Talk:Constituent assembly

Untitled
I have reverted Iota's renaming of this page to "Constituent assembly" (with the lower-case "a"). Reason: Proper nouns should be capitalized. "Constituent Assembly" is a proper noun, just like "National Assembly" or "Indian National Congress." It is not a descriptive noun, but a noun that has been the formal name of numerous legislative bodies and constitutional conventions throughout history. David Cannon 01:09, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The move was obviously too hasty. I disagree with your point though. The word constituent assembly has appeared in the titles of many bodies and as part of a title is of course capitalised. But constituent assemblies are not limited to just those bodies that entitle themselves as such. As I understand it a constituent assembly is any body elected for the purpose of, and with authority to, adopt a constitution, and I'm sure that historically not every such body has called itself "Constituent Assembly of X" (the Democratic Constitutional Congress of Peru is listed in the article so might be an example). So Constituent Assembly (upper case) is a title, but a constituent assembly (lower case) is a type of institution.

This article is currently just a stub. Until I changed it today it was tagged as a disambiguation page. This would be appropriate if the subject matter were just a particular title used by various bodies. But I think there is potential for this to become a detailed article not about a title but about a particular type of political institution. That's why I've changed it to a stub, and why I think lower case is appropriate. I hope I'm making sense.

National Assembly I think is different because national assembly (lower case) is really just a synonym for national legislature. So the National Assembly article is really just about a number of bodies that happen to share a name. Iota 02:33, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for explaining. I think I can see now where you are coming from.  I'll wait to see what other users think, but it might be a good idea to expand the list to include every Constituent Assembly we know of, and rename the article as a list.  I'm not sure ... I'm in two minds about that.  Maybe you or some others will have some idea. David Cannon 11:04, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Disambiguation
The above is mostly right, but no one's acted on it, so I went ahead and did it myself. Soo 18:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Same as constitutional convention
This seems to be the same thing as a constitutional convention, a name I would hazard is more common in Anglo-Saxon political traditions. Any objections to a merger? —Felix the Cassowary 07:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

A constituent assembly and a constitutional convention are two different things. Constitutional commissions and constituent assemblies differ in that a constitutional commission’s mandate is limited to strictly drafting a new constitution, whereas a constituent assembly may have a much broader mandate. On occasion, a constituent assembly and a constitutional commission may both be utilized during the constitutional drafting process (i.e., Nepal), with the commission being part of the constituent assembly. In addition to drafting a new constitution, a constituent assembly’s mandate may also include other duties and obligations such as amending existing legislation, serving as an interim government during the state’s transition, and drafting regulations governing presidential or parliamentary elections. 116.66.193.244 (talk) 14:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)TFH

"Not necessarily the ruler"?
The introduction says that members of the constituent assembly are citizens but "not necessarily" the rulers of the country. "Not necessarily" means that they might be the rulers. So, a constituent assembly is not necessarily different from the other forms of constitution-making. So the sentences after the first add very little, and the intro is quite uninformative. We can replace them with "the members of the constituent assembly must be citizens of the country whose constitution they are creating". -Pgan002 (talk) 06:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Constituent assembly. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110511193704/http://www.common-place.dreamhost.com/pasley/?page_id=491 to http://www.common-place.dreamhost.com/pasley/?page_id=491

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:34, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I have taken out some unsourced material that said there was a big distinction between a constituent assembly and a constitutional convention; one being elected and one not. After doing some research it seems like they essentially treated the same in outside sources with the difference is them being alternative names:
 * 
 * 

I moved over a lot of the information from the constitutional convention page and would suggest merging them. Any thoughts? Bluealbion (talk) 16:55, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Constitution assembly was congress assembly
constitui 2409:4052:D95:26CF:A899:4B84:8CE8:85D4 (talk) 06:01, 1 February 2024 (UTC)