Talk:United States Bill of Rights/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Wrong date in intro

Two months ago, kaisershatner's edits changed the date of introduction of the Bill of Rights from 1789 to 1791. As it stands now, the article claims New Jersey and several other states ratified the amendments before they were introduced. I'd fix it, but this article is currently protected. 66.32.212.4 (talk) 21:59, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

also this is clearly wrong

January 10, 1791 - Vermont becomes 14th state to ratify the Constitution - except that it's not a state until March 4, 1791.

November 3, 1791 - Vermont is 10th state to ratify the Bill of Rights. December 15, 1791 - Virginia is 11th state to ratify the Bill of Rights, and Bill of Rights goes into effect. March 2, 1939 - Massachusetts is 12th state to ratify the Bill of Rights. March 18, 1939 - Georgia is 13th state to ratify the Bill of Rights. April 19, 1939 - Connecticut is 14th state to ratify the Bill of Rights. (Subarusvx (talk) 01:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Subarusvx (talk • contribs) 01:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

<section by banned editor removed. {{user|James dalton bell}} is banned, and any edits he makes are subject to reversion on sight. The IPs 97.120.255.244 and 97.120.252.231 are IP sockpuppets of his, and as per above, all edits by them will be reverted. If Mr. Bell wishes to appeal his ban, he must do so through proper channels. Ban evasion is not tolerated.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 11:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)>

All very interesting but it stinks of OR. Do you have any references for this? It seems clear the Bill of Rights was accepted as law long before that date so you'd need some very powerful references to back that up. CrispMuncher (talk) 16:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

As noted above, edits by a banned editor were removed. These edits are not to be restored for any reason, as that would be editing for a banned editor, and therefore, a violation of WP:BAN.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 11:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

comment

great article--74.184.3.10 (talk) 21:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Too bad NO ONE CARES ABOUT THE BILL OF RIGHTS ANYMORE. "The People" does not include you or me (Barron v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore. 32 U.S. 243). Furthermore, the Bill of Rights and Constitution do not apply to the State laws based on the same Barron v. City of Baltimore descision. http://supreme.justia.com/us/32/243/case.html

If you think GWB is the source of all of our problems, you don't even know the tip of the iceberg. The same people who got us in to get subway got us in to Iraq twice and they WILL NUKE THE US before 2010! Too bad all of you sheep are too drunk from the wine of the whore of Babylon to notice anything. I know exactly what anyone reading this will think of me..."he's nuts" or "he should be put into a secret concentration camp". Well, soon enough, that will come to pass. Thanks to the Patriot Act, which completely irradicates the Bill of Rights and most of the constitution, we now have "Thought Crimes". I'm almost happy to know that the judgement of God will soon be upon America and criminals like Cheney, Clinton, the Rockefellers, Rothschilds, Feds, Obama, Al Gore and Bush. They will be paid back in full for all of the millions of murders they are causing around the world. Many more are yet to come. More than a million Americans will die due to their efforts before 2010.

"The people" includes me - I'm a U.S. Citizen. Also, you are mistaken in your reliance on Barron. Barron was decided in 1833, 33 years before the ratification of the Civil War Amendments. Because of the Civil It is no longer applicable, because of the 14th amendment. This is not news - the 14th Amendment is 140 years old. For most of the 21st century, it has been widely recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court that the enumerated individual rights of seven of the first eight amendments apply to the states as well. See, e.g. Monroe. Get with the program - and please don't cite authority out of context (like you think you know something.) Non Curat Lex (talk) 21:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Found Mistake

The text featured at the point "Text of the Bill of Rights" contains only 10 Articles, the first two - I know they were not ratified by the required number of states by December 1791 but still - are missing. The original does infact have those 2 articles and so they should not be left out! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.168.84.183 (talk) 21:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Vermont

I hear the Bill of Rights or the first 10 ammmendments were adaptations from the Vermont Republic's Constitution when it was the first state to join the union (i.e., the 14th state). Perhaps I am lazy but can anyone verify this for me? Teetotaler 2 April 2007

Due credit

Note:According to the Maryland State Archives-the Bill of Rights appearing on Wikipedia is the Maryland Copy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.53.145.93 (talk) 15:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

there are now over 40 amendments —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.183.254.142 (talk) 21:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Please add a brief long s discussion or link

I know the character that looks like an f is an s, but I think it would be a good idea to briefly discuss this or link to the Long s Wikipedia article. Although it is slight, you are basically translating from an old script to modern English. I know I'm not the only one who wanted to know why they spelled Congress as Congrefs. Thanks. Peace. Truthunmasked (talk) 12:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

About my Illiberal Democracy edit

My edit about an illiberal democracy belongs in this article for one major reason: An encyclopedia is an educational tool, and what better way to educate people than refer them to other articles? Just the same as Encyclopedia Brown or Britannica would refer the readers to other articles elsewhere in the book, I think my edit about illiberal democracy would do the same thing here. So, please, don't remove it.70.178.75.61 (talk) 06:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Madison did not propose the Bill of Rights

Madison drafted the Bill of Rights in response to demands from the majority of the original 13 states, which instead of ratifying the new Constitution "as is", demanded a Bill of Rights to go with it. Many states ratified with the proviso that the vote was invalid until such time as a Bill of Rights was added, and a number of other states flatly refused to even consider a vote to ratify without a Bill of Rights. Even states that voted in favor of the Constitution "as is" also proposed amendments. Delaware, the very first state to ratify, for instance set up a commission which proposed 15 Amendments which had overwhelming support. http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field(DOCID+@lit(ed0029)): see page 550-552.

The statement currently appearing "Madison proposed a Bill of Rights" should be changed to "Madison drafted a Bill of Rights in response to demands from the majority of the original 13 states.

It is probably more accurate to say that he was "forced to write a Bill of Rights or see the Constitution go down the drain, or even that he was dragged "kicking and screaming" into the camp of those who demanded a Bill of Rights, but such is unlikely to get past wiki self appointed censors.98.118.19.104 (talk) 17:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

hell ya —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.1.207.245 (talk) 20:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Extra Info .

[Admendments] is something you can do to change the [Constituion] , you change it be adding amendments . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.210.69.134 (talk) 20:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

preamble ?????

""Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent starts of its institution. RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz. ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.[5] ""

THE PREAMBLE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEGINS WITH "WE THE PEOPLE" NOT CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES. PLEASE DO NOT DISTRIBUTE THIS FARSE YOU HAVE POSTED ON WIKI. PEOPLE, NOT ELECTED OFFICIALS, not senators, not representatives, not politicians "WE THE PEOPLE" this version wiki has posted is a blatant lie of the beuracratic machine most of us have become enslaved by. Please do not let your children be brought up by this disgusting lie. Teach them that thier rights are also thier duties, ALL OF THEM. THE FIRST THE SECOND AND THE FIFTH ESPECIALY, THE TIGER MUST HAVE TEETH. otherwise we are nothing more than oppressed communists or at best 1939 germany. TAKE UP ARMS, SPEAK YOUR MIND, DENY ENTRY TO FEDERAL AGENTS, WHY HAS "WE THE PEOPLE" BEEN OMMITED. DO NOT ALLOW THE SYSTEMATIC ELIMINATION OF OUR RIGHTS AND DUTIES BE SHITCANNED BY THE ONES WHO PROVIDE OUR LAWS OR THOSE WHO PROVIDE OUR SO CALLED ENCYCLOPEDIC INFORMATION. THIS CATEGORY HAS BEEN GROSSLY MANIPULATED TO THE POINT OF RAPE "YOU AND I AND YOUR CHILDREN ARE THE VICTIMS" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.136.6.221 (talk) 08:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

You do know that you are screaming your head off about the WRONG THING. The quoted material is the preamble to the Bill of Rights NOT the Constitution. NO ONE is saying that "We the people" is not the first phrase of the Constitution. Also, the words are "farce" and "bureaucratic". Not to mention "their". --Khajidha (talk) 14:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Caption under Madison's note (photo) should be changed from1791 to 1789 as it appears in long hand on the document, itself.

Caption under Madison's note (photo) should be changed from 1791 to 1789 as it appears in long hand on the document, itself.

Link to Document: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/50/Madison.notes.06081789.jpg Hsaive (talk) 16:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done--JayJasper (talk) 17:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Chicago, IL,

3rd Amendment doesn't protect against quartering of troops, it protects PRIVACY. Freedom from government snooping. To say it protects from "quartering of troops" is to take it so literally it is useless. The founders didn't foresee electronics, video cameras, FLIR, or other modern bugging and surveillance devices. The political goal, however, remains the same: to close off the area of private existence from the eyes of the otherwise totalitarian state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.47.225.140 (talk) 08:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

What it explicitly prevents is the quartering of troops. jorgenev 15:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

AMENDMENT III "No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law." was one of the complaints leading to the Declaration and appears to be a specific instance of

AMENDMENT V "....nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Right to privacy is more an unenumerated commonlaw right, and the doctrine dates more from 1890s legal theory (Louis Brandeis) than Amendment III, and protection is probably more found in Amendment IX. Naaman Brown (talk) 13:48, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Extraneous link

Please remove the link to the FMK 9C1, an entirely unrelated link put on the page by the creator of that article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.100.6.20 (talk) 02:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done--JayJasper (talk) 03:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Freedom of Religion

The freedom of religious practice and expression is conspicuously absent from the discussion on this page. Despite it being the first freedom recognized by the First Amendment, it receives no mention in the introduction explaining what the Bill of Rights is all about-- and is only mentioned in the text of the Amendment itself, and in passing, in the discussion of the Virginia Declaration of Rights.

This right is arguably the foundation upon which the Constitution and Bill of Rights was built, and its absence here is difficult to understand, at best. Therefore I'm going to edit the article to include it.R0nin Two (talk) 15:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 208.47.128.148, 7 April 2011

i would like to add the Aendments

208.47.128.148 (talk) 17:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The full texts of the amendments are already given in the article. - BilCat (talk) 17:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Article selected as United States Wikipedians' Collaboration of the Month for June 2011

United States Bill of Rights (4 votes, stays until 31 May 2011)

Nominated 16:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC); needs 3 votes by 30 April 2011 (minimum 3 votes per month)

Support:

1. Kumioko (talk) 16:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
2. JayJasper (talk) 18:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
3. Renimar (talk) 23:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
4. Mabeenot (talk) 20:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments:

• I think this article is an extremely important topic in American history, it has a very high hit count according to the popular pages listing and it needs a lot of help. It says its a B class but I think that is generous given the state of the article and I think it needs work to even get to B class again. Kumioko (talk) 16:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• Per Kumioko, vitally important article with obvious historical significance, in need of cleanup. One concern is the number of statements lacking sources or at least inline citations. This may cast doubts for readers of the article as to the reliability and accuracy of the content.--JayJasper (talk) 18:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

• With Wikipedia a convenient and well-known resource for "first stop" information shopping, articles on topics that are both well-known and complex deserve the very best Wikipedia has to offer. The Bill of Rights is frequently invoked in today's political environment. Journalists, students, voters -- they all should be able to get a good introduction about this important topic from Wikipedia. --Renimar (talk) 23:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• Maybe shoot for having this article at GA status in time for July 4th? -Mabeenot (talk) 20:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

References

• For Know-It-Alls (January 2008). The United States Bill of Rights for Know-It-Alls. Filiquarian Publishing, LLC. ISBN 9781599862255. Retrieved 3 June 2011.
• David J. Bodenhamer; James W. Ely (May 2008). The Bill of Rights in modern America. Indiana University Press. ISBN 9780253219916.
• Bernard Schwartz (1 January 1992). The great rights of mankind: a history of the American Bill of Rights. Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 9780945612285.
• Rich Smith (2 July 2007). The Bill of Rights: Defining Our Freedoms. ABDO. ISBN 9781599289137.
• Nancy L. Stair (January 2003). The Bill of Rights: a primary source investigation into the first ten amendments of the Constitution. The Rosen Publishing Group. p. 53. ISBN 9780823938001.
• David Andrew Schultz (May 2009). Encyclopedia of the United States Constitution. Infobase Publishing. p. 59. ISBN 9780816067633.
• Charles E. Pederson (1 January 2010). The U.S. Constitution & Bill of Rights. ABDO. p. 57. ISBN 9781604539486.

First task - Comprehensiveness

Great choice for an article...but I haven't the faintest idea about the topic so would not know where to start. I have made an FA recipe on my user page, and this is the first task...Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree and I am in the same boat. Here are a few of the things that I think would improve the article:

1. Move the large chunk of text from the lede and move it down into a proper section at the top of the article above Text of the Bill of Rights

Done - I also expanded the history section a bit but it needs more improvement. --Kumioko (talk) 20:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

2. Create a proper summerization of the article for the lead

Mostly done - I summerized the important parts I think but as we get the article further developed well need to refine it IMO. --Kumioko (talk) 20:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

3. The info in the article jumps around quite a bit and we should restructure it to be in more of a chronological order

I started restructuring this a bit and combine a couple of redundant sections. Still need to make some adjustments. --Kumioko (talk) 20:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

4. Create a section for History and talk about some of the history of it and how it came to be. This should include moving some of the info found further into the article up into the history section.

Started doing this. Still some more info that needs to be covered though. --Kumioko (talk) 20:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

5. We should also probably discuss each of the parts of the Bill of Rights better rather than just cut and pasted copies of the verbiage

6. We have a lot of quotes and copied text in various sections that I think needs to be trimmed down.

7. some of the sections like The Anti-Federalists don't seem to tie directly to the Bill of Rights itself and should either be removed, trimmed down or clarified as to how they pertain to the article

8. I think we might want to consider breaking the Ratification timeline into a seperate list article. If we put it into a table and then group it by year we can better explain the important details about why it took 5 years to get every one to sign it. Also, adding these details to the existing Bill of Rights article would not relate toe the Bill of Rights article itself and would be off topic IMO.

9. I do not think we need the bulletized list of copies in the Copies section. I recommend we restructure that into a more prose format.

Done --Kumioko (talk) 20:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

10. The Bill of Rights as an institutional document and because of the framework of its design has been emulated in many ways by many organizations and people. Some of these are in the see also section. I think we can wrap up the article by adding a paragraph at the end discussing how it has been used as a guide for these other Bills of Rights.

Note 1. - There is an overload of documentation out there so it is going to be very easy to overwhelm this article with refs. I think we need to be careful to use only the most reliable and trusted sources whenever possible. I realize that may be hard to do.

Note2. - As we are rewriting this we should think about how the National Archives can help. They have offered to assist but I am not sure what they have or what to ask for so that is something we should think about as we develop this article.

As a parting though the Page ratings for this article are actually quite high so that is a good marker IMO to see if our efforts pay off.

Any thoughts? --Kumioko (talk) 18:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

great 7 - anti-federalists go in history section (their critique, brought promise of bill of rights in ratification debate)

process timeline, split this? do we have other split candidates?Slowking4 (talk) 20:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Not that I see yet. This one just kinda jumped out at me. It seems long enough that it could be its own list article and alow us to expand a little more on the individual arguments each state had for and against it without delving deep into the weeds on this article. --Kumioko (talk) 20:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Great thanks, here are some more items that need attention:

1. Lots of citations needed
2. The existing citations need cleaning up
3. We are using different citation formats, I think we need to pick one and stick to it

Note 3. - I have solicited the help of WikiProject NARA and the National Archives for this one. They are a wealth of information that should be very helpful in this such as better quality images and researcher advice.

Note 4. - The article was previously featured and there are notes about that here, here and here. --Kumioko (talk) 20:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I am starting to work on expanding the article by expanding the various sections. It will take some time to get the content built up so if it looks like things are a little erratic andn disorganized for a couple days thats why. I will continue to refine and expand as I go along. Feel free to comment, make changes, fix my punctuation and grammer (which I have been told is less than flawless :-)). With any luck over the next couple weeks the article will be substantially improved over its current state. --Kumioko (talk) 15:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

NARA feedback

I have posted an initial assessment of the article by a National Archives staff member from the legislative archives at /NARA. He is actually in the middle of changing jobs soon, but I am working on other contacts as well. If you have any responses to it, I'll make sure he gets them. Dominic·t 14:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Those are all good points as far as I am concerned and I will work on addressing them. Please let me know if you see anything else. --Kumioko (talk) 15:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Text

Am I right that this article includes the text of the preamble and of later amendments, but not the text of the actual Bill of Rights itself?--109.149.34.134 (talk) 17:02, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

National Archives featured article contest

The Charters of Freedom on display at the National Archives' rotunda.

I would like to announce the first featured article contest for the National Archives project. The National Archives has graciously provided us with prizes to give out to winners, including National Archives publications, tote bags, and other swag. The first contest is a challenge to get any of the articles on the three documents on display in the National Archives building's rotunda—the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights—featured (in any language).

Please read more about how to participate here. Good luck! Dominic·t 20:47, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Ratification by Rhode Island

Did Rhode Island reject article II of the Constitution (as it is written here) or article II of the Bill of Rights? Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 10:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

misrepresentation of source

The statement "Originally, the Bill of Rights included legal protection for white men only" isn't what is said in the given source, which begins by pointing out that the issue is one of assumptions of the context in which the BOR is to be interpreted, rather than the BOR itself. The WP statement doesn't qualify this, and as it stands is nonfactual:

The language of the Bill of Rights is almost entirely gender neutral and its provisions have always applied to
some women. 1 But free white men of property designed the Bill of Rights in a political process from which they
excluded most Americans and all women. Not surprisingly, the Bill of Rights served and serves the interests of
such men better than the interests of others.

TEDickey (talk) 13:02, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

In 1918 women got to vote, but in many instances, women had very little legal protection under the US Constitution until they challenged existing laws in the Supreme Court (and continue to this day). In some cases, African Americans had legal rights many years before women, especially married women in the US. One example is the 14th amendment where African Americans were included in 1954, and women were included in 1971.

In 1971, US Supreme Court ruled in Reed v. Reed [1] that the 14th amendment applies to women, [2]. Until then, women were not considered as "people" according to the US Constitution. I'm not kidding and I'm not exaggerating, see Timeline of Personhood. [3] I added this information in the 14th amendment article, but it reads like an afterthought because there is no other mention of women anywhere in the article. For some reason the article is written from the view point of African Americans only and how it applies to them.

Even today, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia claims that women do not have equal protection under the 14th amendment [4] because men's rights are guaranteed by specific language in the Constitution, but women's rights are not mentioned. [5] So yes, it's up to interpretation of the courts, which has not been in favor of women even today – 2011, so it's still not resolved to this day. USchick (talk) 15:03, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

The entire paragraph in question is POV and misrepresents both the Bill of Rights and the TWO sources that it cites. The sources themselves are simply opinion pieces. And even if you accept the viewpoint presented, this argument has nothing to do with the Bill of Rights itself, but with the history of American jurisprudence, so it doesn't belong here. There is NOTHING in the BoR that supports the statement that it applied only to white men or excluded "most Americans and all women". There were also no later changes to the Bill of Rights to cause its protections to be extended to non-whites or females.

The Bill of Rights itself is gender neutral. The argument that the Constitution guaranteed men's rights but not women's rights is based upon reading the current usage of language into the usage of over two centuries ago. When the Constitution was written, "men" meant "mankind", and was not intended to exclude women.

Quite simply, this paragraph was added to further a political viewpoint and agenda, and it cannot stand up to scrutiny. That's why I originally reverted to the original, and that's why it should not be allowed to be added back in. This is the kind of thing that makes a Wiki a poor source of information-- people editing it to reflect their own beliefs rather than the facts.R0nin Two (talk) 20:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was a later change to the Bill of Rights which in fact extended constitutional protection to non-whites and women. Even that wasn't enough, so in 1954 there was Brown v. Board of Education and in 1971 there was Reed v. Reed, where the supreme court confirmed it. And even that's not enough, so in 2011 we have Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia saying that women do not have equal protection under the 14th amendment [6] because men's rights are guaranteed by specific language in the Constitution, but women's rights are not mentioned. [7] USchick (talk) 21:10, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

The source in question specifically states: "free white men of property designed the Bill of Rights in a political process from which they excluded most Americans and all women" Here's another source from the national archives where Abigail Adams urged her husband, the President of the US to include women and he did not. [8] USchick (talk) 21:25, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

However, the bare statement as given doesn't follow any of your sources. There'a paragraph or two left out in the middle. TEDickey (talk) 21:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

The entire article as written does not reflect the history of the United Sates. I can't believe it was nominated as Featured Article! USchick (talk) 21:42, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

As was already noted more than once, that small paragraph isn't reflected in the discussion below. Statements shouldn't appear in the lede unless they're discussed in more detail within the topic itself. TEDickey (talk) 21:45, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Well then, perhaps you should get busy and expand the article to include relevant historical information, especially if you expect it to be worthy of a Featured Article. I understand that maybe you were not aware of the history, but now that you are, this article is unacceptable as is. USchick (talk) 21:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

It's unlikely that I'm going to do anything at your bidding, no matter how rudely you choose to express yourself TEDickey (talk) 22:14, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I would appreciate if you would focus more on the issue that you question and learn your own history instead of making up excuses of why you think I'm wrong. According to the American Law Library: Equality was primarily extended only to white adult males with property, not to African Americans, women, or the poor. Not until 1868, following the Civil War, was the concept of equality written into constitutional law. Shortly after adoption of the 14th amendment, the Supreme Court began a lengthy period of very narrow interpretations. The Court ruled in 1875 that the federal government could not require states to allow women to vote. As a result, until adoption of the Nineteenth Amendment in 1920, women held less of a voting right than African Americans. [9] USchick (talk) 22:44, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

But again, you're bringing up issues that post-date the Bill of Rights. The idea that later court opinions improperly did not apply Constitutional protections equally to all, doesn't mean that such was intended by the Constitution. Later, additional amendments to the Constitution clarify the original intent of the Constitution, they don't set it aside.

And I repeat the fact that your issues aren't with the Bill of Rights at all, but with your interpretation of the application of legal protections to various groups in later years. Your claims have nothing to do with the Bill of Rights, and don't belong in this article. Citing biased sources (ACLU-- an extremely liberal group-- and a "Women's Studies" article) and then even twisting what they say to fit your purposes is doubly an issue. You need to leave the politically-motivated arguments out of this article, and add them to appropriate articles that discuss those issues.R0nin Two (talk) 05:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm talking about the Bill of Rights with the original 10 amendments. The reason I was mentioning the 14th amendment was in response to the statement that there were no other changes to the original document. We are now up to 27 amendments, so yes, there were changes. According to policy WP:VALID, it is important to account for all significant viewpoints in an article. The fact that over half of the population was left out, is extremely significant. Abigail Adams urged her husband to include "Women" in the Constitution and the word "Women" was intentionally left out. USchick (talk) 14:32, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Your responses can be summarized as attacks on other editors, accusing them of ignorance, dismissing the fact that the sources don't amplify the point as much as your edits. WP:NPOV is a good place to start. WP:Civil seems to also have been overlooked. TEDickey (talk) 15:06, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings. I added references to support the statement. The claim that women were included in the Constitution is false, because if they were, what was the purpose of the Suffragist movement? If women were citizens according to the Constitution, why could they not vote? If you claim that the term "men" applied to "mankind" please provide a source. USchick (talk) 20:59, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Go back to the beginning of the thread, and one will see that you have not only misrepresented the sources, but misrepresented the nature of the dispute. TEDickey (talk) 22:00, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about, and I don't care about the dispute, but I'm prepared to listen if you think that's important. I'm talking about this article and the fact that at the time it was written, it applied to very few people. I understand what you're saying about the information not being in the body, so I added it. Please review it and let me know if it is to your satisfaction. Thanks. USchick (talk) 22:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

It needs work. I'm not in the habit of repairing messes made by people who go out of their way to attack other editors. TEDickey (talk) 22:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The Bill of Rights may sound gender neutral to us today, but for all legal purposes, it has never been gender neutral. This is not my area of interest, so you'll be happy to know that I probably won't be spending much time on other similar articles. Most of the Constitutional articles on Wikipedia have been written like they were always fair and just, which is far from the truth. I do hope this issue gets picked up by other people interested in history. USchick (talk) 22:46, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The sentence should go. It is patently false. If the contention was true it would have been legal to quarter troops in women's houses but not mens' and that was not the case even in the earliest days. I think what you are focusing on USchick is voting rights, which deserves to be noted but which was also more of an issue of how states were allowed to legislate voter eligibility not that the bill of rights was restricted to certain groups. LegrisKe (talk) 07:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

If it should go, then discuss why. I'm not seeing anything "patently false" in it. If the statement in the article is not backed up by the source, then either change the source, or change the article so that it correctly represents the informations in the source, but don't remove it completely, as there's no justification for that, especially as there doesn't appear to be a consensus either way on that matter. - SudoGhost 13:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your support. Since the beginning of this discussion, additional sources have been added in the lead and in the body to support the statements. I have more if necessary. This is not about the vote, but about certain groups being historically excluded from the constitution on purpose. We shouldn't be making judgments about that, especially since that was the intent, but it needs to be reflected in the article because it's history. USchick (talk) 16:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

As far as quartering troops, it didn't seem to make a difference. "...women left alone to manage households often had the additional burden of quartering troops, American and British. Lydia Post, a Long Island farm wife with Patriot sympathies, was forced to quarter Hessian troops in her house. These soldiers lived in the kitchen, which was barred off from the rest of the house." [10] USchick (talk) 17:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

What does the forced quartering of enemy troops, before the writing of the Bill of Rights, have to do with anything? It was done before the Bill was written! Aside from that, you continue to confuse issues of how law was later interpreted or applied, with what the Bill of Rights clearly states. You have inserted material into this article that directly contradicts what the Bill of Rights says in its text, simply on the grounds that the Bill of Rights was not correctly applied in later legal decisions or in practice. That is editorializing, and such discussion is for a different page, not this one. Here, it simply confuses the issue, at best, and points out your desire to have your bias reflected (rather than fact), at worse. When challenged on this by myself and others, you have not provided valid arguments in support of your position, but have attacked us instead. For that reason, I'm going to remove the material in question. If you wish to include it again, you need to provide a rationale for doing so. This article is about the Bill of Rights, not about how it was later interpreted or applied. Even if you feel it belongs for "historical" reasons, you need to do more to make it clear that this is what you're discussing-- not the Bill of Rights itself or its intent when written. You also need to be careful to include only neutral, unbiased works in your justifying references.R0nin Two (talk) 14:20, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

i really enjoy the "strict constructionism" devoid of historicism. how many references do you want that say the bill of rights applied to white males? sources will intrepret the document, and that intrepretation is a part of the document. these are not my 'biases', they are a reflection of the sources. e.g. "That was the theory, anyway. In reality, for the first 100 years of its life, the Bill of Rights was sort of dozing and didn't really help anyone. There were two big reasons why. The first was deep prejudice; picture again the people around that constitutional dinner table — white men who owned property. When they wrote the Bill of Rights, most had no intention of protecting the rights of the people who needed protection most: blacks, women, and poor people." [11]; "The Bill of Rights seemed to be written in broad language that excluded no one, but in fact, it was not intended to protect all the people - whole groups were left out." [12]; "During and after the American Revolution, when the rich white men were writing the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, many people who were not rich, or white, or men thought maybe this was their chance to get equal rights too. " [13]; "The Bill of Rights does less for the problems of women and unpropertied men, than to solve the problems of men of property" [14]. Slowking4: 7@1|x 16:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

It's hard to believe anyone could miss how incredibly POV those statements are, even when they claim to be moderating the original statement to make it less controversial. Indeed, the sarcastic mischaracterization of my remarks leads me to believe that you're fully aware of the fact that they represent POV-- you're just OK with that because you think the POV is the correct one.

This seems like a pretty valid reason to me. To state that "This article is about the Bill of Rights, not about how it was later interpreted or applied" seems to imply a misunderstanding of the point of the article. Every article that is about a historical document that I've come across on Wikipedia details not only the content of the document, but its impact and how they were interpreted. I think, however, that if the beginning of the paragraph were to be changed from "Originally, the Bill of Rights included..." to "The Bill of Rights was interpreted by (whoever it was) to include..." that would hopefully solve the issue here. - SudoGhost 18:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your final conclusion: presenting these POV statements as others' interpretations on the effects of the Bill of Rights would be far preferable to stating those interpretations as fact. On the claim that I have "a misunderstanding of the point of the article", I don't think I can agree. The article is about the Bill of Rights-- not modern revisionist interpretations of it. If the point of Wikipedia is to give the modern, politically-correct view of things, then this ceases to become an "encyclopedia" and becomes little more than propaganda. Of course, that is in fact what many people feel Wikipedia is-- it certainly isn't viewed as a reliable source on most topics, by many people. That is a shame, IMO.

I'm not sure I see how discussing who the Bill of Rights has applied to in various points in history is a modern, politically-correct view of things, or how it is propaganda. Wikipedia already has comparable articles that discuss modern views of things. This article is about the Bill of Rights. However, it is about all aspects of it, not just things that pertain to it the moment it was created, and not at any points after. The Bill of Rights is an important document in United States history, and I don't see how inserting factual information of how it was percieved and interpreted at various points in American history is propaganda, especially as what is being proposed is not a modern view, but an old "interpretation" that was later clarified. - SudoGhost 00:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

For it's time the U.S. Constitution was rather "gender neutral" often using words like "person". To assert that the Bill of Rights which applied at the time of ratification only to the federal government; "protected only white men" distorts history and is inconsistent with Wikipedia's NPOV standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.46.227.202 (talk) 13:47, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Source requested

The balance of state and federal power under the incorporation doctrine is still an open question and continues to be fought separately for each right in the federal courts. This statement seems odd and unbelievable and is not sourced. Can we please get a reliable source behind it? 97.85.163.245 (talk) 09:05, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

still an open question and continues to be fought separately for each right this is the objectionable phrase which reads as if all of the rights are still being fought over and not resolved. There are only a few enumerated rights that have not been incorporated, like the quartering of troops. Maybe change the phrase to the incorporation doctrine is still undecided for a few of the enumerated freedoms in the Bill of Rights 97.85.163.245 (talk) 09:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, you're wrong. ALL our freedoms are in flux. Always. Its Because a system dies if it cant adapt to new situations. And it doesnt help that society changes. By this logic, we should put a notice on the Air Force article, saying it was still an open question on whether it was legitimate. (article 1, section 8.) 74.132.249.206 (talk) 19:15, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 6 October 2011

i think it would be nice to put the names of the editors

67.161.172.216 (talk) 00:19, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you talking about United_States_Bill_of_Rights#Delegates_to_the_Consitutional_convention? Or a different list?--Jnorton7558 (talk) 01:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 January 2012

May we PLEASE move the actual TEXT of the BILL of RIGHTS to the first part of this page - BEFORE the discussion of it?

Hasn't it persisted long enough to deserve reading prior to critique?

75.108.141.17 (talk) 02:25, 21 January 2012 (UTC) Ken Soderstrom soderstromk@hotmail.com

 Not done From Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section Nutshell: 'The lead should define the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight.' Dru of Id (talk) 04:29, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Is there any reason to actually have the text in full in any case? We do not usually published primary source material in full even if as here it is public domain: we would generally link to Wikisource instead, and reserve this project for review of the text. I do see some value add in the links but those would be better placed in context, in the examination of the text. Crispmuncher (talk) 20:03, 21 January 2012 (UTC).

Edit request on 25 April 2012

In the text box "Ratification of the Constitution," the date for Pennsylvania should be December 12, not December 11. The date for Maryland should be April 28 not April 26.

Look just below the box in the section called Ratification process to see that the dates conflict with one another.

PlanetBoyer (talk) 23:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 20:45, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

PlanetBoyer is correct, though, that the textbox and the prose timeline later are contradictory. Neither one is sourced (that I see). Any chance anyone can figure out which is correct, change the other, and provide inline citations? Qwyrxian (talk) 03:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Interesting... this says that Penn was December 12, and Maryland was April 26. here's a primary source supporting the December 12th number, and here's a primary source arguing April 28 for Maryland. Here's a source for all of the states. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:29, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Done ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:29, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

BOR Only Ratified March 1939
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Second Amendment Second amendmebnt reads: "..keep and bear Arms.." not weapons. Entirely different legal definition. The wording needs be changed.70.162.46.94 (talk) 22:26, 5 September 2011 (UTC) What's the difference between arms and weapons? Kaldari (talk) 20:57, 13 October 2011 (UTC) MY guess is that the difference is arms referrs to fire-amrs, such as pistols, rifles, cannons, items using black powder or now, gunpowder. Weapons could include swords and other things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.28.150.46 (talk) 14:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC) No. At least one dictionary I consulted defined "arms" as "objects used as weapons". There is no hint in the 2nd amendment that they were only referring to 'gunpowder-driven lead-throwing machines'. If you can only think of firearms, you have a very meager idea of what 'arms' can be. Jamesdbell8 (talk) 19:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC) Georgia, Mass., Conn. Section 2.4 states that these states ratified the bill of rights in 1792. Section 3.2 says they did so in 1939. 76.116.6.147 (talk) 13:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC)Georgia and Massachusetts "ceremonially" ratified for the sesquicentennial of the Bill of Rights. Connecticut actually ratified the Bill of Rights in 1789, and their ratification may be viewed in their archives or on NationalTruth.org in the "Final Brief and Addendums" of "LaVergne v. Bryson, et al"76.116.6.147 (talk) 13:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC) Footnote 1 of http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendments.html does not list the 1792 dates. I believe they should be omitted until further documentation/explanation of those dates is forthcoming. C. Scott Ananian (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC). Apnorton (talk) 18:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC): This still needs updating. The correct dates for Georgia, Mass., and Conn. are in 1939. Further backup here: http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1553&context=wmborj http://www.jstor.org/stable/844251 The reason for this apparent discrepancy is simple. (See my 1939 comment below). At the time the BOR was voted on in the Federal Congress for ratification, there were only 11 states in the Union. Only 8 of those states had ratified the BOR at the time of its presumed ratification, which would not have been sufficient if only those states that had been states at the time of the proposal were allowed to count. The admission of other states, and counting their votes in the state-legislature stage of the ratification process, was employed to conclude that the ratification had been complete. A careful study of the matter, in 1939, apparently revealed that only 8 of 11 original states had actually ratified the BOR. At that point, only one of the three as-yet-unratifying states (Georgia, Massachusetts, and Connecticut) would have been sufficient to properly ratify the BOR: One more vote would bring the tally from 8 ratifying states up to 9, which was greater than 3/4's of those 11 original states. In the end, each of those states...and ONLY those states...contributed its ratification vote. Nearly 150 years later. The "celebration" story, was obviously a ruse, designed to conceal the fact that the BOR had remained unratified for 148 years after being thought ratified. Else, why didn't dozens of other states ratify, as well? Jamesdbell8 (talk) 20:58, 26 July 2012 (UTC) Edit request on 27 July 2012 This paragraph is NOT to be included but is to explain these two changes. Rights such as gun ownership and a speedy trial are not natural rights. They are legal rights which protect natural rights. As Madison's words from the speech he delivered introducing the Bill of Rights as recorded in The Annals of Congress, House of Representatives, First Congress, 1st Session, starting on page 454. "Trial by jury cannot be considered as a natural right, but a right resulting from a social compact which regulates the action of the community, but is as essential to secure the liberty of the people as any one of the pre-existent rights of nature." CHANGES START HERE "These limitations serve to protect the natural rights of liberty and property." should be changed to: "These legal rights serve to protect the natural rights of liberty and property." AND the sentence: "The Bill of Rights is a series of limitations on the power of the U.S. federal government, protecting the natural rights of liberty and property including freedom of religion, freedom of speech, a free press, free assembly, and free association, as well as the right to keep and bear arms." should be changed to: "The Bill of Rights is a list of ten legal rights protecting the natural rights of liberty and property." Loondawg (talk) 21:08, 27 July 2012 (UTC) Not done:. The constitution is a limitation on governement, so I dont think this is a good change. RudolfRed (talk) 21:48, 27 July 2012 (UTC) BOR Only Ratified March 1939 Three years ago, I discovered from studying the ratification process that the Bill of Rights (first ten amendments) were actually only ratified March 1939. Read on! The process for ratification requires 2/3s vote in House and Senate, and 3/4's ratification by all state assemblies. Simple, right? But there is a hidden question: "Is it 3/4's of the state legislatures at the time of the 2/3's House/Senate vote, or is it 3/4's vote of state legislatures at the time of the purported ratification?" We don't consider the difference today because the last two states were admitted in 1958 or 1959, and prior to that there was Arizona in about 1913, I think. But I think the correct rule is, 3/4's of those states' legislatures at the time of Congress's 2/3 vote. The reason for that may be that during the late 1790's and early 1800's, states were being admitted so rapidly, and if a newly-proposed state's potential vote on an already-proposed amendment were to 'count', that state's entrance in to the Union would be potentially a problem, and they didn't want that. Notice that three states ratified the BOR in March and April 1939, and none had done so much after the 1790's or after 1939. What happened is this: Three states did not want to ratify the Constitution because it had no Bill of Rights. So, only 11 states ratified it the Constitution, and the BOR was proposed. 3/4's of 11 states is 8.25 states being required to ratify, so they had to round-up to 9 states. But, a few states had been admitted to the Union shortly afterwards. Their U.S. Senate/House legislators had not voted on the BOR adoption, so (arguably, and I argue) their votes did not count on the state-legislatures' ratification step. The supposed 'ratification' of the BOR was apparently done with the assumption that their State-legislature votes to ratify were effective, even the states that hadn't been states at the time of the proposal of the Bill of Rights. As I recall from my analysis, only 8 states (of those that were states at the time of the Senate/House vote on the BOR proposal) ever ratified the BOR. Ooops! Cut to 1939. Apparently, realizing their mistake, they knew that they needed at least ONE new ratification (of the states that had been states at the time of the proposal of the BOR, but hadn't ratified it by state legislature). Between March and April 1939, those three states were finally heard from, and so all 11 states (of the states that had been states when the BOR was proposed) finally ratified the BOR. If this analysis isn't correct, tell me why. Why would 3 states ratify the BOR, almost 150 years after that supposed 'ratification' had already occurred, and ONLY those three states? Like I said, it was an 'Ooops!' moment. Jamesdbell8 (talk) 19:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC) Virginia's ratification of the Bill of Rights on December 15, 1791, resulted in 11 of the then-14 States having ratified the Bill of Rights, thereby putting it into the Constitution. The 1939 ratifications were symbolic acts. Here's a source for more details. SMP0328. (talk) 23:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC) Yes, I've read your source, and it totally ignores the question of whether there was an error. "Conventional wisdom" is conventional precisely because it takes the positions almost everyone "knows" is correct. "Conventional wisdom" sometimes even has a problem admitting the existence of a dispute, as is apparently the case with your source. Sometimes, however, errors are made. Errors are frequently made inadventently, although they are also sometimes covered-up deliberately. Calling the three 1939 ratifications "symbolic acts" is laughable because it doesn't explain why these states, and ONLY these states, engaged in that "symbolic act". (why didn't every state, or most states that hadn't ratified, ratify it in 1939? Why didn't at least one state that HADN'T been a state when the BOR was proposed by Congress ratify in 1939?). I think the truth is fairly clear that in 1939, they BELIEVED that there had been a major error in 1791, and they were engaging in an act which would have corrected that error: They needed a ratification from at least one of those three non-ratifying states. They were taking exactly the position I believe to be correct. I guess you'd say that if that is what they believed, they were wrong: That is the essence of a dispute. I think that this article should be amended to acknowledge the existence of that dispute, without taking sides. That is the essence of the "POV" problem, and the solution to that problem. Jamesdbell8 (talk) 05:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC) Dear Jamesdbell8: As I noted on the talk page of another article, the argument that the Bill of Rights was not ratified until 1939 is incorrect. Whether the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1939 or way back when is really a question of law -- it's not a question whose answer can be determined in the way you've attempted to answer it. By the way, several amendments to the Constitution have been the subject of disputes about whether (or when) they were ratified. The 16th and, I believe, the 13th and 19th amendments are examples. The answer is really a response to a question about law -- and the answer is that all 27 amendments to the Constitution have been ratified. Famspear (talk) 05:11, 27 July 2012 (UTC) Calling my argument 'incorrect' is not sufficient to disprove it. And, I've simply demonstrated that the question is disputable. And, that being the case, I cite the NPOV policy as being applicable in this situation. You may not like the idea that an opinion you consider 'incorrect' will be present in WP, but the NPOV policy provides a limitation on your desires. You refer to other amendments whose ratification is in dispute: I can remember a 1989 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals case which stated that only 4 (?) states actually passed the 16th amendment precisely as it was proposed by Congress. The Ninth Circuit, nevertheless, came to the conclusion that these deviations weren't sufficient to declare the 16th invalidly adopted. But, that was before a Supreme Court decision in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_v._City_of_New_York (1998) which declared that even if one paragraph's difference in a 500-page bill was present (between the House's or Senate's version, or the way the President signed the bill) the bill was not legally passed. One paragraph in 500 pages is about 1/2500 of the content. Even a single character in a 200-character amendment is 1/200 of the content. I'd say that if there is even a plausible argument that a particular amendment wasn't properly ratified, that is a proper subject for what is supposed to be an "encyclopedia". Jamesdbell8 (talk) 05:35, 27 July 2012 (UTC) Dear James: I'm not here to "disprove" your argument or to persuade you that your argument is incorrect. I'm here to explain what the law is, and I'm here to explain the Wikipedia concepts. Yes, you do remember a court case where the court noted that the documents in various states regarding the amendment had minor variations in spelling and punctuation. You are correct about what the court concluded. You then incorrectly imply that there must somehow be a "plausible" argument to support your position. That is incorrect. The very case you cited -- if anything -- contradicts your argument. Again, look for reliable, previously published third party sources, and go with what they say. Famspear (talk) 05:45, 27 July 2012 (UTC) By the way, whether something is "disputable" or not is not material. In a court of law, everything is "disputable." However, there are many things that you can "dispute" in a court of law that will get you in trouble, because the court will impose penalties on you for engaging in a frivolous argument. If you go into court and argue that the Bill of Rights was not ratified until 1939, the other side will dispute that, and they will win -- because you're wrong. Likewise, whether something is "disputable" is not the test we use in Wikipedia. Famspear (talk) 05:49, 27 July 2012 (UTC) You started out by claiming you would "explain the Wikipedia concepts" You ended up not addressing the application of the WP NPOV policy. My understanding of NPOV is that a WP article is not supposed to 'take sides' where a factual dispute, or especially a conclusional dispute, exists. I am asserting that there has been no documentary support for the position that the ratification of of a constitutional amendment necessarily allows votes from 'new' states. I've stated, correctly, that the Constitution does not define this matter; other people seem to be simply assuming this is one way, rather than another way. They are assuming this, I understand, because that is 'conventional wisdom', it is the way (seemingly) that things are done. Mine is not a 'frivolous argument': It is based on the recognition that the other side has an unsupported argument, at least not supported by anything more than reference to common practice. Moreover, I've cited a fact (1939 ratifications) which seemingly aren't being explained-away by anything more than an assertion that they are "symbolic". That's a very weak claim! You should at least admit that these states may have BELIEVED that they needed to pass at least one more ratification for the BOR to be effective. (Those states tried to cover-up their intent by claiming it was 'symbolic', perhaps. You may be wanting to 'believe' them, but I am not obliged to do so.) You could then assert that those people were wrong in that position. Jamesdbell8 (talk) 06:18, 27 July 2012 (UTC) Dear James: Again, thank you for the description of your thought process with us. What you are doing is original research as that term is used in Wikipedia. Instead of going through this kind of process and trying to form your conclusions, you need to look for reliable, previously published third party sources and look at what they have concluded. Famspear (talk) 13:13, 27 July 2012 (UTC) I have checked out the WP page including "original research". It includes: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research.[8] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article." I have cited http://www.thirdamendment.com/missing.html in which the author does, indeed, "mention" a conclusion, even if he does not agree with it. He says: "Further, if only states that were eligible to vote on an amendment when it was submitted to the states are ever eligible to vote on that amendment, the constitutional history of the United States would be even more dramatically different. Only eight of the eleven states operating under the Constitution when the Bill of Rights was submitted to the states voted to ratify it in the eighteenth century; if states admitted later were not eligible to ratify it, then the Bill of Rights did not become part of the Constitution until 1939, when Connecticut, Georgia, and Massachusetts ceremonially ratified the first ten amendments,(135) marking the 150th anniversary of their drafting. Not even the most extreme of extremists appears to have put forward such a claim." The 'original research' policy quoted above does NOT state, "...to imply a conclusion C that is not AGREED WITH by either of the sources". It merely says that conclusion must be MENTIONED, and that source does indeed mention that conclusion, even if he doesn't agree with it. If anything, that source is noting (at least as of 1999) that he is not aware of any "extremists" taking that position. (But that may simply be because it is a virtually-unknown position even today, and it was in 1999.) I'd say I'm on fair ground to take WP OR policy at face value, take that source's mentioning of that conclusion as satisfying the requirements of non-OR, and expand (explain) what he meant when he addressed the idea that the BOR wasn't ratified until 1939. (he didn't go into much detail, but I would do so.) Jamesdbell8 (talk) 17:42, 27 July 2012 (UTC) For wikipedia purposes, the following part of the quote from your source is most relevant, "Not even the most extreme of extremists appears to have put forward such a claim." See Wikipedia:Fringe theories -- fringe theories that are only mentioned in a single source, and then only to shoot them down, do not belong in wikipedia. Adding details that the source itself DID NOT MAKE constitutes Original Research. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC) For purposes of creating a record, the article that Jamesdbell8 linked is: Jol A. Silversmith, The "Missing Thirteenth Amendment": Constitutional Nonsense and Titles of Nobility, 8 Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal 577 (April 1999). The publication is apparently affiliated with the University of Southern California. Again, I didn't realize that Jamesdbell8 had cited this source before now. Maybe I just missed it. I haven't had a chance to read the article, which is lengthy. As editor Tom (North Shoreman) has noted, there is still (or may still be) a problem with the issue of prohibited original research. Even if the source is considered reliable, we would need to ascertain that what James wants to say is actually supported by the source. Famspear (talk) 18:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC) I think what you're saying amounts to "Oops!" No, You DON'T "need to ascertain...is actually supported by the source"! I just cited the WP OR policy, which merely stated that a conclusion must be "mentioned by" a source, NOT that the conclusion be SUPPORTED (agreed-to) by a source. Those who wrote WP OR policy knew how to say, "supported by a source" or "agreed-to by a source". They did not say that. You simply discovered that I have a valid point, and you wanted to insert yet another condition which would allow you to reject the material unjustifiably. ("...is actually supported by the source."). In any case, I have found a rebuttal to Silversmith's position http://www.original13thamendment.com/silversmith.html I Quote from that: "I believe that we have a very strong case that Virginia did assent to the proposal on March 12, 1819. We must now address your assertion that the newer states should have been included in the vote." "In 1816, a letter from James Monroe to General Winder, made it clear that he (James Monroe) was unsure if the newer states would need to be included in the voting process. The record is painfully clear that the 15th Congress, the President, the Secretary of State, and all of the governments of the several states were in agreement that only 13 ratification’s from the original 17 states, that existed in the union in 1810, when the proposal left Congress, were needed for adoption of the law." "The newer states were not asked for their legislative position on the proposal." "The newer states did not protest this position." "All of the newer states published Article XIII as having been lawfully adopted." "Even states that had rejected the amendment like New York, Conn. and Rhode Island published it as having been lawfully adopted from 1821 to 1827." "As you know Mr. Silversmith. The introduction of the need for Louisiana and the newer states to have been included in the vote was made a part of the federal records in 1940. All records prior to that date, to include the federal governments own records of 1911, confirmed and held that the adoption of the amendment only required 13 votes from the 17 states in the union in 1810." [end of long quotation] Naturally, it would be good if the author of this rebuttal, Stanley I. Evans, August 2, 2010, elaborate in more detail about some of his assertions: He was writing to challenge Mr. Silversmith, who didn't need the kind of detail we'd like to have. Evans' comments assert that the idea that ratifications of amendments must include subsequently-admitted states was simply concocted in about 1940, a year which was very suspiciously close to 1939, the year when three states ratified the BOR 148 years after it had ostensibly been already ratified. Documentation that "the newer states were not asked for their legislative position on the proposal" would amount to virtual proof that the current 'conventional wisdom' is utterly wrong. Jamesdbell8 (talk) 19:17, 27 July 2012 (UTC) By the way, some variation or form of this discussion with Jamesdbell8 is currently being carried on at the talk pages for three separate Wikipedia articles. One problem in our discussion is the use of the word "dispute." If everyone else in the world says that Baton Rouge is the capital of Louisiana and I claim that Moscow is the capital of Louisiana, there certainly is a "dispute." The problem is that my claim that Moscow is the capital of Louisiana is a fringe position; no reputable source agrees with me. So, merely saying that a "dispute" exists is not really important for purpose of Wikipedia. There is no serious dispute about the capital of Louisiana. Another point: In law, some of the most well-settled points of law can be the ones that are litigated quite often. This may of course seem counter-intuitive for a non-lawyer. After all, if a certain point is so well-settled, why do people re-litigate it over and over? The answer is that it really doesn't matter "why" they do so; some people do very stupid things. I study the phenomenon of frivolous litigation, and I often see cases where people lose in court on the same point over and over, and have literally tens of thousands of dollars in fines imposed on them for creating frivolous litigation, and yet they continue to litigate and lose. A frivolous position in a court of law can be an assertion that is litigated quite often - it's just that the assertion has absolutely no merit and the assertion never wins. Stated another way: The mere fact that ten or twenty or fifty or even ten thousand people claim that Moscow is the capital of Louisiana would not mean that there is a serious dispute about it. Why? Because if you try to argue that Moscow is the capital of Louisiana, you will lose every single time. It's a frivolous position. There is a difference between a "dispute" and a "serious dispute." Famspear (talk) 18:38, 27 July 2012 (UTC) I would say that if Mr. Stanley I. Evans is correct that at about 1817 documentation existed that Congress only asked those states which were states at the time of its proposal, of their position on that "missing Thirteenth amendment", and Congress DID NOT ASK those states which had become states subsequent to that proposal of their positions, that would constitute powerful evidence that only their positions on that amendment were considered irrelevant as of 1817. The fact that SOMEBODY decided in about 1940 that the rule had changed, if indeed the evidence supported the fact of this change, amounts to a "serious dispute" that is worthy of note in an encyclopedia. Jamesdbell8 (talk) 19:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC) James, I recommend that you read up on the Equal Footing Doctrine. It precludes your theory regarding State ratifications. Any new State enters the Union with the same Constitutional authority as all other States. So a new State has as much authority to ratify a proposed Constitutional amendment as the States that were in the Union at the time the Congress submitted that proposal for ratification. SMP0328. (talk) 19:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC) It appears that you did not read, or you did not comprehend, the assertions made by Stanley I. Evans, which I cited. If his assertions are true, then prior to 1940 the amendment policy was that only states which were states at the time of the proposal of an amendment 'count'. If that's true, then it's obvious that this policy was then construed as being compatible with (an understood exception to) "Equal Footing Doctrine", even if you think that there would have been some sort of contradiction there. And, you forget that when a 'new' state is admitted into the Union, its federal Congressmen and Senators don't automatically get to vote on the (prior) vote for the proposal of an amendment: Because that vote occurred BEFORE that state was admitted! You also cannot explain why these new states don't get to vote, again, on every Federal law that had been passed prior to that state's admission to the Union. The answer is simple: The "Equal Footing Doctrine" doesn't mean what you apparently believe it means. Perhaps the most obvious counter-proof, however, is evidenced by the fact that the apparent ownership of land by the Federal government varies dramatically from the East to the West Coast. The Feds were supposed to hold the land in trust for the state, and when the state became admitted, the Federal land was supposed to be transferred to that state's ownership. In a very obvious contradiction to "Equal Footing Doctrine", that's not the way things turned out. East Coast is about 1% Federal owned, Nevada is about 95% Federal owned. Where is the "equal footing doctrine" when we need it? Jamesdbell8 (talk) 21:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC) I wanted to be the first to correct my erroneous assertion that 95% of Nevada is owned by the Federal government: The correct figure is actually 87.6% But if anyone wants precise figures, check out http://www.propertyrightsresearch.org/2004/articles6/state_by_state_government_land_o.htm It's an amazing difference, comparing the ownership of the Federal government from east coast to the west coast. In fact, the difference is so striking that it is utterly inconceivable that the "Equal Footing Doctrine" could have been followed. The federal government obviously didn't hold these states' land in trust until statehood occurred. The Feds kept ownership of that land for over 100 years later. Jamesdbell8 (talk) 04:28, 28 July 2012 (UTC) Per our discussion ar Talk:Titles of Nobility Amendment#Misconceptions section is a major POV problem, the claim that James puts forward boils down to an unprovable top secret conspiracy by the legislatures of three states in furtherance of what would necessarily have been the biggest and longest lasting conspiracy in the history of the country to hide an easily fixed deficiency, and for which no evidence whatsoever now exists. bd2412 T 23:12, 28 July 2012 (UTC) Naturally, you misrepresent the truth. To the contrary, I suspect that somebody discovered (probably in the Federal Government) that there was a (good) argument in 1939 that the BOR hadn't been properly ratified until then. Now, the BOR is generally considered to be a GOOD THING, and I don't disagree with that. But what to do? I think they contacted the heads of the legislatures of those three states, and gave them the news. They probably said, "we really need to properly ratify the BOR!". I wouldn't have disagreed, had I been there. But they also probably said, "We can't reveal to the public that we think the BOR hadn't been ratified!". That's an understandable position. So, these three states agreed to ratify. (Though only one state's ratification is necessary.) I believe that this error was probably discovered in 1939 or at most a few years before, because they were, indeed, paying attention to the BOR at that point. And no, there is no surprise there is no 'evidence' (written, at least) of a 'conspiracy', at least not directly. The fact that the three only states whose votes could have repaired the deficiency did so, within less than a 2 months period in 1939, strongly suggests some kind of 'coordination'. As for 'conspiracy'? That word is generally used to describe an agreement to commit an illegal action, a crime. I am not aware, and I am certainly not alleging, that what these legislators did in 1939 was illegal. Openly, at least, it looks like simply ratification of a constitutional amendment. Nothing wrong with that, huh? Even if their secret motivation was to conceal the as-yet-unratified nature of the BOR, even that wouldn't have made what they did 'illegal', either. So where's the crime? Where is, technically-speaking, the 'conspiracy'? None that I can see. So why do you call it that? Jamesdbell8 (talk) 01:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC) Dear James: Editor BD2412 didn't say anything about a "crime." You did. In your post. You're the one who raised the issue of whether a crime was committed. And you yourself are the one suggesting that a conspiracy occurred. Read your own post: "I think they contacted the heads of the legislatures of those three states, and gave them the news. They probably said, 'we really need to properly ratify the BOR!'." --(bolding added). You yourself used the words "they" and "we" -- that denotes two or more persons. (You can't have a conspiracy involving only one person.) I believe that editor BD2412 was using the term "conspiracy" in the more general denotative sense to refer to part of your theory about what "they" were secretly agreeing to do. Your allegation implies the very essence of a secret agreement among two or more persons to accomplish a legal or illegal act. conspire (verb): "to join in a secret agreement to do an unlawful or wrongful act or to use such means to accomplish a lawful end." Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, p. 243 (G. & C. Merriam Company, 8th ed. 1976) (bolding added). conspiracy (noun): "the act of conspiring together...an agreement among conspirators...." Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, p. 243 (G. & C. Merriam Company, 8th ed. 1976). Yours, Famspear (talk) 03:07, 29 July 2012 (UTC) I see no reference to a 'crime' in those words. Nor, 'unlawful act'. And, I did not use the word, 'conspiracy'. A 'conspiracy' is an agreement to commit a crime, and voting to ratify a constitutional amendment IS NOT A CRIME! And, even the fact that this was 'secret' doesn't mean the method employed was illegal, nor that the goal was illegal. They misled the public, which politicians would probably claim (in private) isn't illegal. BTW, Tom (Northshoreman) in Talk: Titles of Nobility Amendment, just gave me some amazing support, albeit not intending to. He said" "This [1] reference makes a very good argument as to why the final three states (from the original 13) made the ratification unanimous. It makes more sense than conspiracy theory. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 07:34, 28 July 2012 (UTC) "http://books.google.nl/books?id=cwWyBMfvcNQC&pg=PA19&lpg=PA19&dq=bill+of+rights+ratifications+1939&source=bl&ots=3G6cd0btKq&sig=SHXa66_vrPvQeD4J0V7HDfFL8dc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=oZMTUMyYAejU0QX3roD4Dw&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=bill%20of%20rights%20ratifications%201939&f=false I replied to him: "Tom (North Shoreman), I guess you don't realize how laughable the citation you mentioned above is. I will also cite it in the WP Talk Bill of Rights, because it is at least as appropriate there, but let me quote here: "Just how new-found that reverence was came clear in 1939, when officials in Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Georgia learned, to their surprise, that their states had never gotten around to ratifying the Constitution's first ten amendments. All three did so in that year, finally making the Bill of Rights ratification unanimous". Okay, where do I begin? First, it was and is no surprise that these three states, Ma, Ct, and Ga, hadn't ratified the BOR. In fact, of course, by 1938, 39 states had NOT ratified the Bill of Rights! Everybody knew this. Only 11 had done so, I believe. Why should the author of the book focus on the 'surprise' of three specific states, and ignoring the 'surprise' of those 36 other states which also hadn't ratified? So why all the 'surprise'?? The answer? There was no surprise! None at all. It's just a fictitious story, and is made up to explain what happened. The second problem with this quotation is that it is self-sabotaging: Notice it said, "all three did so in that year, finally making the Bill of Rights ratification unanimous". HUH? HUH? HUH? Even after those odd 1939 ratifications, the BOR hadn't been UNANIMOUSLY ratified! There were still 36 states which HADN'T ratified it in 1940, and most or all of them haven't ratified the BOR even today. So from where comes the "unanimous" label? Perhaps you see it coming! But, saying the ratification was "unanimous" amounts to a Freudian slip: The only basis on which the ratification of the BOR could have been labelled as "unanimous" is if you were only counting those states which were states at the time of Congress' proposal of the BOR in about 1789. Once those three states ratified in 1939, of the group of states which were states at the time of the BOR's Congressional proposal, FINALLY the vote WAS indeed 'unanimous.' But that is exactly my point! I am claiming that ONLY those states which were states at the time of the proposal of the BOR were entitled to ratify, at least with legal effect. The writer of this book inadvertently reveals that he considers the ratification finally 'unanimous' only in 1939, meaning that he realizes that only those original states 'counted'. Ooops!!! Talk about a bad move, on Tom (Northshoreman)'s part! Jamesdbell8 (talk) 03:07, 29 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesdbell8 (talk • contribs) Dear James: No, you yourself used the term "crime." In your post above, you wrote: "So where's the crime?" Go back and read your post again. Editor BD2412 never said you were describing a crime. He said you were describing a conspiracy theory. And the theory you are describing does indeed involve an alleged conspiracy. The fact that you did not use the word "conspiracy" in your post does not negate the fact that what you are describing is an alleged conspiracy. Go back and re-read the Webster's dictionary definition I posted. Editor BD2412 never said anything about a criminal conspiracy. A conspiracy may involve either an "illegal" act or a "legal" act. Read the definition. Again, this thread has devolved into a discussion about the merits of the idiosyncratic theory proposed by Jamesdbell8 regarding the timing of the ratification of the U.S. Bill of Rights. While James's theory is perhaps interesting, the theory is the result of his own original research. This is a fringe theory at best. Now, some fringe theories about various subjects may properly be the subject of a Wikipedia article. Based on what James has posted, I do not believe that his theory qualifies. Famspear (talk) 03:57, 29 July 2012 (UTC) I refer editors the the previous discussion of this very issue at Talk:United States Bill of Rights/Archive 2#Wrong date in intro and all I have to comment on the substantive issue is precisely what I said then: without a source for this it is one man's supposition and therefore ineligible as OR. The fact no source has been found in the intervening two years suggests such an source doesn't exist. In addition I have referred Jamesdbell8 to AN/I since he appears to be a sock of an indef-blocked editor. Crispmuncher (talk) 04:48, 29 July 2012 (UTC).

Subjective opinion using questionable citation as defense.

The third paragraph of the opening summary is an attempt to besmirch a sacred American document with a tenuous citation as defense.

"Originally, the Bill of Rights implicitly legally protected only white men,[3] excluding American Indians, people considered to be "black"[3] (now described as African Americans), and women.[4][5][6] These exclusions were not explicit in the Bill of Right's text, but were well understood and applied.[3]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBenIsMightierThanTheSword (talk • contribs) 22:24, 28 October 2012 (UTC)TheBenIsMightierThanTheSword (talk) 12:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

move the amendements

Why not put the amendments paragraph as the second paragraph instead of down near the bottom? Nitpyck (talk) 21:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Unclear meaning in 'Early sentiments favoring...'

The last sentence of the last paragraph of 'Early sentiments favoring expanding the Bill of Rights' refers to the votes counted on a motion - it is unclear what motion is being referenced here. 71.241.196.71 (talk) 17:18, 6 January 2011‎ (UTC)

Edit request on 16 December 2012

The Introduction of your article on The United States Bill of Rights, second paragraph, states "While twelve amendments were passed by Congress, only ten were originally passed by the states." Both words "passed" are used incorrectly. This sentence should properly read, "While twelve amendments were proposed by Congress, only ten were originally ratified by the states." The process of amending the U.S. Constitution involves proposing, then ratifying/rejecting. Sources: (1) Article Five of the U.S. Constitution, and (2) Wikipedia's article on the United States Constitution, Section 4.1. 216.36.10.198 (talk) 00:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Done Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 December 2012

Moved from Talk:United States Bill of Rights/Archive index

The United States Constitutional Convention[24] (also known as the Philadelphia Convention,[24] and various other names) took place from May 14 to September 17, 1787, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and although the Convention was purportedly intended only to revise the Articles of Confederation, the intention from the outset of many of its proponents, chief among them James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, was to create a new government rather than fix the existing one. I believe a edit should be made for clarity in the line "...in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and although the Convention was purportedly intended only to revise the Articles of Confederation," by changing it to: In Philadelphia and Pennsylvania, although the Convention was purportedly intended only to revise the Articles of Confederation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramenspazz (talk • contribs) 16:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Not done: I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish by changing "Philadelphia, Pennsylvania" to "Philadelphia and Pennsylvania". Philadelphia is a city in the U.S. state of Pennsylvania; they are not entirely separate entities. I did copy edit the sentence in question by breaking up the conjoined sentence into two sentences. I hope that addresses your concern. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:56, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 December 2012

small change in grammar. the third paragraph down which reads:

Originally, the Bill of Rights implicitly legally protected only white men,[3] excluding American Indians, people considered to be "black"[3] (now described as African Americans), and women.[4][5][6] These exclusions were not explicit in the Bill of Rights' text, but were well understood and applied.[3]

Should the last sentence read 'but were well understood and IMPLIED' instead of APPLIED? Frankieolives (talk) 05:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

"Implied" is already stated with "implicitly". I think by "applied", it's saying that discriminating rights was still practiced in law. FallingGravity (talk) 07:53, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the above interpretation. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:52, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Spelling

The word defense is misspelled as defence in the beginning of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.190.72.184 (talk) 02:09, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

That's not a misspelling; it's an older spelling that was in use in the early days of the U.S. (and is still the standard spelling in British English today). Rivertorch (talk) 05:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

English Bill Of Rights statement unclear

The article refers that the following tenet was adopted or extended from the English Bill of Rights into the US Bill of Rights.

"freedom [for Protestants] to bear arms for their defence, as allowed by law"

It is unclear to me, as a layperson reader, whether the specification of Protestants was in the English version and dropped in the US version, was in the English version and ported to the US version, or was not in the English version but newly included in the US version. As far as I know there is no mention of or restriction to protestants in the US Bill of Rights, so unless there's something more going on here this statement is incorrect. It's not sourced anywhere in the article, and should probably be removed. 128.252.20.193 (talk) 21:45, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

This source explains it [15] USchick (talk) 03:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The above source is probably not a good one to go to if you want an introductory overview on the Bill of Rights; it's a highly polemical work. A better overview would be Gordon S. Wood's "The Origins of the Bill of Rights," which should answer your question well. Long story short: the US Bill of Rights isn't a ported version of the English Bill of Rights - although in part inspired by the latter, the US version is a new work - and it doesn't contain any explicit restrictions (it only references "the people," "persons," etc.). -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:59, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Historically inaccurate line.

The third sentence of this article is inaccurate. It reads:

They guarantee a number of personal freedoms, limit the government's power in judicial and other proceedings, and reserve some powers to the states and the public.

The use of the word "some" completely reverses the intention of the Bill of Rights 180 degrees. Its purpose was to reserve ALL powers not specifically enumerated to the Federal Government to the States or to the people. It should read something like this:

They further limited the Federal Government's power in judicial and other proceedings and reinforced the widely-held understanding of its drafters, signers, and the American people at the time that all natural rights not inherently infringed upon by the specific, enumerated powers granted to the Federal Government in the U.S. Constitution belong to the States or to the people.

Without going into the lengthy details that are widely available, the anti-Federalists refused to ratify the U.S. Constitution without a bill of rights. The Federalists, led by Alexander Hamilton, argued that a bill of rights would be unnecessary and even dangerous in that powers not specifically enumerated to the Federal Government were not legitimate Federal powers anyway. (See Federalist #84) In short, even those who opposed a bill of rights believed that the Constitution's purpose was to reign in Federal powers by specifying exactly what powers it has. This would (they hoped) maintain a small national government while preserving the natural, inalienable rights possessed by individuals and their States. The anti-Federalists simply insisted on reinforcing this notion with a list of "untouchables" in the form of a bill of rights, capping them off with the 9th and 10th Amendments which reiterate that all other powers not granted specifically to the Federal Government was not a Federal power either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt Fitzgibbons (talk • contribs) 16:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Is the Bill of Rights entrenched?

I think this is a rather crucial aspect. I was taught that it is entrenched (can not be changed, emended, repealed, etc.) but I cannot find any sourcing for this. --Bertrc (talk) 18:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The bill of rights can be changed via the constitutional amendment process as any other part of the the constitution may be. Amendments to the constitution may be considered part of the constitution itself, and hence they may be amended by Article V. 128.252.20.193 (talk) 21:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a cite for that? I have heard many times that the Bill of rights is entrenched and therefore cannot be changed. In either case, if we have a cite, we should add it to the article. --Bertrc (talk) 21:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

See the article Bill of rights. The United States bill of rights would be entrenched by that definition. Meaning it cannot be changed by the legislature through normal procedure.Tomsv 98 (talk) 16:59, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Tomsv 98 Do you have a cite saying that the US Bill of Rights cannot be changed by legislature or through normal procedure? --Bertrc (talk) 16:43, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I think what Tomsv 98 meant is that the Bill of Rights cannot be changed by the legislature in the way a normal law can. In my understanding, however, the Bill of Rights is like any other part of the Constitution, and subject to amendment through the process laid out in Article V, Section 1. There is no equivalent to the German "Ewigkeitsklausel" (literally, "forever clause") in the US Constitution. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, but is there a cite either way? I had thought that the country could not make an amendment saying citizens no longer have the right to bear arms or that the gov't could establish an official, national religion without convening a whole new continental congress to de-trench the bill of rights. --Bertrc (talk) 15:51, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

There's no clause in the Constitution that entrenches the Bill of Rights, and I've never read a source that claims it's entrenched. Technically, the Bill of Rights is just what we call the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. They were passed by the same process as all of the other amendments, and they're no different than any of the other amendments. They themselves can be amended in the future, just like any other part of the Constitution. In the absence of sources claiming that the first 10 amendments are special in this regard, I don't see any reason to mention entrenchment in the article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:24, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Personal point of view - historically incorrect: Inflamatory

Originally, the Bill of Rights implicitly legally protected only white men,[3] excluding American Indians, people considered to be "black"[3] (now described as African Americans), and women.[4][5][6] These exclusions were not explicit in the Bill of Rights' text, but were well understood and applied.[3]

While this is the way that people today like to interpret this, it is factually incorrect. The document itself (the U.S. Constitution) in no place mentions "slavery", "blacks", "African-Americans", "Americans of African Descent", "Negros", or any other term of that nature. It use the term "free persons" when discussing apportionment ("Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.") and "all other Persons" to describe those not free (i.e., slaves). However this does not directly translate into "blacks" or "African-Americans" as many would like to assume today. Free blacks were accorded all the rights of citizens, including being counted for purposes of apportionment. The fact that there may not have been many of those compared to those held in slavery does not obviate the reality that they were indeed counted, and that the constitution did not categorically exclude people of color from legal protection under the Bill of Rights.

As Madison recorded in his notes concerning the convention, the delegates "thought it wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea that there could be property in men." The Constitution was designed as an Ideal, the fact that the country at the time failed to live up to the Ideal in no manner invalidates the attempt; the groundwork for eventual emancipation was set.

Frederick Douglas believed that the Federal Government "was never, in its essence,anything but an anti-slavery government." In 1864 he wrote "Abolish slavery tomorrow, and not a sentence or syllable of the Constitution need be altered. It was purposely so framed as to give no claim, no sanction to the claim, of property in man. If in its origin slavery had any relation to the government, it was only as the scaffolding to the magnificent structure, to be removed as soon as the building was completed."

I am not sure the statement is entirely accurate with regard to women or American Indians either. I know that women were not accorded the right to vote, but I am less sure that the intent of the constitution was to exclude them from having any basic human rights of any sort. As far as Indians are concerned, the apportionment clause cited above seems to indicate that only "untaxed" Indians were excluded for purposes of apportionment. Not sure exactly what that means, but it seems to indicate that they were considered. Surely, women count when it comes to "free persons."

I believe that the statement should be stricken in its entirety. It is inflammatory in nature, inaccurate and does not convey any additional benefit by its appearance. If I have erred in how I have structured this comment, I apologize; it is the first time I have ever done this.

I cite this paper as a reference because it presents a very long and detailed treatise on the subject. RandomInTexas (talk) 13:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

This is not how people like to interpret it, this is how the Bill of Rights was applied. The question of personhood has not been resolved to this day. USchick (talk) 16:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

More to the point, what do the cites say? Are they considered reliable sources? --Bertrc (talk) 21:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I've removed most of the language regarding exclusions from the Bill of Rights. I've left in a reference to the Dred Scott decision, and clarified it a bit (it previously implied that non-citizens have no protections under the Bill or Rights, which is incorrect). We could add to this something explaining the complicated issue of Tribal sovereignty, but it is inaccurate to just state the the Bill of Rights excluded Native Americans. Other than being factually incorrect - the Bill of Rights is written entirely neutrally and was, in fact, historically applied to women, landless white men and free blacks (until the Dred Scott decision in 1857) - the assertions I deleted are not found in the given sources. Here is a more detailed accounting of each source:

• "INTERDISCIPLINARY APPROACH: The Politics of Women's Wrongs and the Bill of "Rights": A Bicentennial Perspective." [16]

This article argues that although the Bill of Rights is written in neutral language that does not exclude women, its provisions are more beneficial to propertied men than to anyone else. The article explicitly states that

"The language of the Bill of Rights is almost entirely gender neutral and its provisions have always applied to some women. But free white men of property designed the Bill of Rights in a political process from which they excluded most Americans and all women. Not surprisingly, the Bill of Rights served and serves the interests of such men better than the interests of others."

This is different from the statement that the Bill of Rights was not applied to women or those lacking sufficient property. The article also acknowledges that the view it presents is a minority view in academia: "Legal constitutional literature, whether from the right or the left, tends to be celebratory rather than critical. But in looking back on the Bill of Rights during this bicentennial year, women and many men outside the propertied white male class should be ambivalent." This means that its arguments can be presented as a particular view. However, the previous revision of the Wiki page cited this article in support of views that the author does not actually put forward.

• "Are Women Citizens and People?" [17]

This is a historical article (1894) by a suffragette, Emily Burton Ketcham, arguing that under the Constitution, women are citizens and people, and therefore should be accorded all the same rights as men - most importantly the ballot. Ketcham does not argue that the Bill of Rights omits women. In fact, she only mentions the Bill of Rights to say that it speaks of "people," rather than "men." This is part of her argument that as citizens with full rights and responsibilities, women should also have the right to vote. Again, this reference has been misused to support a point that the author never makes. In fact, the author's point seems to be opposite to what the Wiki page previously stated.

• "Civil Rights" in "The Free Dictionary" [18]

Firstly, I am not sure that this is a reliable source. Secondly, it does not state that women or free blacks were excluded from the protections of the Bill of Rights. What it does say is that the 1857 Dred Scott decision declares blacks to be noncitizens, but that after the Civil War, the 14th amendment clarified who was a citizen, that the Civil Rights acts were passed to ensure equal rights under the law to all citizens, but that subsequent Jim Crow laws effectively negated these rights for blacks in parts of the country. This source, too, has been used to support statements it does not make.

• "The Bill of Rights: A Brief History" [19]

Finally, this brief article mentions some limitations of the Bill of Rights in its original form. It notes that Native American tribes were originally completely outside of the constitutional framework, and that Native Americans were not considered citizens. It does not say anything about free blacks, except in connection with the Dred Scott case. It does note that slaves were not accorded any rights, but this is not the contentious statement that was previously included on the Wiki page. The article does make the vague statement that

"The Bill of Rights seemed to be written in broad language that excluded no one, but in fact, it was not intended to protect all the people - whole groups were left out."

However, it does not mention any rights in the Bill of Rights that were not accorded to women (the right to vote is not included in the first 10 amendments). It seems to argue that in effect, women were treated unequally in many ways, but not specifically that the Bill of Rights excluded them. If it could be interpreted in this way, it is hardly the basis for making such a bold statement on this page. We would need some reputable sources (i.e. academic articles) that specifically argue this, and we would need to know that it is the majority view (otherwise, we could mention the view, but not in such a way as to state it as fact).

Most of the sources do not make the argument that women, Native Americans, non-propertied white men and free blacks were excluded from the Bill of Rights. The only source that mentions exclusion of women, the ACLU's brief history of the Bill of Rights, notes that the amendments were written in neutral language, but seems to suggest that in practice, some groups were not accorded full rights. The sources simply do not provide a basis for making the authoritative claim that the Bill of Rights excluded everyone but propertied white men. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Wording like "Congress shall make no law" and "shall not be infringed" is inherently neutral and, for instance, I know of no federal laws abridging freedom of speech or the right to keep and bear arms of specific groups while excluding white male landowners. -Scott Illini (talk) 06:00, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, we are not agreed. "Congress shall make no law" - according to this source [20] The Bill of Rights did not apply to state governments. The Bill of Rights excluded most Americans and all women. [21] Women were excluded. [22]The Bill of Rights did not apply to everybody. [23]. According to the Encyclopedia of Public Administration and Public Policy, "Not all people were considered individuals, only white men." [24] Please reinstate the removed content. USchick (talk) 00:02, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

You need to establish that this is a consensus, majority, or even significant minority view before you insert it into the article. I'll address the points you raised in order. The Bill of Rights did not originally apply to state governments, but many of its provisions have come to apply to them. This issue, however, is entirely separate from the issue of whether certain groups were excluded from the Bill of Rights. States passed discriminatory laws, but the Bill of Rights did not cover actions of the states, and thus gave no protection to anyone whatsoever (including white males) against actions of the states. Secondly, you state that the Bill of Rights excluded most Americans and all women. This is to be found nowhere in the text of the Bill of Rights, which speaks only in general terms - "the people," "persons," "the accused," etc. - and nowhere mentions gender, race, property qualifications or even citizenship or residency.

You cite a few sources, which I'll go through one by one:

• The first source, as I said above, is irrelevant to the issue of exclusion.
• The second source was dealt with in my last post, and I won't repeat my comments here.
• The third source, "Women and the U.S. Constitution, 1776-1920," doesn't say that women were excluded from the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. It says that they were excluded from the writing process, and that the Bill of Rights didn't address problems which were of importance to women. This source actually says that the Bill of Rights was written in gender-neutral terms - "gender remained an invisible category." Arguing that the rights in the first ten Amendments weren't useful to women is different from arguing that women were excluded from the Bill or Rights. You may be able to argue the first (tenuously, I'd say), but the second argument is just flat out wrong, and the source you cited doesn't make that argument.
• The fourth source, "Documenting U.S. History: The Bill of Rights", appears to be a book on history for young adults, and I can't access it freely.
• The fifth source, the Encyclopedia of Public Administration and Public Policy, actually says what you are arguing, namely that only white men were meant by "people." This is the only source you have brought to the table which makes your argument and is halfway worthy of citation. You need to show that this is a significant view among historians. This will probably be difficult, because it flies in the face of how the Bill of Rights is typically viewed in history, that is, as a document that set out universal rights, and which in its universality was at odds with the existence of slavery in the United States. No one will argue that enslaved African Americans were accorded the rights laid out in the Bill of Rights, but the situation in the North of the country was different for free blacks. It was not until the Dred Scott decision that the Supreme Court ruled that blacks are not people under the Bill of Rights, and this decision was effectively overturned a few years later by the Civil War and the ensuing amendments.

Until you convincingly make an argument here that the view you wish to insert is a significant one among historians, the material you have added does not belong in the article. I think that it would be much more useful for the article to actually discuss the ways in which the Bill of Rights was and was not applied, rather than making blanket statements of the nature, "Excluded from the Bill of Rights were most Americans and all women," which are probably only supported by a handful of historians. Such statements certainly do not represent a consensus view among historians. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:56, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring. The consensus was reached before you removed the information and you can see it in the archives. You're describing what the Bill of Rights is today, and the article talks about ORIGINALLY who was excluded. This is historically significant. Just because you can't access a source doesn't make it unreliable and the sources you're complaining about aren't used in the article. This information was included by consensus in 2011. If you'd like to remove it, you're the one who needs to establish a new consensus, which you haven't done. Thanks. USchick (talk) 12:45, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

"Excluded from the Bill of Rights were most Americans and all women," which are "probably" only supported by a handful of historians. – Do you have a source for that? USchick (talk) 12:56, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I've gone through your sources, except for the children's book, which I couldn't access, and which isn't a serious historical source anyways. You should respond to the points above before adding the material back into the article. I understand the difference between the Bill of Rights as it was originally applied, and as it is applied now. Your edits to the article do not reflect an understanding of this, however. The blanket statement that women were excluded is, as a matter of historical fact, simply wrong. The Federal government accorded the rights listed in the Bill of Rights, such as jury trial, to women from the very beginning. I've pointed out to you several times now that the sources you cite in support of your contention that women were excluded from the Bill of Rights do not actually say this. You've gone farther than your sources.

I wouldn't characterize what I have engaged in as edit warring. You haven't respected the format here - be bold, revert, discuss - but have rather been pushing your historical views, without feeling the need to respond to the points raised above. You should remove the material you've added in and come back with better sources. I would also advise that it is almost never good in a Wikipedia article about history to take what is a contentious view and insist that it be treated as fact. It simply discredits the article, and people with some prior knowledge of the subject will be turned away from reading the article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:05, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I concur with Thucydides411's assessment of the sources and general take on the issue. Far better sourcing will be required if this material is to be included. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 02:04, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Thucydides411, your original comment is that you think this information is inflammatory. That's your personal opinion that needs a source. What makes you think it's inflammatory? What makes it a "contentious view"? Historians agree that lots of people were excluded from participating in a democracy. That's a historical fact and it's supported by sources.

• Geoffrey R. Stone is an expert on constitutional law [25] and in his book [26] he says, "Free white men of property designed the Bill of Rights in a political process from which they excluded most Americans and all women."
• Jean H. Baker is a Professor of History [27] and an author of history boooks [28] and she says, "The authors of the Constitution never envisioned any explicit consideration of women as part of "We the People." [29] "They played no authorship of either the original 1787 document or the Bill of Rights, and they were largely excluded from the Constitution's application."
• Roberta Baxter is an author of history books for children. [30] She doesn't make stuff up, she writes books about history, and she says, "When the Bill of Rights was written, it protected the rights of people who could vote at the time – which only included white men. Women could not vote, and most black people were slaves. American Indians were not thought of as citizens. So the Bill of Rights did not apply to everybody."
• Here's a text book [31] that says, "5. Were these rights given to all Americans? Why or why not?" Answer: "5. No. Basically only white men with property enjoyed these rights."
• Patrick T. Conley is a historian laureate [32] an author, and he practices law. He says (at the bottom of p 428) [33] "The Status of Persons: ...Women were excluded... also excluded blacks, mulattoes, and Indians..."
• Alastair Davidson is an author, a Professor of Citizenship Studies, Professor of Human Rights, Member in the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton, and one of the leading authorities on citizenship studies in Australia and Europe. [34] He says that according to the Naturalization Act of 1790 "all immigrants and other races were excluded from US rights" [35] which explains why it aplied only to people who could vote at the time.

That's 6 credible sources from historians who are in complete agreement. Would you like to quote the sources and attribute the quotes to the experts? If you claim this information is erroneous or inflammatory, please provide a source to support that viewpoint. Thanks. USchick (talk) 05:19, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

USchick, here's what I propose. I'm going to correct you on a few assertions here and then ask some of the relevant Wikipedia projects to take a look at the article and weigh in. Firstly, you're confusing me with another user, RandomInTexas, who originally said that the information is inflammatory. Next, let's go through the sources you listed, in the same order:

• You're misattributing this article. It was not written by Geoffrey R. Stone, but rather by Mary Becker. Stone is the editor of the book, Becker the author of the article you cite. But beyond the issue of attribution, Becker does not actually say that the Bill of Rights was not applied to women. If you believe that she said that, you may have skimmed over it too quickly. I wrote about this article in my first post here, just a few posts above.
• I also dealt with this article before, in an earlier post.
• A children's book is not a reliable source for a history article.
• Similarly to above, the suggested answer to an exercise in a textbook for schoolchildren is not a reliable source.
• Conley isn't talking about who was excluded from the Bill of Rights. He says, "Women were excluded from the franchise." Further down, he says, "That statute [the 1715 law regulating the franchise] also excluded blacks, mulattoes, and Indians, as well as males 'born out of allegiance to His Majesty and not made free'." The fact that the law Conley is citing mentions "His Majesty" should tip you off to the fact that this is a colonial statue. Conley is talking about who had the right to vote in North Carolina at the time of the revolution, not who was covered by the Bill of Rights.
• Finally, there is the source by Davidson. He notes that the Naturalization Act of 1790 excluded nonwhite immigrants from becoming naturalized citizens. This was indeed discrimination, but it doesn't mean that nonwhite citizens were excluded from the Bill of Rights, or that nonwhite noncitizens were excluded from its provisions. This source also does not mention women, because while the Naturalization Act of 1790 had sexist provisions (citizenship passed through the father alone), it did not prevent women from becoming citizens.

The article could say more about the original application of the Bill of Rights. It is historically inaccurate to say, however, "Women were excluded from the Bill of Rights." They were excluded from the franchise, which is not one of the listed rights. There may have been numerous ways in which the federal government trampled on their Constitutional rights, and the article could go into this. But the Bill of Rights did not have a blanket exclusion against women. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:45, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Can you please explain your understanding of being excluded from "the franchise"? USchick (talk) 00:21, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

"Disenfranchised" is a synonym. It means, "Not allowed to vote." -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:56, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

If the Bill of Rights included all those people, why did it take so many additional amendments to finally include them? To claim that the Bill of Rights was a neutral inclusionary document is rewriting history. USchick (talk) 02:02, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

You're confusing a large number of issues. Firstly, the Bill of Rights is written entirely neutrally, so in that sense, it didn't explicitly exclude everyone. It's as inclusive a declaration of rights as you'll find from the time. Secondly, you're conflating the right to vote, among other rights, with rights carved out by the Bill of Rights. The first ten Amendments do not mention voting rights, or even equality before the law. If you argue, "the Bill of Rights excluded women because they were disenfranchised" or "the Bill of Rights didn't eliminate discriminatory laws against women," you're really arguing that the Bill of Rights did not go far enough, not that it excluded anyone from the rights it did list. Thirdly, no one is arguing that the Bill of Rights was originally applied to slaves. The article mentions the Dred Scott decision, which later held that even free blacks were not "people" under the Constitution, and which deeply divided the country. We should try to write an article which includes the actual failings in the application of the Bill of Rights, but writing "women were excluded from the Bill of Rights" is inventing history. -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:33, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

If they were excluded from the political process and they were excluded from the status of Persons, who is left to be included? Explicitly or otherwise. If the Constitution did not apply to them, how is that not being excluded? It would be accurate to say that the Bill of Rights applied only to freed white men who owned property. USchick (talk) 18:37, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Women were excluded from the political process, which is a different thing from being denied the rights listed in the Bill of Rights. This is a critically important point which you seem to have repeatedly ignored in your posts. The Bill of Rights does not guarantee the right to vote to anyone, not even wealthy white men. You have not presented any evidence that women were not considered persons under the Bill of Rights. Nor have you presented any evidence that the courts imposed a property requirement to, say, obtain a jury trial. I think that what you mean to argue is that the Constitution did not originally guarantee equal rights for all. It didn't. That is different from arguing that the Bill of Rights excluded women or free men without property. This is a difference which you must understand before this conversation can continue fruitfully. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:46, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

This is not about the right to vote. The original intent of the Bill of Rights applied only to white men who owned property. [36] [37] [38] [39]. The American Bar Association explains that a declaration is not the law, and that while men are born free, they are not equal, and when rewriting and adopting the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, ALL states "struck the doctrine of human equality from their constitution except North Carolina." p.876 [40] They could have included everyone, but they chose not to. [41] According to Linda R Monk, J.D., a constitutional scholar, journalist, and nationally award-winning author [42] "We the People" did not include women. [43] USchick (talk) 05:17, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, USchick, I don't have time to keep arguing like this with you. If you want to change the page, please do some real research, and explain here why you think the language you favor should be included. It is not enough to simply type "Bill of Rights applied only to freed white men who owned property" into Google Books and post the first four hits. This is what you did. I became suspicious that this is what you might be doing earlier, when it turned out many of the sources you cited had nothing to do with the subject, and your search phrases were clearly displayed in the links you provided. It seemed to me then that you might just be typing a phrase into Google Books and taking the top few hits, without actually carefully reading through the works you were linking to make sure they said what you thought they would, and to make sure they were actually talking about the US Bill of Rights. For example, as I noted earlier, one article you cited earlier (by Conley), was actually discussing a colonial statute in North Carolina from 1715, not the US Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

Curious as to whether my suspicions were true, this time, I typed your search phrase into Google Books to see if I would get the first four sources in your above post. Indeed, that is what happened. This explains why two of your sources are the same page of the same book - since two versions of the book were published one year apart, it came up as two separate hits in Google Books. This book, by the way, doesn't actually say that only propertied white men were covered by the Bill of Rights. There are other problems with just copying and pasting references from Google Books searches. If you don't read the sources, you won't discover, for example, that two of them are talking about changes to the North Carolina Bill of Rights, not the US Bill of Rights, which were made in 1835, decades after the US Bill of Rights went into effect.

Your fifth source was chosen from farther down the same search page, but similarly, does not say that the US Bill of Rights originally applied only to propertied, white men. It does, however, say that while many states included human equality clauses in their original state constitutions, no such clause was put forward in 1787, while debating the US Constitution. This is an interesting article, but it doesn't deal with the subject we're supposed to be discussing, i.e. whether the Bill of Rights originally excluded everyone but propertied white men. Your sixth source comes from a slight modification of your search term, this time adding in the name of the journal that contained your fifth source. You took the second hit from that Google search (the first hit was your fifth source). This source, again, does not argue what you are arguing. Justice Marshall talks about how subsequent amendments to the Constitution have expanded rights, abolishing slavery, declaring equality before the law and enfranchising women. He also says that the framers were all white men and that "[t]he document they crafted was shaped by their world view, and not surprisingly, was designed in part to protect their own political and property interests." It is different to argue that the rights included originally were those that were most beneficial to propertied white men, and to argue that all people outside of that category were excluded from those rights.

I'm not going to reply again until you actually make the case here for the language you'd like to include in the article, with supporting sources that actually deal with the subject, and which you explain in your post. I do intend to revert this type of language if it is added back in. If it escalates into an edit war, we can request comments from relevant WikiProjects. It takes time and effort to read through your sources, and it's disappointing afterwards to find that they don't even deal with the subject at hand, and that they're drawn straight from the top results of a Google search of the argument you'd like to prove. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I provide reliable sources and you discredit them because they show up in a Google search? Yes, we need someone else to weigh in. USchick (talk) 22:54, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Whether exclusionary or not inclusionary is less important than that one or the other is one part of how we should understand the Constitution or the Bill of Rights in the earliest years of their application as law. That opinions differ on whether all people, only realty-owning white men, or a subset in between were protected means we should cover both opinions insofar as sources report them, and being inflammatory is irrelevant except on how to write.

Defining the Bill of Rights is not consistent among sources; some say the 1st 10 but others, including Judge Learned Hand of the 2d Circuit Court of Apeals Appeals, say the 10 plus the 14th; and some might argue that any amendments on the same original sheet of paper with the 1st 10 are also part of the Bill of Rights, which would include one (I think the 27th) that finally was enacted only recently.

As a matter of law, the plain words of a law are dispositive only when their application to a factual situaiton situation is clear; when application is unclear, the intent of the framers (what the drafters meant) is to be determined and applied, and that determination includes consideration of what was already accepted as law. In the late 18th century, when the U.S. did not have much of a body of law, English common law would also have been considered, as when as late as the 1970s the meaning of jury was determined by the U.S. Supreme Court from English common law on questions of whether a jury could be composed of just 6 jurors and could decide nonunanimously because the word jury was used in the Bill of Rights without more of a definition on those points. On the other hand, the Supreme Court usually does not create law; rather, it discovers law already present even if no court came to such a conclusion earlier, but discovering the law does not mean that the jurisdiciary judiciary will apply the law retroactively back to the date of promulgation to convict or hold persons liable prior to the new decision, except for the case at bar (for example, when Miranda warnihngs warnings were required because of the Bill of Rights, Miranda himself may have been granted relief but most prior convictions without the warnings were left intact). What States wrote or didn't write into State laws including State constitutions carries little or no legal weight when applying the Federal Constitution, including the Federal Bill of Rights. What Federal statutes say is almost never dispositive of what the Constitution means; statutes are found unconstitutional from time to time; the main exception is for some long-in-effect statutes enacted by the first Congress, some members of which had helped draft the Constitution. A war does not change law, although it may change the conditions underlying law (e.g., amendments were adopted).

The general subject (Bill of Rights exclusion/nonnclusion) is likely to have been written about many times by scholars in secondary sources; I've read that viewpoint quite a few times. (I recall Justice Thurgood Marshall refusing to attend a bicentennial celebration because, since he was Black, 200 years earlier he would have been welcomed only as a servant.) While an amendment does not prove a difference in meaning or application preceding it (that's usually the case but not always), it's likely that histories of the Civil War amendments and the 19th Amendment would include arguments leading up to adoption, including scholarly groundwork for the arguents arguments, including why proponents of the amendments wanted them adopted. A good source on Constitutional law generally as interpreted by the Supreme Court is Constitution Annotated (short title), from the Library of Congress (Congressional Research Service), published every 10 years, scholarly, secondary, quite a large volume, and available both in hard copy and online, but it's certainly nowhere near being the only source to use. Frederick Douglas made arguments, very good ones, but I don't recall whether he was a scholar in his time or valid as a secondary source, rather than tertiary. It would be helpful to quote or paraphrase very closely, to leave no room for a semantic difference between a source and a paraphrase in Wikipedia. Children's books ordinarily should not be used as sources, as they're notoriously unreliable for facts, getting some right but oversimplifying others. That a result came to the top of a Google search is not disqualifying for Wikipedia, but careful reading of sources for context is necessary, and if snippets were the limit of the reading that usually fails.

I have not read all of this topic/section or the article or edits in question, but I hope this clarifies some points. Best wishes.

Nick Levinson (talk) 15:29, 27 March 2013 (UTC) (Corrected misspelling: 15:37, 27 March 2013 (UTC)) (Corrected misspellings visibly (since pre-correction post was already replied to): 15:16, 28 March 2013 (UTC))

Hi Nick, thanks for your contribution. You raise important points about how one should approach the question of what the Constitution means. I'm not sure that the question, "Did the Bill of Rights originally exclude women?" is well defined.

As to the question of how to conduct research, I don't object to the use of Google Books as a research aid. However, it is not enough to type in a search term of the argument one would like to prove, copy the references for the top few hits, and then post them as sources for ones arguments. One has to actually read the sources and verify that they say what one thinks they say. I doubt USchick has done this, since they have posted a large number of sources that don't mention the US Bill of Rights, along with a number of duplicated sources that appear to come from naively copying and pasting top hits from a Google search. If I'm going to read through sources that supposedly support someone's argument, I'd like the person who posted the sources to also have read them. -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:43, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request on 22 April 2013

The text of the second ammendment in this article is written in a way to imply that the second ammendment applies to a militia or a state. History, as well as a reading of the Federalist Papers clearly outlines that these rights are to protect the rights of individual citizens. 98.15.235.227 (talk) 22:50, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Not done: It's exactly the way it's written in the constitution. RudolfRed (talk) 02:07, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

LOL. Rivertorch (talk) 05:10, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

No words... no words. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:26, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Minor Inclusion in Article Summary

This is my first contribution of thoughts to a wiki article, if there is a better way to do this please let me know.

The article summary is vague about the one amendment submitted in the bill of rights that never got ratified. I consider the article could use a small inclusion, changing the line from:

"Of the remaining two, one was adopted 203 years later as the Twenty-seventh Amendment and the other technically remains pending before the states." could be:

"Of the remaining two, one was adopted 203 years later as the Twenty-seventh Amendment and the other, containing guidelines that specify how many constituents a House member could represent based on the US Census counts, technically remains pending before the states." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rtaylor352 (talk • contribs) 23:10, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I personally don't think that that clarification is needed. Later on, the article has the exact text for the unratified amendment. So, I don't support.Kude90 (talk) 03:29, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Going for Good Article status

I'm hoping in the coming months to bring this article up to Good Article status. It may be a few weeks still before I really dig in, but I thought I'd get the ball rolling by asking what other editors thought might need to be done to meet the GA requirements or improve the article generally. Any suggestions? Thanks to everybody who's already worked on this one... -- Khazar2 (talk) 05:22, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I'm hoping to start in on this soon. Here are some edits I want to prioritize:

• Reducing reliance on primary sources and replacing these citations with secondary sources. For example, the discussion of how the English Bill of Rights and Virginia BoR influenced the US BoR have no secondary citations at all, and therefore could be considered to constitute original research. Another example would be the sentence "39 of the 55 delegates ended up signing, but it is likely that none were completely satisfied", sourced only to a Ben Franklin speech. Obviously, plenty of secondary sources that interpret this exist, so there's no reason not to make use of them.
• Better organizing the early sections with more attention to chronological order. I don't think there's a good reason for the Anti-Federalists to appear before the Philadelphia Convention, for example. Influences on the BoR like the English and Virginia BoRs and John Locke could probably be gathered into one section, that can include secondary source analysis of how important each was.
• Sourcing all quotations, as is required by basic guidelines.
• Include much more discussion of the content and impact of the Bill of Rights in the 200 years after ratification. Essentially, what I'd like to do is take the leads of the articles for Amendments 1-10 and include something like them here--a 3-4 paragraph overview describing the role each amendment has played in the nation's history. Obviously, most detail will remain in the individual amendment articles, but I think we should at least provide an overview here of how the BoR has been interpreted.
• Replacing sources of questionable reliability like davekopel.com with scholarly work

Feedback welcome. I may start work on this tonight or tomorrow, but feel free to revert any of my changes if you disagree, and we can talk further. Cheers to all, -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:28, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know. The names don't fit inside of the footnote box. I can't fix it, I tried. if you can't either, I'd like to restore the content to how it was before. I'd rather have a slightly longer article to a crappy looking footnote. I also fixed the one ref you noted, and I'm looking at the others. Nice work so far on fixing the article.Kude90 (talk) 01:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Do you think we should fix the spacing on the section titles "Madison's preemptive proposal?" Currently, it's not very pleasant to read. Too much spacing.Kude90 (talk) 01:41, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Odd that the footnote isn't displaying right for you. We might need to take that to the help desk--it looks fine on my end, so it's probably something specific with your browser or desktop settings.

Tell you what, I think I might actually just pull this out for now if it's causing technical errors. All the Philly Conv did was decide not to have a BoR, after all, so the reader hardly needs the full list (and they could click to the main article in the rare instance that they did). It would be more appropriate to list every member of the 1st Congress, which actually drafted, amended, and forwarded it to the people; that would probably be excessive, too, but at least it's closer to the mark. Does that make sense to you?

Thanks for the feedback! I'm glad the changes mostly look okay so far. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I removed it with this edit. Here's the diff if anyone disagrees and wants to restore.

I agree the spacing is a bit weird around the Madison's preemptive proposal part. I'll try to look at that soon. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:04, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Reordering

I reorganizing the history part of the article just now to try to give this a more chronological order.[44] I think it was unnecessarily confusing to explain the Anti-Federalists before discussing the Constitutional Conv, for example, or to describe Madison's proposal of the BoR and Congress's passing of it before the events of Constitutional Ratification. (I'm honestly a bit baffled as to why the article was ever in this order). The history sections still seem to be rather rough and repetitive, but I hope to smooth these out some and add sourcing throughout the day today. The one exception to chronological order I've made here is to gather the influences on Madison's draft into one place--these were previously scattered throughout the article. If you disagree, just let me know, and we can figure out the best system. I think this is an improvement for now, though. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:55, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I've also removed a section on the English Bill of Rights containing analysis that appears to me to be original research, describing how the US and English Bills are similar and different.[45] I'll try to restore some form of this later today after consulting a few more sources. If anyone finds some secondary sources for this first, of course, you're welcome to restore some form of it before I do... -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:17, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I've reworked the section on Madison's proposal this morning, attempting to place more emphasis on secondary source discussion and historical context and reducing the reliance on block quotations. Most notably, I moved the 1100-word text of Madison's original draft to a footnote. I recognize its historical significance, of course, but I think it's a level of detail not needed for most readers. This way it's here for those who need it, while others can get an overview of the events.

I also trimmed a full subsection about John Locke that appears to me to give Locke undue emphasis; most sources I consult suggest that state constitutions were the biggest influence, while Locke is simply not mentioned. The only source here is a book specifically making the case for Locke's influence on the founders, and while it appears to be a reliable source, I'd prefer to see what weight other books about the BoR generally give to Locke. I'm up for further discussion about this, though, if this seems like an excessive cut to anyone.

As always, glad to discuss any of the above. Thanks again to all who worked on this one before me... -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:30, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Ratification and amendments

Okay, I've done another round of rewrites today. Here are the main changes I made:

• I added text on the interpretation and impact of each amendment, and a bit more history on the 27th. Note that some of this text came from the individual articles on the amendments; please see those articles' histories for attribution.
• I replaced the list of ratification dates with prose description and history about the ratification process
• I integrated the sourced material from "excluded from the Bill of Rights" into other sections
• I removed a reference to the Dred Scott case without a clear connection to the Bill of Rights; my understanding is that the main question in Scott was primarily one of citizenship and freedom/slavery. I understand the indirect argument is that non-citizens therefore don't have access to the Bill of Rights, but the Bill of Rights wasn't really being applied in the 1850s anyway, so the connection seems a bit weak to me. If anybody has a source more explicitly connecting Scott and the Bill of Rights, I'm happy to take a look, though.

As always, just let me know if you question any of these changes and I'll be glad to discuss. Cheers to all, -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:32, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:United States Bill of Rights/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Adam Cuerden (talk · contribs) 17:46, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Just claiming this before I begin. Complicated articles are not ones you want another reviewer to claim half-way through. =) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:46, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Adam! I should warn you this may be slightly rawer than the other two, as I haven't had as many collaborators--your input will be very welcome. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:01, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry this is taking a little bit. I've been running around like mad to get a few things done. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 19:13, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

No rush at all. -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:04, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Thought I'd give you a reminder ping about this one--I don't mind waiting, just wanted to make sure it hadn't fallen through the cracks. Thanks again for agreeing to review this one. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:55, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I know about it, I've just not been sleeping well, and thus not been as up for weighty law issues. I'll try to get it done today, though. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:58, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to hear it-- I know too well what a pain that is. Take your time, and feel better! -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:05, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, having written a GAN of my own in the time it took to get to this, I think it's clear I need to get my arse in gear. Let's begin

The Anti-Federalists:

• "The Anti-Federalist Papers" is mentioned, but not explained. A brief description would help clarify what's being discussed.
• For that matter, should we presume the reader knows what "Federalist" and "Anti-Federalist" mean? I mean, I know what they are, but I also actually spent a fair bit of time reading up on American History as a kid. Others might not. Probably the easiest way to explain it is in the context of explaining why the Articles of Confederation ended up being made so weak that they had to be replaced. Use your judgement on this one, though.
• Oh. I see the term is defined... four paragraphs in. Not ideal.
• Again, not quite enough context for "Federalist No. 46". Defining terms would help.

•  Done All the above, I think. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Ratification and the Massachusetts Compromise

• "...erupting into a fistfight between a Federalist delegate and Elbridge Gerry..." - It would be better to say "beteween Federalist delegate Name McSurname and Elbridge Gerry".
• "Articles Congress" should probably be defined. It's somewhat clear from context, but, given that the next section immediately begins by talking about Congress proper, a little bit more delineation would help.

•  Done -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:28, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The First Congress

• As said above, it would be a good idea to clearly delineate the Congress here mentioned from the Articles Congress mentioned immediately beforehand.

•  Done -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:28, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Application

• As with - was it Thirteenth or Fourteenth - it would be useful to briefly complete the story of how the American Indian tribal governments were brought into Constitutional law.

• I'm not sure that history is as relevant here as it was for the Fourteenth (which dealt with citizenship issues). There is a sentence that "In Talton v. Mayes (1896), the Court ruled that Constitutional protections, including the provisions of the Bill of Rights, do not apply to the actions of American Indian tribal governments." -- that's the best I've found so far. My understanding is that the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968 applied some provisions similar to the Bill of Rights to tribal governments, but by direct act of Congress instead of by extending Constitutional protections; it may be a little off-topic to include here. You may know more about this law than I do, though (I know almost nothing)--any suggestions? -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• "Speech rights were expanded significantly in a series of 20th- and 21st-century court decisions that protected various forms of political speech, anonymous speech, campaign financing, pornography, and school speech;" Optional: name or link the decisions. The latter is a little easter-eggy, but might be alright under IAR.

• The problem is that most of these have at least 3-5 major decisions, so there's no one decision to link to. I think I'd rather just direct the reader to that article if that's okay with you--it's simply too detailed to sum up here. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

References

• http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G2-3048900191.html, "U*X*L Encyclopedia of U.S. History", isn't as obviously a good source as the rest of the sources. Should it be replaced?

• I replaced the statement that relies on it solely; the other it's a back-up reference, so I left it if that's all right. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

That should be everything. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:27, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I agree with your comments at first glance. I'm busy with this and that today but should be able to get to this tomorrow morning. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:39, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

No worries! In all honesty, for such a complicated article, this, if anything, had far fewer issues than I expected. So, you know, great job! Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:07, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I really appreciate it. I think I've addressed all the above points but happy to do more. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

That looks like everything, then. ✓ Pass

For the record, well, as I've said, I'm not a lawyer, so I'd prefer not to tell you to go to FA by myself, but this is clearly ready to begin a pre-FA peer review, at the least. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:07, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Great! Thanks as always for your time and thoughtful suggestions. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:12, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Main Page discussion - Freedom for the Thought That We Hate

I've nominated Freedom for the Thought That We Hate for Main Page discussion.

The date is relevant to freedom of speech, as September 25 was the date the 1st United States Congress passed the Bill of Rights and the First Amendment.

Please feel free to comment at Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/requests#September_25.

— Cirt (talk) 19:24, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

The right to bear arms

There's no specific source for the majority of the first paragraph of the Second Amendment section, which seems to be copy-pasted from the main Second Amendment page:

"The right to bear arms predates the Bill of Rights; the Second Amendment was based partially on the right to bear arms in English common law, and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. This right was described by Sir William Blackstone as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state."

Weren't several of the Amendments based partially on preexisting English common law and influenced by the English Bill of Rights? It seems like these statements and unsourced paraphrasing of an English judge about English law might be original research without a well sourced explanation of its importance to this Amendment's history. AveVeritas (talk) 08:15, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2013

please change "The Third Amendment restricts the quartering of soldiers in private homes, in response to Quartering Acts passed by the British parliament during the Revolutionary War. The amendment is one of the least controversial of the Constitution, and, as of 2009, has never been the primary basis of a Supreme Court decision." to The Third Amendment restricts the quartering of soldiers in private homes, in response to Quartering Acts passed by the British parliament during the Revolutionary War. The amendment is one of the least controversial of the Constitution, and, as of 2013, has never been the primary basis of a Supreme Court decision." because the current version is four years out of date 174.16.2.236 (talk) 13:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The source currently referenced in the article is dated 2009, so that's what the article says. Changing it without a reliable source to back it up would be considered original research. --ElHef (Meep?) 14:39, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I found a source and updated to since 2012.Tomsv 98 (talk) 17:06, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Unsupported Assumption Present

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)

Ninth Amendment

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)

@Thefifthsetpin: Thanks for pointing this issue out.

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)

Drdpw (talk) 15:57, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

George Mason template addition

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. bd2412 T 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)

References to the English Bill of Rights

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)

Reference Note 102

Existing link to reference note 102 is broken. It should be: http://exhibits.archives.ncdcr.gov/bill_of_rights/bill_of_rights1.htm it is currently listed as (Incorrect): http://www.ah.dcr.state.nc.us/archives/news/bill_of_rights1.htm

Most US government websites have started moving away from the .us domain to the .gov.

Kyderr (talk) 02:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense

"Several sought to protect individual personal rights by limiting various Constitutional the powers of Congress" (under "Crafting amendments") makes no sense.

HankW512 (talk) 04:48, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

The Beginning of Operations of the U.S. Federal Legislature under the Constitution

In the last sentence of the "Massachusetts compromise" subsection of the "Background" section, the phrase "began operations" is a poor choice of words since it could easily be interpreted to mean that the federal legislature commenced doing what legislatures do, when in fact neither the House of Representatives nor the Senate had the quorum required to conduct business until the beginning of April 1789. Since there would be no judiciary before the President made judicial appointments, and since there would be no President before the official counting of the votes of the electors, and since there would be no counting of the votes before a quorum was present, the statement clearly but falsely asserts that it was the legislature that began operations on the 4th of March 1789. HankW512 (talk) 00:12, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

You are correct, the sentence is poorly worded. Operations under the new Constitution did indeed begin later then 3/4/1789. A more accurate statement would be that on 3/4/1789 the new frame of government came into force. Drdpw (talk) 15:16, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

You are wrong. The Senate website says "At New York City's Federal Hall, on March 4, 1789, the Senate convened for the first time." to convene is to start operations and the Constitution allows operations without a quorum. Rjensen (talk) 01:38, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2015

Change links to amendments in the sidebar to their en.wikipedia.org page instead of the wikisource page. 2602:306:3026:6F40:A179:85CF:2A3B:50F2 (talk) 02:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

The Preamble and Articles, The Amendments, The Unratified Amendments and the History all direct to the en.wikipedia articles.
The only section linked to wikisource is the "Full text of the Constitution and Amendments" which is where "original" documents should be - Arjayay (talk) 08:35, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2015

In the 5th Paragraph is the following sentence asking for clarification "The Bill of Rights had little judicial impact for the first 150 years of its existence,[clarification needed] but was the basis for many Supreme Court decisions of the 20th and 21st centuries. "

I suggest the sentence be changed as follows: "The Bill of Rights had very limited impact during the first century and a half of its existence, because it was initially interpreted to apply only to the Federal government, with state and local governments having no obligation to comply.[1]

[SUGGESTED NEW SECTION]: Period of limited Application
Initially the Bill of Rights was assumed to be binding only on the Federal government of the United States alone. In the 1833 Barron v. Baltimore decision, John Marshall wrote the unanimous opinion which established a precedent that the United States Bill of Rights could not be applied to state governments.[2] Many decades later, this idea was replaced with an Incorporation Doctrine which established that at least some of the provisions of the Bill of Rights also apply to the state and local governments. Incorporation started in 1897 with a takings case, Burlington & Quincy Railway Co. v. Chicago, continued with Gitlow v. New York (1925), which was a First Amendment case, and accelerated in the 1940s and 1950s. Justice Hugo Black famously favored a complete and total incorporation of the entire Bill of Rights. Justice Felix Frankfurter felt that the federal courts should only apply those sections of the Bill of Rights that were "fundamental to a scheme of ordered liberty." It was the latter course that the Warren Court of the 1960s took, although now, almost all of the Bill of Rights has now been incorporated against the states and local governments.[4]
[1] http://www.history.com/topics/bill-of-rights [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barron_v._Baltimore [3]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_Process_Clause#Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights Zzinzel (talk) 23:55, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I've implemented the first sentence, Zzinzel. Please tell me where you wish the suggested new section to sit and I'll implement that too. JQTriple7 ^talk 05:55, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to consider and make refinements to the BoR article. Regarding your first request, that sentence was probably there as a leftover from some earlier edit, as the same thing was stated earlier in the intro. Regarding the "citation needed" note, citations are not usually needed in article introduction sections. I noticed this redundancy after you posted this, and have since refined the introduction. Regarding your second request, a new section on the period of limited Application is not needed. There's already a section in the article covering the application of the BoR, including what you propose to add – (here). Perhaps, and I haven't looked to see, if what you'd like to add would enhance the existing section, you could edit it accordingly. Best regards. Drdpw (talk) 18:57, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Unsectioned SPER Jan 13 2016

Update portion of 3rd amendment that states it hasn't been brought up in court "as of 2012" to "as of 2016" or "2015".

Done --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 17:34, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2016

The last sentence of paragraph 3 in the "Crafting Amendments" section reads: "He did not include an amendment that every state had asked for, one that would have made tax assessments voluntary instead of contributions contributions."

I believe that the second "contributions" is a typo and should be removed. 73.215.9.93 (talk) 19:11, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Done Cannolis (talk) 20:59, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-Protect 2nd Amendment Text

Another user continues to add text underneath the heading of "Second Amendment" that is not in the text of the Second Amendment. It is a deliberate attempt to subvert the meaning of the text under the guise of additional "scholarly analysis" to somehow clarify this amendment. Scholarly analysis belongs in an entirely separate section of the article as there is real intention to manipulate the meaning of the text itself and by showing another quote underneath to imply that there is further text in the Second Amendment that gives a false background on the amendment and implies that it is "a public allowance under due restrictions" when the "sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression." This quote from an 18th century English judge is entirely out of keeping with Wikipedia's own rules to present unbiased facts. By including this quote, the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is immediately under attack. If we should have a debate section for the article, you could include this quote as well as quotes from the NRA leaders and Constitutional scholars to debate the meaning and purpose of the amendment. This is one of the most important rights of American citizens and to have it twisted by some 18th century scholar in the next paragraph reeks of a fraudulent attempt to undermine the authority vested in the people to arm themselves against the possibility of a future tyrannical government. Here is what Rjensen keeps putting in to the text below the text of the Second Amendment in a clear attempt to subvert the 2nd most important right, the right of the American people to defend themselves (a right which "shall not be infringed"):

The concept of a right to keep and bear arms existed within English common law long before the enactment of the Bill of Rights.(McAffee, Thomas B.; Michael J. Quinlan (March 1997). "Bringing Forward The Right To Keep And Bear Arms: Do Text, History, Or Precedent Stand In The Way?". North Carolina Law Review: 781.) Eighteenth century English jurist and judge Sir William Blackstone described this right as:

a public allowance under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.(Blackstone, William (1765–1769). Commentaries on the Laws of England: Book the First, of the Rights of Persons. Oxford: the Clarendon Press. pp. 143–144.)

I don't see the problem. This is an accurate statement of the origin of the specific language, irrespective of later interpretations of it. bd2412 T 15:09, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Again, this is not an accurate statement of the origin of the specific language. It is the statement of an 18th century English judge, a person of authority at the time of the revolution in the country that we fought our revolution against. The statement itself immediately undermines the authority of the text and suggests that there is some power above this right that could revoke or "restrict" the right to arms for some proported public nuissance scenario. If you include this quote, you need to include many other quotes from the 18th century regarding the founders distrust of centralized authority. And then this section does not belong anywhere near the actual text of the amendment. It is a clear move to mislead the reader on the actual text in amendment. Let's also include quotes from the Founders themselves to understand the meaning of THEIR text:

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."-Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

"To disarm the people...[i]s the most effectual way to enslave them."

- George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."

- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..."

- George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."

- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

Diamante55 (talk) 15:21, 15 March 2016 (UTC) 15 March 2016

First Diamante55, you are mistaken above when you state that "another user continues to add text". It is you who has twice now removed text that has been part of this article for more than 2 years. Rejensen's rollback of your edit was appropriate. Second, its inclusion is not, in any way, shape or form, "designed mislead the reader on the actual text in amendment" as you suggest. I have restored the sentence prior to the quote, but not the quote itself. I'm attempting a compromise here. However, if another editor wants the quote restored, I would support that move. Drdpw (talk) 16:00, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Assumptions present in the "Ratification Process" section.

Here are some examples of text from the "Ratification Process" section: "Having been approved by the requisite three–fourths of the several states, there being 14 States in the Union at the time (as Vermont had been admitted into the Union on March 4, 1791),[61]..." "As they had not yet been approved by 11 of the 14 states, the ratification of Article One (ratified by 10) and Article Two (ratified by 6) remained incomplete. The ratification plateau they needed to reach soon rose to 12 of 15 states when Kentucky joined the Union (June 1, 1792). On June 27, 1792, the Kentucky General Assembly ratified all 12 amendments, however this action did not come to light until 1997." "Article One, came within one state of the number needed to become adopted into the Constitution on two occasions between 1789 and 1803. Despite coming close to ratification early on, it has never received the approval of enough states to become part of the Constitution.[62] As Congress did not attach a ratification time limit to the article, it is still technically pending before the states. Since no state has approved it since 1792, ratification by an additional 27 states would now be necessary for the article to be adopted."

These texts repeatedly adopt and contain the idea that as the number of states in the Union rose, the number of states necessary for the ratification of Constitutional Amendments (specifically, those that had previously been voted on by the United States Congress) rose as well. The Constitution speaks of 2/3s of both houses of Congress voting to propose an Amendment, and subsequently 3/4s of the state legislatures voting to approve the Amendment. Unstated is the question of whether the addition of new states (after the 2/3s vote) raises the number of ratification legislatures' votes. Clearly, the author of this text assumes that it does. But there is another point of view. The problem is that this text is presented in a way which is not cited: The readers will simply assume it is unchallengeably correct.

"Article Two, initially ratified by seven states through 1792 (including Kentucky), was not ratified by another state for eighty years. The Ohio General Assembly ratified it on May 6, 1873 in protest of an unpopular Congressional pay raise.[67] A century later, on March 6, 1978, the Wyoming Legislature also ratified the article.[68] Gregory Watson, a University of Texas at Austin undergraduate student, started a new push for the article's ratification with a letter-writing campaign to state legislatures.[67] As a result, by May 1992, enough states had approved Article Two (38 of the 50 states in the Union) for it to become the Twenty-seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution. The amendment's adoption was certified by Archivist of the United States Don W. Wilson and subsequently affirmed by a vote of Congress on May 20, 1992.[69]"

Again, this text assumes that the number of state legislatures' ratifications that were needed rose to 38. (37.5, but round up)

"Three states did not complete action on the twelve articles of amendment when they were initially put before the states. Connecticut and Georgia found a Bill of Rights unnecessary and so refused to ratify. Both chambers of the Massachusetts General Court ratified a number of the amendments (the Senate adopted 10 of 12 and the House 9 of 12), but failed to reconcile their two lists or to send official notice to the Secretary of State of the ones they did agree upon.[70][61] All three later ratified the Constitutional amendments originally known as Articles 3–12 as part of the 1939 commemoration of the Bill of Rights' sesquicentennial: Massachusetts on March 2, Georgia on March 18, and Connecticut on April 19.[61] Connecticut and Georgia would also later ratify Article Two, on May 13, 1987 and February 2, 1988 respectively. "

The three ratifications in 1939 were a clue, which this author ignores: Each of those states, individually, could have ratified the "Bill of Rights" during 1789 or 1790, and it would have become a valid, ratified Amendment. They were the three states which had failed to ratify. I think it was discovered in 1939 that the BOR wasn't actually ratified in 1790-1791, because subsequent states should not have been counted. The assumption that the BOR was actually fully ratified was entirely dependent on the idea that the addition of Vermont (and its subsequent ratification of the BOR) "counted" towards ratifying the BOR. If it didn't, only the ratifications of Massachusetts, Georgia, or Connecticut would have been sufficient to do the job. This of course is the dispute. There will be people who don't agree. There is nothing wrong with not agreeing: But there is a great deal wrong with pretending that their point of view is unchallengeably valid. The article needs to be re-written to support (with specific cites) the idea that the subsequent addition of states after the 2/3s Congressional votes raised the bar for the 3/4s ratification vote total. 67.5.192.83 (talk) 21:42, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2016

This lines here is worded incorrectly, I will put the poor wording parentheses.

The Ninth Amendment declares that fundamental rights exist that are not expressly enumerated in the Constitution, and that "the rights which are do not constitute" an explicit and exhaustive listing of all individual rights possessed by the people.

I would write something like this: The Ninth Amendment declares there are more fundamental rights that exist outside the Constitution. The rights in the the Constitution are not an exhaustive list of individual rights. TroyRoot (talk) 17:39, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done (w/ a few tweaks). Thanks for the helpful input.--JayJasper (talk) 21:35, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Conference committee report images

Do you think these images of the Conference committee report that finalized the proposed Bill of Rights amendments can be added to the article or do you think they might clutter it up? Libertybison (talk) 22:38, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't see the value in adding these images to the article; there is after-all a link to BoR commons images at the bottom of the page. That said, if others think that adding them will enhance the article, then I'll not object. Drdpw (talk) 21:36, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Virginia's failed 1789 attempt to ratify the Bill of Rights

I'd like to recommend adding a brief mention in the article of the failed 1789 attempt to ratify the Bill of Rights in Virginia before their success in doing so in 1791. There's a 1991 article about it here. Libertybison (talk) 08:05, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I've tinkered with the layout of the listing of ratifications and made a note of Virginia's 1789 failure to ratify. Interesting article BTW. Drdpw (talk) 21:36, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Text of the United States Bill of Rights should be compact and easy to navigate to

I just wanted a listing of the Bill of Rights. It is only 482 words long. How hard can it be? Why come anywhere close? 99.173.132.199 (talk) 22:33, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

The text of each of the 10 ratified articles of amendment (The Bill of Rights) is in the body of the article, and each is separated from the others by only a few sentences of explanation. The text of each of the 12 articles of amendment approved by Congress and sent to the states for ratification is also in the article in list/chart format. If you want just the constitutional verbiage, there are external links which you can click on. Drdpw (talk) 00:41, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

How about updating the section header to read "Application and Text" since just looking at the table of contents it isn't evident that the text is included anywhere? --Nasch (talk) 00:47, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

The rest of the Amendments

I was looking for all of the Ammendments, and when I searched 'the Ammendments', this article came up. Where is the 11th Ammendment? The 12th? The 13th? I think this article should be expanded. PitbullAJWarriorsSurvivorsLover (talk) 16:43, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

PitbullAJWarriorsSurvivorsLover, you'll find a listing and brief synopsis of all amendments here: List of Amendments to the United States Constitution. BTW, I have retargeted the "The Amendments" redirect to that page. Thanks. Drdpw (talk) 16:58, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Oliver Wolcott letter

Supposedly, there is a June 3, 1790 letter from Connecticut Lt. Gov. Oliver Wolcott to his son, Oliver Wolcott Jr. where he says the Connecticut General Assembly's upper house wouldn't agree to its lower house bill to ratify Articles 3-12 during the May 1790 legislative session because they thought that Article 2 was just as important as those ten. The letter itself probably wouldn't be important enough to mention in this article but it might shed more light on Connecticut's actions. Unfortunately, the book I read about it only quotes a few words of a sentence and lacks context. I haven't been able to find another mention of it. Does anybody know a source that mentions it or know an online source that has transcriptions of Wolcott letters? Libertybison (talk) 23:17, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United States Bill of Rights. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080102234718/http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/charters_preservation_01.html to http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/charters_preservation_01.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:46, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

The Fourth Amendment Role in Court Decisions

The Fourth Amendment has been the basis of many majour court decisions in the history of the United States and such precedent should be stated and explained to elaborate on the modern interpretation and court determination of the exact definition and confines of its protection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.6.197.41 (talk) 09:30, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Fifth amendment extension

The fifth amendment explanation of the article must include the right of a man to refuse to testify against his wife. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.6.197.41 (talk) 09:33, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Excessive as open to interpretation?

The eighth amendment "The Eighth Amendment forbids the imposition of excessive bails or fines, though it leaves the term "excessive" open to interpretation" but the word excessive has a definition in the English dictionary, how could one leave a word which has a definition up for interpretation? Excessive means that which is more than necessary. What is necessary is objective, not subjective. A fine or bail should then be used to cover costs of resources required for the scenario in question. There is nothing open to interpretation about it. Great article though otherwise 50.125.82.185 (talk) 17:51, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2017

Change "The Supreme Court overturned English common law precedent to increase the burden of proof for defamation and libel suits, most notably in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964)." to remove the word libel. Libel is a form of defamation so having the word libel is redundant and unnecessary. Thank you. 2600:1017:B11B:F83C:B1FB:F6DD:9919:5939 (talk) 02:13, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

 Done, although I wouldn't be surprised if someone reverted me and instigated a discussion. I agree that doesn't make a ton of sense and, when that phrase is used again in the lede at the case's article, its source doesn't provide any reason for mentioning both as if they're distinct concepts. Maybe it could say "defamation in general and libel suits specifically" since Sullivan was about libel. CityOfSilver 06:07, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Subsection Crafting Amendments has erroneously transcribed text from the source document

Under the Crafting Amendments subsection, the proposed amendments to the U.S. Constitution James Madison authored are show to modify Article II in many places where it was indeed Article I. When the source for this information is opened (currently footnote 49), the text on that webpage clearly shows that the ones in question were intended for Article I of the Constitution. The current link to that webpage is [46]. I believe this was just an honest mistake during transcribing. Considering this article is classified as a "good article," I thought this honest mistake should be corrected to preserve that integrity. Thank you so much for taking this into consideration. 168.215.102.210 (talk) 14:12, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

 Fixed—Thanks for pointing this out. Drdpw (talk) 16:42, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

27th amendment

At the top of the article it says that the Bill of Rights are the first ten amendments to the constitution. I noticed that nowhere at the beginning of the article that the 27th amendment was part of the Bill of Rights but was not ratified until 1992. Should somone had a clause at the beginning of the article that the 27th amendment is technically part of the Bill of Rights but was not ratified until 1992 along with another amendment relating to the House of Reps still pending amongst the states?

No, there's no need for such a clause, as the introduction presently states the relationship between the 27th Amendment (that of the the yet unratified amendment as well) and the 1st–10th Amendments accurately. America's "collective consciousness" regarding personal freedoms and rights, and regarding the scope of the government's power is shaped by Amendments I through 10—The Bill of Rights; Article the First and Article the Second missed their opportunity to be a part of the Bill of Rights when they were not ratified in the early 1790s. This didn't change in 1992 when the latter became the 27th Amendment. It's not thought of as being part of the Bill of Rights by the general public. As a result, while it was submitted to the states as part of the proposed Bill of Rights, it was not ratified with Article the Third–Article the Twelfth, and so is not part of the Bill of Rights. Drdpw (talk) 19:19, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2018

In the Second Amendment section it says :

"In United States v. Cruikshank (1875), ..."

But in the linked article :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Cruikshank

It says the year was 1876.

I've had a look on other sites, and some say 1875 and others 1876. On the linked Wikipedia page here :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Cruikshank#cite_note-1

and a bit further down, it even references both dates. I'm guessing that the case probably started in 1875 and was resolved in 1876. Given the prevelance of both dates, it might be useful to clarify the fact that both dates are used. Maccaday (talk) 20:59, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done changed it to 1876, going off of the Library of Congress document:

https://www.loc.gov/item/usrep092542/

It seems it was argued in 1875, decided in 1876, and the decision is what's important Cannolis (talk) 17:31, 2 September 2018 (UTC)