented on this discussion page. (3) The two sentences still may be improved. Do you have alternative wording? Summary items in an introduction need not be footnoted as they are treated in the body of the article.

(4) "Overthrow" means "invalidate", which a constitutional amendment most certainly does to some part of the Constitution. Lawful invalidation is not forceable overthrow. To your point, it may be that the common linkage of "forceable" and "overthrow" comes automatically to the American ear, as in the residency/citizenship question from the Smith Act, "forceable overthrow of the United States Government". The sentence should probably be rephrased. WP does not advocate the forceable overthrow of government in its U.S. Constitution article, that is not the intended "take away" for the reader. There should be no misunderstanding on this point. Thank you. (5) "Veneration" is backed up by citation. In the criticism section, Robert Dahl is cited in his "How democratic is the American Constitution?" as referring to the "worship" Americans bestow on the Constitution. The section on "Civil religion" cites Gordon Wood. "Veneration" is precisely an equivalent expression of "worship", although more secular in connotation. Please cite a source which backs your English usage of the terms proposing that "worship" as used in Dahl is not equivalent to "veneration" as used in the article summary.

(6) The summary criticism, example (a), the "conservative" one, was the balanced budget amendment. It got 32 states (64%), two short of calling a convention. The federal marriage amendment is not the same. Editors may unbiasedly distinguish between the balanced budget effort and a 2011 bill for "marriage amendment" with 66 sponsors ( 15% ) in the 435 member House. Nineteen state constitutions ( 38% ) restrict marriage and civil unions together. To assert 32 > 19 and 64% > 38% is not biased. No other "conservative" criticism comes close, so it balanced budget is chosen for the summary. It is mentioned in the "Amendments" section as unratified among the people rather than in the Criticism section with the academics. (7) The summary criticism, example (b), the "liberal" one, relates to "extending democracy". The four scholars cited in the article's "Criticism" section all relate to this topic. "Extending democracy" means literally "expanding majority rule". That is the concern of four academics who are cited in the article "Criticism" section. This includes Dahl in "How democratic is the American Constitution?". The direct popular election movement to bypass the Electoral College is mentioned in these Talk sections as a future extension of the Criticism section. It will align with the summary reference to the criticial concern for "expanding democracy" in the Constitution.

(8) Again, thank you for giving concrete explanations of where you found the article to be in need of improvement. You have a good ear for the connotations of idiomatic expressions for the American reader, as in your catching the "overthrow" phrasing. Please critically read through the article looking for additional points to improve the article. Thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 04:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the current text is better, but I'm still not clear on the "extending democracy" point. There may be some academics offering ideas about this but they don't as far as I see have much political traction and in my mind that ought to be the standard for inclusion. The only one I can think of with political traction is the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact but that isn't a constitutional amendment. The marriage amendment is at least pretty high profile in the political discourse. Equilibrium007 (talk) 08:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

At a minimum, if we're going to have "extending democracy" in the summary there should be a citation so that readers can at least have a clue about what is specifically meant. Equilibrium007 (talk) 08:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I feel like the entire "Potential military coercion" section under Amendments (written about the Second Amendment) is written with a biased tone. I'm not sure that I'm up for the rewriting (as, honestly, I'd probably be a bit biased in the other direction) but wording and fact choice could use a bit of work. Jantman (talk) 13:03, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

“Introduction” rationale for edit

Readers of the article introduction should not be misled into interpretations of the Constitution which are reasonable, historically interesting, and, properly cited, to be included in this article’s Criticism section. But these are best addressed elsewhere than the introduction. The Constitution was a document written in 1787, incorporating twenty years’ experience in national and state self-governance. Yet a number of interpretations are current which have been derived from the Whig philosophy of 1760.

“State sovereignty” is accounted for in the article by describing the conscientious old men including most of the signers of the Declaration of Independence attending the Convention, the “men of original principles”. The philosophy is a powerful touchstone among Americans, for when applied to U.S. political culture one hundred years after establishing the Constitution, these same principles resulted in consequences unintended by any party, including immense loss and long term suffering among all parties. The differing points of view were adhered to sincerely, passionately, but there was no Golden Age imagined in some retrospectives.

Americans sustained violent conflict among themselves for over ten years of Civil War and Reconstruction, a time unimaginably costly in blood and treasure and terror for all concerned. The passage was tragically and fatally flawed for the entire mid-nineteenth century American experience. In an empathetic, romantic way, I’ve seen it in my mind's eye, walking the very lands of my home, “where their priceless blood reddens the grass the ground” (Whitman).

The revisions made to the introduction are meant to make it conform to (1) the history of convention and ratification, (2) the constitutional law as now held in the nation and in the states, and (3) the national political practice. This is meant to be a long, broad view, (a) not just in the twenty years before ratification, (b) not just over the twenty-year mid-19th Century tragedy, but (c) for that which is predominant for two-and-a-half centuries. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Article length

It's now about 166K. Should it be trimmed further? Perhaps getting it down to 125K would be make it more manageable? What do people think? I spun off two subarticles -- United States Constitution and worldwide influence and United States Constitution as a civic religion. --Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

"US Constitution as a civic religion". Does this name comply with WP:UCN guidance? I've never heard of the concept. It seems contrived. --S. Rich (talk) 03:35, 22 December 2011 (UTC)03:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

- WP style renders it "civil religion". A search redirects to "civil religion". So, it is found at Civil religion and American civil religion.

- The concept is that there can be group identity and several levels of social cohesion and concerted action in a large aggregate of population where there is a common ethos. Of course, all sense of human connectedness and commonality is "contrived" in the meaning developed by Sartre and the existentialists. On the other hand, it seems that nation-states may be with us for now, and the U.S. is among them. If people act like a "nation", there is such a thing as a "nation" and they are one. A rose by any other name, etc., etc. "Civic religion", likewise.

- "Civic religion" is from the ancient Roman republic and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Social Contract. See the general concepts of tolerance, republicanism, civic virtue, democracy and equality. Additional writers include Erasmus, Locke, Montesquieu, Kant., in Sociology see Bellah and Herberg. The concept is broadly understood and widely used in philosophy, history, political science, sociology and religion.

• Now elevated to an article title, the WP style should be used. It should read, "US Constitution as a civil religion". Should it additionally be merged with American civil religion ?

TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

What? This line above confuses me -- The concept is that there can be group identity and several levels of social cohesion and concerted action in a large aggregate of population where there is a common ethos. What does this mean? I'm having trouble grasping at what is meant. I do think that in America there is a kind of "Constitution worship" going on, in that people almost revere the document as sacrosanct, perfect, above being challenged; is that what is meant? The term Civic religion -- well I have not come across it that much in stuff I've read. Ditto civil religion. It may have been used by some writers but I do not think the term was that widely used, or have I just not read enough?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:16, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

- Previously, an editor found my 5th grade prose objectionable. I over-reacted. My bad. The concept is, People see themselves connected and act together in large numbers when they believe the same thing. To say that concept is "contrived" is to say that no one believes anything together because some unnamed authority has "never heard of the concept". Well, I named Jean-Paul Sartre, but I thought I took care of him relative to an encyclopedia using the construct of "nation". Read him. Enough of the "Honest Abe" on my part providing case sources for another side. The concept of "civil religion" has been academically critiqued as a descriptive analytical concept of American 20th-century society in sociological literature. Cite your own sources. If, on reading them, you find them applicable, they can be included. I did not, so did not include them in my edit. Collaborate with me.

There have been many occasions, while contributing here at Wikipedia, that I run into people who are much more knowledgeable than me about a particular subject, and much smarter too, and in this instance, my hunch is that you, VirginiaHistorian, are one of these people. So thank you for explaining the concept of civil religion and I will try to learn more about it.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

About the writing level. I agree fifth grade is too amateurish. But we should probably strive for ninth grade level perhaps. Writing at the college or graduate school levels risks alienating readers. So I try to avoid words like "aggregate", terms like "concerted action", "common ethos" and make it as simple as possible when I write here. If there is no way to avoid a difficult concept, I work into it slowly, by beginning with the familiar and tiptoeing into the new. One of my concerns with the current United States Constitution article is that it is written somewhat over the heads of most users, and that simplifying and clarifying the text without losing accuracy or quality would make it more helpful.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

- The Constitution has been amended 27 times. Who proposes to make it "above being challenged"? They are not referenced in the piece under discussion. In view of U.S. history accepted by the preponderance of scholars in the field, they may not make the "significance" cut at WP. What reliable source do you read to find of this "going on"? If there is none, reference to such is a "straw man", and not useful in good-faith discussion. Cite your sources, and they can be included.

What I had meant by saying that the current Constitution was "above being challenged" is not to deny that individual amendments can be added, or parts tweaked, but challenging the Constitution as a whole is unthinkable. I know. I challenged the original Constitution with my rewritten one here. My version gets practically no attention and it probably never will. I am thoroughly cynical about politics but still enjoy learning new stuff.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

- The "worship" aspect of the Constitution is deprecated in the Gordon Wood citation, promoted by Washington, dismissed by Jefferson, and they are also, in turn, properly referenced. The context is provided by a Constitutional scholar who generally agrees with your skepticism, Sanford Levinson, in an article published in the William and Mary Law Review. The balance achieved is generally conservative Gordon Wood v. generally liberal Levinson; generally conservative Washington v. generally liberal Jefferson. What reliable sources do you read to dismiss Wood, Levinson, Washington and Jefferson? If there are only fuzzy attacks without supportive alternative references, it is "ad hominem" and not helpful in collegial discussion. Cite your sources, and their weight can contribute to missing balance.

- Background reading might include The Social Contract, although it is not fashionable to have a "Western canon" of great books. It was influential in the American Revolution, the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, the Chinese Revolution and Gandhi's non-violent revolution in India. Also, the French generally use deductive reasoning, which is instructive for those educated in English, a language which tends to use educational resources emphasizing inductive reasoning. An interest in the U.S. Constitution may lead to reading references found in the WP article Civil religion. Wikipedia is the place to start. What are you reading now? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 00:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

What am I reading? I have read Sartre, Levinson, Rousseau, but haven't yet come across Gordon Wood and others. I am open to suggestions. I have never quite finished Montesquieu. Have read Federalist Papers. And lots of other stuff from many disciplines, particularly history, philosophy, economics. My problem as I get older is trying to remember stuff I've read earlier. The good thing is that the big picture usually sticks in my mind, so I can see the overall problems; the details are harder to keep in mind, but with the Internet and Google, finding facts is much more do-able than it would have been fifteen years ago.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Goodness, are we to discuss the substance of state theory in the discussion page? My two bits worth are that all government is based on faith, which is sometimes treated the same as "religion" and the US Constitution is part of that.

Moving on to the topic of spinoff, we've done three so far. Mine, rather a swap with the history article than a new article, was the first and most ambitious and not entirely successful yet. Both of the moved parts need further integration into their new home and the part that arrived here needs more trimming. More urgent, the swap's success is marred by broken refs persisting rather than being repaired by a bot. Either it isn't running or it's busy or the repairs were too complext. I also split off a little bit to Connecticut Compromise, making that article's structure ungainly but we'll eventually get to that.

Tom created two articles; the religious one I figure should be merged to an existing similar article, which is perhaps slightly more urgent. When I saw the worldwide impact article it made me ask why I didn't think of it myself, though the name gives me a vaguely uneasy feeling. We'll either find a better name or learn to like it. Umm, but now I've got a vaguely uneasy feeling that I ought to be proposing something. Can't think of it, except "carry on". Jim.henderson (talk) 01:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I stand corrected. "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." And, I owe Tom a debt of gratitude for his help. I agree, the spin-off title, about worldwide impact which is fine nested in a subtitle, is not right as an encyclopedia heading. For one thing, out there among the search engines of the world, it smacks of some sort of imperial arrogance. yuk. Gotta have something else, even if it is not better. I don't have an answer either just right now. Thanks again. More to do. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:01, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree about the spinoff title United States Constitution and worldwide influence that it sounds non-neutral and does so-smack, as you've put it, and perhaps we should consider merging it with another article? Or thinking up a better title? I apologize for the awkward sounding title -- it was late and I could not think up a better one. And thanks for saying thanks. Wonder what the next steps are?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Criticism of the Constitution

Criticism of the Constitution in the History of the U.S. Constitution has a new sub-section describing the "States Rights" critique in the context of the history of the U.S. Constitution, illustrated with images of John C. Calhoun and Jefferson Davis. This will give proper balance to the encyclopedia over-all when the too-detailed items explaining "states rights" are removed in the U.S. Constitution article as now written. The U.S. Constitution article can then more pointedly be given over to the explication that consensus on this Talk page has proposed. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:22, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Good section addition.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Drat, on Christmas Day I hate to carp (well, I pretend to hate to carp) about well-done additions, but that article is near twice as big as it was a week ago, and when an already large pot pie keeps growing I start thinking of smaller pies that could better use that good meat. States rights is that smaller pie, and of somewhat poorer quality as well, so that's the main place for such material. Of course, the recooking of poorly done old meat may require more thought and time than addition of new text does, but still I think a more thorough application of WP:SUMMARY would improve both articles. Jim.henderson (talk) 14:18, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

no, no, you are okay. "repetition is the key to learning". You are just orchestrating editorial guidance. I have a heart-felt sense of loss shared by my many Lost Cause "cousins". I just don't like U.S. articles to be hijacked by restatements of Jeff Davis' "Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government". I wanted to give them their just due, but I got carried away. I'll rework it. We are fine. My only problem at WP has been unthinking, unexplained, unreferenced blanking. So now, my turn to think, think, think. Season's greetings. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:20, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

You are bringing to the enterprise an awareness of the scope and connectedness of related WP articles which I do not have yet. I appreciate your assistance.

> To restate: Concentrate on WP:SUMMARY guidelines. We are trying for (a) under 10,000 words, (b) image to text ratio of 1:350, and (c) a widget file size, a number that I still haven't quite figured out as a target for most historical narrative articles at WP to facilitate speedy loading everywhere, "by and large", generally speaking, all other things being equal. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:20, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Heh. Showing my ignorance; I didn't even know Davis wrote a book after the war, much less a legal apologia much used by Lost Causers. In my early Wikidays I worked articles on those few topics on which I am expert (not US history or law) but soon found more fun poking my nose into those where my topical ignorance is not a problem because they present greater opportunties of improvement in size, WP:LINKs and other matters where knowledge of Wikipedic standards of style and WP:Etiquette counts more. Now I'm trying to think of something more specific to what we've been doing, but a minor illness is rendering me more muddledbrained than usual so I'll shut up and go carve some improvements into Commons:Category:National Register of Historic Places where a dull knife can do little harm.

Judicial review

Not one of the longest sections, but much longer than need be. The "Subsequent courts" suhsection in particular contains much biographical and political material, and too much detail about individual cases which could be handled by, at most, an link to that article. Jim.henderson (talk) 11:20, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Confusing wording

In the criticism section:

because the Electoral College allows the possibility of electing presidents who do not win the majority of votes.[218] Three times in American history, presidents have been elected by the Electoral College despite failing to win the popular vote: 1876 (Rutherford B. Hayes), 1888 (Benjamin Harrison) and 2000 (George W. Bush).[

It makes it seem as if all other presidents who won an election won a majority when in fact many of them won a plurality of the vote, not an absolute majority. I think we should change it to:

ave been elected by the Electoral College despite failing to win a plurality of the popular vote — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinfoid (talk • contribs) 06:55, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, good thinking. Thanks for noticing this.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, yes, but the vote apart from the Electoral College, the national “popular vote”, the “popular majority”, these terms are used by advocates for reform, best discussed in any detail in an article which the “Criticism” section links to. So far, I think the article is okay on this point. Still, consider:

Historical studies of elections in the United States show that every state varied, and every election in each state has been variable. There have been differences in (1) who legally qualified, registered and voted, (2) variable levels and changing targets of violence by local and other police, hired and vigilante perpetrators, (3) which votes were counted, how they were reported, when challenges issued and who won on appeal. This is “little-d” democracy, sort of. It oughta-be that everyone equally everywhere registers, votes and gets counted in every election.

But all votes have not been equal, and any reasonable assertion of comparison among them among different states would require a stratified statistical analysis we have not seen in proposed sources. No scholar of the Constitution currently attributes any lasting impact on American political life from the effects of a national “popular vote” for President. WP articles related to the Constitution should focus on the Constitution’s Electoral College count. Discussion of state and national reforms related to it such as the state district plan and direct popular election of the president should be referenced by See also, Further reading and Main article, mostly. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

National v. Foederal . . . Info box

TomPaine1776 has just made five good links to improve the article. So it must be with respect, that I'd like to address his edit making "national" into "Federal". This is in fact better than the penultimate edit using "federal" without capitalizing it. It means that Tom Paine here is using the modern American convention, not making a political statement.

But I would still argue for using the word "national" in the purpose line of the Infobox to disambiguate this from the Articles document. Could we go for "Purpose: A [[Central government|national government]] with [[Federalism|federal]] characteristics to replace the purely federal [[Articles of Confederation]]".

Thus: "Purpose: A national government with federal characteristics to replace the purely federal Articles of Confederation". TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Removed questionable assertion...

...from section 3.2.1 "Legislature", the following: "This provision gives Congress more than simply the responsibility to establish the rules governing its proceedings and for the punishment of its members; it places the power of the government primarily in Congress." Removed for the following reasons:

1. There is nothing in the provision about "rules governing its proceedings"
2. Legislative powers are not necessarily the primary "power of the government"
3. The statement is unsourced opinion.

WCCasey (talk) 20:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

1. - not - do (a) correct the phrase citation since the section is filled with specific rules governing proceedings, or (b) tag it, rather than blanking, although (c) your courtesy of this note on TALK is good faith practice that promotes collaboration.
2. - not - if there be, perchance, a "rule of law", then the making of law is the primary "power of the government" in a "nation of laws, not of men".
3. - ah, yes - when a passage is challenged, apart from appeal to general knowledge or common sense, there is no defense for the indefensable. Wikipedia must have reliable sources for its passages. Our blanked editor has no response here? Maybe there is room for more Socratic/Classical/Jesuit/Yeshiva trained contributors? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 00:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

SCOTUS = scotus = sutocs

In treating the Second Amendment, Scott Illini would strike summary reference to any change in SCOTUS rulings and say as George Orwell’s Big Brother, whatever is, has always been, "Ignorance is strength". Amendments can only be “confirmed”, they are never “expanded”, just like Scott Illini says it says. But wait.

(1) SCOTUS said militias could not form up like them Captain Shays fellas rebelling in Massachusetts, only state-authorized militias can be, like the Second Amendment says. [That was good.-tvh] (2) SCOTUS said the voting black men of the Republican party assassinated in Louisiana could not defend themselves, and they deserved it because only the state militia can defend citizens, like the Second Amendment says. [That was bad.-tvh]

(3) SCOTUS said when DEA got the warrant, right floor and apartment number, just the wrong building adjacent, a white man can kill a federal agent when he breaks in unannounced with a drawn pistol, the citizen exchanging shots through the barricaded bedroom door while calling 911. You know, armed self-defense like the Second Amendment says. [That was good.-tvh]

I’m not sure the deleted phrase needs to be restored, since two differing citations are left remaining. SCOTUS variability can be the little secret of anyone who reads Wikipedia links. I am agreed with the consensus here, the article should move from the historic to focus on explication as the Constitution is now understood and used in practice. But should it avoid even summary reference to complexity? Later SCOTUS expanded its application of the Second Amendment as held by earlier SCOTUS from (a) state militias to (b) the Reserve and individuals. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 February 2012

Please check the wording under "Executive" branch and sub-paragraph "Qualifications". The first sentence states a resident had to be in the Country 14 years, the last sentence in the paragragh states a person had to be in the Country 35 years. 35 years initially (sentence 1) was a prerequisite of age (35 years) to eligible for presidency.

70.59.43.25 (talk) 03:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Y Done Thanks. Dru of Id (talk) 06:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Wait, what? That whole thing is nonsense. The provision was written so that people like Alexander Hamilton, who had not been born in any of the states, but who had fought for Independence, could become president. -Rrius (talk) 08:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC) Indeed, this is a whackadoodle theory was introduced here in November 2009 and at various other articles, but wasn't noticed here. -Rrius (talk) 08:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)