Talk:United States Constitution

From dKosopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

-- Sipples 16:31 30 May 2004 (CDT) - Isn't that BLOCKQUOTE purdy, Lest? Good idea putting the Preamble there in the first place. Re: the Constitution link, I kind of like it to the generic one as it was because it's interesting context. It all sort of fits now, I think. (I like your index page, too, at Constitution Text. Although now you probably don't need the "if you're linking here..." disclaimer, because it's a darn useful page.)

  • It's a good solve. I will remove the disclaimer. If you run across a link to "constitution" where the context is clear it is referring either to the US Constitution, or a specific state's constitution, the direct link (piped link) should be used however. So if you run across a Constitution link which is clearly specific to a particular constitutional text (or the overview page) it should link directly using a piped link (which is the full direct link with the | followed by the display text. which allows simplified or shortened wording for the URL display). Lestatdelc 14:34, 30 May 2004 (PDT)

Sipples there is a reason to have the separate related links below even if redundant. Having easy reference links for major related sections, even if also threaded in the body text IS SOP on wikipedia and IS useful, especially if/when a body text will be edited and expanded in the future. If you are reading and scroll down to the bottom as you read (in a particularly lengthy article as it is expanded) you do not want to force the reader to scroll back through the text to find the threaded link in the body of the text. There is a REASON this is done by me and done all the time on wikipedia. It isn't me being "catty". Lestatdelc 12:19, 30 May 2004 (PDT)

  • --Sipples 14:41, 30 May 2004 (CDT) - Point taken, but a response. (And it was "chatty," not catty. I don't think you're catty. :-)) In a section dealing with the Constitution, I think it's overdoing it to put "Supreme Court" in (especially twice) when really that ought to point to "Judicial Branch" to lead onward from there. "Supreme Court" is two levels deep so makes a poor "Related Articles" entry IMHO. That's the main focus of my objection -- I'm thinking tree here, not bush. :-) Especially when "Judicial Branch" got nuked and thus linked nowhere from this page. (Screw the appellate courts? :-)) Re: Scrolling, well, if we start listing every inline link under "Related Articles" we'll have a lot of scrolling going on. (Check out Howard Dean where that would be disaster.) There has to be a balance. Top of the list ought to be clear relateds that didn't make it inline, I think. I also think stuff that makes multiple inlines probably doesn't need a ~15th listing under "Related," but maybe that's just me. :-) I'm sure we can agree on alphabetizing sections and subsections (or doing date order where appropriate, such as List of U.S. Presidents).
    • I am not saying all inline links, but specific broad directly related ones such as the SCOTUS, whose function is SPECIFICALLY to interpret the Constitution it is more than relevant. I have no truck with alphabetizing, though separating into groups (via gaps) also has merit. For example breaking them into groups such as the branches of goverment being seperate from intrest groups, etc. Lestatdelc 13:14, 30 May 2004 (PDT)
      • Sipples 15:16, 30 May 2004 (CDT) - Ah, interesting issue. Actually, isn't it incumbent on all participants to uphold the Constitution? That's everyone in the judiciary, POTUS, Congress... they're all supposed to do it. (SCOTUS didn't in Bush v. Gore. It's part of a branch like any other.) I didn't think of it, but you make yet another argument why "Judicial Branch" more properly belongs there, not "Supreme Court." The whole thing only works if everyone goes along and if each branch checks the other. And it all flows from the branches, not (only) specific actors within each branch. The Supreme Court has a pretty lousy army. :-) Look, I don't think Attorney General or Solicitor General belongs on that list either, and you could make a similar argument. (The AG provides Constitutional interpretations for the Executive Branch. The SG argues Constitutional issues on behalf of the Executive Branch.) I'm just saying we ought to move the line a little closer to brevity, that's all. Supreme Court is both inline (twice?) and one tiny click from Judicial Branch. Doesn't that make sense?
        • But much of the judicial does not interpret the Constitution, state courts, as well as the lower Federal rely on precedent, not interpretation. The SCOTUS is the one who actually has the power to determin the constitutionality of a law. Lestatdelc 13:34, 30 May 2004 (PDT)
          • That's not exactly right. Every court, including state courts have the power to interpret law, and many courts do it a lot more frequently (in absolute terms) than the Supreme Court does -- it's just that the SupCt does it in the majority of its 80 cases a year, instead of a much smaller percentage of a much, much larger docket. Any court can declare a law unconstitutional (see recent action on the partial-birth abortion ban), but any of them other than SCOTUS can be overruled. --Apascover 15:41, 2 Jun 2004 (PDT)

First of all, I apologize if editorial discussions are not welcome here.

Do we want to mention the Right to Marry as the "11th right?" As much as I violently agree with gay marriage, I can think of at least two other rights that merit co-equal status -- the right to equal protection regardless of race (14th Amendment) and the right to equal protection regardless of gender (not an Amendment yet). To be blunt, this statement robs this article of a lot of gravitas.

How about this: let's mention that since the Constitution was passed, other rights have since been discovered -- the right to equal protection regardless of race, the right for women to vote, the right not to be a hereditary slave -- and that some of the rights that have been discovered have not been encoded properly -- such as the right to equal protection regardless of sex, or the right to marry.

--Centerfielder 11:35, 28 May 2004 (PDT) well, this is the reference section. There's a separate Gay Rights section under Issues and Positions...

Rather than addressing right-to-marriage specifically, I would like to suggest that a general note on "rights enumerated by the constitution vs. rights implied by it vs. restrictions enforced by it". -- Memesis 14:41, 28 May 2004 (PDT)

New State Constitutions article

I created a new State Constitutions article and thus have modified this page accordingly. Please let me know if you have any concerns or questions. Thanks!

Personal tools