Talk:Constitution of the United States/Archive 2

How many words?

How many words are in the Constitution before amendment? How many with the amendments?

I count 4309 in the Philadelphia text, 2958 in the amendments – not counting labels like "Article N", "section N", and not counting the last paragraph "Done in Convention ...." or the signatures. —Tamfang 22:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

ALERT: WRONG CONSTITUTION!

Hey, you guys are talking about the wrong constitution. You are calling it "The Constitution of the United States" instead of the correct title "The Constitution for The United States of America".
If you ever go into court and use "The Constitution of the United States" you will loose, plain and simple. Because by calling it "The Constitution of the United States" you have established the fact that it was created by the United States. THEY CAN DO WHATEVER THEY WANT TO DO WITH SOMETHING THEY CREATED!!!

NarrowPathPilgrim 10:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Whatever. I'd link to an article that explains what this guy's talking about, but he'd probably mess it up. Gazpacho 10:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Gazpacho, a quick google search will give you links to articles on this subject, here is one I found in a few seconds of searching! NarrowPathPilgrim 10:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

A wacky conspiracy rant on a Liechtenstein website. Now that's authoratative! Deli nk

Narrowpath is incorrect. The US Congress - the authority in this matter - states that it is the Constitution OF the United States of America. The following is the link that should settle this:

Constitution of the United States

The constitution of X is that which constitutes X; thus it cannot be made by X. While it's true that you'll generally lose if you stand on the rights that the BoR purports to defend, it's not because you used the wrong magic formula, it's because the courts are controlled by members of an interest group known as Government. —Tamfang 21:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:United States Constitution ratification vote

Template:United States Constitution ratification vote has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:United States Constitution ratification vote. Thank you. —Mark Adler (markles) 18:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Preamble interpretation

I reverted the following (actually Bkonrad beat me to it, but anyway):

The Preamble is expressive of the purpose of the United States government which is intended to be an incorporation (corporation) of the will of the people and hence provides for extensive power by that public Corporation of the people (US Government) to do all that is 'necessary and proper' to establish equal Justice, provide for the defense of the Union, promote economic expansion and industry (See American System of Capitalism), and to secure Liberty (the right to do all you wish to do so long as you do no harm to others) for the Citizens (We the People) of the country. The preamble, especially the first three words ("We the people"), is one of the most quoted and referenced sections of the Constitution.

Interpreting the preamble may be appropriate for this article if such an interpretation is based on the actual words of the preamble itself. The interpretation provided by the anonymous poster doesn't fall into that category. The preamble has no reference to the words "corporation", "incorporation", and "necessary and proper", "industry", "economic expansion", "citizens" (although that is in the constitution, it's in article I, not the preamble). Furthermore, such loaded terms as "justice" and "liberty" should probably not be interpreted by half a sentence in parantheses, nor should they be linked to general WP articles about the term without qualification. Hence, it was my opinion that this interpretation is wholly inadequate for WP and therefore subject to removal. If anyone disagrees, please let me know here. I'd especially like to hear from the original author what his or her thoughts were when producing this. sebmol 19:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The above preamble exlanation was badly worded I admit. But the intention was to display what the meaning of each phrase meant. In particular the phrase 'to promote the general Welfare' has much meaning if you read the Founders on this. It was an economic point made. The Confederate constitution did not contain that clause because it infered(sic) that the Federal government was created in part to ensure that Industry, Commerce, and Agriculture (read Hamilton one of the men who helped write the Constitution and one of the authors of the Federalist Papers) could be promoted by the government using protective tariffs, subsidies or bounties as it were, and other devices including and not limited to a Bank of the United States to establish credit and so on. There is a long tradition of 'promoting the general Welfare' going back to the ideas of the Renaissance. NORTHMEISTER

I resubmitted an edit in the preamble updating my language, check it and see what you think. I want it to remain neutral but represent the Founder's intentions based on what they read and wrote, including the major work of Vattel on international law. -NORTHMEISTER

The problem with the interpretation you provided isn't just a question of wording. The problem I see with it is that it tries to infer an interpretation in a certain way. Especially, the usage of words not contained in the preamble like 'corporation' (which has a very distinct legal meaning) needs to be in a very careful manner. If you believe that the interpretation you provide is correct, you have got to cite specific sources that acknowledge that. Redefining the word 'union' as 'corporation', for example, is not warranted unless you have some other reputable source that did so.

Another problem I find is with the interpretation "to secure liberty for the citizens of the country" with wiki links to the generic articles for "liberty", "citizen", and "country". The Constitution at many different places makes a distinction between people and citizens which have led to many still standing precedents that people who are not citizens still have certain rights under the constitution (most notably the right to due process). Furthermore, the understanding of the term "liberty" for example as meant in the preamble may or may not entail everything the Liberty article. Providing an unqualified link just to Liberty alone is inappropriate and misleading, in my opinion. I'm going to revert your addition and hope that we can come to some sort of agreement here before posting back into the original article. sebmol 07:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

You bring up excellent points and I accept your reasoning behind not linking to generic articles on Liberty for example, the link to country was appropriate because the Constitution is intended for the United States of America and not for elsewhere, on "Citizens" I also accept your argument as legitimate as you make an excellent point about due process. The explanation there, now, is inadequate concerning the preamble as per the Supreme Court's decisions concerning its intent. The preamble is loaded with symbolic and meaningful words especially for the time it was written. One of the reasons the Confederate States of America took out the words 'promote the general Welfare' was because the meanings intention was very well known to the early generations of Americans as the expressive power of the Federal government to promote and protect the economy as expressed later on in the Constitution with specific delegated powers to "lay and collect imposts, duties...", "promote useful arts and sciences", etc. So the reverted explanation is lacking. It was a grant of very general purposes and powers on the specific purposes of the Constitution and nation. Essentially this part of the article should outline the phrases and their meaning more clearly to modern readers, so as to understand them. I do agree with your revert for now. I would like to work with you on the proper wording for neutrality, clearness, cites and to ensure an accurate explanation beyond what exists at present and what I posted. --Northmeister 12:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Who's this 141.156.208.66 guy?!

the following is copied from the 2nd Amendment discussion page

Seems to be some kind of anti-gun rights troll; if you look at his list of contributions, has gone on a rampage changing many gun-related pages into gun control blather. I vote he be banned.

Dullfig 05:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

AHA!! reverse dns lookup points to www.bradymail.com. Cute. Real cute. These guys don't give up. Typical left wing stuff, can't discuss issues on the merits, have to go vandalizing. I'm not surprised. Dullfig 06:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Yabbut try whois bradymail.com — it's Brady Corporation of Milwaukee, not the Brady Campaign to Monopolize Gun Violence. —Tamfang 06:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

This is a sockpuppet for mail.bradymail.org (141.156.208.66) using traceroute. His IP should be banned. Yaf 16:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

and, oops, bradymail.org (unlike bradymail.com) is connected with the Entity Formerly Known As National Coalition to Ban Handguns (see whois). —Tamfang 19:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

end of copied comments from Second Amendment discussion page Yaf 15:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Lets stop the edit war and discuss the 2nd Amendment portion, or else ban the 141.156.208.66 IP, as multiple editors have had to undo the repeated vandalism caused by this bradymail.org computer again and again and again. Text including the claim of "unincorporated" has been included, and referenced in the current text. Yet this individual continues to attempt to re-write history. Yaf 21:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Where is John Hancock?

I am puzzled because when I look at the Constitution on other sites, his signature is very clear...however the version shown on WIKI doesn't show his signature. The signatures ,in fact, all look different. WHats' up with that?

Have you tried this document? --69.115.162.232 02:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

That was me

asking about why the pictures of Constitution look different on different sites (where's John Hancock?) I am serious and hope somebody answers me. Thanks

Second Amendment POV removed

I have removed lengthy and argumentative POV comments from the heading for the Second Amendment. There is a separate article dealing just with the Second Amendment, and that is the place for a detailed explanation of the law relating to this amendment. Many other amendments have much more case law clarifying their legal effect, but they all have just a sentence or two in this article. I do not believe it is appropriate for this amendment to have a much longer description. In addition, the tone of the removed material, which described one position as persons who seek to "abolish private ownership of guns in America" and described another position as being supported by "scholarly research" was not neutral. The separate article on the Second Amendment is the appropriate place to go into the debate on the scope and effect of the Second Amendment Kmorford 18:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Have reverted the deletion. There is considerable debate on the content of the 2A in the 2A article. However, there is also a need here for discussion of the 2A relative to the rest of the Constitution. The two cover different material related to the 2A. Yaf 18:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted the reversion of the deletion, and will continue to do so. The deleted material is not consistent with Wikipedia guidelines. If anyone wants to take this to dispute resolution, I will be happy participate in that process. Kmorford 22:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of major sections arrived at through a lengthy period of edits by numerous edits is vandalism, or borders on it. Have reverted back to the unvandalized version. Yaf 02:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Nonetheless, have attempted to address your argumentative POV concerns, in the latest edit. (The 2nd Amendment article goes more into just the 2nd Amendment; this section, in the US Constitution, addresses more the interactions of the Amendments at the Constitutional level, and the ramification of whether or not incorporation of the 2A has yet occurred.) Yaf 06:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The deletions I have made make the section dealing with the Second Amendment consistent (in length and style) with the sections dealing with the other amendments in the bill of rights. That is not vandalism, it is an improvement of the article. There is no reason why the relationship of the Second Amendment to other parts of the constitution cannot be dealt with in the separate article on the Second Amendment. The small edit you did on one phase did not even come close to removing the objectionable POV problems with the removed sections. Even if you fixed all of the objectionable parts, it would still not be appropritate for inclusion in this article. Put it in the separate article. Here is the removed section, with the objectionable POV parts in capitalized letters.

Current case law, including the few U.S. Supreme Court decisions, tends to assert that the "right of the people to keep and bear Arms" is an individual right but not an absolute right, and that the states and federal government may omit certain classes of people from the general-public sense of the "militia" for cause, such as criminal record, youth or senility, or mental incapacity, and may limit the types of weapons to which the right applies. The Supreme Court first examined the Second Amendment in United States v. Cruikshank (1875), ruling that the right to keep and bear arms, being recognized but not created by the Second Amendment, is not conditional on United States citizenship and thus is not one of the "privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" binding on the member States under the Fourteenth Amendment. (SUCH AN ARGUMENT HAS RARELY IF EVER BEEN APPLIED TO OTHER CLAUSES.)

As a result of the scarcity of case law, SOME WHO SEEK TO ABOLISH PRIVATE OWNERSHIP OF GUNS IN AMERICA HAVE CLAIMED that the Second Amendment is "unincorporated" and hence does not apply to the states. However, SOME SCHOLARS dispute the relevance of this claim; "The almost total incorporation of the Bill of Rights lends support to the theory that incorporation of the Second Amendment is inevitable," according to Regina McClendon of the Public Law Research Institute, in a paper published in 1994. [1] STILL, THIS, AND OTHER LEGAL RESEARCH, DOES NOT PREVENT SOME ANTI-GUN ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS FROM CONTINUING TO CLAIM THAT THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS SOMEHOW INVALID THROUGH VIRTUE OF NOT HAVING YET BEEN FULLY INCORPORATED THROUGH THE CREATION OF A SIGNIFICANT BODY OF CASE LAW AND FULL INCORPORATION INTO THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.

HOWEVER, FOR A DEEPER UNDERSTANDING, ONE MUST LOOK TO Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), before the US Supreme Court in a Fourteenth Amendment case. In the decision for this case, Justice Goldberg wrote a concurring opinion that, "While the Ninth Amendment - and indeed the entire Bill of Rights - originally concerned restrictions upon federal power, the subsequently enacted Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the States as well from abridging fundamental personal liberties. And, the Ninth Amendment, in indicating that not all such liberties are specifically mentioned in the first eight amendments, is surely relevant in showing the existence of other fundamental personal rights, now protected from state, as well as federal, infringement." HENCE THE STATES ARE PROHIBITED FROM ABRIDGING PERSONAL LIBERTIES AS WELL AS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT RELATIVE TO THE SECOND AMENDMENT, BEING THAT THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS PART OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS. [2]

Then edit per your concerns, don't just delete an entire section, arrived at through consensus over many months among editors. Have reverted deletion en masse. Yaf 13:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I have been and will continue to edit per my concerns. My concerns are twofold, first that the section contains extensive POV commentary, and second that it is far too detailed and lengthy for this particular article. There is not consensus regariding the material I have been removing, as I am not first or only person who has removed it. Subject to the three reversion rule, which you will eventually get caught by if you are not careful, I intend to continue to remove the objectionable material. Wikipedia guidelines call for this dispute to be resolved through talk if at all possible, or through dispute resolution mechanisms if talk does not work. So far, you have not had any principled or reasonable response to my point that there is extensive POV material, or that there is another article which is more appropriate for the material which is being deleted. If you are not willing to talk about these issues, I will invoke another dispute resolutuion mechanism. Kmorford 18:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I actually agree with this reasoning. The 2nd amendment portion is unproportionally long and detailed for this article. An extensive discussion should be in included in the 2nd amendment article proper with a short reference to it here. sebmol 18:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Kmorford is right, this should be a short entry like every other amendment entry. Debates about the amendment belong on the amendment's own discussion page, not this page. Do not worry about Yaf's accusation that you vandalized the page. The material deleted was not "arrived at through consensus over many months among editors." It was added without any debate despite the work of many editors to produce a concise, clearly NPOV article. The entry is also wrong - many courts have ruled on the Second Amendment and they have overwhelmingly held that it is not an individual right. The Supreme Court, 1st, 3rd, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th and 11th Circuits have all held that it is not an individual right, while a 5th Circuit panel split 2-1 to hold that it is. But this also is better suited to the discussion pages, not the page on the Constitution. Also, it is simply a fact that the Second Amendment has not been incorporated. Citing one person's opinion from 12 years ago that it may soon be incorporated may be worth the discussion page, but not the main page.

Suspending the Constitution

I am curious if there's any situation where the U.S. Constitution can be suspended and the U.S. could go into another form of government to deal with an emergency. An example would be would the Constitution have been suspended if the U.S. ever was attacked by nuclear weapons during the Cold War and thus being drawn into World War III. Also, if there is was ever a terrorist attack on Washington D.C., wher the entire Congress was killed, could the Constitution be declared in abeyance. "The Handmaid's Tale" is a book that references the Constitution being suspended, but is that really true? Could it happen? -Husnock 20:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The text itself doesn't really provide for something like that. A very small number of civil rights can be suspended during wartime but the general functioning of the government as described by the constitution can't change. If there was a major disaster (e.g. a nuclear weapon hits DC without warning and eliminates most of the federal government), I would imagine that the states would conduct new elections for a new Congress, the next Person in line becomes President and appoints new Justices, Judges and Secretaries (probably recess appointments until a new Senate is elected) and a barrage of legal cases would make its way through the federal judiciary testing whether all of this was legal.

Since military command is fairly decentraliced in the US and since each state has its own national guard, a suitable military response could be engaged in even if the federal government is inoperable. The constitution gives states the right, for example, to engage in war activities if they have been invaded and no other recourse is available. Also, much more of the day-to-day "running of the country" is done on the state and local level, which would be largely unaffected by such an event.

But, to answer your question directly: no, the constitution doesn't have any provision to allow for its suspension. sebmol 20:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

That's an awesome answer. It probably should be put into the article somehow. Maybe either directly or into a new article about radical changes to the U.S. government. -Husnock 21:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Tom Clancy explored this in Executive Orders. In that book, most of the federal government is wiped out when a Japanese pilot crashes an airliner into the Capitol Building.

Jack Ryan, who was made VP just before the attack, assumes the Presidency and governs via executive orders.

Realistically speaking, it would be almost impossible to wipe out the entire federal government, largely because its never really assembled together at once. During States of the Union, for example, a member of the President's cabinet is randomly chosen to be ushered away to a secure location. I believe some members of Congress are also hidden away.

Now, if *somehow* the entire government were wiped out, the Constitution still wouldn't be suspended. I'd imagine the state governors would assume control and maintain order until emergency Congressional elections could be held. I say Congressional elections, because Presidential ones wouldn't really be needed, because whoever is chosen as the new Speaker of the House would automatically become President. After that, he or she could then just appoint a new cabinet and whamo, solid provincial government until more elections could be held, since the Congressmen elected would probably just finish out the terms of the people they replaced.--Kross^Talk 03:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Fun facts about the text

I included a list of facts about the the words in the document. It is interesting to see which things were specifically contemplated. John wesley 14:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

John Wesley, I removed that list of fun facts because I did not think they were encyclopaedic in nature and thus do not belong in this article. Since you reverted it back I would like to hear what others think of this before removing them again. I do not dispute the accuracy of your data but like I said, I feel they have no place in this article.--Kalsermar 14:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I thought this was an article on the text itself. If there is already a separate article on the text then these facts should go there. John wesley 14:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC) There are some quirky stuff in the text, like the one about natural born citizens, except we will make sure that Alexander Hamilton will unambiguously qualify. John wesley 14:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

It is funny you should mention that particular one as it illustrates exactly what I mean. Saying The text allows for non-natural born citizens to become president, but because he must have been alive in 1789, he would need to be very old now hardly raises the quality of this encyclopaedic article. This is an article on the Constitution of the United States and such "facts" are not what one would expect in a serious encyclopaedia but more on a "useless facts website" of which there are plenty.--Kalsermar 15:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, do we have an article like that yet? John wesley 17:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC) Maybe then we should split off these odd facts. :) John wesley 17:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Removed list of trivia; it is non-encyclopedic and is cruft that doesn't belong anywhere in the current article. Yaf 17:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Conclusion of the United States Constitution

Why was the conclusion section removed? It is part of the Constitution.

"Undemocratic Nature of the Constitution" in the Criticism section

The first criticsm from Beard contains no explanation of how the non-democratic nature of the states actually affected how the constitution was written, and the second contains no explanation of substantiation of any kind. I'm not familiar with Beard's book, but someone who is should expand on those arguments or else they should be removed or replaced. Ddye 17:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Have removed this addition, as it appears to be an historical fringe POV with no recent references. Yaf 20:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Restored the Criticism section

First, the section should be called "criticism" -- after all, that's what is there. Second, I have added a link to the book, so if you are unfamiliar with with, here is your chance to get familiar. Third, what does "recent" have to do with anything? Once upon a time there lived x and x wrote the following___________. That's what encyclopedias do: they catalogue all sorts of facts. Fourth, if this is removed, there will be nothing to expand on. Skovoroda 20:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Writers' Section

This article needs a list of the writters. I don't see this anywhere...

Text variations

I'm thinking about writing something on the variations between the various text copies of the Constitution. Or is there already an existing article on this subject? Should this subject be a section of the main article or a seperate article? Any suggestions for a title? And finally, anyone else want to join in either on the writing or with some source material? MK2 16:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Right to Overthrow?

I known this sounds stupid, but I've heard of something in either the Constitution or the Bill of Rights where if the goverment fails to provide/protect the rights of the people then they have the right to remove it from power and install a new one. I know that sounds far out, but I've heard it multiple times. Anyone know where its from?

I was just thinking earlier, the way this country is going downhill I'm surprised nobody's invoked it yet (like the current gov't would just step aside anyways). Ghostalker 03:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• There's nothing in the Constitution giving the people the right to overthrow the government. The closest thing to that is Article 5, which along with the procedure for making amendments, also outlines the procedure for calling a new convention to rewrite the Constitution. You need to have two thirds of the state legislatures call for a convention; then have the amended Constitution approved by either a three quarters vote at the Convention or by three quarters of the states. MK2 04:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

You may be thinking of New Hampshire's Constitution which includes a "Right of Revolution", however that has nothing to do with the Federal one. 68.39.174.238 03:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

About the Above

Yes. I believe it is stated in the Declaration of Independence. But it is most deffinately not "far out." It is one of the most powerful statements in the whole of those documents, as important as "all men are created equal" and others. It gave us our reason for splitting off from England. And if the US ever becomes a government not of the people, we have the stated right to over throw it and create an new one in it's place. Please tell me most people know this. Nothing against you if you just didn't know... but WHO the Heck taught you???????? They didn't do a good job. :( You need to speak to them about this. (Edit: I'm sorry. I was just shocked. You sound smart, it's just that everyone should know this, especially if you're american. if you're not, forgive my out burst.)

You "believe" it is in the Declaration of Independence, or you "know"? You guys should do less wondering and more researching. Provide links that back up your accuracy; educate yourselves in the process. It's not so difficult to Google, instead of taking the sweeping step of questioning a person's education, which did nothing for the soundness of your "belief." We're all responsible for educating each other; how about that? --DavidShankBone 17:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Bricker Amendment

For some time I have been working on revisions to the Bricker Amendment article. I finally posted it and have a PR at Wikipedia:Peer review/Bricker Amendment/archive1. I'd welcome comments. I know all those references may seem extravagant, but I'm hoping to get it as an FA and those voters want lots of footnotes. PedanticallySpeaking 16:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Blackhole in WP Con Law Pages

As a law student, I know that there are different levels of scrutiny in reviewing violations of the Bill of Rights. I don't see these spelled out anywhere on WP. If they exist, can somebody point me to them? If they do not, this should be an article that gets created. After all, it's fundamental to every S.C. review of violations to the Bill of Rights. Unfortunately, I have my hands full at the moment. --DavidShankBone 18:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Ratified by "The People" or "the States"?

This is a serious question that was directly addressed in McCulloch v. Maryland, a binding decision of the United States Supreme Court. John Marshall emphatically and unequivocally stated that the Constitution was ratified by the people, not state governments. The distinction is subtle but important. It is true that there was considerable overlap between the identities of state delegates and state legislators, but that is no argument against what follows. Please read and consider the following very carefully if you think that there is any doubt that "We the People" refers to the people assembling in their states, not the state governments acting as sovereign entities.

...the counsel for the State of Maryland have deemed it of some importance, in the construction of the constitution, to consider that instrument as not emanating from the people, but as the act of sovereign and independent states... it would be difficult to sustain this proposition. The Convention which framed the constitution was indeed elected by the state legislatures. But the instrument, when it came from their hands, was a mere proposal, without obligation, or pretentions to it. It was then reported to the then existing Congress of the United States, with a request that it might "be submitted to a convention of delegates, chosen in each state by the people thereof, under the recommendation of its legislature, for their assent and ratification." This mode of proceeding was adopted; and by the convention, by Congress, and by the state legislatures, the instrument was submitted to the people. They acted on it in the only manner in which they can act safely, effectively, and wisely, on such a subject, by assembling in convention. It is true, they assembled in their several states -- and where else should they have assembled? No political dreamer was ever wild enough to think of breaking down the lines which separate the states, and of compounding the American people into one common mass. Of consequence, when they act, they act in their states. But the measures they adopt do not, on that account, cease to be measures of the people themselves, or become the measures of state governments.

From these conventions the constitution derives its whole authority. The government proceeds directly from the people; is "ordained and established" in the name of the people; and is declared to be ordained, "in order to form a more perfect union..." The assent of the states, in their sovereign capacity, is implied in calling a convention, and thus submitting that instrument to the people. But the people were at perfect liberty to accept or reject it; and their act was final. It required not the affirmance, and could not be negatived, by the state governments. The constitution, when thus adopted, was of complete obligation, and bound the State sovereignties. The government of the Union, then,... is, emphatically, and truly, a government of the people. In form and substance it emanates from them. Its powers are granted by them, and are to be exercised directly on them, and for their benefit." (emphasis added)

Argyrios 23:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Wording of introduction re State Sovereignty not clear

The introduction notes "When delegates in nine states of the then thirteen states ratified the document, it marked the creation of a union of sovereign states, and a federal government to administer that union." I'm reading that, and it can mean either two things: 1) that the states were sovereign prior to the the union, or 2) that the states were sovereign prior to their union and that the Union is composed of states that retain that sovereignty.

If 1) is correct, the sentence should be reworded as "When delegates in nine states of the then thirteen sovereign states ratified the document, it marked the creation of a sovereign Union of states, and a federal government to administer that Union."

If 2) is correct, the sentence should be reworded as "When delegates in nine states of the then thirteen sovereign states ratified the document, it marked the creation of a union of states which retained their sovereignty, and a federal government to administer that union."

Based on the article body, I believe that 1) is the correct interpretation. Patiwat 20:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

No. Actually it is 3) the states were sovereign prior to the union, the Union is composed of states that retain their sovereignty, and the Union has its own sovereignty as well (albeit restricted to just the limited rights defined in the Constitution), and all other rights are retained either by the states (which remain sovereign) or by the citizens (who are also sovereign in their enumerated and unenumerated rights.) For example, it is possible to be a US Citizen and not be a Citizen of a State. Such a person would have rights to a US Passport, for example, but would not have a claim to a right reserved to a citizen of any particular state. For example, consider citizens in Puerto Rico, or in D.C.; they fall into this category. Yaf 04:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

magna whata?

I don't really know what I would write for wikipedia, but hopefully someone will pick this up. Just a little note about the U.S. Constitution being influenced greatly by the Iroquois Confederacy. There is no mention of that at all in the article that exists now, and I think it is seriously lacking because of that oversight. All in all it is a good explanation of the Constitution but if you are going to mention the Magna Carta and the Dutch, then you HAVE to include the Iroquois who had one of the world's oldest democracies and I would say greatly influenced the structure of our own.

Write a new Constitution

The population of the United States has passed 300 million souls, therefore, a new Constitution is needed to handle the large number of people. The present Constitution was written when the population included slaves and slaveowners. Fewer than four million souls existed; only 13 states existed; England was a threat; cotton was not a cash crop of importance; and so on. Things have changed and values have been re-ordered. Get busy, Congress! GhostofSuperslum 16:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Not a Blog

The above comments do not relate to the article and should be deleted as vandalism, preferably by the contributor. This is not a blog. rewinn 16:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

It is related because the present Constitution is decrepit and is unsuited to addressing the needs of the people who have over-populated the present nation. George Washington did not believe in "racial integration," "same-sex marriages" and similar hot-button topics. Modern residents of the United States have accepted such things. A new Constitution would define those activities as being legal (they had been illegal in the past). Give that old Constitution the boot. GhostofSuperslum 19:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect. The article is United States Constitution, not Reasons for Changing United States Constitution. If you want to discuss a new constitution, wikipedia is not the place for it. In addition, advocacy of racism is against wikiPolicy. rewinn 22:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I did not submit any rumors, I wrote down some pertinent facts, as:

• A Slaves and slaveowners existed in 1787 when the Constitution was produced. (Over 1,000 slaveowners and over 500,000 slaves existed in 1787)
• B Fewer than four million people lived in the United States in 1787. That is a fact which has no connection to "racism" or to a "blog."
• C England was a threat; and very little cotton was being produced. The "Constitution" brought together different types of people who pledged to fight as one unit against England. Since England is no longer a threat anymore (the United States owns thousands of atomic bombs), there is no reason for the original "Constitution." The original United States no longer exists. GhostofSuperslum 13:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Repeat: Not a Blog

None of the above has anything to do with improving the article. rewinn 05:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed.

Not convinced

Saying "not a blog" is not an argument. With the publication of this book, there is very recent and serious scholarship on the subject of re-writing the Constitution. The editors here might want to take it seriously. I'm not saying that a section on this should necessarily be included, but the page would profit from the debate and I'm not hearing anything too impressive from the "not a blog" crowd. Argyrios 02:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Study wikiPolicy

"Not a blog" is shorthand for "wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a bulletin board for discussing what-ever may enter your head". None of the "New Constitution" content has anything to do with improving the article United States Constitution so it does not belong here. If you want to start an article New Constitution for the United States then that's where the discussion should be. rewinn 05:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Article content

Yes, Wikipedia is not a blog. But, if there is actual discussion about re-writing the Constitution in academic, polotical, or legal circles, then I think it should be mentioned in the article, as long as it is notable. In addition to the book cited above, there is also [this one], and also Bagehot's classic criticisms in The English Constitution. The current "Criticism" section of this article is ridiculous, there is plenty of room for improvement. --JW1805 (Talk) 15:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, now you're changing the subject --- which is fine. The original "Rewrite" material in Talk:United States Constitution was polemical matter of no relevance to the article. If, however, you are suggesting updating the Criticism section of the article to incorporate contemporary crticism, there is no problem with that ... except it should reflect relevant scholarship, of which little or none has been cited so far. In particular:

• The Lazare work in User talk:JW1805 is not by a constitutional scholar or even a lawyer, but a freelance journalist who writes about race, drugs, and urban policy.
• The English Constitution is about the English constitution
• Someone upthread referenced a book crticizing the constituion but nothing in that article referred to a re-writing; at most, an amending AFAIK. It's a valid concept but, again, this talk page is not the place for polemical discussion as to the advisability even of amendments; Talk is about the Article. Is that a difficult concept? rewinn 20:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not advocating polemical discussion (I didn't see the original material and am not advocating it be put back, I just jumped into this discussion with my own 2 cents). If people are criticizing the Constitution then it should be mentioned in the article (as long as they are notable, as I said). I have never read the Lazare or Levinson books, and don't know if they are notable or not. (The link I provided was a quite negative review). I have read Bagehot, and it does contains lots of material on the US Constituion, specifically comparing it to the English unwritten one, which he believes is much more flexable and far superior (citing the post-Civil War government chaos as example). (From a blurb I saw on the Lazare book, it looks like he basically has a similar argument, but I haven't read it). Bagehot certainly is notable, and influenced Woodrow Wilson, who at one point suggested that the US should adopt a Parliamentary system. It is certainly reasonable that stuff like this could go in the article. --JW1805 (Talk) 01:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

"Someone upthread" was me. From the link I posted:

"Sanford Levinson is the most imaginative, innovative and provocative constitutional scholar of our time,” said attorney Walter Dellinger, the Douglas B. Maggs Professor of Law at Duke University and former acting solicitor general of the United States. “His new sharp critique of the Constitution makes for bracing reading and forces us to confront what we really think of the Constitution. Every American needs to read this book and see if he or she agrees with Levinson that it is necessary to abandon the Framer's work and adopt a fundamentally new system of government. This work cannot be ignored,” said Dellinger, who is also head of the Appellate Practice at O'Melveny & Myers.

The book is written by a greatly respected legal scholar and does in fact propose that we need to write a completely new constitution. Reporting on this scholarship in the criticism section may be appropriate. Argyrios 21:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Legality section --very poor quality

The legality section is offbeat and poor quality. For example, it never mentions that the Continental Congress unanimously voted to send it to the states for ratification and specified how it was to be ratified. The section is meaningless and misleading and has to be dropped. Rjensen 18:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree it was nonsense as written -- I am surprised that I never noticed it. The argument bears a striking resemblance to some tax protester theories, so it may be notable from that vantagepoint. The whole section seems undue weight to a peripheral issue.

I recall that some antifederalists argued at the time that the method of conventions was improper. I am probably remembering this from Catherine Drinker Bowen, whom I recall you dislike as a source, but if we can find a solid source, that is most certainly relevant. Robert A.West (Talk) 18:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Just a thought, although I don't know this to be true or not. But would it make sense if many members of the Continental Congress were also constitutional convention delegates? Does anyone know if this was the case? If it was, then of course the Congress would send the Constitution to the states. (Not that I agree with the claims in the legality section, but if there's much truth to it, maybe it should be included.) Vbdrummer0 19:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Morris Forging the Union (1987) p 299 says the Philadelphia convention sent the document to Congress (which met in New York), and that 1/3 of Congressmen had been at Philadelphia, including Madison. Congress bought Madison's argument and on Sept 28 1787 unanimously sent the new Constitution to the states with rules on how they could vote it up or down. All the states voted for it, and Morris' detailed discussion (pp 299-322) of the debates does not say anyone in the ratifying conventions complained about "illegality." The section of the Wiki article makes no mention of what "scholar" raised this issue. I think Robert A West is right in suggesting this argument was cooked up by "some tax protester theories" Rjensen 20:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Per our article History_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Ratification

The need for only nine states was a controversial decision at the time, since the Articles of Confederation could only be amended by unanimous vote of all the states.

There is no footnote, but this conforms to what I recall: there was grumbling and posturing by some opponents when they didn't get a chance to hold up the measure procedurally in state legislatures. They then showed up at the conventions and no prominent contemporary seems to have questioned the legality of the result. The whole transition was amazingly orderly. Obviously, my recollection is not a source, but I think it firm enough to lend my support to RJensen's deletion. The ratification process could be a whole main article in and of itself. Robert A.West (Talk) 21:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

San Marino? Not

"San Marino does not have an official Constitution as such." according to Fragmentation and the International Relations of Micro-states: self-determination and statehood by Jorri C. Duursma (1996) Page 211. (What happened in 1600 was an Italian Duke sent a chief executive to run the country; there was no written constitution. Of course England has an even older "unwritten constitution". See [1] and [2] Rjensen 00:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Missing sections

What is this, in 5 years time there is still two articles(6 and 7) missing of the presentation. How could this article been given FA status? Lord Metroid 15:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

they where there until a couple of weeks ago, according to page history. I replaced the missing sections. Dullfig 20:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Criticism vs Praise

Seems interesting that we have a Criticism section and no Praise section. Nevertheless it's disturbing that the limited content in this section should include the thoughts of a man who thinks the Founders were profoundly ignorant of the future when they drafted the document. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 12:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, there should be a praise section, given that it is a very influential document. Also, Dr. Nelson's argument seems ill-fitting here as she seems to be more concerned with the current state of affairs and not the enumerated powers, if this is the case it should be made clear. Lemonjuice1020 (talk) 05:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Why is the complete text of the document ABSENT from this page and replaced almost entirely with interpretive explanation?

Though the images of the original document are quaint, why not present the entire document's TEXT with hyperlinks to specific Articles' pages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.7.4.102 (talk) 14:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The exact text of the document should be present on this page. It's way too tedious to click back and forth between the linked pages to read the original document. The original document is clear and concise and does not need to be watered down or subject to interpretation on this page. Save that for the linked pages for each section/amendment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.136.51.242 (talk) 23:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

What you are looking for is on Wikisource. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 18:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Branches of Government

{{tn|The article now reads: "The Constitution defines the three main branches of government: a legislature, the bicameral Congress; an executive branch led by the President; and a judicial branch headed by the Supreme Court." I propose to change this sentence to read: "The Constitution defines the three branches of the national government ..." The word "main" implies, wrongly, that there are other branches of government. There is a scholarly debate about the relationship between the administrative agencies and the executive, but I think there is no question the agencies are within the executive branch. The addition of the word "national" is a nod to our federal system: the state governments exist independently of the Constitution and are not defined by it, except to the extent the Constitution guarantees each state a republican form of government. Tfolkman (talk) 19:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

sounds ok Tedickey (talk) 20:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done  Chzz  ►  19:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Article is already a featured article

• From the comments page. Moved in order to be made visible and to keep the Table of Contents Consistent. Adavis444 (talk) 11:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Already a featured article. Veracious Rey 16:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it is C-class now. What a fall! Adavis444 (talk) 02:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Preamble

I have revised the discussion of the Preamble. The prior version made unsourced assertions about the relationship of the preamble to the powers of the federal government and the retained powers of the people and the states. In fact, the preamble is, on its face, silent about those issues. The discussion in McCulloch v. Maryland, which I reference, is a good authoritative explanation of what seems to me to be the key point of the preamble, namely, that the Constitution emanates from "We, the People," not "We, the states." Tfolkman 17:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tfolkman (talk • contribs)

Should be noted, it's not the supreme law of the land.

It's de facto ignored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.56.159.213 (talk) 03:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the supreme law of the land tends to be whatever the Supreme Court is apathetic to let happen, or constitutional phrases it chooses to misconstrue, as to support one Justice's ideas of what the law should be, rather than what it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.60.98.130 (talk) 20:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes

This article is one of a small number (about 100) selected for the first week of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

However with only a few hours to go, comments have only been made on two of the pages.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially.

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 20:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC).

Article IV

"Today, this provision is sometimes taken for granted, especially by citizens who live near state borders; but in the days of the Articles of Confederation, crossing state lines was often a much more arduous and costly process."

Not only is the preceding someone's opinion, it is also false. It is simply that these hypothetical persons may be unaware of the article's existence or meaning. "Taken for granted", in my opinion, carries a connotation of awareness and apathy, whereas this is not the case. I cannot speak to the facts about inter-state travel in a historical context, and therefore consider it simply unsourced.

Aside from my personal opinion, the sentence also breaks the scholarly flow of overall paragraph by attempting to provide current and historical context. I ask that the sentence be removed, or someone else's opinion on the matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fanman904 (talk • contribs) 06:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

"Criticism of the Constitution" Section

The "Criticism of the Constitution" section features one essentially non-partisan criticism (Sabato's recommendations regarding primary elections) and three that are discernibly left wing in their implications and arguments. If this section is to remain, it should be either: 1) balanced with other criticisms (e.g., criticisms of the broad use of the Commerce Clause as a catch-all for the expansion of federal power; criticisms of over-broad judicial and congressional interpretations of the "enumerated powers" clause by invocation of the "necessary and proper" clause; etc.) that usually emanate from the political right; 2) edited for removal of any criticisms that express a discernible political ideology, left or right; 3) relocated to a separate article where the issue of constitutional critics and criticisms can be discussed in greater detail and with opportunities for criticisms from all political angles to be included; 4) or removed altogether. As currently written, it violates the Wikipedia "neutral point of view" principle. ~~Michael Higginbotham~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.106.227.213 (talk) 04:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any specific, notable criticisms in mind, for example respected historians and/or political scientists who have such criticisms? The ones in the article seem quite neutral to me. I wouldn't find the arguement, for example, against the electoral college to be particularly left wing. Its been levied by many people throughout history. Perhaps you could present some sources for people to review from respected political scientists, if you have some ideas of what to add to the article. All articles, even this one, could benefit from improvement. --Jayron32 04:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Oldest constitution, again

Sorry to say this and repeat this topic, but San Marino has the oldest Constitution. As according to Encyclopædia Britannica [3], CIA's The World Factbook [4] and the United States Library of Congress [5], San Marino's constitution dates back to 1600. These are as good and verifiable as a sources come, unlike the note provided in the text: "The San Marino document is a constitutional document, not a constitution. Calling it such would be the same as saying Magna Carta is a constitution." Ignoring this is by large original research, I'm not even sure what does that even mean. Isn't the constitution itself a constitutional document?

I proceeded to remove the phrase. I'm sorry I forgot to sign my entry above Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 08:47, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Read the article about San Marino's document for reliable sources. Nothing in the CIA Factbook or LoC guide contradicts that. Its constitution consists of more than one document, one of which dates back to the 1600s. What part of that is so hard for you to understand? -Rrius (talk) 06:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Please be WP:CIVIL. Anyway, the dispute really rests on how strictly one defines "written constistution", especially in a national sense, and whose reliable sources one relies on. In a neutral encyclopedia, if both views are supported by reliable sources, then both views should be presented. - BilCat (talk) 07:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm too exasperated to care whether anyone thinks my last question was not civil. This is really quite simple, so I find the repeated deletion of sourced material more than a little annoying. The content as written is completely accurate. If we were to use the construction that makes San Marino's older, then Britain's would be far older because Magna Carta beat it by about 400 years. If people are so bloody amazed that San Marino and the UK use documents that are older, there's no reason why they can't be noted, but it would be nice if people would take the trouble to understand the difference between a constitution like ours, where one document constitutes the whole, and that of a place like San Marino, where multiple documents make up the constitution. -Rrius (talk) 09:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't disagree with your last points, and you were right to restore the source. But expressing exasperation here in such a way is non-productive, and in fact made it difficult to understand your position. - BilCat (talk) 15:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of what the conclusion is here, "The San Marino document is a constitutional document, not a constitution. Calling it such would be the same as saying Magna Carta is a constitution." belongs in the discussion, not the article, right? So I removed it, leaving the dubious-discuss link for those who'd like to discuss further. --Mmdolbow (talk) 18:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

If I could make two points. it would be appreciated. The United Kingdom's constitution does not qualify as the wor;ld's oldest constitution still in continuous use because of the fact that is is uncodified. Of course, much of British consitutional law is written down in one form or another through various statutes over the years, but as a single and complete source, there is no such thing as a U.K. or British Constitution. My second point is this. The Statutes of 1600 in the country of San Marino are just that--- statutes. There is a very fine line of what we can define as a constitution. Nevertheless, it certainly wasn't called a constitution in 1600 when it was ratified. Equally, the entire Constitution of San Marino does not revolve around one single source or document. In fact, San marino's constitution, if you want to call it that, is basically a series of compiled books of statutory laws enacted by that country's legislation.

Speaking from an American perspective, I think there has to be some lee-way here. I think those who advocate that the claim that the U.S. Constitution is the oldest written constitution need to put things into perspective. The U,S. as I know it is indeed the world's oldest federation (to date), not discounting the country of Switzerland, which is the world's oldest confederation. But is the United States Constitution really the oldest? If you look at the Wiki article on Constitution of Massachusetts, it also claims to be the "the oldest functioning written constitution in continuous effect in the world" which was ratified in 1780, seven years BEFORE the United States Constituttion was ratified. As I see it, this article is contradicting the information found on Constitution of Massachusetts. Simply put, there are U.S. state constitutions which are OLDER than the United States Constitution which are still in use.

So to say that the "United States Constitution is the oldest written constitution still in use"....there are big problems with that statement given the points made above.Yoganate79 (talk) 09:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

It does not say that the "United States Constitution is the oldest written constitution still in use". It says, "The United States Constitution is the oldest written constitution still in use by any nation in the world. [emphasis added]". It does not say that it is the oldest constitution in the world, it says it is the oldest national constitution in the world. As far as I know, no one is claiming that Massachusetts is a nation-state. I am not going to debate the merits of the statement with regard to San Marino, the Magna Carta, or whatever, but your concern is not an issue. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 22:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Ignorance is bliss. Have you ever taken the time to read the reference in the link at the bottom of the page? The claim made is... "The only national museum for the world's oldest and shortest written constitution." Where ever is there any mentioning of the phrase nation-state in this sentence? It merely says world's oldest and shortest written constitution. By that token as discussed above and since the reference bears no mentioning to any nation-state, the claim has already been disproven since Massachusetts has a constituttion which was ratified in 1780, thus making it the world's oldest.

Also, if you refer to the Wiki article Constitution, the article there claims that San Marino has the world's oldest constitution, thereby making this article conflict with what is said in that article. Read it. I simply don't care one way or another. Hence why I refuse to let my students at school use Wikipedia as any credible reference material. I wouldn't expect a change on here nor do I think you should expect the article Constitution to ever change. I am merely contributing to the discussion here.Yoganate79 (talk) 02:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Plus, the idea of using a museum advertisement a reference is ridiculous on its own. And as for Rrius, how can you say there is no contradiction when both pages I provided state that San Marino's constitution is from 1600, almost 2 centuries before the United States' one? Has San Marino's constitution changed over time? Yes, but so has the US one. It's been two months since I brought up this problem, yet no acceptable source to back up that claim has been posted yet. I will remove that statement. Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 15:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

This is tiresome. The particular document is just one part of San Marino's constitution. For that reason, its multi-document constitution "dates back" to the 16th century, but the document is not in itself a written constitution older than the US Constitution. -Rrius (talk) 17:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Far too developed to be only C-class, at least B-class in my opinion

This former featured article is far too developed to be a C-class article. It should be evaluated against theWikipedia:B-class criteria (from a quick overview, I believe that it passes on all six criteria) and at least brought up toWikipedia:Good article status as soon as possible. Adavis444 (talk) 02:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

A thorough peer review: Wikipedia:Peer review/United States Constitution/archive1

With my initial thoughts more judiciously confirmed, I will now evaluate this article as B-class. Adavis444(talk) 10:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Jacob Shallus

This article stinks. There is no mentioning whatsoever of the Engrosser/Penman of the U.S. Constitution, Jacob Shallus whose coopy is on display in the National Archives.Yoganate79 (talk) 22:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Ratification of the Corwin Amendment

The section on un-ratified amendments states regarding the Corwin Amendment states

"The Corwin Amendment, proposed by the 36th Congress on March 2, 1861, would have forbidden any attempt to subsequently amend the Constitution to empower the federal government to "abolish or interfere" with the "domestic institutions" of the states (a delicate way of referring to slavery). It was ratified by only Ohio and Maryland lawmakers before the outbreak of the Civil War. Illinois lawmakers—sitting as a state constitutional convention at the time—likewise approved it, but that action is of questionable validity. The proposed amendment contains no expiration date for ratification and may yet be ratified. However, adoption of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments after the Civil War likely means that the amendment would be ineffective if adopted."

The statement that the adoption of the 13th,14th and 15th amendments would render the Corwin amendment ineffective if adopted is incorrect. This should be in the least changed to state that it would be ineffective for its originally intended primary purpose, in other words,it would NOT preserve the institution of slavery. Its should also be worded in such a way as to avoid the assumption that its only purpose was to preserve slavery. It should be safe to go with the assumption that most scholars have made that it was primarily intended to preserve slavery,but while slavery was a major factor in the civil war there were other issues of "states rights" that were involved as well and presumably the Corwin amendment may well have been intended to additionally affect those,otherwise why mention state institutions at all rather than saying only that slavery was to be preserved. The Corwin amendment states "No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State." There are many other domestic institutions other than slavery which the Corwin amendment might apply. A constitutional amendment banning gay marriage might well fall under its effect as might the 17th amendment if it were successfully argued that the selection of a states representatives were a domestic institution, and the 26th amendment which makes the voting age universally 18,as state voting laws,so long as they are in compliance with all other applicable parts of the constituion are widely held to be up to each individual state,and thus a domestic institution and perhaps even the 19th amendment for similar reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.27.219.185 (talk) 10:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 216.137.223.222, 27 September 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} pls delete hanging fragment ", an assistane clerk of the Pennsylvania State Asembly," from the first graph of the "History" section

John R. in Alaska 03:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Not done for now: I cannot find the text you a referring to. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 05:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I'd already removed it. It was stray text from this edit. I reverted the whole edit, as the information added it really too much detail on tangental information. It probab ly could be included in the text somewhere, but as of now, there appears to no appropriate section. Also, the section on translations seems a bit pointless, so I think we could do without that too. - BilCat (talk) 05:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Link to full text made more prominent

The link to the Wikisource full text is far down the page and rather hard to find. I'd like to suggest that a full-text link should be prominently displayed near the top of the article. This page is very well done - kudos to the editors. Robert Hiller (talk) 06:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Rename: Articles of the... to Sections of the Constitution and add 2.9

The preamble is not an article, so the current title has appeal, but it's incorrect. And that error leads the editors to omit a part of the Constitution itself (since it's not an Article per se). The part incorrectly omitted by this article is the dating sentence, which on the original is in large script similar to that which titles the Articles, and is therefore nothing like the textual corrections which appear to it's left. These improvements and additions are recommended (but I'm too new to this to make these changes myself on such an important article, so instead of putting this in the article, I'm just making this recommendation):

2 Sections of the Constitution

...

2.9 Dating: Done in 1787

Done in convention by the unanimous consent of the states present the seventeenth day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven and of the independence of the United States of America the twelfth. In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,

[After the above, then a separate decision could be made as to whether to add:]

2.10 Names Subscribed: G. Washington, &c.

G. Washington - Presidt. and deputy from Virginia New Hampshire: John Langdon, Nicholas Gilman Massachusetts: Nathaniel Gorham, Rufus King Connecticut: Wm. Saml. Johnson, Roger Sherman New York: Alexander Hamilton New Jersey: Wil. Livingston, David Brearly, Wm. Paterson, Jona. Dayton Pennsylvania: B. Franklin, Thomas Mifflin, Robt. Morris, Geo. Clymer, Thos. FitzSimons, Jared Ingersoll, James Wilson, Gouv Morris Delaware: Geo. Read, Gunning Bedford jr, John Dickinson, Richard Bassett, Jaco. Broom Maryland: James McHenry, Dan of St Thos. Jenifer, Danl Carroll Virginia: John Blair, James Madison Jr. North Carolina: Wm. Blount, Richd. Dobbs Spaight, Hu Williamson South Carolina: J. Rutledge, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, Charles Pinckney, Pierce Butler Georgia: William Few, Abr Baldwin —Preceding unsigned comment added by BobEnyart (talk • contribs) 16:41, 30 October 2010 (UTC)