Talk:History of the United States Constitution/Archive 1

Intro

 * One point that needs expansion to be a FA is the intro. One sentence isn't sufficient. Cburnett 18:22, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh yes. Lead and references (which I guess where used in writing the main FA article anyway) - this is really so close to FAC nomination. I will do it myself in a week or so when I have more time, if nobody is willing to do it faster... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:45, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Needs expantion on influence
Section on what outside US influenced the creation of the US constitution needs expantion. Currently only one small paragraphs states: "Some of the ideas embodied in the Constitution were new, but many were drawn from Classical Antiquity and the British governmental tradition of mixed government which was in practice among 12 of the 13 states and were advocated by the writings of Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu. The Declaration of Independence was an important guide, keeping the minds of the delegates fixed on the ideas of self-government and preservation of fundamental human rights. The writings of such European political philosophers as Montesquieu and John Locke were also influential. What they sought to create was a balanced government of checks and balances.". There is nothing on Jean-Jacques Rousseau, connections with French Revolution or Sejm Czteroletni in Poland which drafted the May Constitution of Poland, Pasquale Paoli and his Corsican Constitution, Wawrzyniec Grzymala Goslicki and many others philosopers and such. See also history of democracy. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:03, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Republicanism
No mention is made regarding the establishment of republicanism over pure democracy. That is, the Constitution was designed to protect individuals liberty from majority rule. See Federalist Paper 10 RJII 23:23, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Articles of Confederation
The revisions reflect the facts as found in the official Annotated Constitution.

CORNELIUSSEON 17:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

tonal cleanup
Please explain in this talk page the need for 'tonal cleanup' of this aritcle so that editors will know what you think is needed or remove the 'tonal cleanup' notice. Thanks Hmains 20:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * User:Video game fan11 alerted me to this old edit of mine. I have removed the tag as I do not find any issues with it after rereading it. 68.39.174.238 01:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Purpose of Revisions
Please indicate the purpose of revisions as a simple removal of selected, viable text is insufficient without the purpose causing it.Allstargeneral 04:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced Statement
I'm removing the following unsourced statement,


 * Contrary to popular belief, the division was not explicit between large states and small states. It was between states with claims of Western land and states without such claims.

because it has lacked a reference for over a year. I've also contacted the author of the statement, asking him to provide a reference. If anyone else has a reference for this, please add it.

For reference, this is the edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_the_United_States_Constitution&oldid=18018253 -- VGF11 01:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanx. I remember reading that and it definately flew a red flag for me. Good edit, IMAO. 68.39.174.238 19:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

English as official language
The sentence that mentions a discussion on making English the official language, which was recently tagged with "citation needed", seems rather close to an apparent myth described on this page. We may not want to leave that statement in the article too long if it can't be verified. Carl Lindberg 05:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. For reference, this is the line you're discussing, correct?
 * A particular argument of note, during this time, was whether or not an official language for the United States should be declared.-- VGF11 00:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yep, that's the one. Carl Lindberg 07:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Poor Choice of words
From "Views of the Constitution": Prior to the Civil War, abolitionists hated the Constitution because it allowed slavery.

Come on, this isn't very professional. KurtFF8 01:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

GA review

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Per GA review guildelines number 2, points 1 and 3, this article does not satisfy the GA criteria. Bottom line: The article lacks citations and includes a tag for a copyedit at the top and needs a little more work. I am failing it for the reasons listed. Once these concerns have been addressed, however, it may be renominated at any time. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 00:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Wrong Rutledge
Changed "Edward Rutledge" to "John Rutledge" as member of Committee of Detail. See this page at the Library of Congress.Kevin (talk) 00:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Articles government successes
The Articles government did have some (minor) success in negotiating the Treaty of Paris (1783) which ended the Revolutionary War; the passage of the Northwest Ordinance which created the Northwest Territory; and the Land Ordinance of 1785 which set up the procedures for admission of new states.

I think the word minor is inappropriate. Successfully concluding the Revolutionary war might be considered a success too. True Yorktown occurs before the articles are ratified, but the "articles government" might be considered to have started in 1775 at the convention. And as the Iraqistan conflict shows, ending a war is not easy. You could also call the US government after 1776 a confederacy without the paper work.Geo8rge (talk) 18:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Rich White Men?
The theory of the “greedy white Founders” was first widely advanced by Columbia University professor of history and self-described socialist Charles A. Beard, who in 1913 published a book titled An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States. But Beard was wrong, the majority of the signers of the Constitution were actually acting against their own best economic interests when they put their signatures on that document, just as had the majority of the signers of the Declaration of Independence. Perhaps we neSuperscript textSuperscript text ed to cite the original sources and not the historical revisionary history made by the early 20th century Progressive movement? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.81.206.178 (talk) 21:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * First and foremost, the debate regarding the role of class interest in the creation of the US Constitution has not been closed. Robert McGuire's "To Form A More Perfect Union" (2003) has been lauded by a variety of Historians as reinvigorating said debate as well as undermined Beard's detractors in a manner similar to how Beard himself was undermined.. Second, as the article on Charles Beard points out, he was not a Socialist. Overall I'd argue that this article needs to place greater weight on the issue, not less. Anatoly-Rex (talk) 20:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Constitution allowed slavery?
Ummm...too bad it didn't. The 3/5ths compromise was designed to keep the southern states from institutionalizing slavery. They left it to where they could eventually abolish it. Madison and Jefferson both spoke about this in their letter to one another. This is another myth perpetuated by the so-called academia and revisionist historians. This needs to be addressed as well. also the government taxed the native people''' even though they couldn't vote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.81.206.178 (talk) 21:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Ummm... too bad the proof is in the pudding. Slavery was institutionalized and it took a major war to abolish it. The 3/5ths clause was no compromise, if you were a slave. 4wikicalifornia (talk) 23:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC) 4wikicalifornia 16:38, 20 July 2010
 * The constitution neither forbids nor condones slavery. It only refers to it briefly, and even that didn't condone the act.--Jojhutton (talk) 22:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Amplification of AntiFederalists
The sections that refer to Antifederalists need to be expanded I think. Over 140 men at some time verbally dissented and refused to support the new constitution. They were labeled "AntiFederalists" by those advocating a strong central government as an answer to shortcomings under the Articles of Confederation (AOC). Source: Preface section,

Birth of the Bill of Rights: Encyclopedia of the Antifederalists, Volume I, Biographies ~ Jon L. Wakelyn Publisher: Greenwood (November 30, 2004) Language: English ISBN-10: 0313331944 ISBN-13: 978-0313331947  Big text  So I think the section on the Philadelphia Convention needs to be modified to reflect that dissent. The existing phraseology in that section reads;

"All agreed, however, on the central objectives expressed in the preamble to the Constitution: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Many of these things were abhorrent to the Antifederalists. For example: Both Luther Martin and Governor George Clinton (letters from Cato) felt that
 * you could not have freedom with a standing federal army in peacetime. Great foreboding was also expressed by many over the idea of a federal court system that would drag citizens to D.C. thousands of miles from their local cultures when no good road system existed.  Arguments were made by many, that the proposed central government was contaminated by having the Vice President preside over the Senate and the Senate appointed tasks by the President as destroying checks and balances.  This is why many refused to sign.

Source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Complete_Anti-Federalist

I shall wait for you comments before changing it however. SilenceDoogood (talk) 02:07, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't overlook the basics: It's a mistake to think the Anti-Feds wanted less government. The Anti-Feds feared that the NATIONAL gov't would be strong and overshadow the state governments.  They wanted strong powerful state governments that could control people and tax them and they resisted limitations on the states. In general the Anti-Feds (like Clinton in NY) were already in control  and they wanted to keep it that way.  This is why Shays rebellions is so important--the nationalists used it it convince some  people there was a risk the state might not be powerful enough and would need help to suppress a rebellion. Rjensen (talk) 02:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Moving Philadelphia
I have been asked to help find ways to trim the overgrown United States Constitution article, of which the 1787 section is the largest and shouldn't be. This smaller article, on the other hand, has a much smaller yet well written section on that topic. So, it seems to me they should swap. The long account in that article should move here, and the short one that we see here should move there. Am I proposing something dreadfully dumb?
 * Actually that sounds smart. Let's do it. I didn't do any trimming or anything. Let me know if I can do something.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh. I mean to move not only the "Convention" section but also the "Drafting" section. I won't wait a similar interval but will do it a couple hours from now. Jim.henderson (talk) 11:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * So, the move was done back then, on the eve of my contracting a minor illness. Several small improvements followed (mostly expansions, alas) and this morning chunks were skillfully removed. It's still not as small as my preference would have it, but it's a preference based on my fondness for geographical articles and less intensely relevant here. For no particular reason, an ugly paragraph containing the words "radical Whigs" struck my eye and made me wonder whither it could be banished but no, it is important to the context and just needs a bit of beautification and maybe links to other articles.
 * More to the questions at hand, most of the removed material was about the Philadelphia convention. I certainly would not support a similarly large swap, but it seems to me several parts of the convention's own article provide both smaller and poorer coverage than the material here. This suggests making a few smaller swaps, or by more imaginative methods beefing up the convention article at the expense of the convention section here. Especially the convention article should handle all or most discussion of delegates presenting credentials followed by drifting in and out, and rooming, dining, sweltering and whatever.

article 1 section 8
I think that the orders and the resolutions and the votes should be looked at first by a vice president just to see if it was worth it or not but the constitution says "every order,resolution, or vote to which the concurrence of the senate and house of representatives may be necessary ( except on a question of adjournment) shall be represented to the president of the united states;and before the same shall take effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the senate and house of representatives, according to the rules and limitations prescribed in the case of a bill. (from a 12 year old kid)Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.117.41.35 (talk) 00:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This is great. Your proposal is akin to the "council of revision" to look at legislation before it could go into effect. It was in the Virginia Plan by Edmund Randolph and James Madison. You are in good company. We can't use it here! But stay with it, OKAY. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

7 Articles written on 4 pages
On September 17, 1787, the Constitution with its 7 Articles written on 4 pages was completed - Brad Watson, Miami 71.196.11.183 (talk) 04:01, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Confusing wording
Hi, maybe it's just me but this part in the Amendment section "In the early twentieth century, when the Supreme Court routinely struck down state laws limiting what sort of work contract women could make as unconstitutional (see Lochner era)" is very confusing. Struck down can be interpreted as blocking a law or writing one down. Also it is hard to tell if the "as unconstitutional" is referring to the courts order or the limiting of the work law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.142.194 (talk) 01:59, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

"Bowen" citations
There are several citations to a source called "Bowen," but the link simply brings us to the article itself, not to "Bowen." The link probably needs to be deleted and, if an on line copy of "Bowen" is available, replaced with a link to that online copy. Famspear (talk) 14:30, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Also, citation forms such as "Bowen 2010" are not proper in an encyclopedia (or anywhere else, probably), without first rendering the full citation. Who is "Bowen"? What article or book, exactly, is being cited? I did a search of the article, and so far I have found no full citation. "Bowen 2010" appears to be an abbreviated form of the citation, but you're not supposed to use abbreviated forms without FIRST giving the full citation. Famspear (talk) 14:38, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Same problem with citations such as "Maier 2010". Who the heck is "Maier," and what is the name of the work that Maier wrote? And why does the link embedded in the citation bring us right back to this same Wikipedia article? The link should take us to the cited material, not to the Wikipedia article. Famspear (talk) 14:40, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


 * "Bowen" is probably Catherine Drinker Bowen's book, Miracle at Philadelphia but yes, the citation if it was ever in proper form has long been munged and should be repaired. "Maier" is probably similar. Jim.henderson (talk) 10:47, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on History of the 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/20111221095731/http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/html/amdt2.html to http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/html/amdt2.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090925161026/http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/lpbr/subpages/reviews/levinson0107.htm to http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/lpbr/subpages/reviews/levinson0107.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:01, 10 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Links work. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:52, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Confederation Congress, First Congress, and "Articles Congress"
The introduction uses three separate terms: Confederation Congress, First Congress, and "Articles Congress." This probably needs to be cleaned up. The introduction should clarify by stating specifically exactly what the "Articles Congress" was supposed to be. Was it the same as or different from the "Confederation Congress"? Was it the same as or different from the "First Congress"? Be specific. Famspear (talk) 14:49, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

For example, if the term "Articles Congress" is intended to mean a short hand way to say "Confederation Congress," the Wikipedia article should probably say something like "Confederation Congress (also known as the 'Articles Congress')". In formal writing, especially in a writing that refers to legal topics (such as the U.S. Constitution), some good general rules to follow are:

1. If you say something in one place and you later say something somewhere else that really means the same thing that you meant in the first place, say the same thing again; don't say something different. In other words, don't use synonyms.

2. If you still feel you have to say something different (for the benefit of abbreviation, for example) but you're really meaning the same thing you said with another term earlier in the work, then explain that the new term means the same thing as the old term you used earlier. Don't just introduce new terms, willy-nilly.

This concept is important when writing about technical subjects (such as legal topics, or about topics with substantial legal aspects). Much of that stuff we learned from our high school English teachers about colorful, flowery language and the use of synonyms does not apply when writing about technical subjects. Famspear (talk) 15:03, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:14, 13 November 2016 (UTC)