Talk:Constitution of the United States/Archive 11

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on United States Constitution. 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/20130116032730/http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/constitution/ to http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/constitution/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080118090302/http://www.constitutioncenter.org/ to http://www.constitutioncenter.org/

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) 18:57, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Subtext
The wikipedia on the us constitution currently reads:

In general, the first ten amendments, known collectively as the Bill of Rights, offer specific protections of individual liberty and justice and place restrictions on the powers of government.[4][5] The majority of the seventeen later amendments expand individual civil rights protections.

+++++++

This language presents 'liberty and justice' as occurrences opposed to 'individual civil rights protections'. In practice in the US, the segregation of these concepts has amounted to slavery. I suggest that the 'general'-ity and the 'majority' in these sentences is a dangerous simplification at best — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.227.195.132 (talk) 07:26, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Edit: Moreover I note that neither sentence has a meaningful reference and propose that both sentences be removed from the article. This is no place for editorials. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.227.195.132 (talk) 07:36, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United States Constitution. 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/20140916051358/http://www.constitution.org/cmt/mclaughlin/chus.htm to http://www.constitution.org/cmt/mclaughlin/chus.htm

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) 19:47, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

In general, the first ten amendments, known collectively as the Bill of Rights, offer specific protections of individual liberty and justice and place restrictions on the powers of government.[4][5] The majority of the seventeen later amendments expand individual civil rights protections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.227.195.132 (talk) 07:14, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2017
Currently the 'civil liberties' link in the History section leads to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Coke#Petition_of_Right. I believe it should lead to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_liberties. SeanFrancis (talk) 03:56, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Sparkling Pessimist   Scream at me!  04:13, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Bias in lead?
"Profoundly different", "wisely separated balance of powers". Erm, I get that this is from Senate.gov, but it appears to have been written by a Democrat two months before "the threat" of a Trump presidency could have taken hold. Is this language really neutral? To me it comes across as if it was written by a 'progressive'. Why else would you use the words 'profoundly different to the 18th century world'? Thoughts on making the lead less overtly biased? Oxr033 (talk) 21:52, 17 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm thoroughly confused. Is your problem that you think a Democrat wrote it, or is your problem that it asserts that we live in a profoundly different world than the one in which slavery was a bedrock institution? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.63.129.180 (talk) 06:15, 12 March 2019 (UTC)


 * From the U.S. Senate perspective, the "profound difference" between the 18th and 19th centuries to the 20th century is that
 * a) in the early 20th century the 17th Amendment requiring the direct popular election of U.S. Senators replaced their election by state legislatures, and that
 * b) in the late 20th century, with the Supreme Court's application of the 14th Amendment "due process" clause, the electorate in U.S. Senate elections expanded because that took the protections of the Bill of Rights applied to the U.S. government and constitutionally extended them to protect U.S. citizens from abuses by their state government. See state constitutions requiring two-state-representatives per each county and city, yielding a 20:1 population represented disparity (and greater) for city-county districts in state legislatures, and equal numbers of counties for Congressional districts regardless of population before the Supreme Court "one-man-one-vote" ruling at Baker v. Carr in 1962 for Congress, later extended to state legislature districts.
 * It is true that there are conservatives who would restore state legislature election of U.S. Senators. It may be possible if the trust of the American people is restored in the State Legislatures when there are thirty uninterrupted years of ethical Congressional and state house redistricting comparable to the thirty years of Gilded Age corruption preceding the 17th Amendment. Then again, perhaps it will not be possible by good faith persuasion any time soon, as long as U.S. history is a required course in high school education, and modern state legislatures and judiciaries continue to underperform Congress and the Supreme Court.
 * It is true that there are conservatives who would restore state legislature independence of "due process" guarantees for state citizens so as to re-enact Jim Crow suffrage restrictions on 90% of citizens-of-color and Progressive suffrage restrictions on 50% of the lesser educated whites. It may be possible if gerrymandering of Congressional districts is not federally outlawed under Article I, Section 4 legislative powers upheld against gerrymandering at the Supreme Court's Viet V. Jubelirer 2004, and if U.S. Senators campaigning finance is substantial in the future from Russians (see Donald Trump 2016 campaign trend expanding), or China (see Jeb Bush 2016 campaign trend expanding). Perhaps not (see recent House bill on elections ethics and regulations sent to the Senate).
 * But the lede of this Wikipedia article should not be a partisan trumpeting of an aspiring new state's rights era dominated by foreigners as it was by foreign financial interests during the Gilded Age (see [your objectionable "Progressive"] Teddy Roosevelt and "Trust Busting" majority British-owned trusts and railroads, but only "jaw-boning" majority U.S. citizen-owned consortiums).
 * Here, instead, the article lede should reflect the article topic, "United States Constitution" at the present time, for the general reader. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:22, 12 March 2019 (UTC)