Talk:United States Constitution/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 7 October 2021. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Can't format

I can't format on a wiki worth spit. Someone please make it look pretty. Rylon 03:52, 6 March 2008 (EST)

RA, I rolledback the disasters you just made. "*" as a default sort makes no sense. Now I have to go add notoc if it ain' there already. ħuman 03:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll relent on the Table of Contents, but the defaultsort is there because this should be the primary article in category:constitution. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 03:22, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Why? It's not the first or most important one. It should just live under its title. ħuman 03:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

But it is the most important one. The entire category is based around it. Therefore it should naturally be pushed to the head of the category. Like New Age is in category:New Age. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 03:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

You are an idiot. You are utterly wrong on this. I can't believe you actually typed what you just said, and what you did on the article. Are you really so pumped up on the US constitution, which almost no modern democracies have followed? Gawd. ħuman 03:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I also fixed teh stupidity at New age. What fucking planet do you live on, anyway? PS, I still like you. ħuman 03:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

And you, sir, are drunk. When every single article in the category is about the United States Constitution, then yes, the United States constitution should be at the head. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 03:43, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Fuck off asshole. You are useless and have no idea what you're doing. ħuman 03:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Might I ask exactly what or how much you're drinking? Because it turns you into an asshole. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 03:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

No, you can't. You don't drink and you are an asshole without it. Interesting, isn't it, you DUMB FUCK. Adults, in the meantime, have worked this out without calling each other names and endless insinuations. ħuman 04:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Categories are alphabetic lists of articles. The facility to re-order is to (e.g.) remove namespaces and such, not to indicate importance. If I were to write an article "Unwritten constitution of the UK, then I might want it under "UK", but not under "*" or whatever. Thinking about it, I might justdo that. ^{(I am a person not a template)} 03:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Thinking further, The appropriate thing to do might be to put "on the category page: "main article United States Constitution" above the listings. 03:57, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

That is a most agreeable solution. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 03:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

That's kind of what I did at the new age cat. Or could it be "most important ever constitution: United States Constitution"? ħuman 04:00, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, make it so! ^{(I am a person not a template)} 04:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Let me be yet another voice on this nonsense. RA, you are indeed wrong on this. There are countless other constitutions, and the US one should not be the "most important" - why such a narrow-minded view? For a simple example, this category could contain an article on my constitution, which is that of an ox. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 04:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Ta-da! problem solved. Even though, by its creator's own admission, the original category:constitution was referring specifically to the United States Constitution. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 04:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Who cares what it was back in the day? ħuman 04:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

He's an originalist - David Gerard (talk) 11:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

11

"Happened because founding fathers on the Supreme Court got the Constitution wrong in Chisholm v. Georgia." Needs more explanation, and should be written as a sentence or sentences please. ħuman 03:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

So fix it - there's an entire article someone took time to write that you have at your disposal and as much time as it took you to write what you expect others to do above, you could have done yourself as it's a wiki. --Leotardo (talk) 03:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

You read it, you added it, so why do I have to do your work for you? ħuman 03:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

PS, that "someone" appears to be you. As such an expert, why can't you fix your edit here so it explains the basics? In sentences? ħuman 03:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot that you think you are the default - because you are the one who has a problem with it and I don't. --Leotardo (talk) 03:56, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Pseudolaw and Constitutional crankery

Is there any amendment that hasn't attracted a set of cranks who believe that the US would become The Big Rock Candy Mountain if it were repealed or modified? Besides the Bill o' Rights disputes, we have the 14th Amendment cranks (anti-birthright citizenship) and 16th Amendment cranks (tax protestors) covered. There's also the 17th Amendment cranks (they seem to be states' rights types) Putting the words "repeal amendment" gives an autocomplete for just about every single one (I imagine there are neo-Prohibitionists attempting to get the 21st amendment repealed). Seems like we could make an entire set of articles out of this stuff. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:04, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

US Constitution rewritten

The original 1787 constitution is getting way old -- come on, calling slaves three-fifths of persons, allowing gerrymandering, enabling congresspersons to stay in office for life, no term limits for Supreme Court justices, a foreign policy architecture which splits responsibility among three different branches of government, and which gives the main role to an official (the president) who has other responsibilities? No wonder it led to Vietnam, George Bush II. It did its job in its day. But it ain't working effectively now. It's time for a new one. So I am working on one here. It fixes much of the flaws. Foreign policy structure is solid. Restores federalism. Specifies citizenship. Term limits for Supreme Court justices. (Kept judicial review tentatively but I'm thinking of axing it.) Much more. But it still needs work. Probably needs more cow bell. I call it the History of citizenship in the United States. I know, maybe it's really the third (if you count the Articles of Confederation as a "constitution"). Well, I'm calling it the second. It's public domain. Will people object if I post it here on RationalWiki or are there some types of articles that are too risque for RationalWiki? And wondering what the bright people here think about it.--Thomas Wright Sulcer (talk) 02:15, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

It's fine having it here as long as it's an essay or in your userspace. The constitution could use a little bit of modernization a pretty decent amount of work. Sam ^Tally-ho! 02:33, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Having skimmed it I would love the opportunity to discuss it here. As Sam said, essayspace is the place to put it. Blue (pester) 02:34, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok where can we put it, and what should we call it, so if others are interested in making it better, they can? I'm thinking one file for the revised constitution, and another file for the reasoning behind choices (akin to a 21st century Federalist Papers).--Thomas Wright Sulcer (talk) 12:23, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Congressional Apportionment Amendment crankery

FOr the benefit of RWs wondering about the Congressional Apportionment Amendment that has been purportedly proven to be ratified by someone somewhere and OMG conspiracy!!1!.

Here is the text of the amendment:

“”Article the first... After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons.

(Emphasis added). As there are currently 435 reps, this amendment, even if ratified, wouldn't do anything. 02:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)