Talk:Constitution of the United States/Archive 9

It CAN Be Changed

The line about how the US Constitution is unusual because it can't be changed; instead, it is amended - is absolutely ridiculous. Of course, the Constitution CAN be changed. That is what an amendment IS - it is a change to the Constitution.

What is unusual, as compared to most state constitutions within the USA, is that the amendments are not incorporated into the main text of the document; they are appended to it. That way, it is patently clear that each amendment applies to the entire Constitution, including all amendments that preceded it in time.

As to the arguments below, the oldest charter of supreme law in continuous use is Magna Charta - which is Latin for "Great Charter". So, be careful what you're calling a "charter".

Besides which, charters are granted by a sovereign authority. Thus, Magna Charta is a charter, because it was granted by the sovereign. The Charter of the City and County of San Francisco is a charter because it was granted by the sovereign state of California. A corporate charter is a charter because it, too, is granted by a sovereign state.

The US Constitution was not granted by a sovereign but drafted by delegates representing the federal sovereign entity called the United States - so it is not a charter; it is a constitution.

As written constitutions go, the Constitution of Vermont dates from 1777 and is still in use, so it is older than the US Constitution - which, by its terms (see Amendment X), is the supreme law of the land but only within the jurisdiction of the federal United States; the individual states are not subordinate to the federal state but are co-equal to it, because they exercise the sovereign powers that the US Constitution does not allow the federal government to exercise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.62.103 (talk) 21:34, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Interesting theory, promulgated by Virginian St. George Tucker with his extrapolations and state legislature applications in Tucker’s Blackstone, eloquently elucidated in Jefferson Davis post-war constitution defense, A short history of the Confederacy.

Two intervening constitutional developments which have weight, and must be accounted on this Wikipedia page. Constitution of 1789, which Vermont acceded to on submitting application for statehood, Article VI. This Constitution, and the Laws of the U.S. …; and all Treaties …, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Second, states must conform to the citizen protections limiting the national government: Fourteenth Amendment, No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the U.S.; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Introduction: “oldest written national constitution”

Excerpt from discussion above:

- What wording would you propose to make a statement about the duration of the U.S. Constitution in the article introduction -- which is neutral in an internationally scholarly way? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:54, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I would propose that you write something less definitive. A pleasant way to put it is "the oldest constitution of its kind ..." and allow the remainder of the paragraph says that most other countries copied this kind of constitution. The qualities of nation, federal, democratic are felt in such a phrase without getting stuck on the precise definition. 114.245.192.36 (talk) 20:06, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

- From the discussion and reading into references cited elsewhere here at Talk, there are aspects of constitutions treated from parliamentary traditions of study which most U.S. political science scholarship does not address. I propose to refine the introduction to be more internationally inclusive as follows:

-- Intro paragraph #4 amend to: “The Constitution guides American society in law and political culture. It is the oldest constitution of its kind, and it influenced later international figures establishing national constitutions. Recent impulses for reform center on concerns for extending democracy and balancing the federal budget. “ TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Excellent. Well, I shall quibble a little, but at last we concentrate on how to rewrite the intro, or specifically Paragraph 4. Questions of what's a "charter constitution" and why San Marino counts or does not count belong in their respective articles, their relevance here being scant. Now down to brass tacks. I prefer:

“The Constitution guides American society in law and political culture. Its writers incorporated recent developments in constitutional theory, and their work influenced later writers of constitutions for other nations. It has been ammended over the centuries. Being shorter than other constitutions it is supplemented and interpreted by a large body of United States constitutional law. “

This allusion to the seniority question is even vaguer, which I think appropriate to a complex yet trivial question. My second sentence connects to the way the original document both followed and set precedents, and the final sentence points the way to the fact that much more is involved than just the document itself. And it ignores the question of future ammendments, which don't belong in the intro. But, that said, I like your version a lot more than the current. Jim.henderson (talk) 16:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, no. The primacy issue has to be dealt with as it will be added back at some point. It is so commonly trotted out that a properly qualified version is necessary. IP's contention that San Marino's document counts even though it is just a part of the written portion of San Marino's constitution and San Marino wasn't always a sovereign state is simply unacceptable. I agree that none of that needs to be discussed in the article, but bowing to nonsense is equally foolish. -Rrius (talk) 16:24, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

- @ Rrius. very well. "Primacy" of the U.S. Constitution may be imperfectly arrived at in collaboration by using "first of its kind".

- @ Jim.henderson. At WP:BETTER#Lead section, “The lead should … include mention of consequential or significant criticism or controversies … “ In this article of an historical document, I am not sure whether the principle should apply. But by way of explanation,

- I thought, what better concise way of communicating significant criticism than alluding to efforts to amend the constitution itself by the representatives of the very populace living under its governance. In the past, favorites have been suggested but taken off by consensus, the "Introduction" standard for inclusion being categories of those amendments sponsored by triple-digit numbers among U.S. Representatives and Senators sustained over more than one Congress, and to avoid a laundry list of various editors favorites jammed into the introduction.

- Hence the last sentence encompasses liberal (democratic-e.g. direct election of president) and conservative (federal budget-e.g. balanced budget) concerns in two general categories aggregating several specific proposals by that objective criteria in the way rendered: “Recent impulses for reform center on concerns for extending democracy and balancing the federal budget.” TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

- can we say, Introduction, paragraph #4.

- :“The Constitution guides American society in law and political culture. Its writers composed the first constitution of its kind incorporating recent developments in constitutional theory with multiple traditions, and their work influenced later writers of national constitutions. It has been amended over time and it is supplemented and interpreted by a large body of United States constitutional law. Recent impulses for reform center on concerns for extending democracy and balancing the federal budget.“

- For our purposes, that may comprehend significance, primacy, legacy, incorporated elements, and significant criticism. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:27, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

"Recent impulses for reform center on concerns for extending democracy" -- I assume that's a reference to the electoral college, but it should be better defined, and dealt with in the actual article. And balancing the federal budget should probably link to balanced budget amendment since that's less of an Easter egg Hot Stop (Edits) 06:17, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

- Agreed on both counts. In addition to the direct popular election which the article should address, there is also the district plan used in Maine and Nebraska, and voted down recently in California? Though as I remember a district plan would have resulted with the same percent split in California as the actual popular vote there. Maybe a dozen states have tried it, mostly during early expansions of universal manhood suffrage, then ended with the advent of 19th Century machine party politics ...

- Advocates argue that the diversity of each state would be reflected in the district E.C. votes, the state majority in the two at-large, the tombstones voted in some districts could never count more than the weight of those living there in the national total, so every contested election would not end up as awarded by federal judges ...

- by the way, recent electoral-map speculation of an E.C. tie 269-269 assumes Obama cannot take the one urban district electoral vote up for grabs in Omaha City, or rather it omits consideration of a repeat there from the last election, where Nebraska split 4-1. For small states, the district plan means there is no more "fly-over" country. Interesting ground-game election this year.

- Could you give the wording a try to replace "extending democracy" -- referring somehow to "direct election of president" -- since that is the proposal in that direction with the most backing in Congress? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:27, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Splendid. Well, I don't see a good way to insinuate direct election, but our latest Virginia draft gives three quarters of what I wanted, and it's definitely the better three quarters and better worded. Perhaps we can insert it later today. Jim.henderson (talk) 11:00, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

While we're at it, "The Constitution guides American society in law and political culture" is a weird thing to say. Take out "society in" and it become much better. -Rrius (talk) 11:10, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes. We are definitely on the right track. Jim.henderson (talk) 11:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

- Thanks. A final quibble, in the spirit of Jim.henerson's 'three-quarters' rule for collaboration, I do not agree with dropping 'society' but I will CONCUR the with the Rrius amendment for later today:

- DROPPING "society" is weird if we are persuaded by the Brandeis Brief that society is apart from the political culture, and the LAW should should serve the PEOPLE in their changing circumstances, and NOT the living people serving unchanging law set in precedent. Or it may be that I reread the Federalist Papers too recently. Never mind. Let's take care of the U.S. constitutional 'primacy' and put 'San Marino' to rest later today. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:17, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are saying in terms of your argument for keeping in "society", why you are talking about things happening "later today", or whether you are saying you are standing by or waiving your objection. The "guiding society" sentence may have some meaning, but that meaning is unclear. If you take out "society in", it would read "The Constitution guides American law and political culture." That sentence is true enough, though a better verb might help. Political culture isn't intentional or, generally, something people are conscious of, which makes the concept of Society being guided by it unclear. So, at best, the current version is hard to understand, and at worst it doesn't mean anything. -Rrius (talk) 06:48, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

- I concur for the sake of collaboration. If I think of something better, I'll bring it onto Talk first. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:45, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

First government. c – e paragraphs rewrite.

- @ Jbeans ‘First Government’ copyedit “c-e: Bold rewrite”, of my earlier draft.

- Presents an interesting re-balance in the narrative describing functionality of the new government (of the “united”) states … within the confederation of “individual” states. -- I think the Jbeans copyedit serves the general reader better.

- AGREE to Jbean ‘First Government’ copyedit 15 December 2012. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:22, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 December 2012

Please switch the order of "Supreme Law" and "United States of America" in "United States Constitution", in which the current order of links is disrupting the Rule of Philosophy. ProfessorGottem (talk) 20:43, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Whatever does "rule of philosophy" mean? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:46, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. JayJay^{Talk to me} 01:42, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

The rule of philosophy quoted here is the Getting to Philosophy project. United states constitution is one of the few pages that doesn't 'obey the rule'. That said, I do think it odd that the first link of the page on the constitution is to a part of the constitution itself213.106.233.97 (talk) 17:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Closed request again. WP:Getting to Philosophy is an observation of a Wikipedia phenomenon and not a policy or guideline by any stretch. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 January 2013

Hi, this article contains a substantive error in the following excerpt from the wiki page as currently written: " 'For example, the First Amendment - "Congress shall make no law" establishing a religion ...'

I understand that "establishing a religion" is not within quotes and therefore is an attempt to paraphrase the sentence. However, the paraphrase "establishing a religion" is a loaded interpretation of the original phrase "respecting an establishment of religion" (provided below citing national archives"

Given that this wiki article is not attempting to interpret the Constitution but rather explain it, and given the parsing, dicing, and divisiveness concerning interpretation and use of specific words much less understanding the specific intent behind the words, I think the simple edit of this line to reflect the actual phrase "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion... is in the public's best interest.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

thanks, Kollin klh2012@kollin.com 50.136.132.155 (talk) 20:29, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done--JayJasper (talk) 20:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Not one mention of hemp?

I read on a comment on NPR that the U.S. Constitution was printed on hemp and when I googled around I found some saying that it was originally on hemp but was later written on parchment. Were any of the drafts written on hemp? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:47EB:9709:219:B9FF:FE85:FD0A (talk) 05:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I thought cotton and linen were more common for paper in those days. Anyway this wouldn't be the correct article as this one is about law. Details of fabric, ink, blotters, etc would be better handled in Charters of Freedom or perhaps as a footnote in Constitutional Convention (United States). Jim.henderson (talk) 14:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

[aside] Amounts of cotton and linen is the "rag content", instead of crumbling like an old newspaper, an 1840 book in cardboard covers is still pliable. "Common" crops and materials can be found in the Census of agriculture for each decade. Census of population gives endemic diseases connected to "push" factors for westerly migration of entire families. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:42, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Cannot be changed?

What's with saying that the constitution cannot be changed, only amended to change its effect. Amending it is clearly changing it. Consider Article I and the three-fifths compromise, which was clearly changed with Fourteenth amendment. Ryan Vesey 13:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

No, amending it is changing its effect, not changing the Constitution. The Constitution still includes the 3/5s compromise -- the 14th Amendment just made it operate differently. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I would argue that changing the effect of the constitution is the same as changing the constitution. In any case, we'd need a source to say it can't be changed. The Wall Street Journal says here that the constitution was "designed to change". Even our own article says in the section "Scope and theory" that "It can change only by extraordinary legislative process of national proposal, then state ratification". Ryan Vesey 17:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

This is a meaningless rabbit trail. The U.S. Constitution can be changed, and is changed, by the process of amendment. Any argument to the contrary is legally frivolous. There is no reliable source that will say that the U.S. Constitution cannot be changed. Famspear (talk) 17:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, I corrected the weird language in the article, which misleadingly stated that the Constitution could not be "changed." Saying that the Constitution cannot be "changed" is like saying that statutes cannot be changed, or that case law cannot be changed.

The error is based on a misunderstanding about how the Constitution is physically published. It would be correct to say that the Constitution itself is not codified. What that means is that amendments are published at the end of the original text, rather than being incorporated into the "original" text as new amendments are added. The fact that the text -- as published -- is not codified is not the same as saying that the Constitution is not "changed."

Similarly, the statute books published by the United States Government Printing Office, known as the "United States Statutes at Large," which show (among other things) Acts of Congress as published in chronological order, are not physically codified within those books themselves. (Many of the statutes are codified, but that is done in a separate publication known as the "United States Code"; that's a separate issue.) In other words, if a new statute in 2013 repeals or changes a statute enacted in, say, 1993, the 1993 volume or volumes of the actual, physical publication known as the United States Statutes at Large would not be "reorganized" and "reprinted" with the year 2013 material incorporated into the 1993 volume.

Similarly, if a given court decision is overturned in a later year, the actual physical law book reporting the original case is not "reprinted" with the old case deleted.

That is not the same as saying that the case law in the original case, or the law in the original statute, etc., isn't being "changed."

The article language was indeed misleading. Famspear (talk) 17:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

The wording of the original seven Articles is NOT changed. Following European precedent, redrafting the entire constitution to insert the new wording would change previous meaning. Instead Amendments are subtended below the Articles. The Courts are left with the task of reconciling interpretations of the articles and amendments with each other. I propose,

• "The first seven articles are not rewritten at each amendment. Changes in the supreme law of the land are re-interpreted by the federal courts taking the entire Constitution as amended in view." TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

American constitution was inspired by the Warsaw Confederation (religious tolerance act)

Hey, I found an interesting link. It seems that the religious tolerance embedded in American constitution was inspired by Warsaw Confederation (an act of religious tolerance guaranteeing freedom of religion and their equality), said Jefferson: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=5u84tl5ux0gC&pg=PA2&dq=jefferson+american+constitution+warsaw+confederation&hl=en&sa=X&ei=A7NQUc33NsXaPMK0gdAL&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=jefferson%20american%20constitution%20warsaw%20confederation&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.242.0 (talk) 20:31, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Good link for reference. In the run-up to the Convention, Jefferson was in Europe touring capitals, buying up books of history and politics, sending them off to Madison in Virginia. Jefferson sat in legislatures all over the continent observing. His take-away was, those fewer than 100 were subject to personal cabals, those over 300 lost the ability to deliberate becoming "mobs". Poland as a then 'modern' example of a republic to study, Poland even made it into the Federalist Papers because its King was elected by the national legislature for life --- with Washington in mind a serious consideration for the U.S. --- but that provision for the term of the chief magistrate was voted down in Convention. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:40, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

WOW! This is really interesting! Maybe you should add it in the article? --81.100.242.0 (talk) 14:18, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

The Constitution itself is a plan of the structure and powers of the federal government. It is the Bill of Rights (specifically the First Amendment) which prohibits the government from inserting itself into religion (although the Constitution does prohibit "religious tests" for government officials). bd2412 T 16:20, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 May 2013

In the Judicial Review section under self restraint sentence is "Indeed, the Supreme Court has developed a system of doctrine and practice that self-limits is power of judicial review."

Should be "Indeed, the Supreme Court has developed a system of doctrine and practice that self-limits its power of judicial review."

change is powers to its powers 138.162.0.43 (talk) 22:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Done RudolfRed (talk) 01:05, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Intercourse and sex

We write for the modern reader. Esoglou missed earlier discussion on 19th century American idiom. Contemporary 1920 ‘Intercourse’ meant “trade”, and ‘sex’ meant “gender” in modern usage. In the text, the 19th Amendment (1920) “prohibited federal government and states from forbidding a citizen's vote due to gender.” The link is to women’s suffrage, [women’s suffrage|due to their gender], which does not explore their sex, it discusses their vote. Reverted to 'gender' until further discussion. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:14, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

The nineteenth amendment states: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation." Why raise the question of the meaning of "intercourse" in 1920 (20th century, not 19th) or 2013, a word that appears neither in the amendment nor in the edit that you reverted? Why not quote the amendment faithfully and then, if necessary (but is it?), add a sourced non-original-research comment on any pertinent difference between the 1920 and the 2013 understanding of a person's sex? (Surely it's a one-track mind that would make it mean nothing but sexual intercourse by the person. That can't be what you mean.) Esoglou (talk) 15:04, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

The constitution article need not directly quote lengthy passages from any amendment because they begin each subarticle, see Nineteenth Amendment. You have now extended the passage outside encyclopedic style. The idea is communicate to modern readers the information that women who could vote in over twenty states for school boards, mayors, state or federal officials in some states would then be qualified to vote for federal officials in every state.

There is no need to refer to "sex" when gender is the clear meaning, and not the titillation of a late-night monologue for modern readers. In this case, longer is not better, and you should know better --- wait a minute --- WP is your joke. I get it. Esoglou is very clever, dressed in underwear all tied up on her talk page. Should we include a quote from the opponents of women suffrage concerning early 20th century women's inability to grasp serious political matters? No, no, then there would be two jokes about women voting -- one is enough for each WP article. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:36, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Changing "prohibitted (sic) the federal government and the states from forbidding any citizen to vote due to their gender" to "prohibited the federal government and the states from denying or abridging "on account of sex" the right of citizens to vote" added exactly four words, not exactly a case of "quote lengthy passages". (And "or abridging" was an important part of the amendment.) If "gender is the clear meaning", just cite a reliable source that says so. It would be good at the same time to clarify how many genders the amendment was about (see third gender). Esoglou (talk) 16:30, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

You are absolutely charming, I would not change a thing. Of course the writers of the 19th Amendment meant the third gender person in its 'sex'. I submit, though I remain unbound. Please do not take down your photo, otherwise some may not see your joke. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:57, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, apart from your joke, in relation to the 19th Amendment, reliable sources do not use ‘sex’ to describe ‘gender’ for the modern reader.

• Secondary government: US Archives, “The amendment guarantees all American women the right to vote.”
• Scholarly source: Splintered Sisterhood: gender and class in the campaign against woman suffrage. By Susan Marshall. Suffrage and anti-suffrage was “grounded in the politics of gender and class”. [p.xi].

There is no provision to remove voting rights from transgender persons who have voluntarily altered gender to realize a personal ambition for an alternative private identity. Voting is based on US citizens resident in their state or territory one year or less -- it is not restricted by their 'gender' or your 'sex' anywhere in the US. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:03, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

The statement, "The amendment guarantees all American women the right to vote", uses neither "gender" nor "sex". The second source repeatedly uses the word "sex": "sex ratio", "their sex", "her sex", etc.; but more important, it even speaks of the Nineteenth Amendment as being about sex. But do keep searching. There are books that say the amendment was about gender. But they cannot counterbalance the much more numerous 21st-century reliable sources that say the amendment was about sex. Examples: this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and ... Esoglou (talk) 13:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I am so sorry, you are using a search engine without regard to substance, settling for tertiary sources using 'sex' to convey the language of the 1920 amendment, when we have secondary government and scholarly sources available to show you how to convey the meaning clearly with 'gender', without titillating modern readers using 'sex'. You asked for use of the word 'gender' to describe women suffrage, it is given. You fear for those of a third gender but we expand the suffrage to include all citizens apart from sexual orientation or identity, multiple expressions of personality, -- we do that in part by using "gender' not 'sex' -- which can not only be flirting among the very young, but provoking angry opposition in some groups.

The encyclopedia article can use 'gender' in the constitution narrative for clarity, the sub-article can use 'sex' in its historical context without being controversial. The WP audience is general international readership, including those using English as a second or third language. In the modern era, 'sex' refers to sexual activity, and 'gender' is seen as a synonym. Among feminist, women's or gender studies, the distinction is made between biological 'sex' and the social construct of 'gender', which allows for all persons of whatever cultural sexual roles they assume in a social or political context. You seem to be earnest, not joking (!?) --- if so, I apologize. If you cannot see the need for more embracing language in the summary language of the constitution article, it may be that you are lucky enough never to have confronted identity prejudice (sexism, homophobia, misogyny) in your subculture, congratulations for choosing wisely. I really am not going to do anything to your edit. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:04, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Esoglou says, "[Susan Marshall] speaks of the Nineteenth Amendment as being about sex." -- but without a page reference, who is to know that she would contradict herself in the same volume? Susan E. Marshall is a professor of sociology at the U. of Texas, Austin, with a PhD out of U of Mass, Amherst. She self-identifies her research as “gender; political sociology; U.S. feminist and antifeminist movements; women's political history; right-wing politics; gender, race, and class differences in political attitudes”. She does not identify her area of study as Esoglou's ‘sex’, she does not wear a bikini on her page, nor does she self-identify herself in bondage, although I am certain she is okay with that for others on Wikipedia, although that is hard to say without reading her words. This exchange is like a discussion at the Canadian Flat Earth Society, non-sequiturs as sources, all in fun, heh? I am charmed, but then, I am easily charmed. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

A discussion is ongoing about the lead to the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution article. Please help form a consensus at Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution#Proposal for lead.--Mark Miller (talk) 13:18, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Simple addition to increase readability

I would like to propose the addition of a single sentence. At the beginning sentence of section: First Government, there is no reference to the time frame of The Articles of Confederation, and there is no prior reference to this frame in the article preceding. I would like to propose a simple addition of one sentence, extracted from the Articles of Confederation page, to be inserted after the first sentence in this section. The current reading is:

The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union was the first constitution of the United States of America.[3] The chief problem with the new government under the Articles of Confederation was, in the words of George Washington, "no money."[4]

I would like to see this sentence inserted immediately after reference [3]:

Its drafting by the Continental Congress began in mid-1776, and an approved version was sent to the states for ratification in late 1777. The formal ratification by all 13 states was completed in early 1781.

Thank you. I hope this is helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.191.244.167 (talk) 05:30, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Something more needs to be added. Beginning in 1777 The Revolutionary Congress acted on the Articles of Confederation even without its unanimous adoption, and in our constitutional history, the next era is referred to as the Articles Congress. The substantial Congressional powers in Article 9 “made the league of states as cohesive and strong as any similar sort of republican confederation is history — stronger in fact than some Americans had expected.” From Gordon S. Wood, “The Creation of the American Republic, 1776-1787” (1972), p.359. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:07, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the above suggestion was incorporated into the text some time ago. I have added a sentence to the 1st paragraph of that section and moved the Washington quote from that 1st paragraph to the second, where it seems to belong. I modified the wording (though not the meaning or focus) of 2 sentences in the paragraph for flow & clarity. Drdpw (talk) 02:05, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 December 2013

Please change, "Article III, Section 2. U.S. courts have the power to rule legislative enactments or executive acts invalid on constitutional grounds," to "No part of the Constitution expressly authorizes judicial review" as in the Wikipedia entry on Judicial Review in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Three_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Judicial_review The assertion in this article is factually incorrect. 69.143.90.192 (talk) 03:20, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Agree, I'll make the edit, with the added wording that the Framers did contemplate the idea of this, and link to that section of the main article. Whizz40 (talk) 06:52, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Done Whizz40 (talk) 07:05, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Redirects

There is a discussion concerning this article at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 January 13#Typo in the United States Constitution. SpinningSpark 16:01, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Article okay but needs more balance

Article fairly solid but in my view there is too much positive material about the constitution. The only criticisms are buried with a brief link which leads to a section of another article where the points must be dug out. To be WP:NEUTRAL makes sense to add views by critics lest we fall into the trap of most Americans, namely, worshipping the document.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:37, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Interesting conjecture. The article is flawed because it is merely descriptive? I suggest a separate section "Criticism" to accumulate the critiques.

Generally in the modern era the U.S. Constitution is taken as a model, but, there are surely scholarly defenses of other regimes which are critical of the fundamental premise of a democratic republic in the first place. Where shall we turn, left, center and right?

Or lacking a general critique, shall we have a critique of the Electoral College balanced by a lack of a Balanced Budget Amendment? What do you suggest to begin, left, center and right? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:27, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

The article is pretty good, except in my view it needs more views. It is an old constitution. Most democratic nations have a parliamentary system, unlike the US model. It is not so much a matter of political orientation, rather, some scholars suggest serious shortcomings. It is a minority view but it should at least be expressed somewhere, which I think would make the article even stronger.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Rather than add ballast on another side for balance, I'd rather cut some of the things that you think are unbalancing it. Or at least move them to a detail article. Jim.henderson (talk) 23:39, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I remember how we handled Wall Street, with the idea being to have the main article as a summary, along your suggestions, with separate articles for branch topics. I'm coming around to seeing your way here -- the constitution article might be stronger if it was a tighter, better honed summary, with daughter articles on specifics; that way we won't lose the excellent work that contributors have done so far, while (hopefully) making for a more cogent informational experience for the reader.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:34, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Sure, the idea takes no originality as it's all in Wikipedia:Summary style and WP:TOOBIG. Of course, actually doing it requires careful evaluation and perspective. That's what encyclopedias are made of. Jim.henderson (talk) 02:18, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

please revise

my history books never failed to mention, and always made clear this:

There were several competing constitutions and the convention bickeded continually in the heat, and if i remember Thomas Jefferson worded the drafts. That the two basic lines were those for indirect democracy ruled by polititians and those set against it. That in every paragraph one can see a dividing line between the conflicting interests.

who worded the various drafts ? that was thomas jefferson is that right ?

During the time many countries such as France had already been doing similar revolutions.

Rough Draft of the Declaration of Independence

Thomas Jefferson

1776

Note: Italicized words or phrases were omitted in the final draft. Bracketed words or phrases were added to the original draft and appear in the final draft.

A Declaration by the Representatives of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, in General Congress assembled.

WHEN in the Course of human Events it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth the separate & equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.

I'm pretty sure i read the first daft republished in a very old book and it said all men are equal (there would be no slavery) which was of course taken out.

Not to say thomas wrote it all i more mean drafted or worded it from varied sources.

which is important — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.219.202.186 (talk) 16:50, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Wrong article. What you quote is not here because it's the wrong document, and the rest is properly discussed in the Convention article. Jim.henderson (talk) 17:32, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Jim.henderson; the discussion (above) relates to the Declaration of Independence possibly, not the US Constitution which, according to my (imperfect) memory of courses I did, was largely written by James Madison (at least the initial draft and basic structure), with considerable debate over points such as the small-state vs large-state issue, little about the judiciary, and with future Federalists (Madison, Washington etc) having the most say, while future anti-Federalists opposing it, with the Federalist view being preponderant, and the anti-Federalists not signing it. Jefferson was in France during the convention if memory serves. Anti-federalists (later) got in the Bill of Rights, added as amendments after the constitution was ratified.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:07, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Need "clean" copy of entire Constitution on separate page

Sorry if this has been asked and answered before, this is the first time I've written anything on Wikipedia.

Every time I try to use Wikipedia to look up something in the US Constitution, which is often, I'm annoyed by the format that makes it a bit difficult to just browse the whole document. I'm not asking to delete anything. I'm aware of the Wikisources version, which includes hyper-links and other extraneous text, and has the amendments separately including unratified parts of the Bill of Rights. What I'd like to see, and I'm willing to assemble it myself if necessary, is all the text of the Constitution and active amendments, with no other text added, no hyperlinks, no commentary interspersed. The text should be absolutely complete and accurate, IOW the "official" version, with all the original capitalizations, punctuations, etc. I don't care so much about the typographic formatting; it could use different font sizes and bolding to make the document more readable, and use space and indenting to show section breaks, etc. If people think it necessary to have some table of contents or index, it could be rendered on a separate page as links to the "clean" version. I think this is unnecessary, as the current Wikipedia pages already do this.

Is there any reason this hasn't been done already? Am I the only one who's interested in having the complete, accurate US Constitution on one page, without commentary and hyperlinks, suitable for printing? I'm sure there are other web sources for this, but it's just strange and surprising for it to be missing from Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.161.89.182 (talk) 15:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I wonder if there a U.S. Constitutional equivalent to

.

Maybe

can be placed at the top of the article. I haven't had any experience with the format before. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:22, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Done at United States Constitution#Original text. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:27, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

So so it's already at the bottom but maybe the simpler version ought to be added under the infobox. Jim.henderson (talk) 17:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit note: As there's a wikisource link to the full text of the constitution in the side document info box at the top of the page and another near the bottom, I have removed the various wikisource box & in-line links from the article. Drdpw (talk) 16:44, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

That's incredibly stupid, considering how many times the text refers directly to sections of the text. It severely detracts from the analysis if the links to the text aren't made available at the relevant places to allow the reader to compare. Now the article seems incredibly vacuous and removed from the subject at hand as it doesn't provide easy access to the actual text. 88.192.19.110 (talk) 11:41, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

88.192.19.110 - in the future, please filter rude and nonconstructive comments out before contributing to discussions, as they're counter-productive. Thank you.

Easy access is indeed provided to the actual text at multiple points in the article. Links to the individual articles of the original document and the amendments (ratified & unratified) are also provided, and it is in those articles that the actual Constitutional text is presented, discussed and analyzed in greater depth. This article doesn't have the same depth of discussion and analysis as they do, which is why I think that pointing to the articles that do is sufficient. Drdpw (talk) 22:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

RE:Last sentences in introduction

I recently removed a sentence at the end of the introduction (Research has shown that this influence may be on the wane, however.) for bring un-encyclopedic and non-NPOV. As a result, the last paragraph of the introduction reads:

The Constitution is interpreted, supplemented, and implemented by a large body of constitutional law. The Constitution of the United States was the first constitution of its kind, and has influenced the constitutions of other nations.

While brevity is nice, this is a bit too brief, not to mention bone-bare. This paragraph needs a little (but not too much) more meat on it. What, if anything, can-be/needs-to-be added to it? Drdpw (talk) 21:55, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

As often, my own preference is for bare bones in an introduction, or in a master article that has several subordinate articles. This intro, of course, is both, so I am pleased with that trim, and suggest trimming further meat from the intro including which states sent delegates to the Convention, and which ratified when. Jim.henderson (talk) 14:44, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I heartily concur with Drdpw's removal of the Research distraction. Jim.henderson's suggestion to remove the states in convention is also appropriate, that is covered in the History of the United States Constitution. It is more relevant that all thirteen ratified the Constitution in two years, three times faster than the Articles of Confederation. But even that is a note for the History of ....

Henderson's removal will take away the last bit in the introduction of the previous compact-of-sovereign states POV from two years ago, which misapplied Articles history to the Constitution in the fashion of the Lost Cause tradition and the writings of Jefferson Davis. The people in the states formed the Union in the Constitution, in electorates broader than those electing state legislatures. See Pauline Maier's history, Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:16, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Done. Additionally, I removed procedural, historical account of Bill of Rights passage in the introduction.

The following phrase is incomplete and not in encyclopedic style: "Articles Four and Six entrench the doctrine of federalism,", it should read instead, for style and completeness, "Articles Four, Five and Six establish federalism,". as part of the U.S. federalism is that states can initiate constitutional conventions to propose amendments apart from Congress, and that is provided for in Article Five. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:55, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

After reading your above comment, I made this change to the introduction, "Articles Four, Five and Six entrench concepts of federalism, describing the rights and responsibilities of state governments and of the states in relationship to the federal government." Drdpw (talk) 15:19, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Like. On second thought, "entrench" just means establish so firmly that change is unlikely, why not? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:32, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Entrench more precise and has greater technical accuracy than establish does. While certain things are established–specifically spelled out/articulated–in the various clauses of the Constitution, the concepts underlying "those certain things" are not. The Constitution itself, on the other hand, is established; built to embody the concepts of federalism. Those concepts are laid out and entrenched (dig in or firmly plant/ground) them so firmly that alterations are either more difficult or nearly impossible to make. What's in the articles of the Constitution are expressions of federalism. Drdpw (talk) 19:17, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Splendid. Somehow, smarter people than me want to carry out my idea, letting me spend my time chasing photos of abandoned train stations in the Bronx and otherwise combining historical fun with the physical kind. What a lovely system. Jim.henderson (talk) 10:20, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Ratification GFE by Drdpw

The undiscussed edit by Drdpw was both not in encyclopedic summary style and it lost important detail relative to the expansion of the franchise for ratification conventions in the states following Congressional instructions to the state legislatures. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:58, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

What is this supposed to mean?

"The Articles Congress certified eleven states' beginning the new government..."

Someone with a good command of English, and the US constitution, should go through this entire article and clean up the sentences that are unclear or incomprehensible, and there are several. Arcanicus (talk) 15:51, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

What's stopping you?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:09, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

The sentence is clear though amended from its original, as Wikipedia is a collaborative process. The Articles Congress dissolved itself when it certified the people of the United States in eleven states ratified the Constitution to begin a new government. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:10, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

@Arcanicus: Your point is well taken; its clarity has apparently been tarnished by over-handling, so much so, that it looks out of place. It is also the third time in the article that the same statement is made. Drdpw (talk) 23:39, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

The very phrase "Articles Congress" is unfamiliar to most readers. Googling "Articles Congress" one concludes that the phrase has been excessively abbreviated (this isn't Twitter; you aren't limited to 140 characters) and should be written out more fully "Congress as organized under the Articles of Confederation." Further, the reference to a Supreme Court during the period of "first government" is very confusing. The relevant decisions were in fact made by the Supreme Court after the Constitution had come into force, but that is not at all obvious from the existing text. Someone unfamiliar with American history is going to be scratching their head for a long time over this. Finally, this section, though titled "First Government", says almost nothing about the first government of the US, before the Articles of Confederation had been enacted. If the rest of the Wikipedia article is this confused, it need to be reorganized along more logical lines.Floozybackloves (talk) 18:22, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Please do elaborate the constitutional elements of the Revolutionary Congress with additional sourced contributions. But the sentence with the phrase "Prior to the Articles of Confederation and the Articles Congress," --- does not need to be rewritten "Prior to the Articles of Confederation and the Congress as organized under the Articles of Confederation". That assumes the reader cannot follow an introductory prepositional phrase and it results in a stilted style of needless repetition.

When the Supreme Court is used as a reference in the narrative, as we use "historian John Smith", it is common to link cases, which are dated after the establishment of the Constitution. Problem solved. I agree compound sentences are sometimes difficult to follow for the elementary reader, though the general newspaper reader comprehends at a sixth grade reading level. What is your recommended rewrite in simple declaratory sentences? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:36, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I reworked the passage following Floozybackloves suggestion, calling the Supreme Court referenced a "later Supreme Court" and reordering the passage a bit to try to clarify the points made. Again, additional sample language is welcomed for discussion. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:50, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Original Text section edit

I have simplified the subheadings in the Original Text section. There is no need to have four and five levels of subheadings in this section. I also tweaked the wording in the Articles 2, 5, and 7. The wording now follows the pattern in the other articles more closely. In the final paragraph of the section I modified the wording to match the wording Congress uses RE:Amendments (This amendment shall be inoperative unless ...) I have also removed the sentence mentioned above by Arcanicus as its point is made up-page in two places. Drdpw (talk) 23:39, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

You have violated the word limit of 3-4 words for subheading titles. Perhaps eliminating calling out the number of each sequential article would help.

The insistence on stressing the nine rather than eleven, when nothing happened to constitute the new government until Congress certified that eleven states had ratified and disbanded itself, reflects the contention of Jefferson Davis, that the United States existed until there were only eight states left, implying states ability to secede was inherent in the Constitution. His position is wp:fringe Lost Cause historiography. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:54, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I couldn't find a wiki-rule limiting size of subheading titles VH. I did modify the headings used in the section a bit.

I know nothing about Confederate lost cause historiography and, probably because I'm a Yankee, the point you were trying to make sailed past me. The reason for stressing the number nine in the Article VII subsection is because that's the "magic number" referred to there. That's as far ahead as the framers thought. The stress is on the number eleven earlier in the article, and appropriately so, as that was the number of states that had ratified the Constitution when the Confederation Congress certified that the Constitution had been ratified by more than the number required by its terms for it to become operational and made it so. Its not a matter of insisting on one over the other. Its seeing each as being appropriate to stress at the appropriate point in the narrative. Drdpw (talk) 03:31, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the reasonable reply. It is also of note that the Articles took the Founders 1776-1781 to ratify unanimously "perpetual Union", and the Constitution's "more perfect Union" than the Article's perpetual Union took only 1787-1790, so the Constitution was ratified unanimously two times faster than the Articles ..... TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 01:10, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

GF edit to introduction by MorrisS

While the current legal system of San Marino began in 1600 and is far older than that of the USA, it isn't correct to call the Leges Statuti of 1600 the Constitution of the Republic of San Marino, even though its Book One does contain constitutional elements. For an in depth discussion, see Talk:Constitution of San Marino. The consensus, RE: this article, was to refer to the United States Constitution as "the oldest constitution of its kind ..." See Talk:United States Constitution/Archive 9. Drdpw (talk) 23:49, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for policing this, I'm not sure why it keeps resurfacing in particular, since there are other organic constitutions reduced to writing even prior to San Marino's, as previously discussed by others. "The oldest constitution of its kind" is a pretty careful phrasing of the matter for this article, and it should suffice. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

"Frame of Government"

We have major sections entitled "Frame of Government", "Modifying the frame" and then "Amendments". Why not rename "Frame of Government" to "Original Text"? After all, the entire constitution is the frame of the government, so the current section title is misleading. The "Modifying the frame" section is just a long explanation of the amendment process and rationale. First off, this was already covered (in less detail) in the section covering Article Five. Second, shouldn't it just be part of the "Amendments" section? Third, there's so much detail here that you could almost spin it off into a new article. And even if we're going to keep the basic structure here, "Modifying the frame" should be renamed as "Amendment Process" or something, shouldn't it? As it stands, it sounds as if "the frame" is something distinct from "the Constitution". Sonicsuns (talk) 00:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

@Sonicsuns:Thanks for your input. I see your point and I've made some modifications to the article. The Modifying the frame section has been split up, with parts going to the introduction, Article Five subsection (replacing a couple sentences that looked like original research and said basically the same thing) or Adopted amendments section. You'll note that I didn't change the Frame of government section title. Now, without the Modifying the frame section, and with the introductory sentences beneath the title, is it clearer that "the frame" is not distinct from "the Constitution"? Drdpw (talk) 19:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

@Drdpw:Thanks for making those changes. I still think that "Frame of Government" should be retitled "Original Text", though. It still implies that the adopted amendments are not part of "the frame". Yet in actual practice, the First Amendment (for instance) is very important. You could easily describe the Bill of Rights, and indeed all the adopted amendments, as being part of "the frame" on which the government operates. "Frame of Government" is ambiguous, but "Original Text" is objectively true.Sonicsuns (talk) 21:36, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps the title should be "Original frame". The United States government in its "Original frame" is organized as a central government in a federal system. It is a central government with three branches to protect against centralized tyranny, in a federal system with states to protect against state tyranny. The amendments are improvements on the frame, such as presidential elections specifying vice president, or removing corrupt state legislatures from electing U.S. Senators.

The Bill of Rights was very important to secure the ratification of those fearful of the central government before the checks and balances at the federal level were well understood. Indeed they are still important, as much of the national jurisprudence of the Supreme Court over the last century and a half since the 14th Amendment is the work of conforming the states to the Bill of Rights which was initially only applied to the central government. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:27, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Changing Frame of government to "Original frame" sounds good to me; I'll make the change. Drdpw (talk) 01:16, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I am going through the adopted amendments, adding content to each one and giving each its own paragraph worth of information. I've completed amendments One through Eleven and will do the rest as I have time over the next few weeks. Please feel free offer suggestions and to fine-tune what I've done thus far. Drdpw (talk) 01:38, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Amendments enumeration

This effort continues the general effect in recent edits to eliminate historical context and encyclopedic style, replacing it with a restatement from other articles in an mechanically itemized fashion. This has the consequence of making the article impenetrable for the general reader. The effect is exaggerated with the proposed expansion of the list of amendments article then translated into this one.

Simply restating the organization of the subsidiary articles violates one of Wikipedia’s principles, a prohibition against articles mirroring each other. Diverse content, organization and illustration across related articles is encouraged, but now that is to be lost, removing the value added by topically organizing the material with historical context, and replacing it with a mere descriptive listing.

Instead, section 4. "Adopted amendments" should be subdivided into 4.1 “Bill of Rights” with three subdivisions topically organized: individual rights, trial and sentencing, and potential military coercion. 4.2 “Subsequent Amendments” with three subdivisions topically organized, citizen rights, three branches, and states and abuses. This makes the material more accessible for the general reader.

@Drdpw: The recent rewrite of the second amendment description per se by Drdpw may dodge some of the recent instability from POV edits. But it should be addressed topically along with the potential military coercion addressed in the third amendment. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:13, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I had intended to stay out of this, since law and legal history are not among my major interests, but was asked very politely and with much flattery, so I'll throw in my two cents worth. The article as a whole has expanded some 10% in the past two months, and the majority of the expansion is in the Amendments section. As it happens, large articles often trigger my sense of WP:TOOBIG, in part because of my two tablets and an old smartphone, none of which can read this whole article. Many readers, though few highly active editors, have their only access to Wikipedia by similarly limited means. So, here with my real computer, I look at article United States Bill of Rights which handles its particular topics rather thoroughly without saying much in its itemized list. It would not suffer much if it where bigger (especially since it is a more advanced topic, thus less interesting to underequipped readers) whilst our present article would definitely benefit from being smaller.

Notice, I have thus far ignored my old friend @TheVirginiaHistorian:'s concern that handling the amendments thematically (he's one of the editors who did that, years ago) made it all easier for the reader to understand. This too is an important consideration, as other articles, most of them linked from our text, handle each list item better and a serial summary of them is not needed here. Best of all, from my way of looking at it, his old thematic arrangement resulted in less text. Jim.henderson (talk) 21:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I do see and concur with your observations about the impact that my editorial re-organization has on the user-friendliness, if you will, of the article. Here’s what I propose, I’ll trim the amendment descriptions a bit and organize them topically
“Safeguards of individual liberty” – amendments 1, 2 & 3
“Legal protections” – amendments 4, 5, 6, 7 & 8
“Unenumerated rights and reserved powers” – amendments 9 & 10
“Expansion of citizen rights” – amendments 13, 14, 15, 19, 23, 24 & 26
“Governmental authority” – amendments 11, 16, 18 & 21
“Government processes and procedures” – amendments 12, 17, 20, 22, 25 & 27. Drdpw (talk) 00:13, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Another way to slice the pie in about three equal sections would be

• Liberty, justice and citizenship. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 13, 19, 26
• National government. 12, 16, 20, 22, 23, 25, 27
• States and federal relationships. 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, 21

These also echo the Constitution's *Preamble, *Arts. 1-3, and *Arts. 4-7. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:48, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I love it when keen minds agree to cut into hard problems rather than let mine be dulled further. Jim.henderson (talk) 18:19, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I've finished adding content to each ratified Constitutional amendment and giving each its own paragraph worth of information. Regarding how to "slice the (topical organization of amendments) pie" here's what I've done:

• Safeguards of liberty
• Safeguards of justice
• Unenumerated rights and reserved powers
• Governmental authority
• Safeguards of civil rights
• Government processes and procedures

I think these labels offer good thematic "hooks" for the various articles. Please feel free offer suggestions and to fine-tune what's been done to date. Note: I also tweaked the introduction with these changes in mind. Drdpw (talk) 21:08, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I find the current thematic arrangement very confusing, especially given that this is the page people are apt to first come to if they want to know basic things such as which amendment gave women the vote. If you must have a thematic arrangement, it doesn't have to be so abstractly analytical, but historical. I would think it more satisfactory to have the Bill of Rights under one heading, with sub-headings or prefatory comments to sub-divide it further, if you must. Then the Civil War amendments, Prohibition amendments, etc. And you don't have to group them so severely. The XXII could be under one heading - Reaction to FDR's Four Terms, the XXV under another - Post Kennedy Assassination Presidential Succession Worries. Additionally, the amendment titles aren't bold enough. That could be improved by either making each amendment a sub-section, with the additional advantage of putting each in the table of contents, or rendering each ordinal-numbered title in boldface. Dhtwiki (talk) 01:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

There should be no confusion. I am concerned with a topical organization similar to the document as a whole structured in an arrangement similar to the Federalist Papers. The general reader will go to List of amendments to the United States Constitution to determine which amendment gave the women the vote, because it should be linked in this article in a hat note. Otherwise, under a) Liberty, Justice and Citizenship, b) national government and c) states and federal relationships --- are more organically descriptive of the a) the Preamble, b) arts. 1-3 and c) arts. 4-7.

Each major section should be subdivided into groupings of 3-5 similar amendments, so each section with an introduction paragraph would be written into 4-6 paragraphs each, consistent with the WP Manual of Style WP:MOS.

• For instance, in national government, there are two natural divisions, congressional (4 amendments) and presidential (5 amendments). Since the congressional income tax (XVI), congressional election of senators (XVII) congressional and presidential terms (XX) and congressional salaries (XXVII) relate to Article I, the Congress, they belong in the same subsection.
• Since presidential election tickets (Amend. XII), presidential and congressional terms (XX), presidential term limits (XXII), presidential DC electors (XXIII) and presidential succession (XXV) are related to the structure of the Executive (Article II), they belong in the same subsection. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 04:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

You're trying to fit a political document accumulated over centuries into the scheme of a coherent exposition of political theory written over the period of a year. The current groupings, and what you propose, are too arbitrary to be much of an advantage, especially as they put so many amendments out of chronological order. For example, in the present arrangement "Governmental authority" doesn't include the XIVth amendment, to which is often attributed the greatest expansion of Federal government authority; and, in your newly proposed arrangement, the XVIth, the federal income tax, is shoehorned into the congressional section, while the XXth, which relates to congressional terms as well, is put with the presidential amendments. In any case, the amendment titles in the body of the article could be made more distinguishable. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Making each Amendment its own list heading violates WP:MOS, and the purported purpose of the rewrite is to achieve a better rating. There is no internal rationale for mere chronological enumeration, that is what the listing at List of amendments to the United States Constitution does, and a link to that chronological listing should be included in this article in a hat note for the general reader.

The XIVth relates to states, so it is reasonably placed in a section of perhaps five paragraphs related to “states and federalism”, along with IX, X, XV, XVIII-XXI. The XIVth is not related to expansion of federal authority so much as it is related to curbing the injustices of state abuses by individuals and minorities appealing to national judiciary against the state-based tyranny of a local majority. In the federal system there is dual state and national citizenship. The XIVth basically extends the protections of the Bill of Rights and due process to individuals as state citizens.

Taxation is a power of Congress, it is logically and organically included in a congressional section. “Shoehorned” implies forced. But placing congressional powers with three other congressionally related amendments is not forced, it is good organization. The implication in the post above that organizing an article about the U.S. Constitution is now in the current day incoherent if it addresses amendments about the Congress in a subsection on Congress is, well, untenable.

The XXth would be included in both congressional and presidential sections because it addresses both. But if it is to be only one, it briefly determines the primacy of the First Branch organization, Congress, leaving congressional with four paragraphs and presidential with four. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Drdpw proposal

@Dhtwiki:Yes, if you're looking for a numerical 1, 2, 3, ... 25, 26, 27 ordering of amendments, the current thematic arrangement might indeed seem confusing. That confusion should however, subside after a few moments as you consider why each particular amendment is in the group that it's in.

Regarding amendments 11–27,

• Governmental authority: 11 (authority of federal courts to hear cases against states), 16 (authority of Congress to impose/collect direct taxes), 18 (authority of Congress to regulate alcohol)& 21 (authority of states to regulate alcohol)
• Safeguards of civil rights: 13 (abolition of slavery), 14 (citizens' immunities, privilege and protections) , 15 (voting rights expansion), 19 (voting rights expansion), 23 (voting rights expansion), 24 (breaking down voter suppression) & 26 (voting rights expansion)
• Government processes and procedures 12 (electoral college process reform), 17 (procedure for electing US senators changed), 20 (start date for Presidential, Vice Presidential and Congressional terms changed), 22 (rule established for how many terms/years a person can serve as President), 25 (procedures & process regarding presidential succession modified) & 27 (procedural change regarding Congressional pay increases)

I suppose XIII and XIV could go under "governmental authority", and the group containing XV, XIX, XXIII, XXIV & XXVI could be renamed "voting rights". Drdpw (talk) 05:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

It took me a considerable amount of time to find my amendment (I think it was the 19th) in your scheme, but find it I did. However, that doesn't speak well of this arrangement being anything but unintuitive to the uninitiated. Is there any other U.S. constitutional presentation that starts out this way? Have you had much feedback from other novitiates on this matter? As far as re-arranging, I think all your arrangements so far are too arbitrary and unintuitive; and I wouldn't break up the Civil War set by putting 13 and 14 apart from 15. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:22, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Some categorization is necessary to make the article more accessible specially on different browsers, as noted by Jim.henderson. I prefer the organic organization of the original document reflecting Montesquieu and the Federalist Papers, Drdpw is looking at a more political science formulation. Dhtwiki seems to prefer chronological organization based on historical period themes. But finding the 19th Amendment in Drdpw's scheme is relatively easy under the category "voting rights" he considered in his last posting.

@Drdpw: So to put the pieces together, Drdpw proposal might be amended to consolidate 9 and 10 into Government authority, and move 13 into a new citizenship and voting category, to get,

• Individual liberty. 1, 2, 3
• Legal protections. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
• Citizenship and voting. 13, 15, 19, 23, 24, 26.
• Government authority. 9, 10, 11, 14, 16, 18, 21
• Government procedure. 12, 17, 20, 22, 25, 27

Is that attainable? It should yield five sections of about equal length. Each section should have an introductory paragraph explaining the theme for including each particular amendment to meet Dhtwiki concerns. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:45, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

As I've mentioned before, it would be helpful if each amendment had its own subsection, within your topical arrangement, with a heading consisting of amendment number, date ratified, and short descriptive subtitle. So...

• XIXth Amendment (1920) - Gives women the right to vote

...would help it to stand out within the topical arrangement, and would cause it to be included in the table of contents for very easy summary reference. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:11, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

@Dhtwiki:How about something like ...

Safeguards of liberty

First Amendment (1791)

The First Amendment prohibits Congress ...

Second Amendment (1791)

The Second Amendment protects the right of individuals ...

Third Amendment (1791)

The Third Amendment prohibits the federal government from ...

Safeguards of justice

Fourth amendment (1791)

The Fourth Amendment protects people against ...

and so on. My only concern with this is that it would make the table of contents much longer than it is now. Drdpw (talk) 19:50, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's about it, except that each article or amendment should have a terse description appended (Art. I - Establishes the legislative branch, Amend. I - Protects freedom of religion and speech, etc.). The point is taken about the table of contents becoming lengthy, especially as it is now fairly balanced with the infobox's length (I don't suppose there's a way to make the TOC multi-columnar). However, I think it's important to have the constituent parts briefly summarized, which I, of course, am willing to help with the doing of. Dhtwiki (talk) 20:57, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

That blackout of boldface is really poor composition, never mind bad encyclopedic style. Again, a proposal to make a substantial part of the article a mirror of a list article violates the WP:MOS. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 01:38, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

What does "blackout of boldface" mean? The proposed sub-headings are boldfaced to simulate how they'd look as subheadings. Boldface would not be used in actuality. And where does it say that it's bad encyclopedic style to have extra sub-headings, which don't really mirror anything, since nowhere else would there be the succinct characterizations of the amendments? However, to keep the table of contents from being grotesquely lengthened, I propose that merely the amendment numbers be included in the current topical sub-headings. So, you would have...

• Safeguards of liberty (I, II, III)

...or, somewhat different stylistically...

• Citizenship and voting: amendments 13, 15, 19, 23, 24, 26

Dhtwiki (talk) 12:24, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

That looks more reasonable...I would argue for it. The links individual amendment names are to show in blue as The First Amendment, that is sufficient highlighting. Perhaps to distinguish the Articles from the Amendments, the subtopics can be styled,

Individual Liberty (Amendments I, II, III)

The first three amendments safeguard individual liberties. The First Amendment (1791) prohibits Congress from obstructing the exercise of certain individual freedoms: freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and freedom of petition...

The Second Amendment (1791) protects the right of individuals[n] to keep and bear arms...

The Third Amendment (1791) prohibits the federal government from forcing individuals to provide lodging to soldiers in their homes during peacetime without their consent...

Legal protections (Amendments IV, V, VI, VII, VIII)

The amendments 4-8 offer legal protections by the federal judicial system. The Fourth Amendment (1791) protects people against unreasonable searches and seizures of either self or property by government officials....

I also concur with Safeguards of Liberty (1, 2, 3) as a subsection header style showing up in the table of contents. I object to the boldface name of each and every amendment in addition to the boldface subheading and the linked amendment name, so I have tried to give an example of the format I favor in this posting. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:22, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll add the numeration so we can see what it looks like. Drdpw (talk) 15:29, 1 September 2014 (UTC)