Talk:Constitution of the United States/Archive 7

maps restored

 * Nation-states have territory. The map shows the extent of U.S. territory governed, and the land west to the Mississippi. The caption describes the expansion. There is a link to an article on the Treaty with supplementary maps. The westerners were difficult to govern by the state governments shown in pink. See text. The westerners stopped paying taxes to the original states, held constitutional conventions, voted four separatist governments, established courts, taxed themselves, raised militias, declared themselves independent states and treated with Spanish, English and Amerindian nations. See text. The map locates where this was happening as described in the text.
 * Without an illustration of the territorial extent :of the United States, the reader is in danger of “present-ism” that is, assuming the extent of the United States today was the extent in 1787. The map illustrating the extent of settlement relates where the existing sovereign state governments as then confederated held sway. They did not occupy the territory ceded in the Treaty of Paris 1783. That is illustrated in the picture of the British Fort related to the text in the “first government” section, which Broadcast101 also deleted without discussion and without sources denying the existence of the British forts on U.S. territory as described in the text.
 * The second map illustrates both territory and surrounding empires of British to the north and Spanish to the South. Links in the caption show supplemental maps for British, Spanish, Creek and Iroquois. No source is provided to deny the presence of “foreign gold” or that its source came from the mapped territory as labeled and described and referenced in the text.


 * The illustrations directly relate to the text, captions link the reader to additional linked WP articles for background, illustrations are evenly spaced in the text, do not zigzag across the page, do not bleed into the section below.


 * Most new illustrations have a rationale described above in the talk session, “recent illustration” of 8 November. That should be the start of a discussion to delete them, along with citations to references contradicting the text.

Additionally at the text describing the Constitutional restrictions on states by Congress (located in the Capitol) and the Supreme Court (located in the Supreme Court Building), the illustration shows a picture framing a statue on the front steps of the Supreme Court Building looking across the street to the Capitol. I was going to go through the article looking for additional links for guides to new readers later, It was deleted as a map. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:44, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I subsequently added a footnote in the picture caption identifying the elements of the photograph and explaining the visual context supporting the text. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Criticism

 * Tomwsulcer would elevate the ‘Criticism’ section from its location at “See also”. “Criticism” is written into the article according to WP style. There are criticism paragraphs at the end of several sections. Editors add sourced critiques throughout the article at the end of any section. Can this fail the WP impartiality test on account of no criticism?


 * A quick survey of political science articles show some interesting returns. There is no criticism section of political science project articles Petition of Right, and Magna Carta, Good Article (GA) articles. Articles on sovereign state legislatures have no criticism, such as British Parliament and Parliament of Canada both former Featured Articles.
 * Fascism has no “criticism” section. Its introduction refers to “organic entity”, “suprapersonal connections”, and “century of authority”. Its critique on Talk speaks to particulars. What would be the particulars, if any, indicating disqualifying bias in this article?


 * Some political science project members do have criticism sections, all at the end of the article, just above “See also”. They include the treaty to report discrimination against women and New Jersey State Constitution, both GA articles. This article is not disqualified from GA status for placing “Criticism” in the body just above “See also” according to WP style. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 00:09, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The severest criticism of the U.S. Constitution as written is the ratified Amendments themselves. Each amendment section should LEAD with the criticism of how the Constitution was proven inadequate to sustaining a more perfect union of national community. The original text was so destructive of the common good in how it actually lived out among the people, that their sustained, widespread denunciation of it brought about a super-majority 2/3 of the House (people) and 2/3 of the Senate (states) to repudiate a provision. Then a super-super majority of 3/4 of the people as states agreed to abolish the inadequate portion of the old, and establish new fundamental law to better secure their safety and happiness. No "tempest in a teapot", that. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Gallery links
There are links to gallery pictures throughout the history section/s (George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, et cetera), but not in the intro paragraphs (James Madison, James Wilson, José Rizal, etc.). I propose this to be changed. Thoughts, comments, suggestions? Bullmoosebell (talk) 23:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think this is a very important consideration. I crafted a new fourth paragraph. see following sections on lead. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:15, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Lead guide
Write the lead as a stand-alone overview, concise and uncluttered, limited to four paragraphs. Establish the notability of the topic along with its context and a mention of major controversies. Significant information should not appear, specialized terminology avoided. Writing concerns include adequate summarization, length, and accessibility. See WP:LEAD and links to other style sections, essays and tags. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Lead rewrite

 * Bullmoosebell suggestion to mention major figures featured in the article seemed to me to establish summarization, notability, context and accessibility in a way that was lacking. Following the article guide, I rewrote the fourth paragraph to be summary, footnoted parliamentary tradition for international accessibility, deleted specific information treated in appropriate article sections, and added mention of controversies. The general discussion of its adoption now precedes the significance of specific included articles.


 * Although reference to common law tradition is outside the scope of this article and therefore not appropriate for the introduction, two are footnoted. England because it is a contributor to the U.S. tradition, San Marino as an example of Continental mixed government emerging during feudal Europe.
 * The Founders took into consideration models of philosophy and history, “republics ancient and modern.” Though it must be said, open minded as the Founders most assuredly were, American judges were going to be American citizens, San Marino’s example, choosing foreigners for their jurists, notwithstanding.


 * The reference to the scribe who penned the Archives manuscript is detail found in the article. Other elements of the last paragraph and their links are carried forward in the edit. Linking every name clutters, it violates WP:STYLE. They are linked in the body of the article. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

TOO LONG tag removed.
using the toolbox available on the left index of your WP page for each article, we see,


 * Document statistics: File size: 667 kB, Prose size: 174 kB, References (including all HTML code): 18 kB, Wiki text: 253 kB
 * Prose size (text only): 130 kB (20641 words) "readable prose size", References: 1251 B, From Wikipedia.

It is good editorial practice to keep a weather eye out on the length of an article. However, without discussion accompanied by documentation overthrowing Wikipedia standards, the tag is removed. Much more to do to meet Good Article status. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Screenpage and TOC gallery guide
The model for the U.S. Constitution article is the Feature Article, Gettysburg Address. It surrounds the Table of Contents (TOC) with a cloud of captioned illustrations to fill the opening screen, avoiding the large white void which still recurs in WP List articles.

Concern over the opening, first page composition with large white voids at the TOC is a standing issue at WP. Here, to meet an article with a longer TOC, the illustrations follow standard conventions and WP:STYLE.

The illustrations are directly related to the TOC text. The TOC is anchored left. The advantage here is that the two-row gallery illustrations wrap on small-view browsers without creating voids. This achieves WP composition standards, (a) not floating TOC, (b) images do not impinge on the text of the section below, and (c) the solution works on all browsers, consistent with WP:ACCESS. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Article scope and infoboxes
This article treats topics related to the U.S. Constitution. While there may be kindred paragraph topics here or there, such as the observation that the Convention took place in Philadelphia, it does not replicate, substitute, or replace any existing WP article on the Constitution, the Convention, and so forth.

Main articles on topics are linked throughout. For instance, while there is an article on the history of the Constitutional Convention in chronological order which is far more comprehensive than can be treated here, the topic "Great Compromise" is summarily treated in this article, narrowly looking at Roger Sherman's role, with a link to the more comprehensive WP article. That article encompasses all of Sherman's major contributions throughout the Convention, not this narrow snapshot of general interest. The links to more comprehensive articles appear not only within sections, but also within applicable subsections throughout. Wikipedia is meant to be a collaborative enterprise looking at many aspects of complex subjects. This article presents a broad-brush, topical treatment meant to lead the casual reader into more developed articles elsewhere. Please help by adding additional links as appropriate. The wide-ranging nature of this comprehensive survey makes it of interest to many WP Projects. Project infoboxes in the past have been located adjacent to the text in the article which most directly related to the interest of each project. Likewise, original text is featured with an infobox connecting readers to Wikisource. Aligning the infoboxes for all interested projects along the right hand side of the screen would be disruptive of the article and accompanying illustrations directly related to the adjacent text. That would, in itself, be a violation of WP:STYLE.

No effort is made to feature or exalt one project over the other at the opening screen or at the lead article infobox. The focus of the article format should be the subject matter of the article as it is encountered by a reader. It should not be given over to specialty infoboxes outlining the scope of various WP Projects as featured by interested and related groups of WP editors. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:29, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

tag questioning "federal government" removed
The editor, tagging the assertion that the Constitution establishes a federal government as unverified, seems to propose that the Commerce Clause has dis-established the states in all their forms and operations. This is not an accepted point of view held by the preponderance of scholarship in the subject area. Even if one were to be persuaded to that point of view by the roadside billboards, "Impeach Earl Warren", which still can be found along America's byways, that point of view cannot govern Wikipedia as an encyclopedia that holds itself out to be balanced.

The editor's assessment of changing federal relationships apart and away from the original document is a useful insight for understanding current political practice in the U.S. It is accounted for under article sections "Amendments" and "Judicial review". Regardless of one's assessment surrounding recent American jurisprudence, it should not alter the characterization of the Constitution as a primary document establishing a "federal government" in the article introduction. The tag is removed. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Woah woah woah, my point was merely that citing the words of the Tenth Amendment (as opposed to other passages) as the nexus for the federal system of government seems questionable given that the amendment has been said to have "added nothing to the [Constitution] as originally ratified.", by no less than the Supreme Court, and also "The Supreme Court rarely declares laws unconstitutional for violating the Tenth Amendment". --Cyber cobra (talk) 17:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

TOC gallery restored

 * Cybercobra blanks the Table of Contents (TOC) illustrations. The rationale without citation is that it is “non-standard” and may be “unprecedented ?”. The contribution does no harm, in the sense that it imposes a look like Featured Articles Meningitis, Oxidative phosphorylation, and Shoe polish. But illustrating the TOC is not unprecedented.


 * The “TOC gallery” is not standard for an article. None is, which is why the blanking edit has no source reference for authority. Attempts at a solution are not unprecedented at WP. Here are five solutions readily found looking through current Featured Articles at Wikipidia.com.


 * (1) TOC illustrated with subject matter adjacent to the TOC . See Featured Article adopted as a model for this page Gettysburg Address.


 * (2) Project infobox. The right side of the page is filled with a wide, brightly colored photograph or graphic, supplemented with colorful charts, tables, maps and oversized legends to fill the void to match TOC length. See Featured Articles William Henry Harrison and Variegated Fairywren.


 * (3) Stack full color photos of the topic in combination with infoboxes or for graphic balance, whether or not applicable to the TOC and article text. See Featured Articles Free will, Hungarian Revolution of 1956 and Greek mythology.


 * (4) Blow up the infobox five times the size of the TOC. See Featured Article Hoysala Empire.


 * (5) Omit an infobox, limiting the TOC under ten lines, and feature a colorful action photo. See Featured Article Montreal Screwjob.


 * I prefer the U.S. Constitution TOC illustration consistent with the policy adopted on the article discussion page, and in a fashion that is related to another important primary document of United States history. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * (Re: 1) Those images are more of a collage and do not correlate with specific TOC sections, so the situation is different from here (Re: 2 & 4) None of those examples appear to make the infobox/image extra-long for the express purpose of filling the TOC gap; their infoboxes just-so-happen to be that long, or at least this is done much more subtly than was done on this article. (Re: 5) Is there evidence that the article was structured specifically to avoid a lengthy TOC, as opposed to just happening to have a simple structure with few subsections? (Re: 3) Hungarian Revolution of 1956 doesn't seem to be an overt example of this (Re: Generally) What's wrong with white/voidspace alongside the TOC? I agree it's not perfect, but crowbaring in images just to fill the space seems worse than the disease. I don't favor Gettysburg Address as a model to follow; the images jumble up the text alignment and crowd the lede up, IMO. And none of these examples correlates images with TOC sections; in this respect, your approach seems (to my knowledge) unprecedented. --Cyber cobra (talk) 17:19, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks again for your detailed work on the article, and here for a reasonable reply.
 * All of your objections to the Feature Article Gettysburg Address are met by the TOC galleries. (1) there is no jumble up in text alignment. The two-row galleries are not 'crowbarred' into the lede, crowding the void in the same way as the Featured Article 'Gettysburg Address'. We are agreed 'Gettysburg' is too tight. My point is that even the composition that you and I agree is too crowded is allowable, and does not compromise the article's eligibility for Featured Article status. It is precedented, but improved upon with a TOC gallery, as the gallery is structured, uniform and accessible. Conceptually, an image is an image, the distinction between a single image coded [[file: with caption, and a gallery image coded <gallery-pipe-file with caption, is a distinction without a difference.


 * I yield on the crowbarring comment. Consider TOC gallery, alternate #2. You may be right with the two-row option. On second thought, I would prefer a one-row-one-image gallery and increase the article infobox image up to the allowable 300pix. How about using one-row galleries and narrowing the titles? I have not published it because the spacing is thrown off with the addition of the Constitution project infobox. "Gettysburg" is a model in my view only as a demonstration that the TOC in an article with narrative does not necessarily require the void of WP List articles. The TOC can be illustrated and attain a Featured Article status.


 * The void is a problem because it is unsatisfactory as a front-page composition when the reader opens up the browser screen to an article. While we have been discussing the issue, the infoboxes are returned for (1) Constitution document and (2) American politics. Other editors have chosen a stacked infobox solution which is fine for the folks promoting their favorites. Again there is no discussion relative to removing the infoboxes alongside applicable text as required by WP:STYLE. You see how neatly on an Outlook browser the two stacked under the article intobox just meets the bottom of the TOC. In the abstract a solution in composition, but they do nothing to draw the reader into the text, only to lead one out of the article immediately on entering, off to the editor's favorite project apart from the subject context found in related text found in the body of the article. But the favoritism omits other WP projects: (3) philosophy, (4) U.S History, (5) Conservatism, (6) Liberalism, and (7)National Archives.


 * To include all seven infoboxes above the first section would crowd the lede with crowbarred illustration, and interfere with the text in many browsers, especially those for the legally blind, see WP:ACCESS. The second info box now impinges on the first section text with a large screen browser, such as the MacBook Pro. You and I agree this is not the optimal solution in the case of the 'Gettysburg Address'. Is it not also an unsatisfactory composition in the case of two, never mind seven, Project infoboxes? WP does not allow for any article to become captive of only one Project; none can exclude others. Perhaps all seven project infoboxes need to be in a gallery in the 'See also' section for a pleasing graphic array, or each collapsed into a single line there as is the convention for five or more on a Talk page. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Constitution project at RationalWiki
If interested, check out  an essay evolving at RationalWiki, an alternative wiki site. Also, check out an evolving alternative draft with lots of back and forth about the constitution -- a good learning experiment for high school & college students, perhaps, to learn about this subject.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC) Update: Discussion at RationalWiki has been censored (see discussion below within this section).--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I really like the discussion about voting rights for DC residents. Great minds ... The template for remanding most of DC residential neighborhoods is found in the example of Arlington, Virginia. A casual inspection of a county map will show it was part of the original "ten miles square" boundaries surveyed by Benjamin Banneker. The people there now vote for their own U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators.


 * Basically, the federal district needs only be the Mall encompassing Capitol Hill to the White House. Security concerns for embassies might add a strip up Massachusetts Avenue ... But reality hits. In the 1960s and 1970s, the proposal in Congress faced a House sub-committee with majorities from Maryland. Adding DC residents would make Maryland politics resemble Missouri, split between St. Louis and Kansas City, Missouri. No way Baltimore politicians, Republican or Democratic, were ever going to cede preponderate, permanent power in the state to some sort of shared democratic free-for-all. Districts would be redrawn, the Rand McNally Commercial Atlas says that the center of regional banking has already shifted from Baltimore to DC. Way to messy for professional politicians, regardless of ideology or party affiliation, you see. The proposal never made it out of committee.


 * And now, some conscientious WP editor is going to come along and delete this section for advertising a webpage not affiliated with Wikipedia. But it was fun taking a look. We probably should move this to our User Talk pages. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:19, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Hey thanks for your comments. Much appreciated. Interesting about the history of attempts to try to get voting rights for DC residents. Let me know if you need my help with this article here about the US Constitution; looks fairly good from the high level of contributions and skill of the collaborators.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Update. The RationalWiki site has been censored by anonymous administrators at RationalWiki but if there are other projects involving constitutional issues elsewhere on the web, I'll try to keep people informed about them, since maybe issues raised there can help us improve this article further, but as I said, it's in pretty good shape now. I am plowing through more courses on politics and may be able to contribute more references in a bit but they may not have online citations (which are so much easier for everybody).--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

TOC and references
VirginiaH asked me to come to give my thoughts as i've also been editing the article. quite a lot to follow on the talkpage and therefore difficult to follow. Regarding the TOC, this shouldn't be a bid deal, personally i try to minimise having a large white space but it is acceptable for this to happen. personally i don't like the gettsyburg style, i very much prefer TOC to go straight down left-hand side, not with images on left as makes TOC harder to read. the big problem with the article it seems to me is that it is too long about 20 000 words if i recall (on IE today so prose size tool doesn't work). i think you'd have some problems getting it approved as featured with this length, as it suggests it's not in summary style. VirgH, you asked whether it was ok to '"gang" pages from the same reference in the same paragraph'. i think it's okay, ideally you would break-up to match each page reference to each sentence in the article that it's supporting, but if that's not possible, i.e. because it's a mix and they don't match like that, then it's okay. Tom B (talk) 11:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Good. Got it. for instance, it's great to know there were nearby water pumps by the Convention meeting place, but that level of detail is not encyclopedia style considering the scope of the article. You are the third editor to gently nudge me on this. Thanks to all for your patience. Initially the idea was to balance encyclopedic accounts with some human interest illustration. I'm persuaded that the idea does not work here, for this, at least at such length. I'd like a chance to cut my own stuff if I can. Thanks again to all ... TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:43, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Article style
Style manual for this article is the Philosophy style and general WP Good Article guidelines until consensus otherwise. Editors should contribute in edits and Talk so as to advance the article from existing B-class article Nov 2011 to Good article GA-class. I am actively looking for other style sheets in additional article WikiProjects. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * = is the style guideline for philosophical literature, (---) for philosophers.
 * Indented list is the article Table of Contents (Nov 2011).

= publishing history (biography)
 * History : first government, convention, ratification and beginning, historical influences

= structure and arguments (philosophy)
 * Original text : authority and purpose, national government, federal relationships
 * Amendments : procedure, successful, unratified

= rhetoric and style (list of works)
 * Judicial review : scope and theory, establishment, subsequent courts

= reception and legacy (criticism)
 * Civic religion : making a nation, the shrine
 * World wide : national constitutions, translations, commemoratives
 * Criticism : philosophy, convention calls, non-amendment, democracy, polity

To do
 * _ document unsourced statements
 * _ footnote consolidation and coding
 * _ conform all images to WP:ACCESS
 * _ expand sections on references, fundamental law, criticism
 * _ add dissenting opinions in 'subsequent courts' which later become ruling law in judicial review cases

TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Your entire understanding of the Constitution is critically flawed from both a historical and legal perspective, starting with your statement above that the article should be in philosophy style. You have turned what was a mostly coherent, compact analysis of the Constitution into an rambling, over-illustrated chaotic mess.  The result looks like a mini-textbook on the Constitution for fifth graders with ADHD.  You also need to take a remedial English composition course at a community college and get up-to-date on current citation formats---op. cit. was abolished decades ago by most citation guides.  Unfortunately, I am too busy defending paying clients to drag you through Wikipedia's enormously time-consuming dispute resolution process.  I look forward to assisting anyone who's willing to take up the cause, though.  --Coolcaesar (talk) 15:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The article as I found it was a collage of interesting bits and pieces made up of unconnected and unorganized editor contributions. It was not coherent, the style sheet has helped and others see the improvement as such. I was most appreciative of the one-paragraph paraphrases found in the original text section. These are preserved throughout subsequent edits.

Compactness had been achieved with bulleted lists, mirroring another article. WP would have articles written in an encyclopedic style and policy forbids population of multiple articles with the same text. This article now makes a distinctive contribution to the encyclopedia by using a topical treatment not found in articles of greater detail. The more complete treatments are link referenced in each section. More to do.

“U.S. Constitution” is part of seven WP projects. Philosophy is one of them. The article now conforms to an established WP style sheet. What is your preference? If you find the Philosophy style sheet chaotic, you owe the Wikipedia Foundation the benefit of your insight to straighten out those folks over there. All those referenced professional journals should have helped, but who is to say. Thank you for caring and sharing.

The illustrations in this article meet WP standards for spacing through the article, sizing, and encyclopedic standards for galleries as discussed. You are the fifth editor to note that some historical detail doesn't fit an encyclopedic style. Got it, on it. You are the second editor to dismiss my work by association with community college. Virginia's seem to be other than some. That will be addressed in another section.

“op. cit.” is now practically eliminated in this article by collaboration. See Peter Drucker on the corporation. The great operational virtue of this business entity as societal organization is that to the outside, it seems as though it has no weakness. Any individual's shortcomings are irrelevant. Attacking “op. cits.” here, is, by the term-of-art used among published historians and legal scholars everywhere, “flogging a dead horse”. Watchful editors may more severely interpret the exercise as disruptive. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * My graduate level courses on the Constitution were given credit for both History PhDs and Doctorates of Laws. The reason for joint Law School-History Department sponsorship was because they were not very popular among law students. Lawyers want to prepare themselves to make money. Most adversarial jurisprudence is based on case law. As a practical matter, a constitutional defense is the last resort for a client without case law to justify their action. In a way, if it not the last resort, it's like admitting you are no good as an attorney because you have not done your homeowork.
 * It is very, very iffy. Promising a prospective client years of ground-breaking constitutional appeals is not the best way to garner large continuing retainers for you or the firm. Most law school curricula have a ConLaw course or two for background and something about torts, then on to the real meat of the business at hand: two years of case law courses applicable in a chosen specialty. The general elements of introductory ConLaw courses found in a three-year law school are the basis for topical treatment of the original text in this article. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

"Introduction" style edit
The rationale for editing the introduction style follows.
 * Paragraph sequence for the Introduction:
 * First element. paragraph 1) Definition. paragraph 2) Description.
 * Second element. paragraph 3) History. paragraph (4) Notability, acceptance, usage, criticism.


 * paragraph ONE. The national government has a relationship primarily with (1) its citizens, then (2) states and other incorporated legal fictions, then (3) those within its borders like tourist people and resident aliens.
 * paragraph TWO (old three). “evolving historical constitutions” to give accessibility for international readers. The order in the branches of government follows the hierarchy of the Constitution from closest to furthest from the people.
 * The earlier sentence, ‘They also specify the powers and duties of each branch.’ is embraced in the phrase, “All powers not enumerated”.
 * Federal relationships among national and state governments are manifestly “for the people” as seen in the incorporation of Amendments governing state constitutional law.


 * paragraph THREE (old two). Capitalizing T and P and placing “the people” in quotes is sarcastic usage banned in articles by WP:STYLE. It may just be errata.
 * Phrasing sequence reflects chronology: ratification, ten amendments, then those to total 27.
 * Once the “first three” articles are addressed in the description, the “last four” are.
 * Bill of Rights is linked to US BoR in a lead paragraph for US. Constitution. To assume readers will confound English BoR, etc. with the U.S. BoR here is over done. The linked article handles any disambiguation that might be required for the general reader.


 * paragraph FOUR. WP:LEAD requires significant criticism to be included in each article introduction. One is provided for those of liberal persuasion, another for those of a conservative bent. --- Note: If a balanced Federal budget were easy, the Byrd (VA) - Proxmire (WI) 1972 “Debt Limit Bill” would have done it.
 * “International figures” replaces a more arcane political science expression for easier understanding by the general reader. Standard American usage requires capital “Federal budget”. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:35, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Article is way too long
Needs to be split up, or trimmed, or copyedited. At 250K, it takes so long to even page load. I don't see how people with smaller computers or browser space can even access it.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:03, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I concur. The Toolbox "Page size" does not assess at 20,000 words. I misunderstood that earlier.
 * At 20730 words, the article is over twice as long as WP:TOOLONG proposes as at an upper range.
 * The working goal should be 10,000 words of readable prose, agreed? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:08, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd like to get the citations templated, etc. Would you mind waiting a few days before you start cutting? ArtifexMayhem (talk) 03:01, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I can wait. People have worked hard on this article, and splitting it up a bit might be the best way overall.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The refs are a bit of a mess and I'd like to avoid edit conflicts while I straighten them out. I'll be done today. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 18:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Done for now. Not real happy with the size of the Notes and Citations sections. There are several ways to make them shorter but the cite templates can get confusing. I'll try and post a few options over the next few days. Comments are welcome. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 21:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds like you're still not finished; when you are, please indicate it, and let's all figure out some way to manage this article, while keeping all the good material that people have contributed. Maybe more spinoff articles? And wondering what target length we should shoot for in terms of overall size -- such as 100K or 150K?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:38, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * All of the main sources are templated and I have a good feel for the refs now. No reason to wait on me.
 * I agree... the article does need to get much, much smaller. So, yes more spinoffs will probably be needed.
 * As far as legal documents go it doesn't get much simpler than the USC. I'd suggest we try and follow the model. Stick with the basics and let the sub-articles get into the gory details. Maybe some work-pages (sub-pages of this talk-page or in user-space) would be a good place to start some outlines and store cuttings? ArtifexMayhem (talk) 22:41, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Images all align right without jumble or bleeding into a major unrelated section below when using a Safari (Apple) browser. Some 25+ images are deleted. The article should load somewhat faster. I hope most can be reapplied in later spinoffs. They were all deliberately chosen to illustrate referenced text. Thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 00:29, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oof, a Wikibuddy is right in telling me it's vastly too long, and to my quick glance it seems mostly overstuffed in topics already covered in detail articles, in which cases it's more a matter of bringing the article into conformity with WP:SUMMARY than making new articles. Incidentally many pix still show as not right aligned in my MSIE under Vista, but the excess size of the article seems a more urgent issue.  I'll take another look when I'm not at the end of a Wikisession.  Jim.henderson (talk) 16:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Great, let me know what I can do to help.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * All right; a quick skim makes me think the biggest problem is the biggest section, History. About 90% ought to go. To start, any material that appears here and not in the history article should be moved. That makes the majority of it. If that doesn't also get rid of all that back-and-forth about "A" said the party hats should be red and "B" said white so after discussing pink everyone agreed with "C" for candy stripse, then those too should go. With the blow-by-blow accounts go the portraits, or most of them, hence moving the double-column question to the other article for eventual solution. I don't expect all this to happen overnight though I would be pleased if the paragraphs that keep repeating the word "surprise" would vanish. These simplifications pave the way for trimming the article-by-article sections by moving prose to the various article-by-article, umm articles. Does anybody think these ideas point in a hopeful direction but need some clarification and adjustment, or a load of hogwash?  Jim.henderson (talk) 22:34, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Ok I will begin proceeding. Jim, thanks for your leadership here--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:00, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The offending paragraph is found. No "surprises" remain. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 00:24, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Good going. Oh, and it seems to me the intro shouldn't mention names. Or anyway not the names of foreigners, but even the names of principal authors of a very much collective work should perhaps be deferred to the body of the article.


 * After sleeping on the more weighty matter of the oversized "History" section, I hit on a simpler idea. Since History of the United States Constitution has a small section about the 1787 convention, and the present article has the large one, a few hours ago I put a proposal into the other article's talk page, to swap them. This is obviously a big change to both articles, which is why I ask again for opinions on the method rather than just go ahead on the basis that nobody has yet objected to the goal. If nobody points out why this is a silly idea or thinks it a stroke of genius and beats me to it, I expect to do it tomorrow. Several items must be cleaned up afterward, including adjusting subsection depths and perhaps repairing broken citations. Still later, we can think about where the material transferred here should be trimmed. Further trimming of history will shift the focus of this article to exegesis, which I think is the proper one. The present article's discussions of Annapolis, etc are more modest and the question of trimming them can be put off to after we settle the Philadelphia matter. Jim.henderson (talk) 18:59, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Philadelphia swap makes eminent sense to me, and I would take it as a "friendly amendment" for the U.S. Constitution article. I note with some interest that the Roman Empire article of about 11,000 words has ~ 28 images.
 * As text is assigned elsewhere, if that article length can support additional images, I would nominate those cut here for there. In a shorter article, the ratio in Greek Government, for instance, seems about the same as in the longer Roman Empire. The image:text ratio there is ~ 9 images for 3500 words. Sooo, the oldie-newbie thinks,
 * There are another ~ 25 images cut for my second image copy edit. If the WP image:words ratio is 1:350 as the working illustration target for history narrative articles, there are still too many illustrations. It would seem that there are about 20 more to be cut at U.S. Constitution, by the time that the text is trimmed to 11,000 words, all else being equal. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

“Introduction” errata edit
By (1) history of convention and ratification, (2) constitutional law as held in the nation and in the states, and (3) national political practice over three centuries, the introduction as previously written was rife with confusion leading to errata.


 * Paragraph ONE.
 * 1.	Confounding the national government’s primary relationship with the citizen-sovereigns of "We the People" and the secondary, derivative relationship it has with states which the people also erected for their purposes, is errata.
 * 2.	Co-mingling citizens as equivalent to tourists using “people” to describe those with visas but not for citizens establishing the Constitution, is errata.
 * 3.	The descriptive adjective to modify the U.S. Constitution’s government as established is “national”. Confounding the descriptive “federal government” with the modern convention “Federal Government” is errata.


 * Paragraph TWO. (old three)
 * 1.	The Tenth Amendment is not in original text. Confounding original text and amendments is errata.
 * 2.	The Tenth Amendment refers to the people apart from the states. Confounding the nation’s people and the people in a state, is errata.
 * 3.	The Constitution establishes a national government with federal characteristics. Confounding that with an Articles of Confederation “federal system”, is errata.


 * Paragraph THREE. (old two)
 * 1. Eleven states ratified to establish the Constitution in 1789. The people of Rhode Island and North Carolina did not, but Congress honored them for their earlier “perpetual Union” with the first ratifying eleven. Subsequent states were admitted by Congress: no to Frankland, yes to Vermont. Later, Congress admitted states formed from states for the people of Maine, Kentucky, and Tennessee.
 * A regular territory-to-statehood process evolved for places without royal charters from England or Spain, founded on the people living there. Congress admitted Ohio, and Texas, but not Kansas on the first petition due to undemocratic procedure. Confounding ratifying states with admitted states is errata.
 * 2. In the Constitution the phrase “the People” only has people capitalized. Capitalizing T in the Constitutional phrase is errata.
 * 3. Earlier assertion concerning the historical constitutions of San Marino were properly dated. But they were not older than the historical constitutions of England and others. Regardless, confounding historical constitutions of common law with prescriptive constitutions of establishment, is errata. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:11, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Article length
It's now about 166K. Should it be trimmed further? Perhaps getting it down to 125K would be make it more manageable? What do people think? I spun off two subarticles -- United States Constitution and worldwide influence and United States Constitution as a civic religion. --Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "US Constitution as a civic religion". Does this name comply with WP:UCN guidance? I've never heard of the concept. It seems contrived. --S. Rich (talk) 03:35, 22 December 2011 (UTC)03:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * - WP style renders it "civil religion". A search redirects to "civil religion". So, it is found at Civil religion and American civil religion.
 * - The concept is that there can be group identity and several levels of social cohesion and concerted action in a large aggregate of population where there is a common ethos. Of course, all sense of human connectedness and commonality is "contrived" in the meaning developed by Sartre and the existentialists. On the other hand, it seems that nation-states may be with us for now, and the U.S. is among them. If people act like a "nation", there is such a thing as a "nation" and they are one. A rose by any other name, etc., etc. "Civic religion", likewise.
 * - "Civic religion" is from the ancient Roman republic and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Social Contract. See the general concepts of tolerance, republicanism, civic virtue, democracy and equality. Additional writers include Erasmus, Locke, Montesquieu, Kant., in Sociology see Bellah and Herberg. The concept is broadly understood and widely used in philosophy, history, political science, sociology and religion.
 * Now elevated to an article title, the WP style should be used. It should read, "US Constitution as a civil religion". Should it additionally be merged with American civil religion ?
 * TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * What? This line above confuses me -- The concept is that there can be group identity and several levels of social cohesion and concerted action in a large aggregate of population where there is a common ethos. What does this mean? I'm having trouble grasping at what is meant. I do think that in America there is a kind of "Constitution worship" going on, in that people almost revere the document as sacrosanct, perfect, above being challenged; is that what is meant? The term Civic religion -- well I have not come across it that much in stuff I've read. Ditto civil religion. It may have been used by some writers but I do not think the term was that widely used, or have I just not read enough?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:16, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * - Previously, an editor found my 5th grade prose objectionable. I over-reacted. My bad. The concept is, People see themselves connected and act together in large numbers when they believe the same thing. To say that concept is "contrived" is to say that no one believes anything together because some unnamed authority has "never heard of the concept". Well, I named Jean-Paul Sartre, but I thought I took care of him relative to an encyclopedia using the construct of "nation". Read him. Enough of the "Honest Abe" on my part providing case sources for another side. The concept of "civil religion" has been academically critiqued as a descriptive analytical concept of American 20th-century society in sociological literature. Cite your own sources. If, on reading them, you find them applicable, they can be included. I did not, so did not include them in my edit. Collaborate with me.
 * There have been many occasions, while contributing here at Wikipedia, that I run into people who are much more knowledgeable than me about a particular subject, and much smarter too, and in this instance, my hunch is that you, VirginiaHistorian, are one of these people. So thank you for explaining the concept of civil religion and I will try to learn more about it.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * About the writing level. I agree fifth grade is too amateurish. But we should probably strive for ninth grade level perhaps. Writing at the college or graduate school levels risks alienating readers. So I try to avoid words like "aggregate", terms like "concerted action", "common ethos" and make it as simple as possible when I write here. If there is no way to avoid a difficult concept, I work into it slowly, by beginning with the familiar and tiptoeing into the new. One of my concerns with the current United States Constitution article is that it is written somewhat over the heads of most users, and that simplifying and clarifying the text without losing accuracy or quality would make it more helpful.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * - The Constitution has been amended 27 times. Who proposes to make it "above being challenged"? They are not referenced in the piece under discussion. In view of U.S. history accepted by the preponderance of scholars in the field, they may not make the "significance" cut at WP. What reliable source do you read to find of this "going on"? If there is none, reference to such is a "straw man", and not useful in good-faith discussion. Cite your sources, and they can be included.
 * What I had meant by saying that the current Constitution was "above being challenged" is not to deny that individual amendments can be added, or parts tweaked, but challenging the Constitution as a whole is unthinkable. I know. I challenged the original Constitution with my rewritten one here. My version gets practically no attention and it probably never will. I am thoroughly cynical about politics but still enjoy learning new stuff.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * - The "worship" aspect of the Constitution is deprecated in the Gordon Wood citation, promoted by Washington, dismissed by Jefferson, and they are also, in turn, properly referenced. The context is provided by a Constitutional scholar who generally agrees with your skepticism, Sanford Levinson, in an article published in the William and Mary Law Review. The balance achieved is generally conservative Gordon Wood v. generally liberal Levinson; generally conservative Washington v. generally liberal Jefferson. What reliable sources do you read to dismiss Wood, Levinson, Washington and Jefferson? If there are only fuzzy attacks without supportive alternative references, it is "ad hominem" and not helpful in collegial discussion. Cite your sources, and their weight can contribute to missing balance.


 * - Background reading might include The Social Contract, although it is not fashionable to have a "Western canon" of great books. It was influential in the American Revolution, the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, the Chinese Revolution and Gandhi's non-violent revolution in India. Also, the French generally use deductive reasoning, which is instructive for those educated in English, a language which tends to use educational resources emphasizing inductive reasoning. An interest in the U.S. Constitution may lead to reading references found in the WP article Civil religion. Wikipedia is the place to start. What are you reading now? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 00:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * What am I reading? I have read Sartre, Levinson, Rousseau, but haven't yet come across Gordon Wood and others. I am open to suggestions. I have never quite finished Montesquieu. Have read Federalist Papers. And lots of other stuff from many disciplines, particularly history, philosophy, economics. My problem as I get older is trying to remember stuff I've read earlier. The good thing is that the big picture usually sticks in my mind, so I can see the overall problems; the details are harder to keep in mind, but with the Internet and Google, finding facts is much more do-able than it would have been fifteen years ago.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Goodness, are we to discuss the substance of state theory in the discussion page? My two bits worth are that all government is based on faith, which is sometimes treated the same as "religion" and the US Constitution is part of that.
 * Moving on to the topic of spinoff, we've done three so far. Mine, rather a swap with the history article than a new article, was the first and most ambitious and not entirely successful yet. Both of the moved parts need further integration into their new home and the part that arrived here needs more trimming. More urgent, the swap's success is marred by broken refs persisting rather than being repaired by a bot. Either it isn't running or it's busy or the repairs were too complext. I also split off a little bit to Connecticut Compromise, making that article's structure ungainly but we'll eventually get to that.
 * Tom created two articles; the religious one I figure should be merged to an existing similar article, which is perhaps slightly more urgent. When I saw the worldwide impact article it made me ask why I didn't think of it myself, though the name gives me a vaguely uneasy feeling. We'll either find a better name or learn to like it. Umm, but now I've got a vaguely uneasy feeling that I ought to be proposing something. Can't think of it, except "carry on". Jim.henderson (talk) 01:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I stand corrected. "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." And, I owe Tom a debt of gratitude for his help. I agree, the spin-off title, about worldwide impact which is fine nested in a subtitle, is not right as an encyclopedia heading. For one thing, out there among the search engines of the world, it smacks of some sort of imperial arrogance. yuk. Gotta have something else, even if it is not better. I don't have an answer either just right now. Thanks again. More to do. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:01, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree about the spinoff title United States Constitution and worldwide influence that it sounds non-neutral and does so-smack, as you've put it, and perhaps we should consider merging it with another article? Or thinking up a better title? I apologize for the awkward sounding title -- it was late and I could not think up a better one. And thanks for saying thanks. Wonder what the next steps are?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Criticism of the Constitution
Criticism of the Constitution in the History of the U.S. Constitution has a new sub-section describing the "States Rights" critique in the context of the history of the U.S. Constitution, illustrated with images of John C. Calhoun and Jefferson Davis. This will give proper balance to the encyclopedia over-all when the too-detailed items explaining "states rights" are removed in the U.S. Constitution article as now written. The U.S. Constitution article can then more pointedly be given over to the explication that consensus on this Talk page has proposed. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:22, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Good section addition.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Drat, on Christmas Day I hate to carp (well, I pretend to hate to carp) about well-done additions, but that article is near twice as big as it was a week ago, and when an already large pot pie keeps growing I start thinking of smaller pies that could better use that good meat. States rights is that smaller pie, and of somewhat poorer quality as well, so that's the main place for such material. Of course, the recooking of poorly done old meat may require more thought and time than addition of new text does, but still I think a more thorough application of WP:SUMMARY would improve both articles. Jim.henderson (talk) 14:18, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * no, no, you are okay. "repetition is the key to learning". You are just orchestrating editorial guidance. I have a heart-felt sense of loss shared by my many Lost Cause "cousins". I just don't like U.S. articles to be hijacked by restatements of Jeff Davis' "Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government". I wanted to give them their just due, but I got carried away. I'll rework it. We are fine. My only problem at WP has been unthinking, unexplained, unreferenced blanking. So now, my turn to think, think, think. Season's greetings. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:20, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You are bringing to the enterprise an awareness of the scope and connectedness of related WP articles which I do not have yet. I appreciate your assistance.
 * > To restate: Concentrate on WP:SUMMARY guidelines. We are trying for (a) under 10,000 words, (b) image to text ratio of 1:350, and (c) a widget file size, a number that I still haven't quite figured out as a target for most historical narrative articles at WP to facilitate speedy loading everywhere, "by and large", generally speaking, all other things being equal. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:20, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Heh. Showing my ignorance; I didn't even know Davis wrote a book after the war, much less a legal apologia much used by Lost Causers. In my early Wikidays I worked articles on those few topics on which I am expert (not US history or law) but soon found more fun poking my nose into those where my topical ignorance is not a problem because they present greater opportunties of improvement in size, WP:LINKs and other matters where knowledge of Wikipedic standards of style and WP:Etiquette counts more. Now I'm trying to think of something more specific to what we've been doing, but a minor illness is rendering me more muddledbrained than usual so I'll shut up and go carve some improvements into Commons:Category:National Register of Historic Places where a dull knife can do little harm.

Biased Text
In the intro it states

"The Constitution is an object of veneration, but those living under it also lawfully overthrow it by Amendment. "

This is very biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.150.204.182 (talk) 17:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm removing the last two sentences:
 * "The Constitution is an object of veneration, but those living under it also lawfully overthrow it by Amendment. Recent impulses for reform have centered on concerns for extending democracy and power of the purse."


 * Neither are cited. The first sentence reads quite strangely; I don't think "venerated" is quite appropriate and I think very few would describe amending the document as "overthrowing" it.


 * On the second sentence, there are some amendments that people are discussing (balanced budget amendment, a federal marriage amendment) but I don't think these warrant inclusion in the introduction, and I have no idea what is in mind for "extending democracy". Equilibrium007 (talk) 01:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

(1) Thank you for a specific itemization of your objections at the time of your edit. I wish more WP editors were as considerate as you have shown yourself to be. It means we can collaborate. (2) WP:LEAD requires the introduction to mention controversies. Please cite a WP policy to support your thinking before altering a section well documented on this discussion page. (3) The two sentences still may be improved. Do you have alternative wording? Summary items in an introduction need not be footnoted as they are treated in the body of the article.

(4) "Overthrow" means "invalidate", which a constitutional amendment most certainly does to some part of the Constitution. Lawful invalidation is not forceable overthrow. To your point, it may be that the common linkage of "forceable" and "overthrow" comes automatically to the American ear, as in the residency/citizenship question from the Smith Act, "forceable overthrow of the United States Government". The sentence should probably be rephrased. WP does not advocate the forceable overthrow of government in its U.S. Constitution article, that is not the intended "take away" for the reader. There should be no misunderstanding on this point. Thank you. (5) "Veneration" is backed up by citation. In the criticism section, Robert Dahl is cited in his "How democratic is the American Constitution?" as referring to the "worship" Americans bestow on the Constitution. The section on "Civil religion" cites Gordon Wood. "Veneration" is precisely an equivalent expression of "worship", although more secular in connotation. Please cite a source which backs your English usage of the terms proposing that "worship" as used in Dahl is not equivalent to "veneration" as used in the article summary.

(6) The summary criticism, example (a), the "conservative" one, was the balanced budget amendment. It got 32 states (64%), two short of calling a convention. The federal marriage amendment is not the same. Editors may unbiasedly distinguish between the balanced budget effort and a 2011 bill for "marriage amendment" with 66 sponsors ( 15% ) in the 435 member House. Nineteen state constitutions ( 38% ) restrict marriage and civil unions together. To assert 32 > 19 and 64% > 38% is not biased. No other "conservative" criticism comes close, so it balanced budget is chosen for the summary. It is mentioned in the "Amendments" section as unratified among the people rather than in the Criticism section with the academics. (7) The summary criticism, example (b), the "liberal" one, relates to "extending democracy". The four scholars cited in the article's "Criticism" section all relate to this topic. "Extending democracy" means literally "expanding majority rule". That is the concern of four academics who are cited in the article "Criticism" section. This includes Dahl in "How democratic is the American Constitution?". The direct popular election movement to bypass the Electoral College is mentioned in these Talk sections as a future extension of the Criticism section. It will align with the summary reference to the criticial concern for "expanding democracy" in the Constitution.

(8) Again, thank you for giving concrete explanations of where you found the article to be in need of improvement. You have a good ear for the connotations of idiomatic expressions for the American reader, as in your catching the "overthrow" phrasing. Please critically read through the article looking for additional points to improve the article. Thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 04:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the current text is better, but I'm still not clear on the "extending democracy" point. There may be some academics offering ideas about this but they don't as far as I see have much political traction and in my mind that ought to be the standard for inclusion. The only one I can think of with political traction is the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact but that isn't a constitutional amendment. The marriage amendment is at least pretty high profile in the political discourse. Equilibrium007 (talk) 08:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * At a minimum, if we're going to have "extending democracy" in the summary there should be a citation so that readers can at least have a clue about what is specifically meant. Equilibrium007 (talk) 08:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I feel like the entire "Potential military coercion" section under Amendments (written about the Second Amendment) is written with a biased tone. I'm not sure that I'm up for the rewriting (as, honestly, I'd probably be a bit biased in the other direction) but wording and fact choice could use a bit of work. Jantman (talk) 13:03, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

“Introduction” rationale for edit
Readers of the article introduction should not be misled into interpretations of the Constitution which are reasonable, historically interesting, and, properly cited, to be included in this article’s Criticism section. But these are best addressed elsewhere than the introduction. The Constitution was a document written in 1787, incorporating twenty years’ experience in national and state self-governance. Yet a number of interpretations are current which have been derived from the Whig philosophy of 1760.

“State sovereignty” is accounted for in the article by describing the conscientious old men including most of the signers of the Declaration of Independence attending the Convention, the “men of original principles”. The philosophy is a powerful touchstone among Americans, for when applied to U.S. political culture one hundred years after establishing the Constitution, these same principles resulted in consequences unintended by any party, including immense loss and long term suffering among all parties. The differing points of view were adhered to sincerely, passionately, but there was no Golden Age imagined in some retrospectives.

Americans sustained violent conflict among themselves for over ten years of Civil War and Reconstruction, a time unimaginably costly in blood and treasure and terror for all concerned. The passage was tragically and fatally flawed for the entire mid-nineteenth century American experience. In an empathetic, romantic way, I’ve seen it in my mind's eye, walking the very lands of my home, “where their priceless blood reddens the grass the ground” (Whitman).

The revisions made to the introduction are meant to make it conform to (1) the history of convention and ratification, (2) the constitutional law as now held in the nation and in the states, and (3) the national political practice. This is meant to be a long, broad view, (a) not just in the twenty years before ratification, (b) not just over the twenty-year mid-19th Century tragedy, but (c) for that which is predominant for two-and-a-half centuries. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * These statements: "The last four Articles frame the principle of federalism. The Tenth Amendment confirms its federal characteristics." are POV and represent one political view. They are also misleading and inaccurate in many respects. The last four articles have many components which are not accurately summarized here. Also why would one amendment out of many be pulled for special highlight here other than to stake out a POV? Jeisenberg (talk) 19:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The assertion is that the constitution prescribes a federal government rather than a unitary one. "Federal" describes the relationship between central government and states, and among the states. It is found in these articles of the Constitution. What other "political view" on the subject do you suppose? Please give it voice. The one Amendment which addresses the federal relationship between the national central government and the local state governments is the one selected to show how "federalism" in the Constitution as fundamental law was extended in an Amendment to expand upon that fundamental law. Which other Amendment would you suggest for the purpose? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Judicial review
Not one of the longest sections, but much longer than need be. The "Subsequent courts" suhsection in particular contains much biographical and political material, and too much detail about individual cases which could be handled by, at most, an link to that article. Jim.henderson (talk) 11:20, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Confusing wording
In the criticism section:

because the Electoral College allows the possibility of electing presidents who do not win the majority of votes.[218] Three times in American history, presidents have been elected by the Electoral College despite failing to win the popular vote: 1876 (Rutherford B. Hayes), 1888 (Benjamin Harrison) and 2000 (George W. Bush).[

It makes it seem as if all other presidents who won an election won a majority when in fact many of them won a plurality of the vote, not an absolute majority. I think we should change it to:

ave been elected by the Electoral College despite failing to win a plurality of the popular vote — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinfoid (talk • contribs) 06:55, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, good thinking. Thanks for noticing this.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, yes, but the vote apart from the Electoral College, the national “popular vote”, the “popular majority”, these terms are used by advocates for reform, best discussed in any detail in an article which the “Criticism” section links to. So far, I think the article is okay on this point. Still, consider:


 * Historical studies of elections in the United States show that every state varied, and every election in each state has been variable. There have been differences in (1) who legally qualified, registered and voted, (2) variable levels and changing targets of violence by local and other police, hired and vigilante perpetrators, (3) which votes were counted, how they were reported, when challenges issued and who won on appeal. This is “little-d” democracy, sort of. It oughta-be that everyone equally everywhere registers, votes and gets counted in every election.


 * But all votes have not been equal, and any reasonable assertion of comparison among them among different states would require a stratified statistical analysis we have not seen in proposed sources. No scholar of the Constitution currently attributes any lasting impact on American political life from the effects of a national “popular vote” for President. WP articles related to the Constitution should focus on the Constitution’s Electoral College count. Discussion of state and national reforms related to it such as the state district plan and direct popular election of the president should be referenced by See also, Further reading and Main article, mostly. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

National v. Foederal . . . Info box

 * TomPaine1776 has just made five good links to improve the article. So it must be with respect, that I'd like to address his edit making "national" into "Federal". This is in fact better than the penultimate edit using "federal" without capitalizing it. It means that Tom Paine here is using the modern American convention, not making a political statement.
 * But I would still argue for using the word "national" in the purpose line of the Infobox to disambiguate this from the Articles document. Could we go for "Purpose: A national government with federal characteristics to replace the purely federal Articles of Confederation".
 * Thus: "Purpose: A national government with federal characteristics to replace the purely federal Articles of Confederation". TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Removed questionable assertion...
...from section 3.2.1 "Legislature", the following: "This provision gives Congress more than simply the responsibility to establish the rules governing its proceedings and for the punishment of its members; it places the power of the government primarily in Congress." Removed for the following reasons: WCCasey (talk) 20:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) There is nothing in the provision about "rules governing its proceedings"
 * 2) Legislative powers are not necessarily the primary "power of the government"
 * 3) The statement is unsourced opinion.
 * - not - do (a) correct the phrase citation since the section is filled with specific rules governing proceedings, or (b) tag it, rather than blanking, although (c) your courtesy of this note on TALK is good faith practice that promotes collaboration.
 * - not - if there be, perchance, a "rule of law", then the making of law is the primary "power of the government" in a "nation of laws, not of men".
 * - ah, yes - when a passage is challenged, apart from appeal to general knowledge or common sense, there is no defense for the indefensable. Wikipedia must have reliable sources for its passages. Our blanked editor has no response here? Maybe there is room for more Socratic/Classical/Jesuit/Yeshiva trained contributors? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 00:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

SCOTUS = scotus = sutocs

 * In treating the Second Amendment, Scott Illini would strike summary reference to any change in SCOTUS rulings and say as George Orwell’s Big Brother, whatever is, has always been, "Ignorance is strength". Amendments can only be “confirmed”, they are never “expanded”, just like Scott Illini says it says. But wait.
 * (1) SCOTUS said militias could not form up like them Captain Shays fellas rebelling in Massachusetts, only state-authorized militias can be, like the Second Amendment says. [That was good.-tvh] (2) SCOTUS said the voting black men of the Republican party assassinated in Louisiana could not defend themselves, and they deserved it because only the state militia can defend citizens, like the Second Amendment says. [That was bad.-tvh]
 * (3) SCOTUS said when DEA got the warrant, right floor and apartment number, just the wrong building adjacent, a white man can kill a federal agent when he breaks in unannounced with a drawn pistol, the citizen exchanging shots through the barricaded bedroom door while calling 911. You know, armed self-defense like the Second Amendment says. [That was good.-tvh]
 * I’m not sure the deleted phrase needs to be restored, since two differing citations are left remaining. SCOTUS variability can be the little secret of anyone who reads Wikipedia links. I am agreed with the consensus here, the article should move from the historic to focus on explication as the Constitution is now understood and used in practice. But should it avoid even summary reference to complexity? Later SCOTUS expanded its application of the Second Amendment as held by earlier SCOTUS from (a) state militias to (b) the Reserve and individuals. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)