Talk:Preamble to the United States Constitution
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Preamble to the United States Constitution is part of WikiProject U.S. Congress, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to the United States Congress. You can help by editing this article. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject U.S. Congress articles. |
Contents |
[edit] The Flipsyde Album
Is it really necissary to put the link to the Flipsyde album "We The People" at the top of this article?
First of all, ive never heard of the band, second, no body looking for the article about that album would search for "Preamble to the US Consitution"; they would just search "We The People" or "Flipsyde" or something like that.
I didnt remove it, but if anyone else agrees with me, sombody please take it off.
EDIT: ok i just noticed that "We the People" actually redirects to this article...but i still dont think the Album link should be on there.
[edit] "...why...???!!!???"
If I am not mistaken, it does not say that "Tuesdays are national ice cream day" in the preamble to the constitution.
-Well maybe because it's not very important back then they had bigger things to worry about then ice cream.
[edit] "all are equal before the law"
In the Justice section, we write "The Constitution makes no distinction as to the wealth or status of persons; all are equal before the law." Should we have an aside comment or link regarding the three-fifths rule in the Constitution as a grievous exception? Chrisvls 20:29, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Actually, we didn't write it. See the section below. — Mateo SA | talk 01:16, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
-
- That reference has since been deleted. See the section NPOV below. Mateo SA | talk 17:52, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] NPOV
This article as written is not a description of the history and nature of the preamble. It is actually a text dump User:Lord Emsworth made from An Outline of American Government, by Richard C. Schroeder (specifically, see pages 9 and 10). This is a publication of the U.S. Information Agency, so it is not a copyright violation, but is also not appropriate for Wikipedia. The original document from An Outline is not an article about the preamble, but a persuasive essay about American constitutional history that uses the words of the preamble as a framework. It is certainly does not meet the Wikipedia criteria for an encyclopedic article (not to mention the inappropriateness of text dumping an article into Wikipeda).
In a week, if no one objects, I will delete everything in the article after the first paragraph and the text of the preamble. The article can then be restarted from scratch. — Mateo SA | talk 01:16, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
- Since a week has passed, and no one has posted an objection, I've deleted the inappropriate portions of the article, and listed it as a stub. Please start this article anew. — Mateo SA | talk 17:52, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Lol
"...more perfect..." people... lol :) Hempeater 03:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Transcripts regarding "defence" vs. "defense"
There is a note regarding the spelling of "defence"/"defense" in official transcriptions of the document. It appears that the National Archives' transcript has since changed to reflect the spelling used on the original document. The note should probably be removed. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 02:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)poop
[edit] Merge with Constitution
By itself, this is currently just a stub, and since an amount of information held WITHIN this article also appears within the main article United_States_Constitution, the articles should be merged together.
- I disagree with the merge. There are cases where the Supreme Court has referenced the preamble in its decisions; these cases could in the future be added and discussed in this article. In addition, the history of the sentence could be discussed, such as who penned it and any prior documents that some of the phrases in the sentence are derived from (if any). If one looks way back to the first edits of this article, one can see that it was much longer with more detail. This information was later deleted due to POV, but could in the future be reintroduced in a NPOV manner. Thus, the merge makes no sense at all. --CapitalR 11:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
