Talk:Constitution of the United States

Amendments sentence

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

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

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

Badly censored article!

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

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

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

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

Box on right has wrong ratification votes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

List of constituencies by country is needed for

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

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

More care is needed in identifying places and people

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

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

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

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

Oldest constitution: US vs San Marino

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

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

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

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

us goverment and law <branches of government

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

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

Shortest and oldest constitution

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

Criticism vs Praise

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

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

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

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

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

Branches of Government

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

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

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