Talk:Constitution of the United States/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Aren't the amendment facts incorrect?

Reading through the article, I noticed it said there are three ways to propose an amendment. It says that the 21st was done through a special convention. This is incorrect to my knowledge. An amendment can be proposed in two, ratified in two. 2/3 Majority in Congress and Convention to propose, and 3/4 State ratify or State conventions happens (this is what happened with the 21st). Am I wrong here? 96.3.104.45 (talk) 23:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The article was incorrect. It apparently confused the ratification conventions with proposal. I've changed that part of the section and others. -Rrius (talk) 03:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the only way to change and ammendment to the United States Constitution is through the bill process. The 2/3 vote only counts when congress wants to overide the Presidents Veto. It takes a 2/3 vote to over ride the President. The states constitution does not supercede the U. S. Constitution. Amendments can be added to the constitution it does not take a law suit or a civil rights violation. Actually all it takes is a proposal to the legislative branch but the ammendment does have to be approved by the Executive which is the President of the United States.--C A Levingston 23:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caleving (talk • contribs)

Learn English, then try studying this again. There are multiple times when a two-thirds majority in Congress is required—including proposing an amendment. Amendments can also be proposed by a constitutional convention called when requested by two-thirds of the states. Once proposed, amendments must be ratified by three-fourths of the states, either through their legislatures or by conventions called in each state. There is absolutely no involvement on the part of the President. Also, no one said that state constitutions supersede the U.S. Constitution or that lawsuits are involved. -Rrius (talk) 23:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Article 5.1

"Backers of some amendments have attempted the alternative, and thus-far never-utilized, method mentioned in Article Five." Which of the alternatives hasn't been used? It looks to me like the 2d, but... TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 13:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Article Five describes three methods of amending the constitution. The only one that has not been used is the call for a whole new constitutional convention, which is done by a vote of the states. The other two methods have been used at one time or another: Congress usually approves an amendment and sends it to the states for ratification, but in one case Congress called for a special convention (Amendment 21, repeal prohibition). Broadcaster101 (talk) 06:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
  • A current problem with the article about the Constitution is that the subsection "Article Five" says there are three ways to amend the Constitution, but the subsection "Amendments" says, "Amendments can be proposed one of two ways." Broadcaster101 (talk) 06:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Umm, no, there are two ways of proposing amendments and two ways of ratifying them. They can be proposed by Congress upon a two-thirds vote in each house or by a convention called by Congress upon the application of two-thirds of the states. Ratification requires the affirmative votes of three-fourths of the state, and Congress decides whether state ratification shall be by the state legislatures or by special ratifying conventions. -Rrius (talk) 19:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

rick perry was voted the best damn fuckin governer in texas in 1935.President has to sign a bill for it to become a law, which means if you change an ammendment to the constitution you are changing law which a special session of congress has to be called to do.--C. A. Levingston 22:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The President is not part of Congress, and neither is the VP. The rest of the above paragraph is also incorrect. Furthermore Article V only describes two methods to amend the Constitution. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 18:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

"Players" Key Drafters & "Signers"

There are no mentions of the key drafters of the document / U.S. Constitution as Gouverneur Morris, etc., and no mention of those who signed it --- please addend article to include those who mainly wrote it as Governeur , etc and show where to see who signed ... Tyrod TBone Obama Sr 69.121.221.97 (talk) 22:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the signers matter, per se. Morris's role (IIRC, he was the member of the style committee that did the principal drafting) is interesting, and possibly notable enough for inclusion, but I'm not minded to do the work. If you want something added, it would be helpful for you to specify the language you want and where you want it added. -Rrius (talk) 05:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• This idea would make a good separate page: a list of signers of the U.S. Constitution, years of birth and death, states represented, and occupation. Broadcaster101 (talk) 05:26, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Amendments sentence

"conservatives, but failed during periods of Republican control of Congress to achieve the supermajorities necessary for submission to the states. As such, none of these is likely to be proposed under the current Congress, which is controlled by the more liberal Democratic Party."

Is the bolded part relevant to the article? Seems like that information is more of an opinion.168.234.230.220 (talk) 01:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

It is relevant. Leaving it out could create the impression that these amendments could be proposed sometime soon since not everyone in the world (or the U.S.) knows what party currently controls Congress. Whether it is opinion is debatable. I say no, it is a fact that there is a low likelihood of either amendment passing. If anything, it is a crystal ball issue, but I'm not really sure it poses a problem there. It is currently the case that there is little chance of success. That is not a prediction, but a summary of the current situation. It would be nice if we could find a citation for the low chance of advancement, but it is a non-controversial statement, so I don't think it is essential that we do. -Rrius (talk) 06:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Badly censored article!

There is no word on the end of exitence or suspension of the US Constitution, even though the FEMA can suspend the constitution and force american people into concentration camps, in the name of an epidemic emergency.

Many are fearing this is happening right now, with Obama having declared the pig flu emergency and actively handing over USA to the masonic-sanhedrinic UN world government. 82.131.130.243 (talk) 11:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Ignorant people can be convinced of the existence of flying porcines and other similar nonsense. But that doesn't have much relevance to the actual powers of the federal government in an emergency. older ≠ wiser 12:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Older&Wiser.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Box on right has wrong ratification votes

I was going through "Elliots Debates" and per that source (pages 548 and 549) the vote for ratification of the Constitution in Maryland was passed 63 to 11. The box on the side of the article which shows a different number for and nobody against and needs to be updated with the correct vote total.

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field(DOCID+@lit(ed0029))

The opponents continued to make their objections to the Constitution until Saturday noon. The advocates of the government, although repeatedly called on, and earnestly requested, to answer the objections, if not just, remained inflexibly silent, and called for the question, that "the Convention assent to and ratify the proposed plan of federal government for the United States;" which was carried in the affirmative, by sixty-three to eleven.

Considering the above, It is virtually certain that the other two states which show no opposed votes are also wrong.98.118.19.104 (talk) 17:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Decided to see if anyone has fixed the mistake I mentioned above and nobody bothered. Perhaps wikipedia should get a name to something like Wikipedia - The Lard Butt Version because of the errors in it. That's a reference to whatever editors saw the above complaint and FAILED to fix it.

FYI: Elliot's Debates is the "go to source" for anyone looking for information on the State Constitutional Conventions.

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwed.html

98.118.19.204, then why don't you be bold and make the change? Ignore us lard butts and do it yourself.  :) --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 15:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution is a five-volume collection compiled by Jonathan Elliot in the mid-nineteenth century. The volumes remain the best source for materials about the national government's transitional period between the closing of the Constitutional Convention in September 1787 and the opening of the First Federal Congress in March 1789. On September 17, 1787, the Continental Congress accepted the recommendation of the Constitutional Convention and agreed to distribute the proposed constitution to the states; each state was then to elect delegates to a state convention to approve or disapprove the new constitution. The Constitution would take effect upon ratification by the conventions of nine of the thirteen states.

96.237.122.90 (talk) 14:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

BTW: There are two other states that show no dissenters to the vote to ratify. Since the Delaware vote is wrong, the other two are probably also wrong. That puts the wikpedia total to 3 errors on 13 facts. That qualifies as "Rife With Errors".96.237.122.90 (talk) 14:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, now, that's just faulty logic. One can certainly be wrong without the rest being wrong. I've checked around online, and the table as is conforms to similar tables perfectly. -Rrius (talk) 16:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you post links to those supposed online sources. You have my source, which per the Library of Congress, is the "BEST SOURCE" for this subject - the ratification of the US Constitution.71.184.177.99 (talk) 15:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

You said Delaware was wrong, and therefore the other two showing no dissenters were also probably wrong. That is what I responded to. It cannot be disputed that you used poor logic that. Now, since you've responded by demanding some sort of proof, I've decided to read your entire contribution here thoroughly. You are wrong. Your opening says that the debates say Maryland ratified 63-11, but that this article showed a unanimous vote. In fact, the article as written on November 3, the date you started this, clearly shows Maryland as having passed it 63-11. Considering that your later contribution refers to the Delaware vote, it seems clear you have simply confused the two. Nothing you have presented suggests that Delaware voted by anything but a 30 to 0 margin. -Rrius (talk) 21:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Here is a link for you showing that Delaware ratified it 30 to 0: [1]. -Rrius (talk) 21:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

And here are just two of the many tables showing the same data we have: [2][3]. -Rrius (talk) 22:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

List of constituencies by country is needed for

overview--222.67.203.106 (talk) 09:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

What?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

More care is needed in identifying places and people

Believe it or not, not everyone knows what words like "Yale" and "Vanderbilt" mean. I understand that this is shocking, but replacing those with Yale University and Vanderbilt University makes sense. There is also the possibilty someone will think of "Yale Locks", and also you need to realize that foreigners read these articles, too, bless their hearts! 98.67.104.236 (talk) 04:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

If you find something simple to fix, like adding a wikilink, so Yale becomes Yale, please do so. It's a lot less work than writing a mini paragraph giving a finger wagging to another volunteer editor. Believe it or not.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 04:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

what industry makes up the largest part of todays economy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.206.125.4 (talk) 22:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Global answer desk at your service: if you're talking about the United States, it depends on how you measure it: by number of establishments, retail trade is the biggest; by payroll, manufacturing is the biggest. For more information see Economy of the United States by sector. --Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Oldest constitution: US vs San Marino

The US constitution is NOT the oldest written constitution in the world. The Statutes of San Marino, enacted in 1600 (amended since then of course, but this is also the case of the US constitution), are the constitution of the Republic of San Marino (especially the first book, which describes the various councils of San Marino, courts, a number of administrative positions, including the Heads of state, and details the roles and powers assigned to them and how the law is to be passed, promulgated, interpreted and altered), and are still in force today.

The fact that the Statutes are a constitution enforced in 1600 is even acknowledged by the law library of the US congress: Law Library of United States Congress. "Guide to Law Online: San Marino". Retrieved 2008-05-21.. It may not please the Americans that a 23 sq mi country with 30,000 inhabitants has an older constitution than they do, but still it is the case, and it would be good to definitely stop this controversy on the English wikipedia (on the French, German and Italian wikipedia the San Marino constitution is presented as the oldest still in force) and admit the historical truth.

The San Marino document you are talking about is not a written constitution, but a part of a written constitution that is composed of several different acts. -Rrius (talk) 04:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you are overgeneralizing about the importance of having "the oldest" constitution. The fact that the most powerful nation has one of the oldest constitution is what the pride is over. And considering the size of the population living under it, makes San Marino rather insignificant by comparison. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 12:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

us goverment and law <branches of government

cobinet what does it mean —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.186.165.27 (talk) 22:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know whether to take this seriously or delete it, so I'll answer: see Cabinet (government) and United States Cabinet. -Rrius (talk) 23:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Shortest and oldest constitution

I don't know about shortest, but it definitively isn't oldest. Could a mod change it? NineNineTwoThreeSix (talk) 00:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Articles of Confederation singular v. plural

While the US Constitution is a single document (including all 27 of its amendments) and is thus referred to in the singular, the Articles of Confederation are normally referred to in the plural as the Articles themselves refer to themselves in the plural. The best example of this is in the closing paragraph after Article XIII:

"...we the undersigned delegates ... do by these presents ... fully and entirely ratify and confirm each and every of the said articles of confederation and perpetual union ..."

Thus, they are ratifying "each and every" article, not a singular document called the "Articles of Confederation." The title of Article XIII provides further evidence, as it reads: "Articles are Supreme Law..." using "are" and not "is."

The full name of this "first American constitution" is "Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union." The idea of a singular written constitution was still relatively new to many of these folk, coming as they did from a tradition of unwritten constitutions in Great Britain. The Articles then, though a written constitution, are approached a little like the British idea of separate acts for each requirement assembling into the whole, with each article treated separately for composition, ratification, and the like. By the time the catastrophic failure of the Articles had become appearent and the Founders were creating the US Constitution to replace it, the mindset had changed enough to allow the Constitution to be described and dealt with as a singular entity.

Sources for the quoted text of the Articles of Confederation are to be found at http://www.usconstitution.net/articles.html. Professor Storyteller (talk) 00:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I see what you're saying. I am not sure, however, that the mindset of 18th Century men about legal & establishing documents as decided by those particular delegates necessarily still holds true today regarding their use of singular vs. plural - For instance I think it is true that at the time the United States was not thought of as a single unit but as a group of separate entities and a similar sentence would say "The United States were...". Now we say "The United States is..." But it seems to me that this discussion should perhaps also be taking place at Articles of Confederation? In its first sentence that article states that "The Articles of Confederation was the first constitution of the United States". For purposes of this discussion of this particular sentence and if the sentence were written as it now stands at this moment - there is a subject ("Articles of Confederation") then a plural (intransitive?) tense of 'to be' (were) and then a singular object (constitution). So if the sentence were reversed we would have "The first constitution of the United States were the articles of confederation" and that doesn't sound quite right either.

If the consensus is for this sentence to state:

• The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union were the first constitution of the United States of America

instead of

• The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union was the first constitution of the United States of America

then that is the consensus. Shearonink (talk) 02:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The change from "United States are" to "United States is" came about as a result of dramatic political changes after the American Civil War. It was not the result of evolving changes in the use of langauge, but of a nearly revolutionary re-envisioning of the nation by the victorious forces of the North. Within the disciplines of history, political science, and constitutional law, the Articles are referred to in the plural because they are written as a series of binding articles more than as a singular entity - as with the US Constitution, the intent of the authors is controlling.

You can see this in the link I provided - also, a quick survey of hits from Google show a preponderance of plural to singular forms. Examples:

"The Articles of Confederation were, in effect, the first constitution of the United States, created during the Revolutionary War and reflecting the states'..."

"...the Articles of Confederation were accompanied by a letter from Congress urging that the document..."

Basic rule of thumb here is that the 18th century use is controlling for documents created in the 18th century, and especially so for something like the Articles, where active use began 'and' ended in the 18th century. Given that they have seen no use or modification since the 1780s, their plural use is most especially correct and controlling, given that the authors intended it to be a plural form and spoke of it as such in the document itself.

I don't normally watch Wikipedia's Articles of Confederation article, but I'm happy to present this information there if you think it might be helpful. It may be a bit as I am swamped busy right now ... Professor Storyteller (talk) 17:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I actually knew the change occurred after the Civil War, but my point about the transition from 'United States are' to 'United States is' was to show that the implied singularity or plurality of a collective noun can change, be it a gradual evolution or a revolutionary one. I really don't care that much one way or the other, whatever the consensus is from interested editors rules the day. I do still think it is odd to state the reverse: "The first United States Constitution were the Articles of Confederation". Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 18:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

One last professorial clarification - the key difference between the change in usage of "United States" and the Articles is the continued active existence/role of the USA versus the reduction of the Articles to historical artifact centuries ago - this kind of change only occurs over time if the noun in question is still part of the active focus of the sociocultural meme matrices driving the evolution of language. As to the oddity - that's why most historians phrase the sentence as "The Articles of the Confederation were the first constitution for the United States of America." Although I should add, a few of my colleagues disagree with that comparison. Let me know if you need any additional data. Professor Storyteller (talk) 05:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

For purposes of this discussion of this particular sentence and if the sentence were written as it now stands at this moment - there is a subject ("Articles of Confederation") then a plural (intransitive?) tense of 'to be' (were) and then a singular object (constitution). So if the sentence were reversed we would have "The first constitution of the United States were the articles of confederation" and that doesn't sound quite right either. - There are several problems in the above. First of all, it is perfectly correct English to have a plural noun followed by a plural verb and a singular noun, for example, "free elections are the cornerstone of democracy". So there is absolutely nothing wrong with "the Articles of Confederation were the first constitution of the United States". Second, there is absolutely no reason why one should not use "was" if one wants to say the contents of that sentence in the opposite order. "The first constitution of the United States was the Articles of Confederation" is perfectly good English, and there is absolutely no reason why one should use the ungrammatical "were" if one wants to say the contents in that order. No native English speaker is normally capable of producing an ungrammatical sentence with an indisputably singular noun followed by a plural verb ("The first constitution of the United States were..."); this can only happen if they've been thinking about this too much while not trusting their ears and/or are confusing English sentences with mathematical equations. --Espoo (talk) 22:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I already said whatever the consensus of interested editors is fine by me...the rules is the rules says I. Personally, stating "The first United States Constitution were the Articles of Confederation" just sounds odd to me and "The first United States Constitution was the Articles of Confederation" sounds better...that's all. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 23:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Article title

Should this article not be at Constitution of the United States and not simply, United States Constitution, inline with other constitution articles, e.g. Constitution of the United Kingdom, Constitution of South Africa, etc.?--TÆRkast (Communicate) 17:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes I like your wording slightly better, but at this point, changing the name around is a lot of work, since pages elsewhere link to this (with this title). My sense is to keep it as it is, since we all know what we're talking about, and not change things because of the linking aspects, but that's my two cents.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I see your point. It may work, though, since those linked to this title will then redirect to the new one, and those already pointing to the new one (currently redirecting here) do not have to.--TÆRkast (Communicate) 20:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it should stay where it is as it is usually know as the "United States Constitution" or "U.S. Constitution". How other articles are named is not especially helpful for something like this, especially where many of those are not even written. Even if naming of articles were important, I just searched for 10 state constitutions, and all but one was "X Constitution" rather than "Constitution of X". -Rrius (talk) 02:37, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Whether other constitutions are written is irrelevant. Take for example this, [4], which clearly uses the title "Constitution of the United States".--TÆRkast (Communicate) 11:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The proper name of the document is Constitution of the United States. See: [5]. (With this in mind, I'll do a little editing to remove the 'Constitution of the United States of America text.) Accordingly, the article should be renamed. --S. Rich (talk) 20:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Translation: Catalan

I cannot find the translation into Catalan. The link at footnote 31 goes to a page with a list of founding documents of the United States, but I found no link to a page with the Constitution itself. Broadcaster101 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC).

Needs rephrasing

Dear All,

Being a semi-restricted article, I'm not sure who is able to make amendments, but the line "Article Four describes the relationship between the states and the federal government and amongst the states."

Under Article four doesn't make sense.

Thanks, Ian Clark —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.125.205.222 (talk) 20:17, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Changed wording to: Article Four outlines the relation between the states and the relation between the federal government. In addition, it provides for such matters as admitting new states as well as border changes between the states. If you have a better wording please include it below, thanx.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

"current Congress" info outdated

{{Edit semi-protected}} The "Amendments" section includes the following, which -- since January 3, 2001 -- is now incorrect: "As such, none of these are likely to be proposed under the current Congress, which is controlled by the more liberal Democratic Party."

Might I suggest something like "which includes a Senate controlled by the more liberal Democratic Party"? 71.126.1.111 (talk) 20:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Done jcgoble3 (talk) 22:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Article titles -- Roman numerals (as original) v. words

In the original document, each of the Articles of the Constitution is titled/written "Article I", "Article II", etc. However, in our article we have labeled the Articles as "Article One", "Article Two" etc. What is the justification for using text other than what the original document contains? --S. Rich (talk) 20:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

intro. Constitution was written to solve a problem.

This introduction is taken from modern scholarship of Pauline Maier (2010), "Ratification: the people debate the Constitution, 1787-1788". Without the context, the urgency of the Federalists is incomprehensible.

All republican theory recommends divided government. The sea change was to reframe the vision of a republic from thirteen-plus-one divided governments to ensure liberty, each of the 14 equal to one another, to one of a republic with a supreme national government, dividing its functions serving the people into legislative, executive and judiciary, delegated by the people for national concerns; and allowing states their own spheres of power delegated by the people for local concerns.

The unchanging requirement for a soveriegn nation was solvency, and that concern for money was unwaivering, regardless of any amendment or set of amendments which might have to be allowed to secure it. But it must be secured in time to pay ont the principle of debt owed foreign nations. That was not negotiable. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Current state?

I was wondering if a section should be added regarding the document in its current state? Where it is housed and how it is protected should be noted because it is kind of interesting the lengths we go to to protect our constitution. It's level of security and what happens to it on its day to day display in the archives is also an interesting story that could possibly improve the artice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.179.178.64 (talk) 22:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

drafting and convening

All elements preserved. you have to read down the green column to see the cut and paste original text. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 00:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I wanted to be careful to keep all citations from previous editors, since there was nothing wrong with the material. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:53, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

ratification and inauguration of new government.

All elements preserved. you have to read down the green column to see the cut and paste original text. I did not know how to cite per WP the extended, multi-page notes of #27 listing the expansion of the electorate in almost every state. I really like RI referendum and NY multiple days until the eligible voter list was completely voted. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 00:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Very many more of the "people" participated in selecting ratification conventions than participated in electing state legislatures. Existing state constitutions in the main were formulated by legislatures without resort to the sovereign people. So in a democratic way, the sovereign people, without intermediaries, the people, as a nation, delegated powers to a government in the "Constitution of the United States" for the first time and most directly up until that time among all previous constitutions among the states. The US Constitution was then closer to the people, more immediately derived from them, than the contemporaneous state constitutions, with the benefit of no religious test for office. Of course, that expanded franchise was then subsequently restricted for the state and Congressional elections, and the state legislatures elected US Senators.

Note 27: “We, the people”, in Maier: p. 134, Connecticut expanded electorate to town meeting voters; p.140, Massachusetts dropped property requirements; p.218, New Hampshire dropped some property requirements, and added town delegates; p.223, Rhode Island put the question to a referendum which rejected the ratification convention, the Federalist minority centered in Newport and Providence boycotted the election; p.228, Virginia dropped “legal and Constitutional requirements” to expand the freehold electorate; p.327, New York dropped property requirements, timed assembly elections at the same time, and allowed up to five sequential days of voting until the voting rolls were “complete”. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you add your Maier source to one of the source lists? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 16:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Done, in secondary sources. Maier is a history professor at MIT. It's review page "MIT review" features hot links for the Washington Post, New York Times, Bloomberg ... TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Found four wikicommons pics of "founders at ratification". wrote up four narrative cut-lines showing representative four stages of ratification process in alignment with WP policy to use pics to draw reader into text. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

"slavery" topic

Please note the beginning, middle and end of the section Work of the Convention, is the same language as the previous contributor. I think that putting in a new subheading caused the edit to show as deleting the section wholesale. I did not delete anything. There were three-four connective words, a tense change or two. that is all. This does not accurately reflect my regard for the previous editor. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

So, next I tried "undo", editing on the frame opened. It comes a little closer to my intent, though the first sentence of judgement and the last sentence of conclusion do not show as the previous editor's words which are left in place. No change of meaning is intended; there is nothing wrong with the first contribution. I am only filling in the narrative with scholarly material in addition to the primary sources. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Under section 1.1 The First Constitution, the last line of the first paragraph reads, "By 1786, the United States was about to default on its contractual obligations when the principle came due." the word principle is incorrect and should instead be "principal". (This part now fixed.--S. Rich (talk) 04:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC))

Gregmiii (talk) 23:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Conservatism banner?

Yes. "These include the Federal Marriage Amendment, the Balanced Budget Amendment, and the Flag Desecration Amendment. All three proposals are supported primarily by conservatives..." Lionel (talk) 04:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

A member of Conservatism has reviewed this article and has determined it falls within the project's scope. Removal is considered disruptive. Lionel (talk) 00:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Methodissed, 27 April 2011

Criticisms of the Constitution Howard Zinn, an American historian, author, playwright, and social activist, specialized in the political history of the 20th century United States. In his highly acclaimed and controversial book, A People's History of the United States, Zinn criticized the authors of the U.S. Constitution. He wrote:

"governments - including the government of the United States - are not neutral... they represent the dominant economic interests, and... their constitutions are intended to serve these interests."

He went on to say:

"I want young people to understand that ours is a beautiful country, but it has been taken over by men who have no respect for human rights or constitutional liberties. Our people are basically decent and caring, and our highest ideals are expressed in the Declaration of Independence, which says that all of us have an equal right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” The history of our country, I point out in my book, is a striving, against corporate robber barons and war makers, to make those ideals a reality — and all of us, of whatever age, can find immense satisfaction in becoming part of that." Methodissed (talk) 08:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

 Not done What is your specific change to the article?? CTJF83 12:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

References

First constitution clarification tag

Per the clarification tag, I re-read the reference. Maier does not address whether or not an Articles Congressional committee for foreign relations recorded deliberately not choosing to threaten war, tarriff, embargo, joint protest with France, expulsion of the Spanish ambassador from Washington or withdrawal of US ministers from Spain. Nevertheless, the Spanish did not relent in New Orleans at this time, so the phrase, 'to no effect' is an edit to answer the tag as it relates to historical background for adoption of the US Constitution.

I speculate that another consideration related to US weakness was that it had not enough troops to send anything south. All troops in unit strength were stationed in the Ohio Valley. The Spanish had joined the French against the English during the Revolution, advanced supplies to Americans up the Mississippi, and kept the British from advancing north out of Pensacola by capturing it from the British in 1781. Security from potential threats among non-treaty Amerindians required Spanish de facto cooperation along the Georgia borders. The US could not do anything to Spain in New Orleans. The US could not replace the standing Spanish influence in Pensacola.

The second edit is based on the 'redundancy' discussion in a WP style essay: for Congress to cease governing implies it had once had the influence to govern. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

That sounds excellent. And I must say that you have done a fantastic job with this article over the last few months; keep it up. NW (Talk) 14:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Comma or smudge

Still no verifiable, unbiased citation for this section, so i will continue deleting. there was no "consensus" that this section should survive deletion. there was no debate at all. no legit citations = it needs to go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.53.141.63 (talk) 02:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

sorry, was that deletion of foreign translations?

Here’s the requested source: “American constitutionalism heard round the world, 1776-1989: a global perspective” NYU press 2009. By George Athan Billias. Law. Winner of the 2010 Book Award from the New England Historical Association. Paraphrases and interjections: Page xi. Some say the influence of the U.S. Constitution is “shallow and unstable”. First, the ideals of a revolutionary (democratic) republican constitutionalism are found in other documents. Billias details six of them from 1776 to 1791. Also, indirect influence on the “concepts of governance” served as catalysts, “motivating foreign constitutionalists to reconsider their options.” (I’d say, See the writings of Jose Rizal, Sun Yat Sen and Mahatma Gandhi.)

Evidence includes transnational history of ideas, our foreign translations, and exchanges between Americans and their counterparts. (I’d say, See the mutually supportive correspondence between President Abraham Lincoln and President Benito Juárez.) p.xii: Lifting one’s gaze from American exceptionalism, the U.S. is “one of a family of peoples and nations” relative to European civilization. p.xiii: The remarkable similarity is in liberal constitutional democracy, the rule of law, and recognizing individual rights. State constitutions showed written constitutions, constitutional conventions, ratification and amendment. The Articles showed a constitutional federalism tailored to “diverse regions, populations and cultures”. The Constitution contributed “presidentialism, federalism and judicial review”. ‘’The Federalist’’ sought to reconcile “national power with social diversity and personal liberty”.

p.xv. it is also the case that democratizing countries have chosen British or French models, American constitutionalism has waxed and waned in influence, Confucian and Islamic cultures do not readily adopt some of its premises. Nevertheless, “the influence of American constitutionalism abroad was profound in the past and remains a remarkable contribution to humankind’s search for freedom under a system of laws.” p.xiv: Seven peaks:. 1776-1800 northwestern Europe and hinterland. 1811-1848 Latin American, Caribbean, European nationalists. Spanish American War, nationalist movements in Caribbean and Asia. After World War I, anti-colonial movements in Africa Mid-east and Asia. 1945-1974, ex-colonial independence movements. 1974-1989 once nondemocratic regimes, including European ones, transitioning to constitutional democracies. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:28, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

174.53.141.63 (talk) 02:18, 2 July 2011 (UTC)nothing you cite references the "comma or smudge" pseudo debate. sorry.

I found it. I guess someone could look up how federal courts have quoted it. Here, apply the most recent rendering to be useful to the general reader. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:33, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Work of the constitution

Edits to make parallel constructions.

1. Assume good faith. Both plans sought 'fairness'. The Virginia Plan sought fairness for people in states. The New Jersey Plan sought fairness for state legislatures.
2. Plan weighted large, plan weighted small, is parallel construction using direct language.
3. Once editors agree to call out the election method for President, parallel construction should be given to the elected House and the elected Senate.

TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 00:07, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

First, that's not what parallel construction means. Parallel construction is a grammatical term meaning that different elements of a complex clause or phrase should agree. For instance, Michael bought a loaf of bread, pear, and three kiwis is not parallel; Michael bought a loaf of bread, a pear, and three kiwis is. Second, there is no need to use exactly the same language to introduce two related lists. I'm not sure what you are talking about assuming good faith for, but there is no POV problem with using different neutral phrases to introduce the lists. In fact, the variation is better writing. Your last point doesn't really make sense, but it is also inaccurate. In the early days, legislatures often elected the slate of electors themselves, so specifying something about the people choosing them is just wrong. I think you might be trying to say that if you say who the House represents and who the Senate represents, then you should also say who the president represents, then you have a point, but the better solution is to simply remove the bit about the president. -Rrius (talk) 05:46, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

First, your edit is good. With that concession made, some rumination. There is power and economy in using similar phrasing in presenting two proposals of equal stature, both substantially incorporated in the 'great compromise'.

This avoids slanting with 'words to avoid', such as POV 'fairness' attribution for one side and not the other. 'Parallel' contruction applies not only to clauses, but also sentence structure. Generally, most public figures do not lie outright, but tell half-truths. In WP, the reason for using sources rather than original research is that the primary documents do not mean what they say alone, they mean what they say in context, and that is why we must lean on scholars. Editors are not called to adjudge one side as proposing something 'in order to be fair', for instance.

The usage of 'geared' may be too colloquial, but I got it okay. On making reference to presidential selection in the compromise paragraph, it was properly enumerated in both proposed plan summaries as salient, so reporting what the compromise did with each item is also worth addressing in the paragraph about the compromise. That being said, I agree with you that my sentence was awkward, it raised more issues than it answered, and it needs a rewrite. Move later. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:14, 3 June 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 20:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Criticism section

The following changes need to be made.

1. Re Sabato's comment re Supreme Court "judges" (they're referred to as "justices," but whatever): in the linked source he is referring to all federal judges, not simply supreme court justices. this should be clarified to avoid confusion.

2. When Sanford Levinson wonders whether it makes sense to give "Wyoming the same number of votes as California, which has roughly seventy times the population" it needs to be noted that he is talking about only the U.S. Senate, not the U.S. House of Representatives, which has proportional representation; thus, "the same number of votes" quote, as it is presented here, is misleading.

3. Most of the "criticisms" presented here are not actually criticisms of the Constitution itself, but rather criticisms of modern political behavior. A criticism of the Constitution itself would be, e.g., "it does not define due process" etc.

I suggest to the powers that be that this section be put to a vote for removal. it is a very low quality section.

174.53.141.63 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 01:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC). 

worldwide influence and translations

Reading into Billias as referenced, I was surprised to see the Gordon S. Wood theme of the US separating from Europeans...in the US case most directly, the US constitutions are placed by the people over the government in such a way as they cannot be changed by any sitting legislature. In the British government of the time, the constitution was whatever was passed in good form by Parliament and signed into law by the Crown. Part of the revolution between 1776 and 1783 was the realization that, in Jefferson's view, the people can be ruled by a tyranny of a group of men (a legislature elected by them) just as well as a hereditary king. ... as long as the old parliamentary system is adopted in multicultural nations, it allows a dominant faction (Fed.Paper#10) to oppress the others; no one will lay down arms until their grandchildren will be the English in the national scenario, and not the Irish, nor the Scots ... Did not the English cede an independent Ireland, did not Scotland gain local rule? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The four 19th Century men pictured are meant only to illustrate near contemporary advocates of constitutional democratic republics around the world, each holding ideas of a just society of individuals based on principles of practice other than race, religion, color or national origin. I do not pretend that any two of them in the same country would have joined the same political party. I only mean to show that they had a shared belief in nationalism, trust in the people, and appeals to orderly governance under a written constitution which can be read and understood by all, which is to be applied equally to all. In that, and in no particulars, they are alike in an intellectual tradition associated with the U.S. Constitutiion. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Then that's original research and can't be on Wikipedia because it violates WP:NOR. First of all, Lincoln doesn't need to be in that group because he's already an American and the section is about worldwide (i.e., international) influence. Second, unless you have a footnote for the three others indicating that their work was primarily influenced by the U.S. Constitution itself (as opposed to America in general), then you're making a first publication of an original synthesis by yourself, which is original research. Plus it looks like you're probably wrong. (You call yourself a "historian"?) For example, the Three Principles of the People were inspired generally by Lincoln's writings (such as the Gettysburg Address), not by the U.S. Constitution in particular. --Coolcaesar (talk) 15:21, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The WP biographies of each of the pictured men are linked to their WP articles.

First, the section about influence of the U.S. Constitution would include the man who preserved it. It was challenged in the mid nineteenth century, as was the Mexican. Lincoln and Juarez were mutually supporting actors. Please see Benito Juarez, scroll down to the external link, * Mexico's Lincoln: The Ecstasy and Agony of Benito Juarez. Juarez accepted military aid from Lincoln. He jailed the Confederate emissary. Lincoln is included among near-contemporaries to establish a real, documented connection, as opposed to a general speculation about coincidental phraseology. That’s what historians do. You have not cited any serious scholar to say there is no connection between two, or that neither has to do with constitutionalism derived from the U.S. Constitution.

The pictures lead the reader into the text as found in WP policy. The referenced scholar, George Athan Billias explains there is direct and indirect influence, and the American governance is not only held in the literal transcription of the Constitution’s text, but in six documents that he spends chapters explicating. I make no original synthesis. The text footnotes are found linked to [“American constitutionalism heard round the world, 1776-1989: a global perspective] NYU press 2009. George Athan Billias. Law. Winner of the 2010 Book Award from the New England Historical Association. Page xi – xv. You have not cited a scholar of repute which denies indirect influence nor one that repudiates Billias’ thesis on the connectedness in intellectual world history. The WP editor must read an entry before attempting a critique.

It is widely understood that America is based on the Constitution, not race or religion. There is no “America in general” without the Constitution. There is no such scholar “indicating that the entire body of work” among Juarez, Rizal and Sun are “primarily influenced by the U.S. Constitution itself”. Part of the discussion is the influence of these ideas in other cultures. There is to be nothing “primarily” to be found about the Constitution in the entire body of work by the poet novelist and sculptor, for instance. Although, come to think of it, when Rizal left his medical and philosophy study in Spain and took additional reading in Paris, France, and Heidelberg, Germany, the multi-22-linguist was exposed to professors who were “directly” influenced by the U.S. Constitution, so you may be interested in beginning this line of inquiry with his life in Paris. See David McCullough’s new book ‘’The Greater Journey’’ on foreigners learning in Paris. In the 19th Century, university was free, with a command of French, all that was needed was room and board.

At Sun Yat-sen, the reader sees an education acquired in Honolulu beyond the Gettysburg Address. Years in exile in Europe, America and Japan added to acquaintance beyond Lincoln, although one may speculate before undertaking some research. In the WP article’s external links, see Dr. Sun Yat-Sen Foundation of Hawaii A virtual library on Dr. Sun in Hawaii emphasizing his intellectual roots there, before it was America. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Now that the Gettysburg Address is recalled in this context, The U.S. gave the world “… a new nation, … dedicated … to the proposition that ‘all men are created equal’. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation so conceived … can long endure … It is for us … to … resolve … that this government … shall not perish from the earth.” Without Lincoln's preserving the nation, its Constitution would have had less influence internationally. None of the three 'foriegn' world-class intellects would have objected to including Abraham Lincoln with them as an examplar of egalitarian, republican, nationalist constitutionalism influenced by the U.S. Constitution. Unlike, say, an image of Jefferson Davis, regardless of similar phrasings found in the Confederate Constitution. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

That's the problem. Most of what you just said is wild rambling and sheer speculation. From having majored in history at the most prestigious public university in the United States, I can tell you if you were to write that in a history class at any top-tier university, you would be lucky to get a C- for poor research and sloppy interpretation of sources. The Billias book does address the global influence of the U.S. Constitution. But although it points out that Sun Yat-sen was influenced by the Gettysburg Address, it does not discuss any direct influence of the U.S. Constitution upon the Three Principles of the People. Furthermore, the connection between the Gettysburg Address and the Three Principles of the People is already mentioned in those articles (and in the case of the latter article, buttressed by a better source). And the Billias book also doesn't address Rizal or Juarez at all.

Under core content policy WP:NOR, this site cannot be the first publisher of original research. The burden is on the editor wishing to add assertions, especially ones making a first synthesis of disparate concepts (in this case the U.S. Constitution and political leader in different countries), to get a reliable source in which that assertion was first published. Is that policy an annoying pain in the neck? Of course. But that's what keeps Wikipedia reliable. And keep in mind Wikipedia is not a soapbox; see WP:NOT. --Coolcaesar (talk) 07:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Click on the Billias link. Search ‘Sun Yat-sen’. See page 309: Sun and his fellow constitutionalists were eclectic … interpreted in the context of Chinese history, customs, and traditions. p. 310: The 1946 Constitution reflected the American influence in other ways. The executive branch … judicial review … the American bill of rights tradition … the writ of habeas corpus … Look to the footnotes in the Billias text on the pages discussing Sun Yat-sen. We find Lawrence W. Beer. The link is there for all to read.

At Lawrence W. Beer, The influence of American constitutionalism in Asia, two chapters pertain: Republic of China: American influence on the formation of the constitution and constitutional law of the Republic of China: past history and future prospects by Herbert H.P. Ma, and The Philippines: The American constitutional impact on the Philippine legal system by Enrique M. Fernando. Real historians read footnotes and follow the sources.

I’ve added links for reader access to Billias, Beer, Farber, Lorey and Lucero, Malcolm, H.H.P. Ma, and Enrique M. Fernando. An expanded section might include J.B. Starr and Christopher J. Lee. It seems to matter very much to Caesar to challenge any assertion that the democratic republican ideal of governance might spread across continents, cultures and races. Fair enough, let us follow truth wherever it may lead us. What scholars are there to deny its influence? If there are not, then not. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:54, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, too much cut and paste. in the article footnotes, Li Quing Yu, Associate Professor of History at Nanjing University, People’s Republic of China, is quoted at some length. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:06, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Where can we find something on Billias without reference “at all” to Sun Yat-sen? Where is the life’s work of Sun Yat-sen reduced to a derivative of a two-minute speech, without influence from the U.S. Constitution? Jiffy Notes. Jiffy Notes are not admissible here.

Dear coolCaesar, Please avoid characterizing wikipedians with phrases such as ‘wild rambling’, ‘sheer speculation’, and ‘sloppy’. Some less collegial editors might see them as personal attacks. If you have no sources to contribute, editors will think you soapbox. As you well know from our alma mater, there is no shame in a C earned from any of the history faculty there. Please do not imply otherwise. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:54, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

After reading the Ma source and rereading Billias more carefully, I stand by my accurate criticism of your flawed understanding of those sources. Both Ma and Billias take pains to expressly point out that Sun's Three Principles were influenced only by the Gettysburg Address, but neither attempts to link the Three Principles directly to the U.S. Constitution, and it is simply wrong on your part to imply that they did that. Indeed, Billias expressly downplays such a connection at page 309: "Any resemblance to American constitutionalism consisted merely of certain parallels." By way of contrast, although the 1946 ROC Constitution did show clear American influence (while also referring to the Three Principles), that was because of the eclectic legal experience and training of its drafters, not because of Sun himself, who had died in 1925. Reading anything more into those sources is not only original research that is improper on Wikipedia, it is also teleological analysis bordering upon Whig history, which is simply unworthy of Wikipedia. To paraphrase Stanley Mosk's quote about the role of the judge (see the article on him for it), a historian takes the facts as they are and not as he might fervently wish them to be.--Coolcaesar (talk) 06:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

First of all, and most importantly, meeting coolCaesar’s recommendation to specifically cite documentation connecting each pictured individual with the U.S. Constitution in their work has improved the article. Thank you for your suggestion. There is no longer an objection to my sourced idea that indios Americans such as Juarez and Asians such as Rizal and Sun were influenced by the ideals of democratic republican constitutionalism. The charge that such an idea was novel to me alone in “wild rambling”, and unsubstantiated “sheer speculation” is withdrawn by his citing Ma in his last.

He relents in his earlier review of the literature, that nothing but my original research said Juarez, Rizal and Sun had any learning in the U.S. Constitution. He drops the foregone conclusion that no Asians were students of the U.S. Constitution, and that expression of such “disparate concepts” should be dismissed as “poor research”. This certitude in intellectual history is redolent of Leopold von Ranke’s historicism, where the only admissible historical evidence is directly linked to state documents. Wasn't he fired from his state job for being too democratic? My personal antidote in English translation is Fernand Braudel of the French Annales school to look at a larger social experience and exchanges of ideas in literature.

Asians have the capacity to read and have read on the subject of self-governance. They are competent to comprehend and have understood a wide literature. They have original thinkers who modified, not only western ideas, but multiple Asian intellectual traditions as well. Initially, the unsourced ad-hominem attack on my contribution seemed a sort of derivative Social Darwinism, which, although once fashionable at our alma mater in the 19th and early 20th Century, is no longer influential among the history faculty there. Thank you for reading into Ma. Please now see Li Quing Yu of Nanjing University, “The fact that Dr. Sun Yat-sen became a great revolutionary and thinker is inseparable from the influence of American democracy, especially the U.S. Constitution, upon him.” as cited in the notes.

Lincoln, Juarez, Rizal and Sun all sought an equitable rule of law within their own traditions, based on free, widely based national suffrage, and apart from any regional militia coercion, hidalgo encomienda, colonial oppression or feudal warlord. All of them believed in the possibility of “progress” over time, if by degrees, their people could move away from those antecedents of tyranny and oppression of the individual. Surely to describe those who believed there can be progress, the historian must describe the subjects' belief in “progress”.

There are distinctions among teleological histories of “progress”, Whig, Transcendental, Marxist, and others which in fact do qualify as wikipedia sources. I prefer authors working out 'contingency' to understanding personalities in their historical context. A third framework held by scholars used in wikipedia look to intellectual analysis by deconstruction. Each editor will have their 'druthers'. Historiographic source labeling is not crucial to Wikipedia editing, only good faith.

An editor need not personally adhere to a subject’s world view, only fairly represent it. The historian must not deny facts just because he fervently wishes they were not. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Relative to the article, it seems that coolCaesar and I have now narrowed our differences to relative emphasis on the origins of the “Three Principles of the People”. I concede that the three categories are derived from Lincoln, though expression of this and in constitutional writings “consisted merely of certain parallels”.

At the risk of being accused as 'wild' again due to the author's interest in literature, a source for the intellectual history of Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address can be found in Gary Wills’ book, “Lincoln at Gettysburg: the words that remade America” ISBN 0-671-867742-3 (PBK). Ideas from Bancroft, the Jacksonian Democrat, included “government by the people, not just for the republic” (Wills, p.46) More directly, the abolitionist transcendentalist, Theodore Parker, advocated “the American idea" of rights and equality, and “The idea demands for its organization, a democracy—a government of all, for all, and by all…” (Wills, p.107). See also Theodore Parker, legacies. Search on ‘Lincoln’. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

"Time for a Second Constitutional Convention?"

The ref No. 58 goes to Policy Today's article "Time for a Second Constitutional Convention?". However, the article does not include interview with Richard Labunski, but with Larry Sabato, and so it also does not mention anything about Labunski's views of the U.S. Constitution. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 15:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Expanded/corrected. Both Sabato and Labunski favor using Article V as a by-pass to existing state/federal restrictions of widespread resident/citizen/voter participation. Sabato wrote a favorable blurb on the cover of Labunski's book. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for a really quick response. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 20:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Re-organization of article

• The general guideline for reorganization was to place general discussion above paraphrased text. No altering or deleting of contribution wording was made in this edit.
• A new == level category were made for 'Operation and modification' to include amendment, judicial review and criticism.
• Elements were moved by entire sections with one exception. The general discussion on amending constitution was taken out of 'successful amendments' and moved up to the new "Operation" section verbatum. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:27, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that isn't logical. It does not make sense to discuss the "operation and modification", impact, and translations before explaining what the damned thing says. It is also perplexing to discuss criticisms of the document before discussing the document. Finally, it is barely tolerable that something as trivial as misspellings is above the document, but postage stamps? Seriously? At the very least, this is the sort of change that would more appropriately have been discussed here first. -Rrius (talk) 06:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, let's discuss it. My starting point is that the paraphrasing found here on "United States Constitution" is a well written resource that makes the U.S. Constituton accessible. It is exemplary. Everything in the article besides the paraphrase ought to drive the internet surfer into the paraphrase-text. A wall of the text alone will not do that.

One reason for putting any other words or pictures in at all, besides the paraphrase, is to give the general reader a motivation to take in the actual paraphrase-text. To develop an understanding of a document, to give its words meaning, this includes giving a context relative to its adoption, its use and its significance.

Another reason for expanding on the paraphrase-text alone, is that an encyclopedia article should be more than a transliteration from 1700s British colonial legalese into 21st Century American. That would be a title in a documents compendium, a different literary enterprise. How am I doing so far? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:34, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

"Everything in the article besides the paraphrase ought to drive the internet surfer into the paraphrase-text." Really? I disagree and don't see the logic in that. This is an article about the United States Constitution. It should explain why it was written, what it says, and what place it holds in the world. In an article called "United States Constitution", it is absurd to put the part that explains what the Constitution says at the end. If "one reason for putting any other words or pictures in at all, besides the paraphrase, is to give the general reader a motivation to take in the actual paraphrase-text," the most important reason is to explain what the Constitution says. That should happen before, not after, explaining its use.

You have a strange fixation on motivating people to read what you keep calling the "paraphrase". That is irrational. If people come to this article, presumably they either want to know about the Constitution. There is no need to motivate them to do anything. Frankly, if they don't want to read the "paraphrase", they will. If they don't, they'll skip it. Our concern is not whether a la carte readers are motivated to read what you think they should read. Instead, the organization of the article should provide a logical treatment of the topic for the reader who chooses to read the article from beginning to end. A logical treatment is one where article builds on itself as it goes, not one in which the middle "motivates" readers to continue on.

Finally, your last paragraph doesn't make much sense. You say that the article should be more than a "transliteration" from the original test to modern English. The article already is, so it is completely unclear what the hell you are trying to say. What's more, the section is more than a "transliteration" or "paraphrase". It is an explanation of what the various parts do, which is essential to the article. If you took that out, people who didn't know anything about what the Constitution says would take nothing from this article. As for "How am I doing so far?", I have no idea what that is supposed to mean, so I reserve comment. -Rrius (talk) 20:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The article should explain “why the Constitution was written, what it says, and what place it holds in the world. “ You do agree, and you see the logic, and you adopt the same analysis. We are good there. We agree on the general scope of an encyclopedia article. We agree misspellings are not as important as the Preamble.

I will substitute “restatement” for paraphrase, as it seems to offend. No need to explain. There are so many backgrounds among Americans, the definition of a gentleman here is “someone who never knowingly gives offense. “ Along that line, I love reasoning, I read some philosophy and logic in college and since. Would you do me a courtesy in this discussion, drop the word “absurd”? Don’t worry about labels, just reason, and trust to the good faith and “natural light of reason” in others. I’ve supported you before, and I will again, regardless of the outcome here.

Chronological sequence should not prohibit other kinds of article organization. The Constitution as a document has its own integrity which stands apart from the context narrative. The guiding rationale I propose is that article context should appear before the document restatement.

The logic of chronological events should not trump communication, regardless of audience. For another way of looking at editing, see WP:AUDIENCE. An alternative logic would place the context before the document. The Wikipedia guide is, “Make your article accessible and understandable for as many readers as possible.” We can evaluate the context we have built in an article by asking, “Can people tell what the article is about if the first page is printed out and passed around?” The context should be placed on top.

Splitting the context above and below the document may be appropriate in a kind of newspaper style. That would place less important items at the bottom. But here the rule is WP:MOS, which is governed by the logic of a more academic audience as found in The Chicago Manual of Style, Hart's Rules and The MLA Style Manual. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I concur with Rrius that the current structure is the clearer arrangement---first, here's what fed into the Constitution; second, here's a summary of its key provisions; third, here's the impact of the Constitution. It's a simple causality structure. --Coolcaesar (talk) 15:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

You say you agree with me when I say the article should explain "why the Constitution was written, what it says, and what place it holds in the world," but you take that to be simply a list of what should be in the article rather than what the order in which it should be, which is what was clearly intended. The logical order Coolcaesar and I propose does far more for the audience than does yours. You don't like the word "absurd", so instead I'll say that your opinion that it isn't all that important to discuss what the document actually says anywhere near the beginning of the article is astounding. Nothing in MOS says your position is correct, and none of the others is relevant. The structure that I support, the one that has been around for a while now, is repeated throughout Wikipedia. This is not a complex topic. A nice, boring chronological structure is what best communicates this topic to readers. -Rrius (talk) 16:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Charters of Freedom webpage at the National Archives and Records Administration is precisely coolCaesar’s argument. “Making of the Charters”, The Charters”, and “Impact of the Charters” is the order of the exhibits as we file by left to right. Without another editor to join me to advocate Context - document organization, he has persuaded me to relent for now. And, the National Archives webpage has given me a couple of ideas to expand our Wikipedia article.

I think I may see my disconnect with Rrius. I see discussion here as collegial exchange. But in the case of a debate, the affirmative says a) there is a need. b) here is a workable plan. c) good things will follow its adoption. The negative side says a) there is no need. b) the plan cannot work. c) worse things will follow if we try.

Rrius seems to take a debater’s stance. He can deny my addressing our disagreement only by ignoring my paragraph 3,4,5. Then somehow while we agree on the WP style for an introduction, I am misrepresented as deleting the introduction. I would not, see my earlier article edit. If I do not make an answer in my allotted rebuttal time, the debate judge will score an unanswered point for Rrius. (Un)fortunately, by the debate analogy, our discussion is a wash, since Rrius did not deny my WP:MOS point that there is an audience. The judges score card will say that for the purposes this debate, editors write for an audience (buzzer, time called).

Here is the difference. In a discussion, coolCaesar made an argument; he spent not a word denigrating mine. He drove me into research for evidence to support my point of view. I discovered that for now, the example of subject organization I found supports his argument. On the other hand, Rrius seemed to spill a lot of ink to pin my ears back with mischaracterizations and punishing declamation. I don’t get it. But I still maintain that Rrius has made good contributions, and he will again. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 00:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Ummm, all CC said was this: "I concur with Rrius that the current structure is the clearer arrangement---first, here's what fed into the Constitution; second, here's a summary of its key provisions; third, here's the impact of the Constitution. It's a simple causality structure." That is a restatement of what I said. The paragraph after that is what I said. So before you spout insulting drivel like those last four paragraphs, maybe you should try... You know what, never mind. You are taking huge offense to nothing, so I'm not going to waste any more time on you. -Rrius (talk) 03:06, 3 August 2011 (UTC)