Talk:Bonus Bill of 1817

Neutral Point of View - a primer
Recent edits to this article reveal a "too Casual" approach, and not up-to-wiki-standards.

These words and phrases are charged with POV, and don't belong in an encyclopedia, even if the source material contains this POV.

playing too fast and loose with the Constitution, Madison was appalled... blatant pork barrel spending... brushed off strict constructionism with their own arguments in favor of "implied power" (in this last example, the editor supplies the wiki link for the concept sh/e approves of (strict construction), but fails to provide it for one sh/e does not (implied powers)

Excuses may be offered, but this kind of POV reveals a rather slip-shod approach to editing, and a lack of effort to convey historical material neutrally and with complete clarity.

As it stands, the article is nothing but a tendentious display, in favor of strict construction. Let Supreme Court Justice Anthony Scalia make these arguments, but don't insert them into Wikipedia; it degrades the quality of the site. 36hourblock (talk) 18:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC)