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.
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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights 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.
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.
In the section titled "Ratification Process" there is the text, "Virginia initially postponed its debate, but after Vermont was admitted to the Union in 1791, the total number of states needed for ratification rose to eleven." This statement is unsupported by reference to law or other reasoning. It contains within it assumptions that 1. The number of states necessary for a ratification increases after new states are admitted to the Union. and. 2. The ratification votes of newly-admitted states (states admitted subsequent to the U.S. Congress' 2/3's ratification vote, and thus were never part of that vote) are counted in favor of the amendment's ratification. If these assumptions are true, they should be documented. Frysay (talk) 06:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
The section on the ninth amendment ends: "between 1992 and 2000, the Court did not refer to the amendment a single time."
That was from a 2000 source, so at the time it was written it was interesting because it implied, "It hasn't been referenced since 1992." There have been more years since 2000 than there were between 1992 and 2000, so today it just feels like an arbitrary date range. Can that be extended, eg "between 1992 and 2012" or can a later reference be added? Thefifthsetpin (talk) 19:47, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Not only is that clause out of date, but in fact, the whole sentence is inaccurate. While the Supreme Court did cite the privacy & Roe v. Wade in in its 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey ruling, the Court did not use, nor did any justice cite the Ninth Amendment to strike down part of Pennsylvania's abortion pre-notification law. "The high-water mark" for the use of the right to privacy perhaps, but not the HWMfor the use of the Ninth Amendment. For this reason I've removed the sentence and its citation. Drdpw (talk) 00:45, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
George Mason has been called the Father of the Bill of Rights by scholars (see his page for references), the co-father of the Bill of Rights by those who want to split the difference, and was the man who thought up most of it, stood up for its inclusion, and convinced - or probably more accurately, made a deal with - James Madison to support the concept after Madison adamantly and vocally opposed it. Does his template belong on the page? I think so, and it makes no sense to me not to include it, but then I think The Newsroom is the best thing since sliced bread (and who thought that milestone up?) and so am partial to giving credit to those who deserve it. Mason is one of the most important whothat?s in American history, pretty much unknown and unsung, but he did have a major hand in making sure the Bill of Rights happened and happened on his watch. So he only has one high school named after him, and a small statue out-back of Jefferson's. Not to mention an 18-cent stamp and a university. On a scale of one-to-ten, they should have made room for him on Rushmore. Randy Kryn 3:44 1 December, 2014 (UTC)
I have removed the template (see edit summaries for rationale). Please leave it out unless a consensus is reached to include it. Drdpw (talk) 15:57, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Since you removed it again, please explain why if you have a few minutes. I just don't see it. How is it inappropriate to have George Mason's template as a template on the page? If it's because he wasn't actually in the room writing with James Madison, or was an elected representative who voted on it, that's like taking the tip of the iceberg and calling it gigantic. George Mason wrote the document that predated the Bill of Rights, was the main person advocating a Bill of Rights, and convinced people like James Madison of the need for the inclusion of a national agreement on the rights of Americans right in the Constitution of the country. Many people call George Mason the Father of the Bill of Rights (personally I'd say co-father with Madison), and his influence on the document is universally accepted (unless I'm mistaken). So on the single question of should the George Mason template be on the "United States Bill of Rights" page I really (honestly) can't think of a reason why it shouldn't. That's my go at it for now, I'll leave it to others to further the discussion and come back to it if need be. Let me say to anyone reading this that Drdpw has done so much excellent work on early American documents, history, and related Wikipedia pages that his or her opinion on this matter is important, and I hope to reach a consensus on this question. I guess I'm a Mason fanboy, even more so as I've learned more about him over the years, but in trying to look at this question from a neutral viewpoint I still can't see a reason to remove the template. Thanks for a fine discussion, it's always nice to talk about America's founders. Randy Kryn 16:27 1 December, 2014 (UTC)
I would leave out this template. The importance of the Bill of Rights transcends the contribution of any one person involved in its particulars, and the article is long enough without adding tertiary material. bd2412T 16:33, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
According to this good faith logic the templates of individuals would be left off of every page of significant historical importance. On this page, if your suggestion is merited, then the James Madison template should be removed as well (I'd reverse that edit). No other reasons for removing the George Mason template have been put forward. An additional point in the logic that Mason did not write or pass the U.S. Bill of Rights - Mason, credited with being the "Father" or "Co-Father" of the Bill, was not an elected official, so he could not have written the Bill's provisions or put them up for a vote. That was left to Madison, a former opponent of the idea, who was in Congress at the time and who worked to incorporate Mason's ideas into the final bill. Randy Kryn 11:36 2 December, 2014 (UTC)
As I edit various early-American history pages I've run across even more mentions of George Mason as the father or co-father of the Bill of Rights. Been a few days on this talk page, and there doesn't seem, as yet, to be a compelling reason why the template should be left off the page. Can it be put back? Thanks, Randy Kryn 14:00 5 December, 2014 (UTC)
If you are going to quote the English Bill of Rights of 1689 as an early precedent for the right to keep and bear arms you should keep it in context (see the latter article) where only “Protestant subjects may have arms for their defence as suitable to their class and as allowed by law”. Otherwise leave out the whole reference, not least because the ‘right to bear arms’ has long been abandoned in the UK. 05:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)