Talk:United States Constitution

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Maybe we should make an article about the Constitution in society and then link to this and call it "Text of the United States Constitution?" --John 14:10, 5 March 2007 (EST)

  • I second that. I was not expecting a simple copy and paste when I came to this article.
    -Commodore Guff 15:07, 9 March 2007 (EST)

Contents

Unprotect?

It's been several months since this page was protected; would now be a good time to unprotect it? Or, at least, I think we should link some of the unratified amendments as well. I just finished the article on the Corwin Amendment, and I think it should be mentioned here. Ideally, we should have articles on all of these. Here's the list, from [1] and [2]:

  1. First article of the Bill of Rights, 1789
  2. Titles of Nobility Amendment, 1810
  3. Corwin Amendment, 1861
  4. Child Labor Amendment, 1926 (and a good thing, too!)
  5. Equal Rights Amendment, 1972
  6. DC Statehood Amendment (or whatever it's called), 1978

--EvanW 17:07, 13 November 2009 (EST)

Update: I'm putting this content at Constitutional Amendment for the present, where I've also copied all the links under the Amendments heading. I think we should have everything either at one place or the other. -- EvanW 17:40, 13 November 2009 (EST)

Where's the REST of it?

I'm new here, so I don't have much history as to what is going on, what with edits and such. I'm sure that it's in a working state of development...but ah, where's the rest of the "Full text of the Constitution of the United States"? It's been three months since the page's creation. Thank you. --Cracker

I put up the Amendments. Someone needs to either tell me how to update the box or update it themselves as it still only shows the original material. Thanks Cracker 13:41, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
On it. --Sid 3050 13:47, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
Yeah, thanks. I was refering to the "contents" box. On other wiki's this updates automatically when new headers are added. Are there plans for a "History of the US Constitution"?Cracker 13:58, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
Done. And it's a manually created ToC as the traditional Wiki one (which I disabled on this page) would be LONG. This is the (in my eyes) best solution that has all the links without being super-huge. --Sid 3050 14:24, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
Good job! --Cracker 14:26, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
Thank you kindly! :) --Sid 3050 14:27, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

This is supposed to be an article *about* the constitution...

This article needs work. It doesn't address the controversial issues at all, or the traditional stance of conservatives on them.

Even if it did address these issues, all this might get lost behind the full text of the document. The sections of the Constitution should be explained, but this is NOT the place for a massive, unannotated copy of the Constitution. We should simply put a link to the full text.--Rexislexis 23:59, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

No, large scale verbatim copy and paste of public domain sources is the only way to add significant content to this site. Tmtoulouse 00:00, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

You say "copy and paste" is the "only way" to add "significant" material (is everything else insignificant?) to the site? Forgive me, but I'm skeptical.--Rexislexis 00:07, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

I mentioned the related issue on this talk page. It's apparently here to stay, even though I would back a move of this page to "Full text of the US Constitution" (or something like that) to free up this article for information about it. --Sid 3050 00:08, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
Yes, anything that has not been wholesale copied from other sources is insignificant or factually wrong or irrelevant or written at a 3rd grade level. Tmtoulouse 00:17, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
See now that the copy/paste is removed, nothing impressive remains. QED. Tmtoulouse 00:27, 25 March 2007 (EDT)


Constitutionally speaking

If I am not in error, the U.S. Constitution did not supersede but incorporated the Articles of Confederation, by reference, in Article 6. Furthermore, the U.S. Constitution is a compact between the States united and the United States, in Congress assembled. The people are not parties to the compact.

If one examines the Statutes at Large of the United States, Statute #1 is the Declaration of Independence, Statute #2 are the Articles, and there is no notation that they're not in force and effect. In fact, there are powers listed in the Articles that Congress exercises, that are not listed in the Constitution. For example, conscription is plainly listed in the Articles but omitted from the Constitution. Another tidbit is found in the prosecution of "status criminals" (vagrants, paupers, etc) that Black's Law dictionary notes are "constitutionally suspect" yet were prosecuted between 1777 and 1935 *(Socialist revolution). Article IV lists three excepted classes - paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice.--Jetgraphics 11:28, 14 November 2007 (EST)

Article 6 says the federal government assumes the debts and treaties of the Articles, preventing a default on its obligations. It also says that the Constitution is the SUPREME law of the land, so it therefore supersedes the Articles and the Declaration. John101

Exactly How were My Edits Wrong?

It is true that the delegates were acting illegally by writing the Constitution up during the conventions. It is also true that the ratification clause for adopting the Constitution was illegal as it undermined the law already in place, the Articles of the Confederation. Please, tell me why these were removed. Avalerion

because they reject American values. This is a conservative encyclopedia and we don't allow anti-Americanism. RJJensen 16:38, 11 May 2009 (EDT)
I am not anti-American and that comment did not reject American values! If anything, it upheld the truth about what happened and being TRUTHFUL is Christian, which is where America gained its founding. Conservatism's core does NOT change over time, like truth, and to do otherwise is to break the very definition of it. If I was to say that Obama lied during his campaign, that is truth and it is not anti-American to expose it. Avalerion
We won't take people who think the United States is based on lies and the founding fathers were evil and the US has engaged in unjust wars and that the Constitution is a fraud and should not be obeyed. Go to Canada, please. RJJensen 16:56, 11 May 2009 (EDT)
I never said the United States was based on lies. If anything, I said that the Constitution was made through illegal means--WHICH IS TRUE. Also, I did not say that the Founding Fathers were evil. All people are, but it was the "Federalists" (who were actually Nationalists if you understand the differences between nationalism and federalism) that were deceitful. The Anti-Federalists (the REAL Federalists) opposed it and even Patrick Henry said, "I smell a rat in Philadelphia!" If it wasn't for people who questioned the government and upheld such conservatism that the REAL Federalists did, we'd have the same centralized government we have today two-hundred years ago. Stop being rude to people. Avalerion
Go away. RJJensen 17:07, 11 May 2009 (EDT)

The gears were turning to create a new government rather slowly, and Alexander Hamilton proposed a convention to fix the Articles. This may have been illegal at the time, but the Congress resolved to endorse it. John101

Just wanna point out that the Declaration of Independence was illegal. It was the right thing to do, but the States had no legal right to break away from the British Empire. As Britain revoked all claim in the Treaty of Paris (1783), signing the Constitution in 1789 would have been legal. - JamesCA 08:52, 22 October 2011 (EDT)

Personal tools