Talk:Preamble to the United States Constitution/Archive 1

Archive 1

The Flipsyde Album

Is it really necessary to put the link to the Flipsyde album "We The People" at the top of this article? it's prefit

Headline text

First of all, I've never heard of the band, second, no body looking for the article about that album would search for "Preamble to the US Constitution"; they would just search "We The People" or "Flipsyde" or something like that.

I didn't remove it, but if anyone else agrees with me, somebody please take it off.

EDIT: ok i just noticed that "We the People" actually redirects to this article...but i still don't think the Album link should be on there.

Unprotected

I noticed several anon. edits, that shouldn't be possible if the article is semiprotected...--Seba5618 (talk) 22:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

This article has been unprotected since December 26. The invisible protection tag in the article wasn't removed; now it has. SMP0328. (talk) 00:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

"all are equal before the law"

In the Justice section, we write "The Constitution makes no distinction as to the wealth or status of persons; all are equal before the law." Should we have an aside comment or link regarding the three-fifths rule in the Constitution as a grievous exception? Chrisvls 20:29, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Actually, we didn't write it. See the section below. — Mateo SA | talk 01:16, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

That reference has since been deleted. See the section NPOV below. Mateo SA | talk 17:52, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

This article as written is not a description of the history and nature of the preamble. It is actually a text dump User:Lord Emsworth made from An Outline of American Government, by Richard C. Schroeder (specifically, see pages 9 and 10). This is a publication of the U.S. Information Agency, so it is not a copyright violation, but is also not appropriate for Wikipedia. The original document from An Outline is not an article about the preamble, but a persuasive essay about American constitutional history that uses the words of the preamble as a framework. It is certainly does not meet the Wikipedia criteria for an encyclopedic article (not to mention the inappropriateness of text dumping an article into Wikipedia).

In a week, if no one objects, I will delete everything in the article after the first paragraph and the text of the preamble. The article can then be restarted from scratch. — Mateo SA | talk 01:16, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

• Since a week has passed, and no one has posted an objection, I've deleted the inappropriate portions of the article, and listed it as a stub. Please start this article anew. — Mateo SA | talk 17:52, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Transcripts regarding "defence" vs. "defense"

There is a note regarding the spelling of "defence"/"defense" in official transcriptions of the document. It appears that the National Archives' transcript has since changed to reflect the spelling used on the original document. The note should probably be removed. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 02:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge with Constitution

By itself, this is currently just a stub, and since an amount of information held WITHIN this article also appears within the main article United_States_Constitution, the articles should be merged together.

• I disagree with the merge. There are cases where the Supreme Court has referenced the preamble in its decisions; these cases could in the future be added and discussed in this article. In addition, the history of the sentence could be discussed, such as who penned it and any prior documents that some of the phrases in the sentence are derived from (if any). If one looks way back to the first edits of this article, one can see that it was much longer with more detail. This information was later deleted due to POV, but could in the future be reintroduced in a NPOV manner. Thus, the merge makes no sense at all. --CapitalR 11:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Was the Preamble a part of the original document, or added at the printer's shop?

I have heard (anecdotal) stories that the Preamble wasn't a part of the finished product turned out by the Const. Convention. That it was added, as a header, at the print shop by folks who thought such an august document needed the introduction and lead-in. Sorry, I have no hard references. Like I say, all verbal. Anyone else hear similarly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.228.82.130 (talk • contribs) 2007-12-07T11:47:35

You heard wrong. [1] Robert K S (talk) 15:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The "text"

Since the text section is vandalized so often. A thought - create a separate page for just the text of the Preamble, and protect that. Then include that safe and secure page via transclusion (ala templates). Granted it won't stop the other vandalisms, or removing of the template - but at least we know the text will be secure - permanently. Thoughts? --ShakataGaNai (talk) 19:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I see from the history that this page is vandalized very frequently, but I can't tell how often the text itself is vandalized. Is the vandalism predominantly to the text? If not, then possibly a better alternative might be protection, which I would be glad to do if there is a consensus. COGDEN 03:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not a big fan of the transclusion idea. And semiprotection shouldn't be used much as a preventative measure. If the vandalism gets really out of hand, then short-term semiprotection might be an option, but I would rather it be open, and we just keep reverting the vandalism. I think we have a couple of us watching this page, and it tends to be reverted rather quickly. Mahalo. --Ali'i 13:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

@COGDEN - I'd guess about half the time. @Ali'i - well I was thinking more of a hard protection on the transcluded text (after all the preamble hasn't changed recently). But you are correct that the vandalism has been kept at bay for the most part. --ShakataGaNai ^Talk 07:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I think some sort of protection is needed. The vandalism seems almost constant. MrArticleOne (talk) 03:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Many anonymous editors insist on changing "defence" to "defense." This probably happens because of spell check and because these anonymous editors don't read the warning not to make such an edit. Since the warning doesn't seem to be working, I agree a greater level of protection is needed for the text portion of the article. --SMP0328. (talk) 03:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I have again moved the footnote in the text section next to the word "defence." I have done this so that there would be a greater chance that a person who may believe that a spelling error has taken place will read that footnote regarding the word "defence." Otherwise, if the footnote is at the end of the text of the Preamble, such a person may believe that the footnote is about the Preamble in general and so irrelevant to the defense/defence issue. --SMP0328. (talk) 00:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Schoolhouse Rock

I have removed a section named The Preamble. The text of that section was:

The ABC educational television series, Schoolhouse Rock! had a segment on the Constitution, and put the preamble to song. As a result, many Americans became more familiar with the lyrics of this musical version which took poetic license with its beginning, "We the People, in Order to form a more perfect Union."

This section had no citations or references and was clearly a piece of trivia. For those reasons I felt it did not belonged in the article. If you disagree, please state why. SMP0328. (talk) 03:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be in, but it should be rewritten. The reason it should be in is it is true. The Preamble was made into a song by ABC's Schoolhouse Rock. I will work on a rewrite of the section and post it here before posting it to the article for approval. --Kopicz (talk) 16:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I have removed a section referring to that Schoolhouse Rock song. It is not cited and is trivia. Such material is better put in the Schoolhouse Rock article, rather than this article. SMP0328. (talk) 21:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I am re-putting my section about the Schoolhouse Rock and I will site it. It must of not saved my reference, but I did put one. I am sorry. I do think it should be in here because it is a song about this document which is what this page is about. I am sorry if you disagree. --Kopicz (talk) 00:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Rather than edit warring, I have added a trivia tag to the section Bkopicz3 restored. Even though the material is now sourced, I still believe the material doesn't belong in this article. If a stand-up comedian refers to the Preamble, should that be referenced in this article? BTW, I have renamed this section so it reflects the current name of that section in the article. SMP0328. (talk) 01:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you kidding? A stand up comedian is not history. Schoolhouse Rock is history! I really do not know one person who has never heard of Schoolhouse rock. History that taught us something. It taught those who has trouble memorizing things, the words of this American Document! It should be left in this section. I do not care if its re-written but i want this section to stay in the article. Please...--Kopicz (talk) 00:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• added* and the tag says "relevant information" IT IS RELEVANT!

The definition of relevant is Having a bearing on or connection with the matter at hand. and it bears connection to the matter at hand... --Kopicz (talk) 00:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I guess I'll go on record as saying that I lean towards the removal. Unless there is a source for the statement that "As a result, many Americans became more familiar with the lyrics" than the actual text. This would be relevant. Trivia and tangential information is not relevant (in an encyclopedic sense). --Ali'i 14:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

(SIGHS) then how about, instead of moving it to the schoolhouse rock page, creating a new page for just school house rock songs, and putting a "also see" link at the bottom of the page?--Kopicz (talk) 00:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I created a page with the schoolhouse rock songs and a brief description if it. Now, If you want to, you can delete the section that should be here, but EVERYONE objects too. Will someone who knows how to, but a "also see" link in to take them to my section on the Preamble Song from school house rock. The link to the schoolhouse rock songs page is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schoolhouse_Rock_Songs

Thank You for your time. --Kopicz (talk) 02:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I saw that section and have added a link to Schoolhouse Rock Songs in the See also section. I'm glad we were able to work this out. SMP0328. (talk) 03:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Ellis

It's quite obvious that the Preamble doesn't have concrete doctrine surrounding it like, say, the Establishment Clause or something. Frankly, I think that it is as much as anything a way for a judge or justice to inject his or her notions of normative political goals of a society into constitutional discussion; in a lot of ways, I think the Preamble is what you want it to be. As a result, the article's generalizations I think are somewhat confusing or at least difficult to follow. I have added what I feel is a very strong example of the way the Preamble gets used on the "front lines" of adjudicating cases where it is invoked, Ellis. However, I recognize that this may not be uniformly well-received, so I was hoping to have some discussion here. MrArticleOne (talk) 22:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Hans & "the people"

I agree that "We the People" are the ultimate sovereigns of this land, but the People had no say in the adoption of the Eleventh Amendment. The States advocated for such an amendment. If the Hans court was referring to the People, then such a reference was in error. It's also possible that the Hans court was referring to the State Legislatures' role within Article V, which is superior to any single legislature. I'm not saying that the Hans court wasn't referring to the People; only that it may have been referring to something else. So putting "[i.e. the people]" in footnote #10 is a POV, because it's an interpretation of quoted material that is subject to alternate and reasonable interpretations. --SMP0328. (talk) 20:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

This would be true if the Supreme Court had not already rejected competing interpretations. The cases cited to in footnote 10 document that history. MrArticleOne (talk) 20:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

You are proving my point. Your desire to include "[i.e. the people]" is based on your POV of what the Hans court meant. If it meant that, why didn't it simply say "the people"? The Court could have meant the Constitution (certainly superior to any legislature), specifically Article V. You are wrong when you claim that the Hans court could only have been referring to "the people." --SMP0328. (talk) 21:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

It's somewhat redundant to have this discussion both here and on our respective talk pages; where shall we settle on it? MrArticleOne (talk) 21:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I want other editors to be able to express themselves on this issue, so I place my comments here. When you post on my talk page, I will post on yours.

Additionally, you violated the Three-revert rule and I continue to believe, for the reasons expressed here and on your talk page, that "[i.e. the people]]" violates Wikipedia's NPOV policy. --SMP0328. (talk) 21:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

This is somewhat circular; your edit removing the parenthetical is a revert of my having added it, so we could just as easily say that you violated the three-revert rule the 3rd time you eliminated it before the 3rd time I added it back; this is not productive. MrArticleOne (talk) 21:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect. The first time I made the edit I was not reverting you. Under your logic, every edit is a reversion. A reversion is when you specifically undo someone's edit, not merely if your edit changes what someone did long ago. You reverted me thrice, I reverted you twice. --SMP0328. (talk) 22:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

2 Column notes?

What's the standard for having 2-column notes? I see someone has made it like that. I preferred it the old way. MrArticleOne (talk) 17:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It was done by ONEder Boy. I also liked it the old way. Do you want it returned to the old way? --SMP0328. (talk) 01:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I can fix it myself, I just didn't want to arbitrarily change it if there was some underlying logic to it. MrArticleOne (talk) 11:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. I have seen the 2-column format on several articles and it is the rare circumstance where I think it is an improvement over a 1-column presentation. MrArticleOne (talk) 11:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

District of Columbia v. Heller

In that case there is a reference to the Preamble. Footnote 3 of the Opinion of the Court says:

As Sutherland explains, the key 18th-century English case on the effect of preambles, Copeman v. Gallant, 1 P. Wms. 314, 24 Eng. Rep. 404 (1716), stated that “the preamble could not be used to restrict the effect of the words of the purview.” J. Sutherland, Statutes and Statutory Construction, 47.04 (N. Singer ed. 5th ed. 1992). This rule was modified in England in an 1826 case to give more importance to the preamble, but in America “the settled principle of law is that the preamble cannot control the enacting part of the statute in cases where the enacting part is expressed in clear, unambiguous terms.” Ibid.

Does any of that belong in the article? SMP0328. (talk) 02:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I need to read the Heller opinion at greater length but the same thing had occurred to me. It's my initial feeling not to include it until we're pretty sure it belongs. It's very Wikipedia-esque to add things in that are the "flavor of the month" that tend to exaggerate the chic topic's relevance to many of the articles it's tacked onto. MrArticleOne (talk) 03:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I should note: what interested me more from Heller as at least potentially being relevant (although I am a long ways away at this point from thinking they actually are relevant) is the comparison of the "preamble" to Amendment II ("A well-regulated militia . . ." etc.) to the Constitution's Preamble. But like I say, until I read it more closely, at this point I am not so sure that it said anything about the actual meaning of the Preamble that we're talking about. MrArticleOne (talk) 03:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I hope you don't take this as me being a wet blanket because it's a good point and one I have been mulling over (but I have a pretty full plate). MrArticleOne (talk) 03:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Just thought I'd bring it to your attention. Maybe it can be added to back something that's already said in the article. SMP0328. (talk) 21:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Intro

There was once a different intro to this article. It was somewhat more verbose but I liked it better than the current one, which feels terse to me (for lack of a better word). I don't quite remember how the other one went; perhaps I'm mis-remembering it as better than it was. At any rate, I thought I'd ask about it. MrArticleOne (talk) 23:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Insure Domestic Tranquility

Just out of curiosity, why is it "insure domestic tranquility" rather than "ensure domestic tranquility"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.252.30.247 (talk) 02:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

There are many instances of spelling in the Constitution that do not jive with how we'd spell things today (the House shall "chuse" its Speaker; the Constitution is to provide for the common "defence," and so forth). It was written a bit over 200 years ago, by people who spoke an exported British English; since then, the English spoken here and in the UK have both evolved, along with pressure from groups organized for the overt purpose of shifting the language (such as the Simple Spelling Society). MrArticleOne (talk) 03:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer! I had just assumed that it was done purposefully, I didn't even think about the evolution of the language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.252.30.247 (talk) 18:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

"Thats"

I am with the anonymous user: the removal of the "thats" makes the text read more awkwardly. For example, in Casement, the reader is inclined first to see that the plaintiff "claimed his trial," which can have the sense of "asserting a claim of ownership over his trial" or something like that. Although reading the sentence further debunks this reading, you have to read the sentence twice to see that and it can be disorienting. Inserting "that" makes it unambiguous that we are saying that the plaintiff made a claim about his trial; "that" makes it absolutely clear that "trial" is not the object of "claim." It's my sense that almost all of the other instances of "that" that were removed are susceptible to the same analysis (i.e., the Supreme Court has never "held" an Amendment in its hands, but it oftentimes makes holdings about the meaning of the Amendments; "that" makes this, again, unambiguous). I cannot support the removal of the "thats" in this article, although I confess I did not assess each and every one of them. MrArticleOne (talk) 20:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Grammatically, the use of "that" is simply wordiness. The word is overused. I will change those sentences so they are clear and don't use "that". SMP0328. (talk) 20:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree it is often overused, but I am not sure it was being overused in this context. If I said "The mechanic I take my car to," it is no different than "The mechanic that I take my car to," but the omission of "that" does not create any sort of ambiguity or confusion in the reader that can only remedied by finishing the sentence. In these cases, "that" is a very useful indicator that the following noun is not the object of the verb ("claimed his trial" vs. "claimed that his trial"; "held the Amendment" vs. "held that the Amendment"). The compromise changes you've made mostly avoid this, although as a personal matter of style I think they read more awkwardly out of over-enthusiasm for avoiding the word "that." I do take issue with "ruled a customs collector"; is the Supreme Court the customs collector's king or master? Better to say "ruled that a customs collector" did something, to make it clear that the Supreme Court was not exercising control over the customs collector (or even worse, drawing lines on his person!), but instead making a ruling regarding something he had done. MrArticleOne (talk) 21:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the way the section we've been editing is now fine in this regard. I would remove more, you would remove less, so I guess we've reached a compromise. Do you agree? SMP0328. (talk) 21:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes; I certainly don't feel strongly enough about it to change anything, which I guess is what most Wikicompromises amount to. MrArticleOne (talk) 22:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

GA nomination

I'm not providing a review, just pointing out some large errors here - firstly, the introduction is far too short. Secondly, you've provided next to no coverage in secondary sourcing. You've been sourcing legislation, court cases, so on, but you really need something secondary, like books covering the constitution itself. Ironholds (talk) 19:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I confess that I cannot really think of what else to say in the introduction. It strikes me as a pithy and accurate description of what the Preamble is, which is quite limited. As for secondary sources, it's my feeling that these are going to be at least as arcane, if not more, than the primary sources, which are the Supreme Court's actual definitive statements of the meaning of the Constitution. I would personally advise the project to steer well clear of any and all legal academic writing (which are the only "secondary sources" I can imagine you would find), because it is usually pretty awful. MrArticleOne (talk) 03:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's something to discuss (I confess, I don't know what the "good article" rules are). There is a relatively well-known discussion of the Preamble in MORTIMER J. ADLER & WILLIAM GORMAN, THE AMERICAN TESTAMENT (1975). I have not read this. Could I tack on something at the end of this that references its existence? Sure. But I don't see where that adds much of anything to the article. Their take on the meaning of the Constitution is no more authoritative than mine, or yours. Why rely on them when we can go straight to the source? I'd understand if the source was some sort of highly technical writing for which an intermediary of sorts was needed to turn it into plain English, but the Supreme Court is pretty understandable and to the extent that it's needed, I think we've done that fairly well here. MrArticleOne (talk) 03:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

This isn't the official review, so don't worry about what's said here. For the official requirements for GA status, read this. SMP0328. (talk) 23:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, nothing in this says anything about secondary sources or the introduction's length. Thanks for the heads up. MrArticleOne (talk) 01:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, see 1b. Ironholds (talk) 10:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any actual inconsistencies. I don't see where the Manual of Style recommends length. MrArticleOne (talk) 02:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Preamble to the United States Constitution/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I am failing this article due to a complete lack of secondary sources. WP:RS states that "Wikipedia articles should rely primarily on reliable, third-party, published sources". WP:OR states that "Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." WP:V also makes it clear that secondary sources are to be preferred. There is no doubt that there are extensive secondary sources available on this subject; in light of that, the exclusive reliance on primary sources is not reasonable.

I gather from comments earlier on this talk page that some people may disagree with my decision. If so, you are welcome to bring it up at WP:GAR (in which case please leave me a note so that I may participate there). I did not enjoy failing this article, as there is much to like in it; however, it is essentially a secondary source itself, and not the tertiary source that Wikipedia articles are supposed to be. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't really make a lot of sense to me. The primary source is the Preamble itself; there are dozens of secondary sources (Court opinions) that are expounding on what it means, properly understood. At any rate, the distinction between a "primary" and "secondary" source doesn't seem applicable to this type of article, in the same way that it would be for an article about a scientific subject. The rationale, as I see it, for secondary sources is to synthesize authoritative interpretations of underlying data in order to make it comprehensible to a lay audience. But in the law, there is no (or at least, much less) "raw data" that needs to be sorted out; the creation of it is its interpretation, if you are inclined to view court opinions as "primary sources." I worked on it a lot, though, and I like it the way it is. MrArticleOne (talk) 22:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Court rulings are clearly primary sources as they pertain to legal writing since, in a common law system like the United States, those rulings are the law in the same way that statutes are. And yes, you're quite correct (in my view) about the reason secondary sources are required; however, I cannot agree with you that those reasons are inapplicable to legal articles. Court rulings are raw data, from which scholars writing secondary sources attempt to synthesize interpretations. Indeed, that seems to be what you've done in this article (and, so far as I can tell given my limited familiarity with the subject, you seem to have done it quite well), which is why I've failed it. In any event, if you think I erred in doing so, I will take no offense whatsoever from a decision to list this at [WP:GAR]]. However, I am confident that my decision was the correct one and will be endorsed there. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Some means to lock the text

I'm not sure if there is any precedent to do this or not, but from what I have seen, almost all of the edits to this page recently have been to the text, which certainly hasn't changed recently. I was wondering if anyone else would support a change by making the text into a template, fully protecting it, then transcluding it back onto the page. This would prevent people from messing with the text, which there is no reason to edit, but still avoiding having to semiprotect the rest of the page when edits to the text pick up, as we have had to do recently. If anyone else has an idea of ho to lock part of the article without locking the whole thing down, I'm open to other ideas, but it seems to me like we should figure out some sort of a solution here.--Terrillja _talk 18:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I confess a lack of knowledge about technical solutions to problems like these, so I am unable to say what I think would work best. This sounds as good as any solution to me. I agree wholeheartedly that this is an appropriate response, however. The text of the Preamble hasn't changed. Moreover, it never will change, since even if (improbably) there were an Amendment that affected its content, the U.S. Constitution has opted to go with the unfortunate practice of attaching amendments seriatim. There is no need to leave the text open to editing. MrArticleOne (talk) 20:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like this would work. If we can get it to work, this should be implemented across the whole range of the constitution articles. A new name 2008 (talk) 21:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I trust that this mechanism could be edited by experienced or "trusted" editors. I know that many of the Constitution articles have either mistakes in the text, or at least do not preserve the original capitalization. I had intended on one day getting to all of that, but I am busy and I go slowly. As it is, I still have some content I'd like to add to the Preamble article. MrArticleOne (talk) 23:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

My thought was to have the text fully protected, so that no one other than admins could edit it, since the text isn't changing. As far as edits which you want to make, the article had been the way they are now for a while, if it takes you a little while to make the edits you need to make before the text is locked, that's fine. Even after the text is protected, changes can still be proposed using the {{editprotected}} template. My thought is that any changes would be unlikely, so as long as we can make sure that the protected text is accurate before it is protected, I can't see any serious issues.--Terrillja _talk 02:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

This sounds intriguing. If it doesn't interfere with editing any other part of the article, I'm in favor of it. SMP0328. (talk) 03:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

That was my idea, so that we don't have to have the entire article protected due to silly vandalism to the text or people trying to "fix" the text.--Terrillja _talk 03:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I can understand that, as I have just done that regarding another article. SMP0328. (talk) 03:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that the Preamble's text is accurate; although I didn't immediately check to make sure the punctuation and capitalization were right, I've checked before and I believe all edits to the text over the past many months have been reverted. However, I am equally confident that many other parts of the Constitution on this project are not accurate in one way or another. On the other hand, I doubt that any of them are as plagued by vandalism as this is, so we may not even need to bother with this method of protecting those texts. MrArticleOne (talk) 05:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I created a template and added it to the page, will request full protection per this discussion. A new name 2008 (talk) 13:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I moved the template to a sub-page of the article, since this isn't really a "template". It can be accessed at Preamble to the United States Constitution/text. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 20:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Move Request - A discussion has been started concerning moving the Text subpage created as part of this discussion back to a Template. The discussion can be found here. --A new name 2008 (talk) 11:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Torres

I see that Seablade added the Torres case to the section talking about Puerto Rico. I can see what Seablade was thinking in adding it, but I respectfully disagree that it is appropriate for the discussion in this article. I read Torres as basically fudging the issue: the Supreme Court seemed to say that, one way or another the constitutional freedoms of the 4th Amendment apply in Puerto Rico, in that the same legal standards and rules would be applied. Exactly why was something they didn't seem as interested in; there was discussion about prior congressional action extending those rights to Puerto Rico, and the Court expressly avoided saying whether the extension to PR was due to the 14th Amendment or a direct imposition. Given all of that, and having Ochoa in the list discussing the 5th Amendment, I think the article's coverage of the issue is complete without Torres, and that including Torres runs the risk of turning the section into a discussion about PR's constitutional status instead of the generic "does the Constitution follow the flag" debate. MrArticleOne (talk) 17:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi MrArticleOne,

I just want to include this cite of the U.S. Supreme Court in Torres v. Puerto Rico, 442 U.S. 465 (1979),:

Citing Justice Brennan’s concurrence in Torres, supra, held that “[i]t may well be that over time the ties between the United States and any of its unincorporated territories strengthen in ways that are of constitutional significance. Id. at 2255 (emphasis added).

The Torres inclusion shows how not only the constitution follows the flag, otherwise how over time the ties gain constitutional significance. I will include Torres again and get some time to this discussion topic and see the Wikipedians opinions. It's the consensus is that should not be included, well does not included it! However if the consensus is otherwise, keep it!

Regards,

--Seablade (talk) 03:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

What a Justice said in a concurrence is of limited relevance here. The point of the section is only to note that, although the Preamble says that it is an act of "the People of the United States," its application in "the United States" is a contested and fuzzy issue. Outlining every last example of how that's been contested is not appropriate; it's enough to show a few examples. Torres doesn't add anything that Ochoa doesn't already provide; it extends the application of another constitutional freedom to PR, and for reasons that the Supreme Court was hazy and unclear about. It just doesn't add anything that isn't already in the list. MrArticleOne (talk) 13:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Constitution follows the flag debate:

Constitution follows the flag debate:

I just want to contribute my two cents on the Constitution follow the flag debate citing Boumediene v. Bush case and the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico civil case addressing Insular Cases, Unincorporated vs Incorporated territory and Boumediene v. Bush. Consejo de Salud Playa de Ponce v Johnny Rullan, Secretary of Health of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (PDF), The United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, retrieved 2009-12-21

• Boumediene v. Bush - This case involved aliens detained as enemy combatants at the United States Naval Station in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, who petitioned for writs of habeas corpus. Guantanamo Bay is not formally part of the United States, and under the terms of the 1903 lease between the United States and Cuba, the latter nation retained ultimate sovereignty over the territory, while the former nation exercises complete jurisdiction and control. Based on the federal control over the Cuban property, the Court found that constitutionally guaranteed right of habeas corpus review applies to persons held in Guantanamo and to persons designated as enemy combatants on that territory.

I am just citing Consejo de Playa de Ponce v. Johny Rullan, Secretary of Health of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico case regarding Boumediene v. Bush:

The latest expression from the Supreme Court on the Insular Cases occurred on June 12 of this very year in Boumediene v. Bush, ___U.S.___, 128 S. Ct. 2229 (2008). This case involved aliens detained as enemy combatants at the United States Naval Station in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, who petitioned for writs of habeas corpus. Guantanamo Bay is not formally part of the United States, and under the terms of the 1903 lease between the United States and Cuba, the latter nation retained ultimate sovereignty over the territory, while the former nation exercises complete jurisdiction and control. Id. at 2251-52. Based on the federal control over the Cuban property, the Court applied the Insular Cases to hold that the detained enemy combatants were entitled to the protection of the writ — a Constitutional provision not contained in the Bill of Rights.

The Court in reaching its conclusion in Boumediene made four crucial pronouncements regarding the Insular Cases. First, citing Reid v. Covert, it recognized that the Insular Cases involved territories “with wholly dissimilar traditions and institutions” that Congress intended to govern only “temporarily”. 128 S Ct. at 2255 (emphasis added).

Second, the Court, citing Justice Brennan’s concurrence in Torres, supra, held that “[i]t may well be that over time the ties between the United States and any of its unincorporated territories strengthen in ways that are of constitutional significance. Id. at 2255 (emphasis added).

Third, the Court recognized that fundamental Constitutional rights apply to detained enemy combatant aliens in Guantanamo Bay, an unincorporated territory over which the United States has exercised jurisdiction or control for over 100 years. Id. at 2258-59.

Finally, and most important, the Court held the following:

Our basic charter cannot be contracted away like this. The Constitution grants Congress and the President the power to acquire, dispose of and govern territory, not the power to decide when where its terms apply. Even when the United States acts outside its borders, its powers are not “absolute and unlimited” but are subject “to such restrictions as are expressed in the Constitution.” Abstaining from questions involving forward sovereignty and territorial governance is one thing. To hold the political branches have the power to switch the Constitution on or off at will is quite another.” Id. at 2259 (citation omitted) (emphasis added).

The Court’s extremely recent pronouncements in Boumediene at this time require this Court, as asked by the Commonwealth Secretary, to reexamine whether Puerto Rico, after one hundred ten (110) years under the American Flag, remains an unincorporated territory (as is Guantanamo Bay), or whether it has evolved beyond said stage.

Regards,

--Seablade (talk) 03:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

This article isn't a forum for the "Constitution follow the flag" debate. I think I will remove the reference to Torres. The point of that section is only to touch on, illustrate, that the issue exists, not to discuss the merits in details. I think it sounds like you have a lot to contribute to the articles on Boumediene and the Insular Cases, but I don't think the article on the Preamble is the appropriate place for all of this. MrArticleOne (talk) 03:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Does the Boumediene v. Bush asserts something different from the Where the Constitution is legally effective section of this article?

Does the article should not be Wikipedia:Undue Weight?

Does the first sentence of the article should be: "The Preamble has been used to confirm that the Constitution was made for, and is binding only in, the United States of America and all under the sovereign jurisdiction and authority of the United States"; as per Boumediene v. Bush decision? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seablade (talk • contribs) 05:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I am just citing from the article:

Where the Constitution is legally effective

The Preamble has been used to confirm that the Constitution was made for, and is binding only in, the United States of America. For example, in Casement v. Squier, a serviceman in China during World War II was convicted of murder in the United States Court for China. After being sent to prison in the State of Washington, he filed a writ of habeas corpus with the local federal court, claiming he had been unconstitutionally put on trial without a jury. The court held that, since his trial was conducted by an American court and was, by American standards, basically fair, he was not entitled to the specific constitutional right of trial by jury while overseas.

Regards,

--Seablade (talk) 04:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

It isn't that Boumediene is different from what's in the section, it's just that it is unnecessary. It's clutter. It has little or nothing to do with the Preamble to the Constitution. It's clear that Boumediene is a case and legal issue that really interests and animates you, and I would really encourage you to make contributions at the appropriate articles, but this just isn't one of them. MrArticleOne (talk) 14:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Spelling error

Defense is spelled with an "s", not a "c". And I guess I don't understand how to change it. Colonel Marksman (talk) 13:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

In British English, that word is spelled with a "c" and the US was still using British English when the Constitution was written. So the spelling of that word in the Preamble is correct. SMP0328. (talk) 18:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe a footnote links to an image of the actual Constitution that will let you confirm the spelling with a "c" is what's used in the actual document. MrArticleOne (talk) 02:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Headings

Defense is spelled witha s not a c ima 5th grader and i found this fail on wiki's part —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.89.126.2 (talk) 17:56, 9 December 2010 (UTC) I suggest changing the heading "Meaning and application" to "Judicial interpretation", and changing the heading "Judicial relevance" to "Utilization".

The problem I see with the way it is now is that the section currently titled "Judicial relevance" is where people will jump to see how relevant the Preamble is to court decisions, and yet this section does not begin by saying that the Preamble is of very limited relevance, per the Jacobson case. 166.137.138.198 (talk) 16:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Please provide the full name of the Jacobson case. Why do you believe that case should determinative of the Preamble's relevance? SMP0328. (talk) 18:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The Jacobson case is already cited at footnote #2 of this article. I'm only suggesting that the headings of this article be changed, nothing more. 166.137.136.190 (talk) 20:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

"Utilization" seems to be less clear than "Judicial relevance". Since I'm against that change, I would not want to change "Meaning and application" to "Judicial interpretation"; that would result in two "Judicial" headers. With that said, please feel free to propose other changes. SMP0328. (talk) 21:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you see the problem? The section now titled "judicial relevance" does not describe or even cite the Jacobson case, which is the most important case regarding the judicial relevance of the Preamble. Do you agree that that's problematic?

Instead of "Utilization", how about "Uses"? 166.137.139.168 (talk) 02:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe the headers are fine. As for Jacobson, a reference could be added to the body of the article. SMP0328. (talk) 02:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The message of Jacobson is already adequately described in this Wikipefia article, but it's done in a section other than the one titled "judicial relevance". That's problematic, because Jacobson's the leading case on the judicial relevance of the Preamble. Anyway, thanks for discussing it.166.137.138.59 (talk) 04:09, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Jacobson is not the leading case on the "judicial relevance" of the Preamble. It is the leading case on the limited question of whether the Preamble confers any substantive powers on the federal government. The "judicial relevance" of the Preamble is much broader than that, and in fact, given that the Preamble doesn't confer any substantive powers on the federal government, the question of conferring powers actually has nothing to do with what actually makes it judicially relevant. A citation to Jacobson doesn't even really belong in that section. MrArticleOne (talk) 03:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

To put it another way: the Preamble is only judicially relevant because of its use in interpreting/construing the rest of the document. It confers no actual powers on the government and is not relevant as a source of actual authority. So putting something in the "Judicial relevance" section about Jacobson makes little sense to me, because it would at best be describing negative relevance. MrArticleOne (talk) 03:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

MrArticleOne, you apparently agree that Jacobson is a leading case on the degree of "judicial irrelevance" of the Preamble. Since the degree of judicial irrelevance determines the degree of judicial relevance, I don't see why Jacobson is not good authority for the section on judicial relevance. I still think this whole problem could be solved by tweaking the headings, e.g. by changing "Meaning and interpretation" to "Degree of judicial relevance", and changing "Judicial relevance" to "Uses".166.137.136.251 (talk) 12:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

It is not correct to say that "the degree of judicial irrelevance determines the degree of judicial relevance." Totally false. The Preamble is, as stated in Jacobson, irrelevant as an affirmative source of federal power. However, the Preamble is highly relevant in many other ways -- ways that the "judicial relevance" section discusses. MrArticleOne (talk) 13:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

You are treating "judicial relevance" and "significance as a source of affirmative federal power" as synonymous. They are not. MrArticleOne (talk) 13:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Template

Can we please undo what Cybercobra did? We had substantially reduced the vandalism problem and his insistence on an unimportant policy point has reintroduced regular vandalism to this article. MrArticleOne (talk) 23:13, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Tylerroberts109, 13 September 2011

change defence to defense

Tylerroberts109 (talk) 18:03, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Request denied. The spelling is that used in the Preamble. SMP0328. (talk) 22:35, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Informal Edit Request October 6 2011: Insure/Ensure

The meaning is that of ensure. Is the word actually insure? If so, this should have a similar note to Note 1134.10.135.249 (talk)

Suggestion

Suggestion: We the People as used in popular culture. 99.35.15.199 (talk) 02:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

This sounds like it would be a trivia section. SMP0328. (talk) 03:15, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 February 2012

In the "Text" section of this page (the preamble to the US Constitution)there is a misspelled word, the word "defense" remove the letter "c" and replace it with the letter "s". The entire text should read,

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

206.223.198.203 (talk) 18:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

 Not done Sic (meaning, 'it appears this way in the original'). See American and British English spelling differences. As the Founding Fathers were mainly from English backgrounds, they frequently used British English spelling; in many cases, an American spelling had yet to stabilize. Dru of Id (talk) 19:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense

The end of the first paragraph is nonsense. In the first place, no evidence whatsoever is provided to differentiate republicanism from social democracy. In the second, if you follow the link to the social democracy page, it argues that it arises from the Second International -- hundreds of years after the writing of the preamble to the Constitution. This last sentence is clearly the product of someone's political bias and does not belong in an encyclopedia. At the very least, there should be some kind of coherence between the three pages, republicanism, social democracy, and the Preamble. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.185.95.39 (talk) 12:21, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Drafting

I have restored the Drafting section, which describes an earlier version of the Preamble, because it shows that the United States was to be more than just a collection of the ratifying States. I'm open to making changes to that section that would make the distinction between the draft and the Preamble, but I do believe this section improves the article. SMP0328. (talk) 23:23, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's interesting history. Many people think that "We the People" was a grand expression of national unity, but it may well have been a mere consequence of fearing that some states would not ratify.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:33, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Authorship?

Odd that the actual writer of the preamble goes unmentioned. HIs name was Gouverneur Morris and there is a separate wiki entry for him. I tried editing this fact in but I could not get the script or the link to work correctly. Here’s the link:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gouverneur_Morris Orthotox (talk) 00:38, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Put a link that seems to work and hope it's similar to what you have in mind. Please feel free to edit my attempt. - phi (talk) 20:44, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

More perfecter, yet no more gradabler

Should the ungrammaticality of "more perfect" be discussed in this article? See also Comparison_(grammar)#Absolute_adjectives. --Mudd1 (talk) 00:19, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

This is unimportant and so does not deserve to mentioned in the article. Also, do you have any reliable sources? SMP0328. (talk) 02:00, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

This is passive aggressive and I'd appreciate a change in style. Anyway, you linked to the NPOV page which kinda irritated me. It is a perfectly valid point worth discussing that this might not be relevant enough to be included or that it's better used as an example on Comparison_(grammar). As for sources, I don't see the point in digging for stellar sources as long as the mere relevance of this is debated but here are some links: [2] [3] [4] [5] --Mudd1 (talk) 01:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to offend you, please don't take my linking to the NPOV page as a personal attack. I was simply explaining myself. This article is about the substance of the Preamble and its history. How is the grammar of the Preamble related to that? SMP0328. (talk) 01:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem with the suggestion of User:Mudd1 that this article discuss "more perfect" but we would need better sources than those presented. In particular, we would need sources that explicitly make this point regarding the preamble, so dictionaries that do not mention the preamble are not good enough resources, per WP:Synth. More generally, if one day some aspects of the country are perfect, but the next day more aspects are perfect, then it seems correct to say that the country has become more perfect. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

That's what I'm talking about. Mudd1 seems to be referring to the rules of grammar, rather than the substance of the Preamble. If he wants a discussion of grammar to be added to this article, there should be link to the Preamble's substance, because that is the subject of this article. SMP0328. (talk) 03:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Like I said, I'm not adamant about this issue belonging in this article at all. I just found it curious that "perfect" is one of the most prominent examples of an ungradable adjective while its comparative can be found in one of the most prominent English language texts and neither the article Comparison_(grammar) nor this one even mention the contradiction. Some grammar sites do mention the fact that "perfect" is gradable when used in a less strict, more colloquial sense where it just means "extremely good" but I think it's difficult (or at least remarkable) to argue that the US constitution is an example of colloquial wishy-washy language use.

SMP0328, you're basically making the argument that "more perfect" doesn't actually mean "more than perfect" but "closer to perfect". I would argue that this does indeed correspond to the intuitive understanding many have of "more perfect" but I haven't been able to find many sources supporting this view. Here is one though, including sources that refers explicitly to that phrase in the constitution: [6]. I found it rather poor, though, because it fails to generalize.

So yeah, I'm aware of the fact that Wikipedia is not the right place to come up with original research but the contradiction is already within Wikipedia and should be resolved in one way or another. And I'd prefer a solution that takes a more sophisticated stand than most websites I found that go something like "Oh, it's in the constitution? Well then it must be fine of course ... in this one case. It's an exception because ... reasons ... or poetry ... or something."

The most nuanced discussion of the general topic I could find so far is this one, including more references. The more I think about it, it's probably most appropriate to greatly enhance the Comparison_(grammar)#Absolute_adjectives section which just seems to take a popular but too narrow position, instead of bitching about the founding fathers not being able to write proper English. --Mudd1 (talk) 11:50, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

PS: Fun find, there's this book A More Perfect Constitution. I was hopeful that this was a dig at the line in question but if there's anything about that in the book, it doesn't say so in the article. Still funny.

Not to mention all the incomplete infinitives. Shouldn't it have been ". . . in order to form a more perfect union, to establish justice, to insure domestic tranquility, etc." instead? --Bertrc (talk) 14:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I think not (but am no doubt an oldfashion seventysixer--sorry to differ) because I dig the fact that this most perfect example of a prominent English-language text shows how the "to" particle need not be an intrinsic part of the infinitive, be the question at hand the nature of the English infinitive. Perhaps the stylistics of the Preamble does indeed warrant fuller attention in our article. - phi (talk) 20:54, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2017

Defense is spelled wrong in the preamble. It is spelled as defence 2600:387:0:803:0:0:0:61 (talk) 16:50, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Not done: Yes, and there's note explaining why just beside it.  — Ammarpad (talk) 17:04, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

This is a fascinating detail, @2600:387:0:803:0:0:0:61:, you can check the original.

confusing section

#The_popular_nature_of_the_Constitution section seems too wordy X2 or X3. It reads like it was written by a proud student who just discovered the concept of standing. The "for example" clauses confuse the previous crystal clear sentence.
--2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:504A:5AE8:B18D:2D6E (talk) 02:48, 10 March 2018 (UTC)Doug Bashford

We the People, backwards meaning

I may be incorrect in saying that We the People are not the people of the (united) states and as this writer assumes, she makes the same mistatke in assuming that "in the Preamble ("We the People") includes only U.S. nationals and citizens," here I might ask, citizen of where exactly? The writer seems to be equating the United States with the United States of America. My understanding is that the United States is Federal, the United States of America is state's territory. The Preamble clearly states "We the People of the (Federal) United States,..., do ordain and establish this Constitution FOR the United States of America." We the People are OF the United States and are therefor Federal actors so the preamble states the opposite of that of the writer. Opinions and case cites? ovA_165443 (talk) 13:56, 11 November 2019 (UTC)