Talk:Constitution of the United States/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Education in United States

As I understand it, although I am British, children are compulsorally taught about the constitution at school. Is it worth including a section on this in the intro? WikiWebbie (talk) 22:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

edit request

{{editprotect}} Please change the link Fine in the Bill of Rights (1-10) section to not lead to a disambiguation page. It should link directly to Fine (penalty). Thanks, 75.161.222.150 (talk) 16:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done – Luna Santin (talk) 17:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! 75.161.222.150 (talk) 17:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Second Amendment does not discuss the right of the States to establish Militias

From the original article:

Second Amendment: defines the right of States in keeping and maintaining militias and the right of individuals to possess firearms.

The States had a right to establish their own militias prior to the Constitution's ratification as indicated in the Wiki about the 2A: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution TangoSierra7 (talk) 02:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Merely because the right existed before the second amendment, it does not preclude the right from being mentioned in said amendment. Indeed, the text says that the right is defined by the second amendment, it does not say it was granted. I can define an existing word in the same way; just writing it down in a dictionary does this. It doesn't mean I invented the word out of whole cloth. This wording is fine... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

vandalism at the top of the article

someone figured out a clever way to vandalize this article. I think they may have built it into a template code. can anyone fix this? User:RideABicycle/Signature 01:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'm not sure what you mean. Could you please expand? - NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 01:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Oldest and Shortest

The most recent edit in this vein points to an advocacy site. Can someone point to some source which is neutral, and (at a minimum) gives sizes/dates for the likely candidates? Tedickey (talk) 12:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, would it not be better, instead of saying It is the shortest and oldest written constitution of any major sovereign state.[1] it should read the shortest and second oldest written constitution of any soverign state, after the constitution of San Marino That would be more correct, and less ambiguous. 86.128.108.171 (talk) 21:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

First Drafts Written on Hemp

Need to add that, ironically, the first few drafts were written on now illegal (legal at the time) hemp paper. The final draft was written on parchment (comes from animals). Source here 99.21.45.70 (talk) 19:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

world's oldest federal constitution

The US Constitution is NOT the oldest written constitution; it's not even our oldest written constitution. At federal level, it was preceded by the first American constitution, the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union. Otherwise, the first written American constitution was the Mayflower Compact; and the first American constitution that is still in force today is the Vermont Constitution, which pre-dates the U.S. Constitution by a few years.

Internationally, the oldest written constitution is the Constitution of the Most Serene Republic of San Marino; which has the distinction of being the world's oldest, if not first, republic.

BTW, a federal constitution does not necessarily provide for a federal system in which govenment power is "spread between the national, state and local governments." We have no "national" government in the United States. We have a federal government that operates nationally within the limited sovereignty granted it by the US Constitution - under which document the basic unit of American government is the individual state, not the federal state. (Conversely, the basic unit of government in Canada is the federal state, not the provincial state.)

Rather, a federal constitution is a constitution (oral and/or written) which governs the operation of a federal state, as opposed to a unitary state. A federal state is a nation-state composed of constituent unitary or federal nation-states, each of which is endowed with its own sovereignty - except to the extent its sovereignty is assigned or assumed by the federal constitution to the federal state. A unitary state, by comparison, is a single sovereign entity with unlimited jurisdiction over all inferior jurisdictions within its borders.

• What's a federal constitution? This is pretty unclear. See also Talk:Constitution#First_modern_constitution.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

• • A Federal Constitution is a Constitution the provides for a Federal system in which governmental power is spread between the national, state, and local governments.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/federalism/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reach42 (talk • contribs) 03:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The Ratification Process

I was browsing this article, and could not find anything on what it takes to ratify an amendment nowadays. Could you please add that? Thanks, and sorry if it's here and I just missed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.34.144 (talk) 23:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The amendment process is the same as it has ever been. 2/3 of Congress/legislatures, then 3/4 of states NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 01:22, 25 December 2008 (UTC))

Hi This is really awesome. Website I am 12 years old and I come her every time I need help on a report mainly for History. It always has something good for me to look at and realize what that person or thing did or how how it helped this country. Because right now I finding notes on the constitution and the preamble and the Bill of Rights So thanks reading! BYE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.158.126.6 (talk) 21:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Ratification

The article states "they decided only nine states were needed to ratify the constitution for it to go into effect." How could they just decide that, given that at this time the Articles of Confederation were still in effect, which required unanimity? Seems this should be explained in the text. --KarlFrei (talk) 11:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

From History of the United States Constituion: " Aware of their vanishing authority, Congress on September 28, after some debate, unanimously decided to submit the Constitution to the States for action. It made no recommendation for or against adoption." As this point may not be clear, I will add it to the article. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 22:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, from this article itself: "The Convention submitted the Constitution to the Congress of the Confederation, where it received approval according to Article 13 of the Articles of Confederation." NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 22:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Drafting and ratification requirements

This section needs an expert to look at the formating. I can't figure it out.--Rafaelgarcia (talk) 08:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Amerocentrism and the absence of any discussion of the document's international impact

I'll say this right off the bat: The article on the whole should, as it currently does, have a strong primary focus on the document's own history, its historical impact in the United States, and the language therein. That said, the document has had a strong impact on other similar documents. The Japanese Constitution (drafted during post-war occupation), for instance, was said to be closely modeled on it. It is difficult to believe that the United States Constitution did not have some sort of measurable and noteworthy impact on others, as well. While it is commendable that previous editors of this document have included mention of international documents that preceded it, more detailed discussion of its impact on documents that followed should be added to make the article more relevant and accessible to an international audience. MrZaius^talk 16:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

One more time: This isn't an attempt to dramatically shift the focus of the article, but the article should be expanded slightly to cover the impact of the Constitution on documents based upon it or that drew on it much as our founding fathers did the Magna Carta et al. Modern international constitutional norms et al and the impact of the US Constitution on the same warrant a short section here. MrZaius^talk 14:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but are there sources for this? Regarding Japan, our article on its constitution, Constitution of Japan, says that it is modeled on the British parliamentary system even though it was initially drafted by Americans. After the fall ofthe Iron Curtain I recall hearing about the sudden need for constitutional experts to help draft new charters, and many U.S. scholars went abroad to help. There might be sources about their influence. What have you found so far?   Will Beback  talk  18:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I have extremely limited access to print media, here in exile in Nepal. Sadly, despite the ongoing constitutional conventions in this country, I do not believe I have access to work such as this: The U.S. Constitution and the Constitutions of Asia By Kenneth W. Thompson, which seems to cover the topic in considerable depth. My J-STOR access has also been stripped from me, as my library card from back home expired at the end of the year. That said, a few simple things to look for include multiple sources that indicate that such topics as: the language used, particularly in the prologue, of the Constitution of Japan; the bicameral nature of state legislatures within the United States; the role of our constitution as a source for Latin American historical constitions and early versions of the British North America Act; and the general impact of the Bill of Rights and our drafting process on others. There are myriad sources available, but they seem to be dominated by scholarly print media which I can but taste via Google Books. Anyone have any more accessible works, or access to these? The first link above, to Thompson, seems to be the most promising starting point. MrZaius^talk 15:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, expanding on Beback's mention above of the post-Soviet rush to draft new constitutions for eastern bloc states, there was a similar rush (greater in size and longer in duration) to draft the constitutions of states rising out of colonialism. This source contains explicit reference to and quotes concerning the importance of the bill of rights on the Indian process and of its influence (and the indirect influence of America's) on the Malaysian constitution. That said, having access to one or more strong print sources that more explicitly cover the topic would certainly be helpful. MrZaius^talk 15:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

By the way, if you look at it's references, you'll see "Blaustein - The Influnce of the United States Constitution Abroad" from 1986. That'd be the first thing I'd look for, keeping in mind that it's a hard to find document by a now-defunct Moonie think-tank that may have a somewhat off-kilter approach to the topic, given J-STOR access or the like. Assuming it has any credibility and length at all, it'd probably be a wonderful place to be able to dig up other references. Anyone willing to poke around? MrZaius^talk 15:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

While this debate is interesting, we should remove the worldwide view tag from the top of the page I think. The reason for this is that while the international impact writing could be improved, it does not make any of the information in the current article unreliable, nor does it introduce much of any bias to a reader. The warnings should go at the top of a page when a reader could come away with misinformation or a skewed view. Readers will not come away with misinformation or a skewed view, but rather will be underinformed, but not misinformed. Further, the worldwide view tag is not appropriate for an article which is very importantly local. This is an article about a United States document, and it should have a very predominant focus in that direction. For these reasons I am removing the warning banner. Huadpe (talk) 10:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I feel it does introduce a significant and important bias, but it does not, as you said, render the article unreliable - It simply strips it of a major aspect of its modern importance and context for comparison. Not going to revert, but I'm not sure I agree with your decision to remove the tag before some basic treatment of it is added. That said, has anyone been able to find something better than the sources above? Does anyone have access to the references requested above? MrZaius^talk 17:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't make sense. It is either biased or reliable. If you have some evidence of how the U.S. Constitution has influenced other countries' constitutions, then provide it. That other countries have copied it is not such a "major" aspect of the document that it cannot be understood without knowing which countries copied it and how much they copied. Were this an article entitled "Constitution", the tag would make sense. -Rrius (talk) 03:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

It can be biased in a way that doesn't dramatically undermine the credibility of the article, and is. Nuance, good writing, and presenting the topic in a modern context are all important enough to warrant some significant changes. Again, though, I would appreciate the help of someone with access to better sources than the above prior to making an addition. MrZaius^talk 04:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC) To clarify, of the reputable sources given above, I only have access to snippets from Google Books, not the complete copies, due to the absence of any sort of public American law library in my current nation of residence. It seems inappropriate to base the expansion on these snippets, potentially taken out of context

Recent Edit To Second Amendment Section is in error

Entry for Second Amendment previously said "defines the right of individuals to possess firearms."

This is exactly consistent with the recent Supreme Court case District of Columbia v Heller, and is a correct statement of the law.

Feb 3 it was changed to its current revision, "A heavily debated amendment from which the people derive a right to bear arms."

Unfortunately this is not an improvement. It replaces a plain statement of the law and substitutes something amnbiguous which does no explanatory work. Also, many of the provisions of the bill of rights are heavily debated. Adding it here doesn't really have much meaning and in fact incorrectly suggests that this is the only provision that is heavily debated when in fact there are regular heavy debates over the scope of the First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth amendments just to name a few.

Also, the word "derive" should not be used. The framers were clear that the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are not derived from the Constitution but are a priori rights not dependent on the government but are inherent (and unalienable). So the Bill of Rights guarantees preexisting rights. It does not grant rights.

Someone should revert the Second Amendment entry to "defines the right of individuals to possess firearms."

Thank you.

UPDATE: WAS ABLE TO MAKE EDIT MYSELF. REVERTED BACK TO PREVIOUS EXCEPT I SUBSTITUED "GUARANTEES" FOR "DEFINES." THANKS.

Dansnare (talk) 17:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC) Dansnare

Major misconception

The article United States Constitution perpetuates a mistaken view of the US Congress. The article says "Article One describes the congress, the legislative branch of the federal government. The United States Congress is a bicameral body consisting of the lower house of the House of Representatives and the Senate as the upper house."

There is nothing in Article One that says there is any such relationship between the two institutions.

Agkistrodon (talk) 10:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

No one is saying the Constitution uses those terms, and there is no mistaken view: The House is a lower house, and the Senate is an upper house. -Rrius (talk) 21:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Cluckk2 (talk) 13:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The terms upper and lower house are not meant to indicate rank or superiority/inferiority. The House of Representatives is closer to the people than the Senate; therefore, it is lower. This is demonstrated by the following: all representatives are elected every two years and senators every six years; Senators were originally picked by the state legislatures and still are considered the representatives of the states, not the people. This balances the interests of the states and the interests of the populace, by giving the people power to change their representatives quickly while the states, represented by the longer term Senators, should act as a brake to hasty changes. Unfortunately, the XVII Amendment did away with this. We see that in some actions the house has more power and in others it is the Senate. Appropriations bills must originate in the House because the people have the greatest say in taxation; the Senate alone ratifies treaties because the federal government in foreign relations is acting on behalf of the combined states.

ERA

The Equal Rights Amendment should be placed in a third category as, technically, it is not known (and will not be known until legal action or ratification attempts) whether the 35 ratifications are still valid (see "Three State Strategy" in the ERA's article). Unlike with most of the other amendments, ERA still has active groups lobbying for it in the remaining states and has as recently as winter 2009 been subject to a ratification vote (in Arkansas, which resulted in a tie). There should at least be a mention that ratification efforts are still around. SocialActivismNow (talk) 20:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Might not Be a View Held by Everyone in the World

The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.104.7.65 (talk) 00:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Can anyone explain in more detail, what needs to be fixed, the explanation above is just a reiteration of the tag on the article and does not explain what the concerns are. The edit summaries don't explain either. A new name 2008 (talk) 16:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I was reluctant to remove it, but this section appears to be just vandalism after a second look. See #Amerocentrism and the absence of any discussion of the document's international impact two sections up. MrZaius^talk 01:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

This section is why I removed the tag earlier. I saw this section and there was no reason given for the tag other than a reiteration of the tag. Sorry for the confusion, in missing your explanation above. A new name 2008 (talk) 01:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Understood, and thanks for the followup. I'll try to respond to comments above in ~8-9 hours when I get off of work. MrZaius^talk 03:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Introduction re legal authority provided

The second sentence of the article says: "It is the foundation and source of the legal authority underlying the existence of the United States of America; the Federal Government of the United States; and all the State & local governments and Territorial Administrative bodies contained therein."

The first two items in that list are correct. The third is absolutely wrong. The states do NOT derive their power from the federal constitution. How could they when they preceded its existence? (unless the ratification of the federal constitution constituted a simultaneous bloodless revolution in the various states, which I've never heard anyone suggest.) This is what sets a federal system apart from a unitary one. See the paragraph beginning "Rather, a federal constitution is..." in the section "World's oldest federal constitution" above. I couldn't say it better, so I won't try.

I'm removing the third item from that list. Looking at what's left, the phrase "...foundation and source of the legal authority underlying the existence..." seems really odd to me. I can't put my finger on the reason why. What do people think of this as a syntactically simpler and, I feel, clearer replacement for that whole sentence: "It establishes the United States of America as a nation-state and the legal authority of the Federal Government of the United States." (Note that to say it establishes the USA as a nation-state is not in conflict with the existence of the USA under the Articles of Confederation. It establishes the USA in an ongoing sense.) It's important that the nature of the States' sovereignties be discussed, but correctly, and due to the nuance, probably not in the introduction.

--MilFlyboy (talk) 03:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

high quality free narration of US Constitution

The website Americana Phonic provides a very high-quality narration of the US Constitution, with the Amendments, for free. The recording is an AAC audio file, with each section and each amendment navigable as an independent chapter. This is the link to the recording:

http://www.americanaphonic.com/?p=266

--71.178.126.122 (talk) 02:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Rights?

Cant police officers circumvent any right you have? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.202.105.216 (talk) 00:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

You may be interested in checking out the Reference Desk for this kind of information. NW (Talk) ^{(How am I doing?)} 01:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The constitution

The Constitution show the branches of the Goverment.The First 10 Amendments are the Bill of Rights. They're over 20 amendments in the Constitution.One of the amendments are the right to vote by sex or color of skin.Or if you go to jail you can't vote durning that time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.61.203.127 (talk) 02:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The physical document

There's little or nothing in this article about the physical document. It's only proper that this be a minor section, but it ought to be discussed here, no? Tempshill (talk) 19:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead and write it up. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 17:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Contrary to popular belief the constitution was not written on a reefer. This is just a myth, sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.109.101.208 (talk) 14:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

In reference to the first reference number.

The United States of America are not a... sovereign state. That should be evident in its name. The Constitution is a compact between states -sovereign by definition (Article VII- U.S. Constitution). Also, Massachusetts has an older constitution.<http://www.mass.gov/Aosc/docs/reports_audits/CAFR/2006/page_14-15.pdf>

71.195.159.78 (talk) 15:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)Will Mobley

re: Constitutional Congress [citation needed]

Please remove this usage of "Constitutional Congress"

The earliest historical use of the term "Constitutional Congress" appears to be in the Analysis of Civil Government By Calvin Townsend (page 30). It refers to the convening of Congress, not the original convention.

quote:

"§ 8. Electors were accordingly appointed, and their votes given for President. Elections of members of the House of Representatives by the people, and for senators by the State legislatures, were held; so that on Wednesday, the fourth day of March, 1789, the first Constitutional Congress met, and proceedings were commenced under the new organization."

John L. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.45.124.115 (talk) 18:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Signatues

Done in convention by the unanimous consent of the states present the seventeenth day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven and of the independence of the United States of America the twelfth.

In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,

G. Washington-Presidt. and deputy from Virginia

New Hampshire: John Langdon, Nicholas Gilman

Massachusetts: Nathaniel Gorham, Rufus King

Connecticut: Wm: Saml. Johnson, Roger Sherman

New York: Alexander Hamilton

New Jersey: Wil: Livingston, David Brearly, Wm. Paterson, Jona: Dayton

Pennsylvania: B. Franklin, Thomas Mifflin, Robt. Morris, Geo. Clymer, Thos. FitzSimons, Jared Ingersoll, James Wilson, Gouv Morris

Delaware: Geo: Read, Gunning Bedford jun, John Dickinson, Richard Bassett, Jaco: Broom

Maryland: James McHenry, Dan of St Thos. Jenifer, Danl Carroll

Virginia: John Blair--, James Madison Jr.

North Carolina: Wm. Blount, Richd. Dobbs Spaight, Hu Williamson

South Carolina: J. Rutledge, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, Charles Pinckney, Pierce Butler

Georgia: William Few, Abr Baldwin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.50.13.43 (talk) 10:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

"(A little known fact is that) The Greek War of Independence of 1821 (against the Ottoman Empire) inflamed the imagination of leading American political figures who caught "Greek Fever". This revolt parallels the American Revolution and brings parallels between March 25th and the Fourth of July. Thomas Jefferson , author of the Declaration of Independence, had extensive correspondence regarding the principles of democratic government with Adamantios Korais, one of the intellectual fathers of the Greek Revolution. President James Madison, major author of the American Constitution, and President James Monroe supported the (Greek) revolt in private correspondence and in public speeches. Prominent politicians such as Daniel Webster, Sam Houston, and Henry Clay championed Greece on the floor of the United States Senate. the Greek War of Independence would produce an abundance of heroes, traitors, massacres, and foreign interventions. In that regard, the Greek War of Independence again parallels the history of the American Revolution. A significant percent of American colonists remained loyal to the British monarch and lived comfortably while Washington's famished troops shivered in their winter camps. Washington himself was a target of conpiracy of other generals who wanted to replace him as commander-in-chief. Due to related quarrels with General Gates, Benedict Arnold, the leader of the American victory at the crucial battle of Saratoga, eventually deserted to the British side. The climatic battle of Yorktown was achieved only with the assistance of the French Navy.

Similar patterns formed during the Greek Revolution. At one point General Theodoros Kolokotronis was actually jailed by political rivals. Co-ordination between Greek land and sea forces was weak. Some Greeks remained loyal to the Sultan; and Greece's European Allies did not wish to see a full-fledged democracy emerge from the conflict. Thus, the revolution that began as the new cutting edge of democracy forged the spirit of the French Enlightenment ultimately was forced by Britain, France, and Russia to accept the son of a Bavarian aristocrat as its constitutional monarch. The Sultan also had powerful allies such as Ibrahim Pasha of Egypt. Pasha, in fact, would continue the fight against the Greeks after the Sultan's own forces were defeated.

The most famous American poet of the time, William Cullen Bryant, wrote on behalf of the Greeks, and hundreds of poems, editorials and news stories by less famous persons appeared throughout the national press. Cities such as Ypsilanti, Michigan, were named after heroes of the revolution, and numerous state assemblies towns, and colleges passed resolutions in support of the Greek cause. Funds were raised to aid the Greeks, and American volunteers journeyed across the Atlantic to fight alongside the Greeks. The sculptor Hiram Walker created 'The Greek Slave' a mournful marble statue that depicted a Greek woman enslaved by the Ottomans." Excerpts from an article by Dan Georgakas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.131.20.65 (talk) 00:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

which should be that

The section is quoted below:

Article Seven: Ratification

Main article: Article Seven of the United States Constitution

See also: wikisource:Constitution of the United States of America § Article VII

Article Seven sets forth the requirements for ratification of the Constitution. The Constitution would not take effect until at least nine states had ratified the Constitution in state conventions specially convened for that purpose, and it would only apply to those states which ratified it.

This line should read "...only apply to those states that ratified it"

Dandlyin (talk) 23:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The oldest constitution in the world?

Is it the oldest constitution? The one of the Republic of San Marino is more than 150 years older (and is still in use - San_Marino, 9th row). Taking in consider that the article says "It is the shortest and oldest written constitution of any major sovereign state", which is a somewhat misleading phrase due to the word "major".

78.0.217.115 (talk) 14:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)draco

I think the wording is fair.. San Marino being a micronation and whatnot. If you'd want to get all technical (and I guess we ought to be precise), one might finish the sentence "...of any major sovereign state, predated only by the Constitution of San Marino of 1600." ...or are there any other constitutions of "non-major" countries also predating the US constitution?

Also, now that I think about it, is the US constitution the oldest, or the oldest still in effect? I would assume the latter, but the wording suggests otherwise. Might need to rewrite that sentence if that's the case. 78.34.118.113 (talk) 21:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree also with you. The oldest constitution is the one in San Marino. Even if it is a little country, the information should be quote. The USA don't have the oldest constitution of the World. I hope the information will be insert in the page Ore22st (talk) 14:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

So, why no changes yet to the wording of the article in this matter? Also, why does the size of the state having the constitution matter? Suppose Costa Rica's constitution was older than China's (I'm not sure of the age of either). Would Costa Rica's prominence in world affairs be a relevant factor in determining whose constitution was oldest? Of course not. So why is it relevant in the case of the US vs. San Marino? Perhaps I'm missing something here. Bowenj10 (talk) 00:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Because what is alleged above is not true. San Marino does not have a written constitution. Parts of its constitution are written, but that is not the same thing. By the logic alleging that San Marino has the oldest written constitution, one would have to say Britain has the oldest written constitution because of Magna Carta (1215). Perhaps if people had actually read the article linked to above, this discussion would not have gotten this far. -Rrius (talk) 00:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Explanation of self revert

Earlier today, User:Broadcaster101 made several edits to the Amendments section. As best I can figure (it being many hours later) I clicked "undo" from the diff instead of "edit", and managed not to notice any of the clear indicators that would have told me I was editing in an undo edit window instead of the regular one. How I missed the filled in edit summary is especially confusing, but I guess I must have cleared it when I wasn't paying attention. Not paying attention is obviously a big part of this. In any event, I made my relatively minor change ("Marbury v. Madison (1803)" to "the 1803 case Marbury v. Madison"). Later, I noticed my mistake when I saw that Broadcaster was making an edit I had already seen him make with only me in between. I apologize, and I believe I've fixed it. If not, let me know. -Rrius (talk) 04:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Translations

Is there any point to this section? The Constitution has obviously been translated into Turkish, Farsi and Serbian, to name just a few missing languages. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 17:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• Please send me the sources for the translations into Turkish, Farsi, and Serbian. Many thanks. Broadcaster101 (talk) 23:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I've done a few google searches and I couldn't find anything particuarly obvious. I'm sure they exist though; the US Constitution is one of the few international documents, like the Bible, the US Decleration of Independence or the Magna Carta that are studied in schools in Europe and beyond. They may not appear on the internet, however. You just have to look at this article, and see that it appears on over 40 different language versions of Wikipedia, many of which are not very developed, indicating that the languages listed in this article and purely arbitary. It's obvious better to have information referenced, but I think the section gives the wrong impression you can only find copies of the US Constitution in that small number of languages listed, and as such should be removed. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 16:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Suggest deleting subsection "Amendment process"

The subsection "Amendment process" essentially duplicates the subsection "Article Five". Because Article Five is the part of the Constitution that creates the amendment process, the text in "Amendment process" is unnecessary and should be moved. "Amendment process" should then be deleted. Broadcaster101 (talk) 06:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

References for section concerned with historic influences.

There is only one source provided in the historic influences section. Surely there should be far more references here as there are many works concerned with this topic. This would assist in ensuring that the comments in this section are verifiable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.59.201 (talk) 20:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

It isn't strictly speaking necessary, but if you want to provide more refs or more information, feel free. That is what Wikipedia is all about, after all. -Rrius (talk) 21:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The oldest one?

It's only the shortest one, being the oldest the Constitution of San Marino —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.40.70.78 (talk) 17:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Discrepancy in Dates of Ratification

There is a discrepancy in dates of ratification: According to the Wikipedia article for "United States Constitution", the State of New Hampshire ratified the Constitution on June 21, 1788. However, according to the Wikipedia article for "Continental Congress", the State of New Hampshire ratified the Constitution on July 2, 1788. ImperatorMagnus (talk) 17:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• June 21, 1788, is correct, per other web pages. Broadcaster101 (talk) 05:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of the Constitution -- how come there isn't any?

There's always another side to things. How come there isn't much criticism of the Constitution in this article? This article is very much "status quo". There have been intelligent academics who have, in the past few decades, suggested the Constitution needs serious repair. Their criticisms should be included here. --Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The reason is that no one has done it yet. If you want to track down the research, please do. -Rrius (talk) 01:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, I did; plus there's some stuff of one of the critics criticizing the critics which perhaps should go in too.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 04:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

What matters here is how we use the term Constitution -- are we talking about a living, breathing, changing covenant between government and the people? Or are we talking about a fixed historical document from 1789? This matters -- my sense is this article is mostly about the historical document, and doesn't cover how two centuries of fundamental changes. For example, according to the historical Constitution, Congress declares war; but the essential understanding is that today, war is something the president determines (every war after WW2 has been essentially a presidential decision, although sometimes ratified by Congress.) So I think a big problem with this article is -- identifying that this article's emphasis is on the historical fixed document.--

Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

This premise neglects the amendments to the Constitution. Yes it is fixed, at any time, until amended. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 17:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that there is more to the constitution than just the document. If you want to add information about the importance of conventions and significant statutes, you will need to find some research suggesting they are part of a broader constitution. -Rrius (talk) 01:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

What I'm wondering is what you think of a section, at the beginning of this article, possibly suggesting that there are different senses of the word "Constitution" -- the fixed document from 1789; the living "contract"; plus there are strict constructionists vs. looser constructionists (forgetting the term -- sorry its late). But some beginning to alert readers that there are different senses; my sense this article is the "fixed document" type, but I haven't read the whole thing yet. But what I read is generally pretty good; if you've been working on it, you've all done a good job here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 04:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that is interesting, but you would be providing ambiguity. This is a page about the United States Constitution, and not the term Constitution. IF you were to add it to this page, it would make it seem that this constitution alone is the only one with such a meaning. What you are saying, if I understand correctly, would be better put Constitution where it can apply to any constitution. I will sign in latter 76.123.149.130 (talk) 02:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I didn't say it clearly, but I'm not talking about the generic term "Constitution". Rather, when people today talk about the United States Constitution, it can have different meanings. One sense is the original 1787 document, strictly construed. Another sense of the US Constitution is like a "living, breathing, changing" compact which has gone through various transformations, understandings; in this sense the current US "Constitution" is different than the 1787 Constitution. Different writers (often depending on one's political affiliation) tend to go with one or the other version of this. What I'm saying is that I think the article would benefit with a line or two talking about the different sense of the "US Constitution", perhaps at the end of the LEDE, or a small section before the history one perhaps.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I find this need to criticize the Constitution somewhat problematic. Is there a section praising the Constitution? Who is currently praising the Constitution? Look at the section on criticisms, one person doesn't seem to like anything about it. According to one Yale professor, "unusual and potentially undemocratic: the federal system, the bicameral legislature, judicial review, presidentialism, and the electoral college system.", it appears that almost everything is bad. He believes the Founders were profoundly ignorant of the future. How unprofound a conclusion is that? Who knows the future? Frankly I think the man misses the real genius of the Constitution; and that is that it wasn't written for a certain time, but for all time. Why, because the Founders understood the nature of men. Throughout history the nature of man hasn't changed, the selfishness, the ego, the tendency for corruption are all the same; always have been and always will be. With due respect to his prominence as a political scientist, it's frightening that his pessemistic opinions take up so much space in this article. Considering that the US is relatively young, with one of the oldest governments, I'd say his pessimism is unfounded. Notwithstanding this section of the article is hardly balanced. It's needs counterpoints. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 13:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I think there should be WP:BALANCE and WP:NPOV to all articles, including one about the US Constitution. Microsoft has a criticism section; this article needs one too. The general pattern for Americans seems to be to revere the Constitution -- not to question it; today in America I think there is very little political debate, with Americans essentially divorced from politics. I think the press understands, perhaps better than the public, that there are serious problems with American government, including rampant partisanship, corruption, unbalanced power (President too powerful, Congress weak, Supreme Court still providing some check), poor foreign policy, waste, inability to confront serious problems. And, among experts and academics looking for solutions, some blame the Constitution. These critics are prominent professors, constitutional scholars, often quoted in mainstream publications, not fringe types. And their opinions -- that the Constitution needs amendments, or should be overhauled entirely (some think this) need to be included in this article for balance. If you would like to include opinions praising the Constitution, I would welcome that too. And I agree there are some excellent parts of the current Constitution that have worked brilliantly, like you say, and most of the professors in the criticism section will probably agree with you about that; what they're saying, however, is that there are serious problems which need attention.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I see you have a passion for this topic, however I caution against arbitrary changes to the Constitution. The biases during the original establishment of it were undoubtedly strong. However, the bias toward the affection for other types of government that has crept into our politics and many in academia causes me great concern were they to have a prominent say in affecting great changes to our founding document. I don't trust them. Minor changes can have lasting and adverse affects on the function of the Constitution. It is difficult to believe that future amendments will benefit the people, or correct the failures to limit the boundaries of the federal government. So having a dominent criticisms section should be viewed with a critical eye. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 14:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree about the critical eye; and like you, I have a healthy skepticism on all things. But your comment seems to suggest like what appears in a Wikipedia article are actual changes to the Constitution, as if I had some power to do this. I don't, and frankly, I don't think anybody else does either, including politicians, academics, newspaper commentators, Congress, billionaires. So, if you're even slightly worried about fundamental change to the Constitution, I don't think you need bother. I don't see much change coming, and I have loads of personal experience to justify this (I think) well-informed point of view. But I agree there should possibly be more references about the good parts of the Constitution, the unseen ways in which it balances forces; the US is a great place for business, for consumers, for shopping, for workers and investors (until the financial mess of late). And while many well-informed sources suggest the presidency has pretty much taken over the government, there is some balance still with a somewhat healthy check from the judiciary. If I find information in this regard, I'll post it here in the talk page to see whether editors might want to include it.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I was not trying to make this a "debate" :) about criticisms and praises, it's just the name of the section. I am concerned about readers being influenced in one direction by authoritative political scientists' opinions about what is wrong with the Constitution, without an opposing perspective to those opinions. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 18:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree, generally, there should be opposing points of view, in this case, authoritative Constitutional scholars talking about the merits of the current Constitution. I'll try to hunt for these when I get time; right now I'm working on other stuff, but I'll make a note of it; you can too if you like. Or, if you'd like to change the name of the section, I have no problem with that.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I hunted online and found several sources praising the Constitution along the lines you suggested -- that it's survived; another analyst sees the checks and balances system still working. If you like the following, why not copy and paste it in the text (other editors may want to weigh in on this first):--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• There is sentiment that the Constitution is successful because the United States has survived and prospered; for example, candidates in campaign speeches routinely extol its benefits. One analyst sees the Constitution working effectively because it "drain(s) off power struggles into gridlock and immobility" and succeeds at this task; that different branches of government are weakened because of the Constitutional structure is seen as a good thing overall. The analyst elaborated (2007): "If the political history of the United States has shown the role of the People diminished at times, or the role of the President inflated, that same history also reveals quick inversions and landslide changes that topple existing balances of power. So too today. The system still stands."--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Preamble

There is a problem with the section of the Preamble. All it does is reference the opinion of Muccolch v. Maryland with "The phrase "We the People" indicates that the government of the United States "is, emphatically and truly, a government of the people," rather than a league of the states" without stating alternate opinions. For one thing, the word people (as in the Tenth Amendment) often refers to the people of the state, therefore "We the People" can be paraphrased as "We the States." Also, this website right here http://www.apollo3.com/~jameso/secession.html points out that originally the Preamble was going to take the states' rights position of saying "We the People of..." and then list the 13 states, but the Convention was unaware of which states would or would not ratify the Constitution, so they left it at "We the People." Emperor001 (talk) 05:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the intent of the Founders in drafting the Constitution was to recognize as the final sovereign authority in the American system of government the people of the nation as a whole - "We the People of the United States" - rather than any government, whether State or federal. The Tenth Amendment refers to the people of the United States as a whole as an alternative to the States, not as a restatement - they were saying that any power not granted to the federal government was reserved either for the States or for the people of America as a whole. The McCullough v Maryland decision is not a point of view, but rather the encapsulation of the intent of the Founders at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia - they sought to convert the failure of the Articles of Confederation, which had approached America as a league of States, into a truly unified nation through the Constitution by deriving that document's sovereign authority, and thus the sovereign authority for both the federal government and the State government, from the people of the nation as a whole rather than the States individually. The decision to shift from Randolph's early draft to the "We the People of the United States" was not one of uncertainty about ratification prospects, but one of deliberately embracing the nationalist perspective - of a single American people in a single American nation rather than a league of states - in the wake of the stunning failure of the league approach of the Articles of Confederation.

In essence, the Founders were successful in appealing directly to the American people to shift from one constitution (the Articles) to another (the US Constitution), which was absolutely necessary - the drafting and ratification of the US Constitution was done in a way that violated the amendation process spelled out in the Articles. If they had not chosen to appeal to the American people as the sovereign authority even beyond the first constitution (the Articles) what they did could not have succeeded, because they never would have secured the unanimous ratification required under the Articles.

The best accounts of this process can be found in compilations of the Founders thoughts or, alternatively, in the works of historians Gordon S. Word and Bernard Bailyn. The information can be found in writing that's a little more accessible for non-specialist readings in some of the works of Joseph J. Ellis. Most current textbooks on American history also touch on this process, and their bibliographies tend to be pretty thorough - I've used three different ones in courses I've taught since 2005, and they've all hit on this. Good explications of the Maryland decision can also be found in R. Kent Newmyer's works, either on Chief Justice Marshall or Associate Justice Story if memory serves.Professor Storyteller (talk) 02:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

ratification and online

• Professor, good historical sources of Gordon C. Wood, Bernard Bailyn, Joseph J. Ellis.

Free online excerpted primary documents organized by topics can be had at [The Founder’s Constitution] , edited by Philip B. Kurland and Ralph Lerner from a University of Chicago Press site.

--One favorite local history, referenced by Constitutional historians such as Pauline Maier in her ‘Ratification: the People Debate the Constitution 1787-1788, is found in [|Virginia federal convention of 1788] . by Hugh Blair Grigsby, 1880s Chancellor of W&M and President of the Virginia Historical Society. He combined the narrative of the journal with character sketches and mini-biographies and political factions before and after.

• Tomwsulcer & Professor: Agreed on NY geopolitical importance. NY ratified 30-27. Since a convention is zero-sum voting, that’s a margin of two to fail. Likewise, Virginia (still w/ KY) to the Mississippi River; ratified 89-79, a margin of five of 168 to fail.

• Emperor001 is correct, there were those who sought a confederacy of states. The thing to keep before us is that they were outvoted. I guess the significance of that depends on one’s understanding of, or partiality for, democracy and majority rule. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:12, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
  • • SIMPLE INCORRECT WORD - The first sentence of Section 1.3 "Ratificiation" should end with the word "ratification" - not "representation". Can someone fix this? I don't have the rights (page is semi-protected). Thanks! (AnthonyJGentile (talk) 04:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC))
      • This was taken care of by an editor. -Rrius (talk) 04:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

“We the People” is not a trick.

BillMasen, the political participation in the US of 1780s was broader and more frequent than anywhere to that time ... The Convention recommended to Congress. Congress forwarded to the states. Each state called a ratification convention according to their own franchise.

Delegates were elected on the ONE question of ratification. There was no trick. Again, this was the widest popular participation to the time, before Napoleon’s nation-wide referenda to become Emperor. These were trying for a republic; really.

• In Virginia, Patrick Henry and George Mason lead the majority of Ratification Convention delegates AGAINST ratification. The Federalists, led by James Madison with such as John Marshall and “Light Horse Harry” Lee, gain a slender majority ONLY by promising a Bill of Rights to break Mason’s folks from the Henry crew.

---Henry objected to the expression, “We the people” and sought to substitute, “We the States” (Grigsby, [|Virginia federal convention of 1788].

---Madison: Who but the people can delegate powers? Who but the people have a right to form government? … What have the State Governments to do with it? (Grigsby, p.103)

---George Mason: The assumption of this power of laying direct taxes, does of itself, entirely change … the States into one consolidated Government … (they) must give way. … [| The Founder’s Constitution]. Ch. 8, Doc 37, 4 June 1788, Storing 5.17.1

---General “Light Horse Harry” Lee: the Constitution is submitted to the people for their consideration, because it is to operate on them if adopted... (Grigsby p.111)

--- Henry: Have they said, ‘We the States’? … a proposal of a compact between States? If they had, this would be a confederation (like Holland). It is otherwise … the sovereignty of the States relinquished … freedom of conscience, trial by jury, liberty of the press, all immunities and franchises, all pretensions to human rights and privileges are rendered insecure, if not lost … (Grigsby, p.113)

Well, in the event, politicians stood by their word, even for promises to political enemies. We got a Bill of Rights for the sovereign people, and the sovereignty of the States was relinquished in a new federal system which operated directly on the people.

No tricks. Clear, publically communicated in the newspapers of the day, and voted on by representatives who returned to their communities to live among their neighbors, often to be re-elected by them to additional offices of public trust.

As for Henry, he maintained his concurrent citizenship in Virginia and in the United States and he remained politically active. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:29, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Generally I agree with above sentiments by TheVirginiaHistorian and Professor. And I agree that the current Constitution was, for the most part, decided in a legitimate way (although there were strong-arm tactics in Pennsylvania with police officers summoned to force legislators to show up to effect a quorum), and agreed that the votes were narrowly decided. I do not like the fact that the delegates to the Constitutional convention met in secret, and subverted the rules set by the Articles of Confederation calling for amendments to the Articles, rather than a wholesale revision (which is what happened). What has passed, has passed. And the current Constitution is accepted as legitimate -- that's what matters. Still, in this day and age, I see serious problems with our republic, with our democracy, with citizenship (citizens have become consumers), with the architecture of government (particularly problems with foreign policy). Times have changed considerably. While there are many pluses with the current Constitution, particularly an economic system which encourages wealth (which is good for polities everywhere), the flaws are dangerous enough in my view to merit serious consideration of a Second Constitutional Convention.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:51, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

And here's how this view affects my ideas of how this article might be improved. I see one problem in America is that there is what may be best described as worship of the Constitution. This article reflects this. It's considered sacrosanct, above reproach, as if the words of the Framers (they're called the Founding Fathers almost as if it's a religion) unquestionable and marked by timeless wisdom. Numerous critics have written about this constitutional worship. My sense of how this article should progress is to include more focus on this problem of constitutional worship as well as more facts and criticisms which might hopefully help people reach a better understanding of what it really is.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:56, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Tomwsulcer - I disagree with you on flaws in the Constitution. While they do exist, I don't believe they are serious enough to merit replacement, as the flaws I see can easily be remedied with simple amendation, though an Article V Convention for that purpose might help us get around one of the biggest issues with Congress today - the filibuster and other supermajority requirements not spelled out in the Constitution.

As to your idea for change to the article - one of the central characteristics of American culture (and nation-building) is the embrace of the Constitution as sacrosanct. If we did not, we might well have no firewall against attempts to steal freedom in the name of various allegedly good causes - only the instinctive reverence of the American people for their Constitution overcomes the manipulation so many might otherwise fall prey to. Yet this sense of sacrosanct Constitution can exist side-by-side with an appreciation of its flaws - I have both, for example. It is not that the Constitution is sacrosanct because it is perfect, but rather because it works, and because it can be amended where problems arise. To that end, I don't think there is any harm in pointing out issues with the Constitution - I certainly think it should be understood thoroughly and completely. However, the document's remarkable success in protecting one of the longest runs of any free republic of citizens, and one of the largest and most diverse free republics of citizens, needs to be emphasized as well. America, as many have observed, has benefited from great good luck since 1776. Yet it has also benefited from a document that, while far from perfect, has been good enough to survive, provide a touchstone for the defense of freedom, and yet be flexible enough to adapt from the time of powdered wigs to the time of the internet. We should continue to recognize that.Professor Storyteller (talk) 19:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with Professor Storyteller. I agree that the Constitution has generally done an adequate job of getting the nation to this point, although in the past century it has been increasingly ineffective in my view. I don't think it will serve the nation well in the future, but if it's revised substantially, that sufficient care should be taken to make sure it's revised well (there's a risk any new constitution could be worse). The following section delineates a list of problems; the numbered ones are from Constitutional scholars such as Sanford Levinson and others. But the bigger flaws, in my view, are structural in nature. (continued in next section) Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Problems with the Constitution

(continuation but new section for easier editing)

1) Awkward transition between presidents; from election day to the inauguration of the next president, there are effectively two presidents -- one in office, one awaiting office, and this allows confusion. Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

(2) Under-representation of voters from populous states in the Senate. When the Constitution was inaugurated, there wasn't a large disparity between large versus small states. Today, the population ratios between say California versus Wyoming mean that Californians are hugely underrepresented in the Senate; there is speculation that this has caused shifts of wealth from urban states to rural ones like Wyoming (eg Bridge to Nowhere in Alaska). Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

(3) DC voters lack representation. A known problem for decades; why hasn't this been fixed? Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

(4) Supreme Court is politicized. I don't think it does an adequate job of checking the other branches (although it's better than nothing); I agree with scholars such as Adam Tomkins that a parliamentary system does a much better job of checking the government. Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

(5) Original Constitution fails to include a right of privacy. Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

(6) Possibility of a military dictatorship should a significant terrorist attack happen such as a catastrophic attack on Congress. Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

(7) The Electoral college system is cumbersome and confusing. Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

(8) Popular election of senators. Here's a situation in which the original constitution was right in my view (letting state governments choose Senators) but it was changed by an amendment. It's important for state governments to choose Senators to give state governments a voice in the national government. My general problem here is that state governments have lost significant power to regulate their own economies, which is against the spirit of federalism. Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

(9) Inability to get rid of an incompetent president quickly. Examples: Wilson (suffered from an economic malady); possibly Roosevelt in last years in office; Bush (clearly incompetent choice to attack Iraq). Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

(10) Life tenure for unelected Supreme Court judges. 15 or 18 year term limits would be better in my view. Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

(11) The Ninth amendment has been seriously ignored. Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Many of these flaws have been cited by other constitutional scholars and there is fairly widespread agreement that they're serious and need fixing. Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

To add to the list, I see serious flaws with the overall architecture of government. The foreign policy architecture is deeply flawed, in my view, since it entrusts too much power in one overburdened official (the president, who has both domestic and foreign policy duties). America's foreign policy can only be as good as the president. An incompetent president or one distracted with domestic matters can cause America's foreign policy to be mindless and erratic. My overall conclusion, after reading numerous foreign policy experts, is that America's foreign policy is middling, happenstance, lackluster, average. There's a fairly long list of obvious mistakes such as Vietnam, Iraq (Bevin Alexander's book lists many mistakes) along with successes (containing communism, surviving) -- it's a mixed bag. In the past, America could get away with this mindlessness because of its size and wealth; but in the nuclear age, with the danger of nuclear terrorism, foreign policy can't be an experiment, a happenstance, rather it must be consistently sound and smart. So I propose a structure more like the Roman Senate (during the Republic years). It rarely made mistakes. It avoided unnecessary wars. It consistently rewarded friends and consistently punished enemies. But to fix this structure, it requires another convention. And of course it needs checks and balances. During the Bush years, the republic had EIGHT years of a seriously incompetent commander-in-chief, with widespread agreement about this from partisans on both left and right, and there is the risk that this could again happen. Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Further, the United States lacks an intelligent strategy to prevent terrorism. The Constitution is partly to blame here. It needs to confront the whole issue of anonymous movement in public -- that is, how can we identify movement while preserving privacy? This is the key to preventing terrorism in my view. I think there is no adequate way to prevent serious terrorism without overhauling the Constitution. This, in my view, is a serious question for citizens, but I don't think Americans are really citizens in any serious sense of the word. Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Today's US government is corrupt, with well-documented wastages of money and funds, and further I see as a dangerous shift in power to the presidency and away from the Congress (which should have been the most powerful branch). The executive can essentially legislate by using a vast bureaucracy of agencies that are largely unaccountable to the public and hidden from debate. Presidents have begun issuing signing statements -- a fairly recent innovation -- when they describe how they intend to interpret a law made by Congress, which effectively puts an executive twist on a law. The most egregious sign of concentrated executive power is, of course, the power to start wars without Congressional approval (Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Iraq (there was a token vote)). The Constitution explicitly gave the war-making power to Congress. So why does the president have this power? Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

One more huge flaw: citizenship isn't defined. I think citizenship should be a contract between individual and state with specific, enumerated responsibilities and privileges, such as paying taxes, serving in the military, police protection, Bill of Rights guarantees, voting, serving on juries, and so forth. I think it should be an active relation which is chosen by a person and declared in a public ceremony. Right now, we become citizens automatically if we're born here and we have the dubious accomplishment of becoming eighteen years old. Americans don't know who their congresspersons are or what they voted for. Gerrymandering is a huge ongoing flaw since it creates absurd district maps designed to keep elected officials in office. Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

States rights. I see the national government as overwhelming state governments by taking away much of its regulatory authority with creative interpretations of the Commerce Clause which you should be well aware of. The IDEA of federalism is combining the benefits of small-state regulatory smarts under the umbrella of national protection. (according to Tocqueville & others). But unfortunately Washington has trounced state government authority in many issues (eg No Child Left Behind etc etc). Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Congressperson are in office for life, essentially, since re-election rates hover around 90% for those congresspersons seeking re-election. Once they get in office, they have huge unfair advantages based on (1) campaign funding (6 to 1 advantages according to some sources) (2) franking privileges (3) gerrymandering. Elections should be competitive. They aren't. In my view, this is one more instance in which Americans have stopped paying attention to politics, and I see this as a serious flaw with long term repercussions. I see Congress as out of touch with the people. I have a general problem with the "two-party system" which stifles debate, marginalizes fringe voices, and leads to a staleness of thinking (although there are pluses with the two-party system according to thinkers such as Patrick Allitt -- big benefit -> economic stability, hard to underrate.) Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Basically America has gotten by because of historical advantages in terms of geography and natural resources, but I don't see this framework as being sufficiently competent to take it into the next century. It needs a new structure. It's time for a constitutional convention in my view. And my general overall problem with this article is that it makes people think that all is fine and dandy, but it isn't. Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Evidence exists in contradiction to most of your points, and there is no scholarly consensus that the Constitution is irretrievably flawed, as any issue with the document can be corrected with amendation. However, Wikipedia policies prohibit detailed point-by-point discussions and debates on such matters on article talk pages. That being said, I would dearly love to discuss this with you in detail, as I think we share a common interest in improving things as a whole. Would you be amenable to adjourning this to my talk page?Professor Storyteller (talk) 00:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Sure.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of the Constitution: liberal? modern?

I think the word "liberal" is loaded and functionally meaningless; it can mean the traditional liberal orientation of the 19th century (ie free markets, individual rights) or it can mean the pro-government left-leaning label (ie the left wing of the US Democratic party). I do not think critics of the Constitution like Sanford Levinson are inherently liberal. I am a critic of the Constitution; I'm non-partisan. Ditto, word "modern" -- what does this mean? Unless there are references showing some kind of identification of criticism of the Constitution with liberal, I think we should leave these terms out.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:56, 21 December 2010 (UTC)