Talk:Bricker Amendment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Bricker Amendment is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 28, 2006.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Law (Rated FA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon


This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Politics (Rated FA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject U.S. Congress (Rated FA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
This article is about one (or many) Thing(s).
WikiProject Conservatism (Rated FA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject United States / Government (Rated FA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (marked as Low-importance).
 

Untitled[edit]

Discussions before July 1, 2006 can be found at Talk:Bricker Amendment/Archive1.

Copyedit request[edit]

I put this on the copy-edit request page because it really needs another set of eyes to go over it; I've been looking at it too long and may be missing problems. PedanticallySpeaking 16:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Clarification[edit]

"The best-known version of the Bricker Amendment, considered by the Senate in 1953–1954, declared that no treaty could be made by the United States that conflicted with the Constitution, was self-executing without the passage of separate enabling legislation through Congress, or which granted Congress legislative powers beyond those specified in the Constitution."

I am working on what 'self-executing' is supposed to mean; I am guesing that "no treaty could be made ... that ... was self-executing" means that no treaty could be made without enabling legislation. Is this redundant or am I mistaken? --Matthew 03:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Right, self-executing means that if the Senate ratifies a treaty it is the internal law of the United States and another law passed by both houses and signed by the president is not necessary. PedanticallySpeaking 16:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Spelling in quotes[edit]

Someone else mentioned spelling errors in quotes... guess they need 'sic' or corrected to what they really were. Watch for "slure" ... should maybe be slur?

First one: Patrick J. Buchanan writes "the term is a dismissive slure on a tradition of U.S. independence in foreign policy and nonintervention in foreign wars"

In the next sentence or so, it happens to be spelled Bucanan. I think it is Buchanan, but can imagine it being Bucanan. --Matthew 17:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Both are typos. The word should have been "slur" and the name "Buchanan". PedanticallySpeaking 16:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Problem sentences[edit]

there are some sentences that are a bit problematic, but I can't figure a way to rephrase them now. To get help with them (or allow myself to look at them later), I will just list them here until they are fixed.

  • Years later, in 1976, Senator Bricker referred to the "one world" movement advocated by Wendell Willkie, the Republican nominee against Roosevelt in the 1940 election, and others as attempting to use treaties to undermine American liberties. --Matthew 03:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I've modified that sentence. PedanticallySpeaking 16:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Used in Colleges and Law Schools[edit]

Professor Bertram Brown of the Chicago-Kent College of Law is using a prior version of this article in his class. See here and here. PedanticallySpeaking 17:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Professor Thomas O'Connor of Austin Peay State University in Tennessee is using the article too. See here. PedanticallySpeaking 17:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia guidelines compliance issues[edit]

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question.

  • Per WP:MOS, avoid using words/phrases that indicate time periods relative to the current day. For example, recently might be terms that should be replaced with specific dates/times.[1]
  • See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.[2]
  • There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.[3] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18 mm.[4]
  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:BTW, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006, but do not link January 2006.[5]
  • As per WP:MOSDATE, dates shouldn't use th; for example, instead of using January 30th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.
  • This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a. [6]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Wim van Dorst (Talk) 22:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Text of the amendment?[edit]

Most articles on US constitutional amendments include the full text of the amendment. That's the first thing I looked for in this one after reading the lead section -- why isn't it given? I understand that the amendment was proposed in various forms and none of them actually passed, but that's no reason not to give some form of it -- say the one that came one vote short of passing in the Senate. If it's very long, then at least give some key part of this, or say it's too long to quote on full.

207.176.159.90 02:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The article used to have a header "For the texts of proposals, see Texts of the Bricker Amendment"; but the link and article both disappeared several revisions ago. I've recreated the article; is there any reason I shouldn't restore the link?--Orange Mike 02:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
They were moved to wikisource where they properly belong. Raul654 15:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
So where's the link? —Tamfang (talk) 08:53, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Upper right hand corner of the article, above the Senator's portrait. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Changes to images[edit]

It is nice that the images are not all on the right side, now; I suspect it would be best to follow some pattern other than making images trade from left to right and back all the way up and down the page. Anyone better with arranging images on the page willing to make the imges change sides in a less regular manner... with an eye to making it look better? --Matthew K 20:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Prejudice[edit]

This article is extremely inaccurate, and paints non-interventionism as xenophobic, when non-interventionists tended to favor open borders. The Alien and Sedition Acts have nothing to do with non-interventionism and their inclusion in this article is misleading. Non-interventionism is based on the idea that countries can engage in private commerce and cultural activities without killing each other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.10.161.4 (talk) 13:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The article is not about non-interventionism; it is about the Bricker Amendment, and distinguishes quite adequately between nationalism and non-interventionism. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Carol Anne Bond v. United States[edit]

Is this June 2014 case relevant to the article and worthy of a mention? See discussion at http://www.newrepublic.com/article/118059/bond-v-us-supreme-court-resists-radical-takeover-foreign-policy, and case at http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-158_6579.pdf.

WP has an old article at Bond v. United States (2011), which is a different issue, pertaining to standing. Milkunderwood (talk) 01:40, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ See footnote
  2. ^ See footnote
  3. ^ See footnote
  4. ^ See footnote
  5. ^ See footnote
  6. ^ See footnote