Talk:Constitutionality

merge suggestion
definitely merge unconstitutional to constitutionality. Or delete unconstitutional and redirect, since it doesn't say anything new. RJII 02:48, 2 December 2005 (UTC) this user says: Do it!


 * I concur with the redirect. unconstitutional is unnecessary. --Jonathan Patt 20:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

unconstitutional covers the exact same topic as constitutionality. They should be merged. Dated 12-21-05

I also agree they are identical. 84.65.129.85 17:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I disagree unconstitutional and constitutionality are two different words!!!!!!!!!!!

These should be merged, if for no other reason than the fact that "unconstitutional" is an adjective (only a descriptor for something else) while Constitutionality is a noun, a freestanding concept. bd2412 T 04:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

what up
dude this site totally helped man PAH! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.173.131.117 (talk) 17:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

This article should be deleted or completely re-written. Why is it skewed towards the constitution of nations?. This is NOT a topic of LAW
It is skewed towards matter of national constitutions and matters LEGAL. Any organization can have a constitution. My cricket club has a constitution. So does my Trade Union. The acts of the bodies and their officers have to be in accordance with the constitution - i.e. either they have to have constitutionality or else they are ultra vires and therefore invalid. Acts are either ultra vires or they are not. I do not see that Wikipedia needs another article to explain the opposite of ultra vires.

For this reason I am going to cut the article back and redirect the reader to Ultra vires for more information.Hauskalainen (talk) 23:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * This edit has removed a great deal of information that should remain.


 * First, there is an important distinction between your cricket club and a nation that has a mechanism for review of constitutionality. If the offices of your cricket club do something that's improper under the constitution, it's likely that your only remedy is to go to court.  Few private organizations have a mechanism for independent internal review of the question.  By contrast, in countries like Canada and the United States that have a written constitution and a judicial branch, a law that's enacted by elected leaders can then be nullifed by judges who decide it's unconstitutional.  That's a point that's worth elaborating.  Of course, if we have examples of private organizations with similar internal review panels, they can be included in that discussion.


 * Your edit summary stated, "article was way too far skewed to American legal matters". In that case, you should feel free to add information about how the concept is applied in other legal systems.  If you don't have such information yet ready for insertion, that's no reason for deleting other information.  What would you think about a section heading for "In the United States" or the like?  That section could explain the concept of judicial review as it's been practiced in the United States since Marbury v. Madison.  Other editors could come along and add information about other countries. JamesMLane t c 07:13, 12 February 2011 (UTC)