Talk:United States Constitution
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
![]() Archives |
---|
Contents |
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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
[edit] 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.
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
- 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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 sovereign state". Any thoughts? 151.204.253.82 04:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Categories: Wikipedia featured articles | FA-Class United States articles | Unknown-importance United States articles | United States articles with comments | Wikipedia Version 0.5 | Wikipedia CD Selection-0.5 | Wikipedia Release Version | FA-Class Version 0.5 articles | Social sciences and society Version 0.5 articles | FA-Class Version 0.7 articles | Social sciences and society Version 0.7 articles