Talk:Constitution of the United States/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Semi-Protect

I suggest that wikipedia semi-protect this article to prevent vandalism —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ccrowe1990 (talk • contribs) 02:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Full Text

How about giving the full text, and then an analysis. Or in the fashion on the American Declaration of Independence page, split the actual text and analysis side-by-side. Chiss Boy 01:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I would be in favor of doing this in each of the 7 individual Wikipedia articles on the Articles of the Constitution. In my opinion, however, the main Constitution article is not the place to put the entire text and discussion (as that would probably make the article longer than the suggested maximum article length). I agree though that the Declaration of Independence style is pretty good, and would like to see that in each of the Articles of the Constitution pages. --CapitalR 02:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey guys whats up??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.240.84.119 (talk) 21:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

More than 13 states

There were more than 13 states when the Constitution was ratified. The info box with the votes should include all the states' votes. Chiss Boy 01:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure? I'm pretty sure there were 13 colonies at the time (they weren't technically states until they ratified the constitution individually in their respective colonies). The Virginias split during the American Revolution, if that is what you are referring to (in which case, West Virginia wouldn't be considered a state at the time). 202.216.127.226 12:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

What on Earth are you talking about? First of all the States had stopped being colonies for some time before the writing of the US Constitution. The colonies declared their independence in 1776, formed The United States under the Articles of Confederation in 1777, and the 13th state (Rhode Island) approved the current Constitution in 1790. Vermont (the 14th state) didn't join until 1791. Furthermore West Virginia didn't split away from Virginia until the US Civil War. It joined the Union in 1863. 71.75.109.20 19:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with THAT, that's for sure. Wait, Vermont wasn't a state until 1791? I thought it was a bit later! Oh well, you've still got the point. And besides, they technically aren't "states" if they didn't ratify the Constitution, right? --68.100.241.43 (talk) 07:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The American colonies became U.S. states on July 4, 1776, after the (historically canonical) signing of the Declaration of Independence. That is, after the official independence, the states were technically considered states, not colonies, regardless of when they decided to ratify the U.S. Constitution. Cf. Ron Chernow's "Alexander Hamilton" and David McCullough's "1776". --Unregistered user.

Correct word?

Is that supposed to be "engrossed" or "embossed" in the second page? Rekrdskratcher 02:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

"Engrossed" is the correct word (see [1]), but the wikilink is to a different use of the term. In this case, engrossed means written formally in a large clear script, as a deed or other legal document [2] — Lomn 22:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Long overdue

I have created two talk page archives. I made sure each discussion had been closed for awhile. Veracious Rey 16:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I am missing in the article's TOC a link to the amendments. The are mentioned (with a link) at the top of the section on the contents but that is far from obvious for a first-time visitor to the page. Guido van Rossum (Dec 30, 2006)

Gallery

I added a gallery of pages 2-5, including the signatures. Page 1 is featured at the bottom. Veracious Rey 17:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• I don't think it would be better to have all five pages at the bottom, even if it means that page one is displayed 3 times. It didn't take me long to find page two, and I do like the way the gallery starts with page one. -Arcking

I'm not sure what you mean by that Arcking (though I think I'm agreeing with you), but it seemed to me that it would be easier on there were an area with links to each page of the Constitution.

I also added a perrow attribute to the gallery to force all of the images to stay in a line, although I think this may cause horizontal scrolling on some screens. Please remove it if that's the case for you. --sachin 03:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Page 5 is redundant. The signatures are already on page 4. Therefore, I have deleted page 5Ferrylodge 04:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The Constitution

Well, I use the Constitution a lot for my homework and I can come to say I appreciate it because it holds the U.S. together.

I find it surprising that there is no mention of James Madison as the document's primary author. This is very important as his ideas and actual language are almost intact as passed into law.

Where's the text?

Is it just me, or is it unnecessarily difficult to find the actual text of the Constitution on this wiki? How about a "read the original text in its entirety" link on the main page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.17.180.126 (talk) 21:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

Agreed. Please bring back the Wikisource box. Mdiamante 05:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• It's already back. --CapitalR 06:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

San Marino? not

As the standard scholarship explains: San Marino does not have an official Constitution as such.' Page 211 of Fragmentation and the International Relations of Micro-states: Self-determination and Statehood (1996) by Jorri C. Duursma[3] in books.google.com Rjensen 15:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

"Standard scholarship"? Is the Library of Congress a fringe group? [4] While Duursma says there was no written constitution, his description of the Statutes of 1600 makes it sound very much like a constitution. Since there's apparently a dispute, it'd be better to describe the dispute, or at least mention it. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 04:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

LC website is not fringe--but it is trumped when an expert on the subject says explicitly something else. The LC does not cite its sources but the expert does. As the expert explains: San Marino does not have an official Constitution as such.' Page 211 of Fragmentation and the International Relations of Micro-states: Self-determination and Statehood (1996) by Jorri C. Duursma[5] in books.google.com Rjensen 05:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

"Standard", though very secondary, sources date San Marino's constitution from 1600, including the CIA Factbook,[6], and the Encyclopedia Britannica.[7] Others, including that one professor, don't regard the Statutes as a written constitution. We both know Wikipedia well-enough to know that if we were to simply omit mention of San Marino then well-intentioned editor will re-add it every few months. Also, it's not our job to decide which scholars are correct. The most accurate, neutral text might say:

• The U.S. Constitution is the oldest written constitution except for the San Marino Statutes of 1600, whose status is disputed.

That includes both sides neutrally, right? ·:·Will Beback ·:· 06:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

If it's me, I'd massage the wording thus: The U.S. Constitution is the oldest written constitution except possibly for San Marino's Statutes of 1600, whose status as a true constitution is disputed by scholars. I think that neutralizes and clarifies things a bit more. Vbdrummer0 13:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

That sounds even better. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 06:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I put San Marino into a footnote, where the San Marinese will find it. That way when the Greeks, or the Icelanders, or the Ragusans, put in their claims, we need only lengthen the footnote. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The status of San Marino's constitution is disputed? I doubt it. --129.78.64.101 (talk) 12:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

No evidence sofar of a dispute among scholars. --129.78.64.102 (talk) 04:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Use of Abbreviation

Why use "v." for versus instead of "vs." ? --Sarge909 00:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

U.S. legal citation form. See Bluebook - NYC JD (interrogatories) 00:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Cyrus??

Is this true? Section 1.4 on historical influences talks about Cyrus and that the people who set up the constitution had to read two books and choose which system of government they wanted. This sounds extremely farfetched to me. --KarlFrei 13:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

It sounded far-fetched to me too when someone added it last week. I only found 3-4 references to it on Google, and all looked like they came from the same source. I say that if no one supports the claim here on this talk page in the next week or so we delete it. --CapitalR 20:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, when somebody added it only last week, I'll take a chance and delete it right now. Pretty sure this is nonsense. --KarlFrei 09:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I've heard that story, but have never found anything to support it. -- A. 21:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Potential Amendments

In the article, several potential amendments are discussed as having entered "mainstream political debate." One that I know has at least been tossed around is an amendment to allow foreign-born citizens to serve as President. We're all smart people here, so I think we can guess who would benefit most from such an amendment. Stil, what are our criteria for "mainstream political debate?" -- A. 21:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Here it is, the Equal Opportunity to Govern Amendment. Which basically answers my question; like the other amendments that didn't make the cut here, they've been proposed, but not seriously considered or submitted to the States. -- A. 21:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Influence of the Bible

The Bible was a major influence on the Constitution. That's indisputable. The source for this is Barton's book: Original Intent: The Courts, the Constitution, and Religion. http://www.amazon.com/Original-Intent-Courts-Constitution-Religion/dp/0925279579 I'm not sure how to put that in there. 208.255.6.195 18:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

that's disputable. The Barton book is not consensus scholarship, which Wiki represents. from Amazon: "David Barton is founder and president of WallBuilders, a national pro-family organization which distributes historical, legal, and statistical information, and helps citizens become active in their local schools and communities. He was appointed by the Texas State Board of Education and the California Academic Standards Commission to review their History/Social crimes standards." Rjensen 18:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• I could be wrong (I often am), but I thought Wikipedia was supposed to (re)present all major sides of a debate or dispute, not pick which one to deem "consensus scholarship" and report only on that one. Barton is only one scholar, but many scholars would agree that the Bible indluenced the Constitution. I don't happen to be one of those scholars, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't include the existance of the debate, even briefly, in the article. Vbdrummer0 13:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, the only CLEAR link I can find in governmental policy is the separation of church and state, which can arguably be traced to Jesus' teachings in the New Testament. Technically, though, that's in the Bill of Rights. --Dunkelza 02:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

So, people get stoend to death?

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.58.224 (talk) 03:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Massachusetts constitution

Massachusetts constitution seems to be older and still continuously in place. We probably should charge opening to something like "the oldest constitution of a sovereign state". Any thoughts? 151.204.253.82 04:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I changed it to "constitution of its type". This is a bit unclear, but technically, Massachusetts is still a sovereign (or at least quasi-sovereign) state, so that term isn't precise either. The Magna Carta can also be viewed as a constitution, as it establishes the form and limitations of government. I thought about using "federal constitution", but I figured we could debate that further. --Dunkelza 02:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, that was a good catch. I was thinking it wasn't the oldest constitution as well. It would have to be federal. National doesn't work and if you used country, the wording would have to be changed. I can't think of any others and the definition of federal¹ clarifies that perfectly. --70.174.139.25 02:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Iroquois Constitution

I think it would be useful to add some details about the influence of the Iroquois Constitution on the US Constitution. This appears to be completely and notably absent from the "Historical Influences" section.

http://usinfo.state.gov/scv/Archive/2005/May/17-246412.html http://www.loc.gov/law/guide/usconst.html

It has been debunked before but keeps resurfacing. --Purpleslog 16:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

From http://www.usconstitution.net/constfaq_a6.html:

Q103. "I have heard that the U.S. Constitution is based on a document called the 'Iroquois Confederation'. Is this true, and if so what parts of the Constitution came from this document?"

A. The U.S. Constitution is not based on that of the Iroquois Confederation - but some of the delegates to the Convention knew of the Confederation (notably Benjamin Franklin) and the two documents share many concepts, as do many constitutions. The Five Nations was a federal-style system, and it shared that with the U.S. You can find it online, though it is slightly difficult reading - the Indians spoke often in concept and metaphor. --Purpleslog 16:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the U.S. Government has even acknowledged the Great Law of Peace's contributions. ""Whereas the contutition of the original Thirteen Colonies into one republic was explicitly modeled upon th Iroquois Confederacy as were many of the democratic principles which were incorporated into the Constitution itself; and,""

This can be found here: [8]

Also, along with this document, there is a book with almost 300 pages of testimony that preceded this declaration. This should be considered evidence enough to include it in the main article.--Roskerah (talk) 04:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Probably not - the source isn't available right now, so it's not verifiable. Tedickey (talk) 01:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Which source? The link I posted, or the hearings that I mentioned? The link I posted is good. I will try to upload the 300 pager, but to me, the resolution should suffice.--Roskerah (talk) 05:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to the link you posted, which still is not accessible:

Not Found
The requested URL /archive/nl/9307/0057.html was not found on this server.


Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request. 
Apache/1.3.37 Server at www.nativenet.uthscsa.edu Port 80

Tedickey (talk) 00:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Very Strange that it does not work now, but, I do have the whole thing in word. Here it is: ""HEARING BEFORE THE SELECT COMMlTTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS UNITED STATES SENATE, ONE HUNDREDTH CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION ON S. Con. Res. 76 DECEMBER 2, 1987 To acknowledge the contribution of the Iroquois Confederacy of Nation the development of the United States Constitution and to reaffirm the continuing government-to-government relationship between tribes and the United States established in the Constitution. IN THE SENATE OF THE UNlTED STATES September 16, 1987 Mr Inouye (for himself, Mr, Evans, Mr DeConcini, Mr. Burdick, Mr McCain, Mr. Adams, Mr Boren, Mr Conrad, Mr Cranston, Mr D'Amato, Mr Dole, Mr Ford, Mr Fowler, Mr Levin, Mr Pell, Mr Pryor, Mr Reid, Mr Riegle, and Mr Stafford) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Select Committee on Indian Affairs. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION To acknowledge the contribution of the Iroquois Confederacy of Nations to the development of the United States Constitution and to reaffirm the continuing government-to-government relationship between Indian tribes and the United States established in the Constitution. Whereas the original framers of the Constitution, including most notably, George Washington and Benjamin Franklin, are known to have, greatly admired the concepts, principles and government practices of the Six Nations of the Iroquois Confederacy and, Whereas the constitution of the original Thirteen Colonies into one republic was explicitly modeled upon the Iroquois Confederacy as were many of the democratic principles which were incorporated into the Constitution itself; and, Whereas since the formation of the United States, the Congress has recognized the sovereign status of Indian tribes, and has, through the exercise of powers reserved to the Federal Government in the Commerce Clause of the Constitution (art. I s8, oI.9), dealt with Indian Tribes on a government to-government basis and has, through the treaty clause (art. 62, Cl.a) entered into three hundred and Seventy treaties with Indian tribal nations; and, Whereas from the first treaty entered into with an Indian nation, the treaty with the Delaware Indian of September 17, 1778, and thereafter in every Indian treaty until the cessation of treaty making in 1871, the Congress has assumed a trust responsibility and obligation to Indian tribes and their members to "exercise the utmost good faith in dealings with the Indians" as provided for in the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, (l Stat: 50); and, Whereas Congress has consistently reaffirmed these fundamental polices over the past two hundred years through legislation specifically designed to honor this special relationship; and, Whereas, the judicial system of the United States has consistently recognized and reaffirmed this special relationship: Now. Therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives Concurring), That (1) The Congress, on the occasion of the two hundredreth anniversary of the signing of the United States Constitution, acknowledges the historical debt which this Republic of the United States of America owes to the Iroquois Confederacy and other Indian Nations for their demonstration of enlightened, democratic principals of Government and their example of a free association independent Indian Nations; (2) The Congress also hereby reaffirms the constitutionship recognized government-to-government relationship with Indian tribes, which has historically been the cornerstone of this Nation's Indian policy; (3) The Congress specifically acknowledges and reaffirms the responsibility and obligation of the United States Governments to Indian tribes, including Alaskan Natives, for their preservation, protection and enhancement, including the provision of health, education, social and economic assistance programs as necessary to assist tribes to perform their governmental responsibility to provide for the social and economic wellbeing of their members and to preserve tribal cultural identity and heritage; and (4) The Congress also acknowledges the need to exercise the utmost good faith in upholding its treaties with the various tribes, as the tribes understood them to be, and the duty of a great Nation to uphold its legal and moral obligation for the benefit of all its citizens so that they and their posterity may also continue to enjoy the rights they have enshrined in the United States Constitution for time immemorial.""

It can be found here: [9] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roskerah (talk • contribs) 03:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

That url fails too (always a problem with search urls). Back to the text - even if pointed to a reliable source, it's not the same as stating that the U. S. Government did something. Congressmen (and Senators) make feel-good statements frequently, but they're unrelated to policy. Policy is backed up with actions, not words Tedickey (talk) 14:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Statutes of 1600

The opening paragraph states that the status of the Statutes of 1600 as a true constitution is disputed by scholars. Does anyone have a source for this? I couldn't find a mention of it in the Statues article, I'm tagging this claim with{{Fact}} until a source can be cited. Naufana : talk 03:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Look above you, on this page, under a heading regarding San Marino. The wording is a compromise between competing scholarly interpretations. I've not seen a source that says plainly that a dispute exists, but there are sources, mentioned above, that argue both sides of the dispute. I'm going to remove the fact template and replace it with a link to that discussion rather than citing multiple disagreeing sources in the article. Vbdrummer0 01:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Fix or replace Articles of Confederation?

A change was made to the article today (in the top infobox) indicating that the purpose of the Constitution was to replace the Articles, not to fix them. My understanding (correct me here if I'm wrong) is that the convention was called with the idea of fixing them, but instead a whole new Constitution was written (controversially). Should we give the purpose as a "fix" or a "replacement," or is there a succinct way to give the whole story within the infobox? Vbdrummer0 17:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• Hey Vbdrummer0, I made the change to "replace" today from "fix" because I thought it just fit better. It's fine by me if you want to change it back to fix; I won't revert it. I'm no constitutional scholar, so I'll defer judgement to someone with more knowledge. --CapitalR 17:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• I should clarify that I don't quite have an opinion on this; both words can be correct, depending on how it's looked at. Might be a worthwhile discussion, though. Maybe I'll learn something. :) Vbdrummer0 18:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

suggestions for a rather major rewrite

Hi. Though I've been a big fan and user of wikipedia for a while, this is my first contribution. I think whoever wrote this entry did a lot of good work but, since it is the most important document in US history, it needs some clean-up. The first issue to resolve is the scope - what do we mean by "constitution?" I think we have to limit it (for clarity and space) as much as possible to the document itself, including some propositions beyond controversy (i.e. Congress has enumerated powers, Federal Courts are of limited jurisdiction, etc.), some historical context, and links to the various other pages its treatment will require. So, here are my (bear with me) numerous suggestions.

1) THE LEAD: I would lose the part about San Marino's statutes - They are not a "constitution." Nor is the Magna Carta, for example, although it influenced both the US constitution and later English Law. So, If you're going to assert that it is the oldest living national constitution (which I believe it is), I would start with that. Next, I would moved down, edit, and provide a link for the details of the convention and later ratification. Also, it's not that it "has a central place in American law and political culture" but, in fact, is the basis (or source) of the entire legal and political system. If you want to further stress its' importance, I would replace "the supreme law..." (not entirely instructive) and add a fact. I would also lose the part about the "engrossed copy..." since, among others, that fact is repeated in the adjacent box. (Speaking of which, I don't think you can say "original copy.") Thus:

"Ratified on September 17, 1789 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, The Constitution of the United States of America is the world's oldest living national constitution. It establishes a democratic republic, and provides the basis for the American legal and political system. All military and government officers must take an oath to protect and preserve the constitution before entering public service. Many of its concepts derived from European and Ancient sources. Several of them, however, (Federalism, Elasticity and Judicial Review) constitute original contributions to democratic theory."

2) HISTORY: I would change this as being vague. In a sense, the "history" of the constitution includes all of history to the present (since it has ancient influence and is a living, changing document, the latter of which needs to be emphasized and clarified.) I agree it's important to go into the framers, the convention, the ratification, etc. but I don't think it should be so detailed on the main page. Perhaps instead of "history" it could be "ORIGINS," then a few words about them with links to more in-depth articles. To that end, I don't think, as asserted, Montesquieu, was the "most important" European influence. That needs attribution. Nor do I agree with the characterization of Polybius' writings or the conclusion that "he" was a significant source. Many ancient sources influenced the framers, notably Plutarch's account of Lycurgus (see, eg, The Federalist Nos. 6 (Hamilton) 18 (Madison and Hamilton) and 32 (Madison). These issues are important but need to be sourced and, for purposes of the main article, should simply be mentioned.

3) SLAVERY: As it stands, this is mentioned under the "work of the Philadelphia Convention." Instead, it needs to be in the discussion of the text. Also, although the current summary is basically correct, I think it doesn't reflect a subtlety of the text. Wiki says "3/5 of the number of slaves would be counted..." The text says: ..."the whole Number of free Persons...and...three fifths of all other Persons." The latter more strongly implies the nature of slaves as property (i.e. divisible). I don't think the main page should go into slavery more than that, but there should be a link to slavery in American history as well as the role it played in the constitutional debates. (Maybe, also, a link at the bottom to PLESSY V. FERGUSON, since segregation was a "constitutional" decision).

4) "THE BIBLE". I saw a comment that was concerned there was no mention of the the "undisputed" fact that the bible was a source. I don't really understand that. Although it's certainly true that many of the "framers" were (to varying degrees) people of Christian belief, what is notable about the constitution is that God isn't in it. In fact, the only mention of "religion" at all is to prohibit the government from establishing it or infringing the people's right to practice it.

5) THE PREAMBLE: I feel this needs to be edited in part, moved in part, and cut in part. I think a brief discussion of the sovereignty of the people is warranted but much of it is either extraneous (i.e. the part of it not conferring powers), wrong (i.e. the notion that the Federal Government is (doctrinally) no longer one of "enumerated powers,") misleading (i.e. the assertion that "we the people" is "one of the most quoted and referenced section" of the constitution), retrospective or misplaced (all the stuff about state sovereignty and separation of power.) Thus, this section should include the text and one paragraph of context.

6) THE ARTICLES: Pedantic, but I don't think the powers need to be bookended by their respective articles. The heading should be a summary of the article alone (i.e. Legislative power).

a) LEGISLATIVE - many errors here. There is no debate (in the law) as to whether the powers listed are "enumerated." The sentencing following this assertion, to me, is incomprehensible. Further, McCullough v. Maryland held that, when exercising an enumerated power (in this case creating a national bank through the "necessary and proper" clause), the "supremacy clause" means that Congress' power, in that case, trumps state power. So, perhaps, McCullough could be cited for the proposition that enumerated powers include the "necessary and proper" clause, or there could be a link for a page on that extremely important case. Finally, the sentence about "free debate" doesn't seem to really provide any understanding of the "speech and debate clause" and I don't understand the assertion about the limit on "self-serving" behavior. Also, should be expanded to mention, among others, prohibition against titles of nobility, habeas corpus, ex post facto, etc.

b) EXECUTIVE - this needs to be clarified and expanded. It is misleading to equate the Executive Branch with "the Presidency." Also, the discussion of succession and the 25th A, I think, is one of the least important and interesting elements for the purposes of the main article.

c) JUDICIAL - again, clarify and expand. Main point is jurisdiction and the fact that the only Federal Court required by the constitution is the Supreme Court.

d) STATES POWERS - this one is pretty good but needs some editing and controlling idea (I.e. "federalism.")

e) PROCESS OF AMENDMENT: - again, pretty good, but needs some editing and controlling idea of "elasticity." (This is part of the original genius, after all, of this document). Stylistic note, there seem to be uses of obsolete words like "lest" and "amongst." Perhaps that's what happens when you read too much Madison but let's save them for the quotes.

I'm skipping, now, to:

f) Provision for amendment: I think this should be moved to e), and get rid of the "some people feel demographic changes..." etc. If you want to get into this legitimate debate, should be a separate article and requires attribution.

Also, should move the MARBURY discussion to a concluding paragraph, perhaps, entitled "Constitutional Law." More to be said about the amendments but have to go, now.

Thanks, wiki-munnity - looking forward to your thoughts.Sobeast 17:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)Sobeast

Wow Sobeast! I agree with everything that you have written! TTM(Talk to me) PubliusDaughter 05:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

happy to talk about it. Looked for your user page but did not find one. Lack of response and apparent increase in number of unflagged, questionable articles indicates to me wikipedia struggling a little under its own weight gain.--Sobeast 02:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Just running through your writeup above, I think you have some good ideas. The best way to proceed is to just to the work, one piece at a time, with descriprive edit summaries. Our philosophy is, "BE BOLD". Good luck and let me know if you need any help. -- Y not? 02:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The Constitution does say "In the Year of our Lord," which of course means Jesus. So there is a reference to God in it. Perhaps I'm nit-picking, but meh. Travis T. Cleveland (talk) 00:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Current Status of the Constitution

There needs to be some reference in the article to the actual current status of the Constitution, and particularly the Bill of Rights - not just their official or symbolic status. The lead defines it as the supreme law in the United States, but there is overwhelming scholarship and documentary evidence disputing that that is factually the case under present circumstances. Without any mention of the secret courts, kidnappings, torture, partial consolidation of branches, and unlimited search and seizure powers currently practiced by elements of the US government, the page is incomplete and anachronistic. Wercloud 02:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you are confusing "de jure" and "de facto." The US CONSTITUTION is the supreme law of the United States. About that, there is no controversy. The question is, is it being actually followed by the powers it attempts to restrict? There have been many constitutional crises over the course of American History and the document's epitaph has been written many times. Whether the current crisis (and I believe the evidence shows we are indeed in the middle of one) turns out to be the last, we don't know yet. So, until we do, I think the main article must restrict itself to the text as much as possible with a link, perhaps, to "Constitutional Crises" that can discuss MARBURY, MCCULLOUGH, THE CIVIL WAR, THE NEW DEAL, US V. NIXON and, yes, the present. --Sobeast 23:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

San Marino/Medina

I have removed the following text from the lead:

The U.S. Constitution is argued by many to be the oldest written democratic national constitution, however San Marino's Statutes of 1600 and the Constitution of Medina written in 622 by the Islamic prophet Muhammad are contenders. San Marino's constitution's status as a true constitution is disputed by scholars.

One, this is in the Lead, which is a summary, not for detailed arguments. Two, there are no direct sources, just a disputed link to antoher internal article on San Marino. Three, it what fantasyland is the Constitution of Medina considered democratic, especially as it was written and imposed by one person? I find NO mention of it being that in the article on the document, much less a source to back up the claim.

I have no problem with the section being elsewhere in the article, provided it has proper, direct sources to back up its claims. - BillCJ 17:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Concerning the source, here's the link : http://www.loc.gov/law/guide/sanmarino.html But i didn't understand why my information was removed. As i said, in a other place, people have to know that the Constitution of the USA is not the most ancient one. (The sentence before explains that some people argue about this fact) For a lot of people is clear, San Marino has the most ancient constitution of the world) Sources can be found even on the official website of the Gouvernment of San Marino. Best Regards. MMMD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.169.131.14 (talk) 14:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• The phrase is not "oldest constitution", but "oldest written democratic national constitution" - that's a key qualification, and the Medina one certainly isn't the latter, on several points. Whether the San Marino one is remains to be seen, as the source you just gave is inconclusive on that aspect. - BillCJ 22:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• I put in the old line that was agreed upon earlier in this discussion. -CapitalR 21:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

See #San Marino? not above for the prior discussion of this topic. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

San Marino's status as a true constitution is allegedly "disputed", so maybe it's a false constitution. Or maybe those San Marinese made up the whole story? After all, who has been to San Marino anyway. It is so small, it cannot be a real country, like America is so real. Send in the marines -- they'll sort this "dispute".

Show me this dispute? By what silliness does one country's constitution be counted as 'real' or 'true' but not another? How are y'all rationalising this sort of thinking? Is this an absurd national pride issue? --129.78.64.101 (talk) 12:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Is it really a "law"?

Quick jurisprudential question from an English lawyer and complete novice in all matters relating to the US Constitution. The article refers to the Constitution as "the supreme law" of the US. My question is this: is it correct to call it a law? Yes, the legality of all laws in the US flows from the Constitution but is it itself a law? Thanks. --ukexpat 17:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Well the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution states:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, 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.

Thus, by definition, the US Constitution is the "supreme law" and therefore can be called law. --CapitalR 17:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

That looks pretty definitive to me, thanks for the quick reply.--ukexpat 17:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Speaking from a strictly amateur viewpoint, I am not sure that one in normal parlance refers to the Constitution as "the law". In more modern grasp, a law is a rule based upon the guarantees and enumerated powers of the Constitution. For example I don't think one would refer to "free speech" as a law .... though there are many laws that are in place to either protect or limit it. As a matter of fact, if you read many of hte more modern ammendments, the last part of them usually states something to the effect of "Congress is authorized to pass any law necesary to properly enforce this" .... or something or other. Just an amateur opinion. LonelyBeacon 17:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

great seal?

umm...what's with the pic of the girls and thongs? Could someone change it please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.83.68 (talk) 05:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Influence of the Fuero de León

The Spanish Parliament of the Kingdom of León (1188) was the first sample of modern parliamentarism in Western Europe's History.

After coming to the power, the King Alfonso IX, before the situation of crisis of Kingdom of León, attacked by their two neighbors, Castile and Portugal, he decided to summon the "Royal Curia".

This one was a medieval organisation composed by aristocrats and bishops. But, because of the gravity of the situation and ready to assemble the maximum political support, the king Alfonso IX took a revolutionary decision: he called the representatives of the urban middle class of the most important cities and assembled them with the nobility and the Church in "Cortes" or Parliament. For the first time since the Ancient Greece, not only the nobility and the Church were taking part in the elaboration of the laws of a country.

León's Parliament approached topics that today are the base of the juridical classification of any democratic state: the limits of the executive power, the defense of the citizen opposite to the power public and deprived of the epoch and especially, the cleanliness of the judicial processes.

In this respect it is necessary to to emphasize the right to the private property, the resource to being able to come to the Justice opposite to the King, the obligation of the King to consult to the Parliament to enter war, the "habeas corpus" and the inviolability of the domicile.

From León's Parliament, Europe's numerous kingdoms assembled parliaments with participation of the cities: England, Catalonia, Aragón, Valencia.

When the Founding Fathers of the United States of America elaborated the American constitution, one of the juridical models who studied they were the laws arisen from the parliament of the Kingdom of León.John Adams known the text of the Fuero of León in his travel to Spain, as it's related in his biography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by José-Vicente Álvarez (talk • contribs) 18:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The unrefereced item added earler this week to the article claimed that Thomas Jefferson traveled Europe to do research for the US Constitution, and was influenced by the Leon Parliament. Now it's John Adams! The framing of the Constitution is well-documented by the framers themselves, and other writers of the time, and has been well researched since then. Therefore, I don't think it's unresonable to require a direct referece to the influence, not just inference. I have no problem giving credit where due, but it must be properly sourced. - BillCJ 18:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Typo in constitution

I am not an expert in this. But shouldn't there be any mention about the "Typo in constitution"? Google it and you will see what I am talking about.Farmanesh 01:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The "typo" argument questions the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. However, it is an pointless argument since "...public use without just compensation." and "...public use, without just compensation." mean the same thing. Political groups can argue it all they want to justify whichever side of the argument they are on regarding the Takings Clause, but legally it holds no relevance in the sense that it would not change any legal doctrine. As such, no, I do not believe it belongs in an article about the US Constitution. You may feel free to write a separate article and add it to a further reading section (or more appropriately under a "conspiracy theories and other pointless arguments" section, no offense intended), but it will do nothing to benefit the reader who is trying to learn about the constitution. Skyler1534 14:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Gouverneur Morris

This article has zero mention of Gouverneur Morris, who was an author of a large part of this document. You'd think it would be relevant to mention him atleast once. 71.169.31.94 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

GARRETT DAYTON —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.228.46.185 (talk) 01:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source to cite, feel free to add him in. - BillCJ (talk) 23:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The first constitution

Re: "The U.S. Constitution is argued by many to be the oldest written national constitution."...the Articles of Confederation are generally regarded as the "first" constitution of the U.S. Doesn't that negate the above? Kfasimpaur 23:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it means "oldest" in the sense of having lasted longest. bd2412 T 00:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Except that it has not lasted longest. San Marino's constitution dates to 1600 and is still inforce. --129.78.64.101 (talk) 12:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

1 Article Per Clause?

I have noted that there is an ongoing trend for creating a separate article for enormous numbers of clauses in the Constitution. For example, we have articles on Wikipedia for the Fugitive Slave Clause, the Origination Clause, and the Postal Clause. I question this practice and think we need to be more deliberate about how we are managing this. I see at least two issues with this:

1. These clauses don't have standardized names, unless they are so notable that there is no doubt there should be a separate article. Examples of clauses for which there is no real dispute might be the Commerce, Due Process, Equal Protection, Free Exercise, Establishment, and Supremacy Clauses. For the rest, everybody just makes up a name for the clause that fits their needs; for example, what we're calling the "Postal Clause" could just as easily (and probably has been) called the "Post Office Clause," and the "Taxing & Spending Clause" has what seems like about a half-dozen names. They can't even always agree on spelling when they know the word they want; depending on who you ask, you can hear about the Guaranty or Guarantee Clause.

2. Nobody in American history has turned to an encyclopedia and said "I'd like to look up and learn more about the Postal Clause." Doing this risks making our treatment of the bits of the Constitution fragmented and disorganized. It also risks giving non-lawyers the impression that it is typical to break the document down to that level of specificity.

I'm looking to develop some consensus on how to handle this. MrArticleOne (talk) 02:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that one of the unique benefits of an online source such as Wikipedia is that there is no space limitation barring us from having separate articles on, for instance, every clause in the US Constitution, while paper encyclopedias would have such a limitation. This allows us to go in great depth about a huge amount of topics. However, as complexity increases, so must our organization. I vehemently disagree with the notion (not that you're advocating it) that we should limit the amount of information in Wikipedia because it would be difficult to organize it all. That said, for this topic, perhaps we could include a bulleted list (or something similar) with (1) what we at Wikipedia have decided we will call each clause; (2) a short listing of other common names, if any, for the same clause; and (3) a quite short description of the clause itself, that is, what the clause does in the Constitutional context. That would likely go a long way in solving the issue of naming the clause. (Yes, I know that a list of clauses exists in the US Constitution template at the bottom of the article, and it should stay, but it doesn't go far enough for this purpose).

As for your second point, I think that we shouldn't refrain from making articles because we feel they may be useless. Indeed, if a topic such as the Postal Clause were uselessly specific and obscure, no one would have made the article in the first place. That someone decided to make it implies heavily that someone else will benefit from its existence. Vbdrummer0 (talk) 03:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

My disagreement with your position is that creating an article for a topic communicates certain information about it; it suggests that the subject is sufficiently notable to have an article written about it. You don't feel that we should limit the amount of information in Wikipedia because it would be difficult to organize it all, but I know I for one don't deserve to have an article about me, personally, in the project, since I am not sufficiently notable and creating one would suggest that I am. Creating separate articles for obscure clauses of the Constitution is not exactly analogous, but too similar for me to be satisfied with it. For a clause with next-to-nothing to be said about it, the same information can be presented in a fashion that is closer the clause's significance at the article for the Article of the Constitution it is in. MrArticleOne (talk) 16:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough; I can see your point, and I don't feel sufficiently strongly about this topic to be stubborn about it :) But obviously, some clauses (Establishment and Equal Protection come immediately to mind) do warrant articles of their own, owing to their juridical significance and history. So the question that follows is, how should we determine precisely which clauses should have their own articles and which should be summarized elsewhere? I'm not intending to put forth an argument by asking this, just a good-faith question. Vbdrummer0 (talk) 00:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

It is that very question which led me to pose this thread in the first place. In my mind, there is no doubt that some clauses deserve it and some do not. A non-exhaustive list of clauses that definitely deserve it include Commerce, Establishment, Equal Protection, Due Process, Takings, Free Exercise, the "Enforcement" clauses, Necessary & Proper, and Supremacy. There may be others that I am not thinking of immediately. I am just as certain that the so-called "Territorial Clause" does not. It is my strong belief that some definitely ought to be "in" and others ought to be "out," but since the project proceeds by consensus, I wanted to start a forum to develop consensus on what ought to be in or out. MrArticleOne (talk) 05:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The encyclopedia develops rather organically. People may create stubs on particular clauses, but if there's nothing to say about them they will eventually land on the list of long-undeveloped stubs, and after that eventually deleted or merged somewhere. However, I think the article on the Postal Clause is a nice little piece, and probably more could be added to it, such as how this power compared to the postal power held by the Crown or under the Articles of Confederation (if any). There is something to be said about most clauses of the original Constitution. The Territorial Clause has been used to justify giving Article III powers to Article I courts in the territories, for example. bd2412 T 05:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The examples you mention just seem to me to more appropriately fit under some other topic, such as an article on Article I courts, on U.S. territories as opposed to States, or something along those lines, and not the so-called Territorial Clause. MrArticleOne (talk) 21:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

We have the space to indulge a little redundancy. bd2412 T 23:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

If redundancy were my only concern, I wouldn't have brought it up. My concern is that by creating an article for something we suggest that there is particular significance/notability to it. For example, you note that the so-called Territorial Clause "has been used to justify giving Article III powers to Article I courts in the territories." Your phrasing indicates my concern: "has been used to justify." To me, that sounds like this is not really what you'd call "Territorial Clause doctrine," but a decision justified by it (probably a decision they would have reached on other grounds in the absence of the clause). Making an article and talking about that decision in the article suggests that the Constitutional provision had more significance in the decision than it did. I should note that I think this is a problem with Wikipedia generally; in the interests of completeness I do not feel that we always effectively communicate the significance of exceptions/alternatives/unusual situations on a variety of topics. So I don't mean to suggest that my concerns are limited to this very narrow context, but since this is something I have done some work on this is the way I am interfacing with it. MrArticleOne (talk) 16:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Capitalization of "President"

The text of the constitution appears to be consistently using "President" (leading caps) when referring to the position, e.g., quoting from NARA:

Article. II.

Section. 1.

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:

however User:Dkempton74 appears to be singling out that term to lowercase it. Reviewing the bottom of the edit, I do see in the second amendment that "People" is not capitalized on NARA, but my attention was on the "President". The effect of the edit is to leave other branches of government with leading caps but not for the president. The initial edit was from Special:Contributions/216.161.135.117, whose comment does not provide a reliable source giving a guideline for this distinction, nor do the followup reverts from User:Dkempton74. Tedickey (talk) 23:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Constitution

Just wanted to say that I love my country and my country's constitution. God Bless America!~Su~ 02:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Hemp Paper

Please put information that first samples of Constitution were made from hemp (cannabis) paper. Wormantson (talk) 07:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

See Archive 1. 199.91.34.33 (talk) 14:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

May 14

May 14 is stated as the date that delegates began to meet, but I've found no citation of this as the date in this article, can anyone verify this? 199.91.34.33 (talk) 15:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The did begin to meet on the 14th, but as very few delegates had arrived, they adjourned until the 25th. Avalon Project --Publius97 (talk) 13:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

"The Diagram"

What in the world is that "block" diagram for? Where did it come from? It's about the dumbest thing I've ever seen. I suppose it's purpose is to illustrate the functional aspects of the three branches? Not good.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 23:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words. It is supposed to clearly and efficiently illustrate the relationships among the various moving parts. Sorry you don't like it. --Publius97 (talk) 13:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't mean to offend the creator or the effort. I guess I'm not capable of understanding the information.  ;) --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 16:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The diagram is quite confusing, and oddly placed. I appreciate the work that went into it, but I am not sure it illuminates the subject - it combines concepts ranging from amendments to separation of powers to elections, making it unclear what the relationships mean. I would suggest removing it (which I will do) unless anyone other than the creators find it helpful. --goodoldpolonius2 (talk) 16:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Add your names here ;)

Oppose keeping the

1. Oppose It is very confusing to the average layperson. NuclearWarfare (talk) 18:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
2. --goodoldpolonius2 (talk) 20:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Spelling

the preamble reads: "...provide for the common defence..." or is this an archaism i am unfamiliar with, or should it be spelled defense?

68.122.118.225 (talk) 21:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

"Defence" is the spelling in the text of the Constitution. This is the old English spelling, which was the standard at that time.--JayJasper (talk) 21:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

interesting 24.23.212.36 (talk) 22:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Related Documents

I'm adding the Magna Carta.Cameron Nedland (talk) 02:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom should be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.168.221.111 (talk) 15:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Child labor amendment text.

The section on the child labor amendment says

A child labor amendment proposed by the 68th Congress on June 2, 1924, which stipulates: "The Congress shall have power to limit, regulate, and prohibit the labor of persons under eighteen years of age." This amendment is now moot, since subsequent federal child labor laws have uniformly been upheld as a valid exercise of Congress' powers under the commerce clause. This amendment contains no expiration date for ratification. It may yet be ratified.

The bolded part (my bolding) makes no sense to me. If the point of this amendment is to forbid the government from having power over child labor, how does existing child labor laws affect that? A constitutional amendment supersedes a court decision and/or a federal law.Bonewah (talk) 21:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I changed it to make it a little clearer: "A child labor amendment proposed by the 68th Congress on June 2, 1924, which stipulates: "The Congress shall have power to limit, regulate, and prohibit the labor of persons under eighteen years of age." This amendment is highly unlikely to be ratified, since subsequent federal child labor laws have uniformly been upheld as a valid exercise of Congress' powers under the commerce clause. However, this amendment contains no expiration date for ratification and may yet be ratified." Seem good? NuclearWarfare (talk) 04:20, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Better, but i think the underlying problem still exists, federal laws are subservient to constitutional amendments. FWIW, i cant think of how it might be worded better. Bonewah (talk) 12:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

"This amendment is highly unlikely to be ratified, since subsequent federal child labor laws have uniformly been upheld as a valid exercise of Congress' powers under the commerce clause." That good? NuclearWarfare (talk) 16:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

How about "This amendment contains no expiration date for ratification. Although it is unlikely, it may yet be ratified." Or "This amendment contains no expiration date for ratification. Although it technically could be ratified, it is highly unlikely to occur." Neither of those are great, but it removes the portion that is misleading; that the commerce clause somehow limits constitutional amendments. Bonewah (talk) 19:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

"This amendment contains no expiration date for ratification. Although it technically could be ratified, it is highly unlikely to occur, as similar federal laws have been in effect for decades"? NuclearWarfare (talk) 12:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Thats worse, as it makes it sound as if there are federal laws that duplicate this amendment. Bonewah (talk) 19:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I still rather liked this: "This amendment is highly unlikely to be ratified, since subsequent federal child labor laws have uniformly been upheld as a valid exercise of Congress' powers under the commerce clause." Do you find anything wrong with that one?NuclearWarfare (talk) 13:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, because it sugests that federal law supercedes a constitutional amendment. The point of this amendment is to make federal child labor laws not a valid exercise of congress' power. Bonewah (talk) 16:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you are reading the Amendment wrong. "The Congress shall have power to limit, regulate, and prohibit the labor of persons under eighteen years of age." NuclearWarfare (talk) 18:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, so I am. SorryBonewah (talk) 19:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

So I'll add in our most recent revision and we can finish with this silly : buisness ;) NuclearWarfare (talk) 20:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

FA Review

Hi, I'm going to post this article for Featured article review due to what I see as issues in the Featured article criteria, primary 1B, and 2C. While there are numerous references, I'm dismayed by the lack of inline citation and specific references, and the general level of glossing over important subjects. Also, as the Featured article candidate review took place over four years ago, a time when FA applications are not as stringent as they are now, it seems like a good time to review it again. Cheers! Zidel333 (talk) 15:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Influences on other nations' constitutions

I tried searching this article and then searching for other articles, but I couldn't find anything appropriate. Is there a "see also" link that can be added which explains the influence the US Constitution has had on other nations' bodies of law over the past 200+ years? « plushpuffin (talk//contribs) 20:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree this is an important subject that needs to be discussed in the article.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Authors of the constitution; not "we the people"

Given that the constitution was drafted by the same politicians who were running the country (like all constitutions) isn't the beginning "we the people" rather disingenuous? I can't believe I'm the only one to think this. Is there any scholarly support for this? BillMasen (talk) 22:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

No, because they were delegates appointed by each state (i.e., they represented the people of their state). --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 22:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Well yeah, they were elected, like all politicians in modern democracies. The major difference I can see is that they were elected on a limited franchise or appointed by their state legislature; in other words, they were less representative than elected politicians today, not more. This doesnt mean the USC is bad or wrong; just that they have less right to be considered representatives of "the people" than modern pols, not more. BillMasen (talk) 22:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

There's more to your argument, and merit on all sides of this. I've been listening to college lectures from the Teaching Company, and the gist of what I'm learning is that the Federalists essentially won the battle to write the Constitution. It has their agenda all over it. The not-insignificant contribution by the anti-federalists was the Bill of Rights. But essentially the Constitution steered the country in a direction headed towards business and prosperity and national wealth. Things like citizenship and states' rights got lost down the way. But we won't settle this argument here; just wanted to point out that there is good stuff in all the points above.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:16, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The Federalists won the battle? What battle would that be? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 00:28, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

The battle to define the United States as essentially a commercial republic. The Federalists won out. The anti-federalists lost (except for important Bill of Rights -- helpful mostly in the twentieth century). In a way, the US could have been defined as a workers' republic or as a pure democracy or some other variant; but these options were not chosen. If one sees politics like Aristotle or Machiavelli as a battle of haves versus have-nots, the Federalists were haves (property rights, rights to hire and fire, ownership, sanctity of contracts etc) and they essentially steered the nation in a path towards prosperity and commerce. At the same time, the nation cycles between both types of approaches -- between capitalism and socialism, between owners and workers. But it's essential trajectory was in a capitalist direction. For example, there was little mention of the concept of "citizenship" in the Constitution -- who were citizens? did they have any duties or rights or powers? And the government was structured in a way to thwart popular will. Only one branch represented the people directly -- the Congress -- and it too was checked by the Senate. The other branches -- Judiciary, presidency -- essentially aristocratically oriented, or oriented towards the legal professions or propertied interests. I'm not saying that this was a bad thing; but overall choices were made back then. The Constitution narrowly passed in states such as New York, Massachusetts. Only a handful of votes, if they had changed in NY, would have changed things considerably.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 04:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

That's very interesting, yet it seems to have worked in spite of the negative attributes that you believe exist; and for much longer than any other constitution of a country of similar scale. If NY hadn't ratified then what? It was the 11th state to ratify, therefore the Constitution was already in affect by that time. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 12:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes I agree the Constitution worked despite problems, and it has persisted for several centuries. Many pluses to the arrangement -- political stability is highly important for successful economies. Balance of power, checks & balances within government prevents tyranny. It's a brilliant system to keep ambitious people fighting other ambitious people. The legal sense of citizenship has expanded to bring in more people for effective participation (blacks, women, etc). About NY state -- yes it ratified after the supposed 9-needed marker was passed; yet NY State was one of the four big ones (Mass, Pennsylvania, Virginia were the others) and the Framers strongly felt that if NY hadn't ratified, that the Constitution would still have been in trouble, although of course it's impossible to say how things might have played out otherwise. Still, there are serious weaknesses in the system in my view, requiring serious reform. I've written about them elsewhere in detail, but include issues such as foreign policy, citizenship, balance of power between states & federal government, as well as numerous smaller flaws highlighted by constitutional scholars such as Sanford Levinson (eg DC residents lack representation, disproportionate power of rural states in the Senate, unspecified succession if there was a catastrophic attack on Congress, etc etc). Generally most democracies around the world favor the parliamentary approach (legislature chooses executive ministers) and these seem to work better than ours, in which the judiciary checks (or tries to check -- it's slow, needs court cases to bubble up, etc) the executive. But the biggest reason to have a Second Constitutional Convention, in my view (definitely POV) is that the US won't be able to adequately cope with the problem of terrorism; I argue this here in an essay, but there is little chance that any of these reforms might be taken seriously. If there was a Constitutional Convention, the trick would be keeping the amazing good stuff while adapting it to meet 21st century problems -- definitely a tough intellectual exercise.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The Constitution in several other instances refers to the states as a large power (X amendment, Article 4) so that first line is highly debatable and biased to an extreme extent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hooah82 (talk • contribs) 02:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The Constitution as defining a commercial republic is at the root of Charles Beard's analysis of the US Constitution, but historians since Beard wrote almost a century ago have unhinged some of his key conclusions. Beard took the approach of looking for certain specific interests in the personal lives and finances of the participants at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, but later scholars revealed that this was overly simplistic - many of the people Beard identified as have commercial mercantile concerns actually acted against those interests in their actions on the floor of the Convention. Ideology motivated the Founders more than practical or commercial interests, something that is well-proven in the works of the historian Gordon S. Wood and others since. The reasons the US Constitution was adopted to replace the Articles of Confederation was the failure of the Articles themselves, specifically the failure of the idea of the loose league of sovereign States. Crises like Shay's Rebellion, economic dislocation, and the sense of lost momentum from the ideals of the Revolution, as well as the paralysis enforced by the requirements for supermajorities and unanimity under the Articles drove the rather desperate decision to start over with a completely new constitution - and then only after the previous convention, which sought to find solutions for just the economic issues, failed.

A side note on New York - the ratification of the Constitution by the State of New York was crucial, because without its ratification the reorganized USA could have been cut into sections. The threatened secession of New York City from the State forced the issue, one of several less-than-ideal solutions triggering the controversial ratification of a new Constitution whose adoption process violated the terms of the active constitution (the Articles of Confederation). The longest resistance came from RI, which finally yielded for reasons similar to New York.

To understand the Founders' actions one has to understand their ideologies, specifically that they were acting in defense of something modern historians call the "republican ideal." This, briefly simplified, was the idea that a free republic with neither hereditary aristocracy nor monarchy had to have at the core of its decision-making process men of independent means whom the Founders believed could set aside their personal interests and make rational, reasonable decisions for the republic as a whole. Such "republicans" would not be corrupt, the Founders believed, nor skew the decisions of the Republic toward their own interests, because they already had resources such that they wanted for nothing. These men would be not only the elected officials and administrators of the republic, but also the voters themselves - and all other citizens and non-citizens who had lesser resources were expected to accept the decisions of these "wise electors" as a part of the ideals in question. They had no intention of creating universal suffrage democracy, and no intention of seeing to the needs of ordinary people beyond freedom and basic protections - in a very real sense there was no chance of a government set up in 1787 and 1788 which ended slavery, or enfranchised women (whom this ideal rejected as electors or leaders), or created a focus on ordinary workers. The men who had grown up under an 18th century aristocratic monarchy were being radical simply by rejecting the idea that some men were born better than others, and opening the doors of leadership and decision to anyone who could prove their worth through the successful amassing of resources sufficient to want for nothing - what was called a "competency."

Once one understands the ideological foundations of the Revolution and the men who fought it and drafted both the Articles and the Constitution, the Preamble makes more sense. Yes, they were a narrow group of elites. Yes, they had very limited connections to the people as a whole. But, yes, indeed, they believed they were acting on behalf of and in the name of the people of America as a whole - because that was the idea at the root of "res publica," for the public, for the people - the root of republic. The kingdom they had overthrown in their lands had seen the sovereign as a single person and the nation as existing to benefit that single person. The republic they founded saw all the people of America as the sovereign, and thus the nation as a whole existed to benefit the people of America as a whole. To these men and their ideology, the men of means made decision to benefit all the people in the name of the people - and this was neither a contradiction nor an affectation. They were deadly serious about it.

Again, for references on this ideology look to the works of Wood, Bailyn, and others who followed the remarkable discoveries uncovered in the detailed analysis of the popular debates before, during, and after the Revolution.

As for constitutional function, I would argue that the US Constitution and the division of power has worked better longer than a Westminster system of unitary parliament combined with executive. SCOTUS and the federal judiciary have pushed back against unconstitutional excesses time and again, most notably in the 1860s, the 1930s, the 1950s, and again in the past few years. Additionally, the independent Congress has done a better job of keeping presidents in check that many Westminster parliaments have done with prime ministers because the Congress does not have to be under the majority control of the political party of the executive. Divided government - where Congress is in one party's hands or divided, and the presidency is in another - have done more to preserve constitutional balance and individual freedom than any other output of the US Constitution over the last three decades.

As to a new constitutional convention - ironically, Beard drafted his erroneous theory of the economic underpinnings of the US Constitution during a period when agitation for an Article V Convention was at its height over the issue of direct election of Senators. Congress blinked in that stand-off, choosing to surrender the isolation of Senators rather than face the prospect of a convention convened under the US Constitution's Article V guidelines, which might change all manner of things in the amendments it proposed to the States for ratification. Yet we stand very close to this period again on the issue of a balanced budget amendment - by most counts, only two more States need send their demand for an Article V Convention on the question of balanced budgets to the US Congress before the operative language (which is imperative, not discretionary) in Article V is activated. While such a convention, constituted under the US Constitution, would be bound to retain the US Constitution, its purview would be wide open - everything except the equal representation of the States in the Senate can be amended under the terms of Article V. I strongly suspect that as the questions of sovereign debt and international finance grow more acute in the decade ahead, the last two States necessary may act - and we may yet have another Constitutional Convention.

As for the question of reacting to terrorism, (herein is my POV) the American people may simply need to accept that to retain the freedoms and civil liberties that are their birthright, they must accept the risk of terrible outcomes at the hands of terrorists. It is almost impossible to secure a free society against the monstrous actions of one or a few people within it without completely destroying freedom. I'd be happy to discuss these issues - Article V Conventions, security versus freedom in the age of terrorism - on my talk page or yours, which ever you might prefer. Professor Storyteller (talk) 02:52, 18 December 2010 (UTC)