Talk:Constitution/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Headline text

Whats up Whats Happening! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.139.190.6 (talk) 19:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Principles of constitutional design

My first section under this heading was removed by an editor, but he seemed not to understand that the section, even though it used the U.S. Constitution to illustrate the concept, was not limited to one national constitution, or even to governmental constitutions. I have modified it some and added statements that emphasize this general applicability, which make it appropriate to add the section in this general article rather than limiting it to the article on the U.S. Constitution.

It is appropriate to move material to the appropriate level of specificity, but it should be possible to use a specific example to examine a more general concept, especially if we are going to include cites to scholarly works and primary sources, most of which are focused on particular constitutions, even if their applicablity is more general.

There is a need to introduce an examination of underlying principles of design, because too many people lack an understanding of them that is essential to understand the concept. While most people who might try to develop or enforce a constitution have a vague sense that there are such principles, they too often fail to examine those principles deeply enough to avoid making common mistakes that might have been avoided if they had done more to understand the fundamentals. --Jon Roland 15:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Codex Sinaiticus keeps deleting this section, and his only comment was that it "seems terribly POV". If he has some concerns about an addition like this, he should present reasoned argument and not just summary dismissal based on apparent first impression, in this discussion page. While it seems obvious to me, as a constitutional scholar with a reputation for expertise on the subject, that this is not just one POV, if he does not understand why, perhaps I can explain through further discussion. --Jon Roland 16:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I would dispute practically everything that section states as if it were indisputable truth. And you realize any spin doctor can proclaim himself to be a "constitutional scholar with a reputation for expertise on the subject"... One of the first things I noticed on your talk page just now is that you actually created your own article, but it got deleted for notability concerns! So all I can see is that you think quite highly of yourself! Anyway, since political situations in each country are as different as the climate differences between Siberia and Morocco, how does any "authority" get to lay down the "ground rules" that supposedly apply to all constitutions across the board? I don't think they do; I think each constitution paints a very different picture that is applicable only to conditions inside of each individual country. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I did not originally create the article on my name. Someone else did, presumably because I was a candidate for public office, but I found it lacking in detail, so I added detail. Later, someone else deleted it, and not knowing the policies about people creating their own articles, merely restored it. Note that I do not say I am an "expert". That is not for me to say, or for anyone else to say about himself. I state that I "have a reputation" for expertise, and that is a fact you can verify independently by asking other scholars in the field. You can also decide for yourself by going to http://www.constitution.org. However, the first half of what you say above is ad hominem and does not go to the appropriateness of including this section. The second half is itself very much POV, because it takes the position that constitutions are entirely the product of a local, time-bound culture and have no underlying principles of design. While that is a popular view among some who are often called "post-modernists", it is hardly a POV that is generally held among scholars in the field, many of whom have built careers on examining and discussing those principles, as part of a legacy of such discussion that goes back to the ancient Greeks and Romans, and is sometimes considered as the basic subject matter of political science. If you examine historical examples of constitutions of all kinds, certain patterns of design emerge clearly, especially for constitutions that "worked" in some sense. --Jon Roland 17:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Codex Sinaiticus keeps deleting this section after I restore it, and provides as his explanation an argument that is highly POV (while accusing my position as being POV). I wish to appeal this dispute to other editors. How do I do that? --Jon Roland 17:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Easy, that is exactly what is accomplished by filing an appropriate RfC (Request for Comment)... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I seem to have figured out how to do it, and now we can wait for responses. In the meantime, one might consider this quote from Madison, in the First Congress, in debate on the introduction of the Bill of Rights, at http://www.constitution.org/ac/001/r01-1/bill_of_rights_hr1789.htm :
In some instances they assert those rights which are exercised by the people in forming and establishing a plan of Government. In other instances, they specify those rights which are retained when particular powers are given up to be exercised by the Legislature. In other instances, they specify positive rights, which may seem to result from the nature of the compact. Trial by jury cannot be considered as a natural right, but a right resulting from a social compact which regulates the action of the community, but is as essential to secure the liberty of the people as any one of the pre-existent rights of nature. In other instances, they lay down dogmatic maxims with respect to the construction of the Government; declaring that the legislative, executive, and judicial branches shall be kept separate and distinct. Perhaps the best way of securing this in practice is, to provide such checks as will prevent the encroachment of the one upon the other.

--Jon Roland 17:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Redundancy

It seems there's a complete paragraph at the History and development section(about Aristotle and his studies on the subject) that's repeated almost literally further down, at the Principles of constitutional design. It would be wise to do something about it, but I don't know enough about the subject to be able to clean it up.201.223.128.132 15:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Section for RFC, March '07

The question is, "Is a newly-added section "Principles of constitutional design" POV?" Codex Sinaiticus seems to contend there are no such principles. Jon Roland contends there are such principles, that legal and political scholars going all the way back to ancient Greece and Rome generally agreed there were such principles, and devoted a large part of their discussion to trying to find what those principles are. Roland did provide some cites to such discussions that were focused on the U.S. Constitution, but this seems unavoidable since most general discussion on the subject since 1787 has explicitly or implicitly referred back to that constitution of government, just as earlier discussions by the ancient Greeks and Romans refered to those of their own times or in their histories. One might argue about what the principles are, and revise the section accordingly, but not to remove the section completely, and the position that there are no principles seems very POV. --Jon Roland 18:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Please explain why then, according to your narrow definition that you claim to be the 'expert opinion', you would not consider these to be "successful" constitutions:
Are these then to be labelled "unsuccessful", simply because of the fact that they are not directly traceable to the "Greeks and Romans" constitutions??? Heck, the Romans only had two documents that could be called Constitutional, one was the Twelve Tables, and they did not get another one until the Byzantine Emperors started codifying Christian laws (which I agree was crucial to much, but not all later development)... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I did not define what "success" means in this context, and that is a large question the full treatment of which is beyond the scope of this discussion, but we can say that a constitution or other set of rules (such as rules of parliamentary procedure) are successful if, when people agree to use them conscientiously, they still encounter difficulties the provisions don't cover, and would require amendments or supplementary rules to overcome. We can broadly indicate what some such defects can be: Omission of a rule for deciding a question another provision raises. A provision that is sometimes impossible to implement, for any of several reasons. A provision that is so ambiguous that honest people can disagree on how to interpret it, and it is important enough that conflict results. A provision that may express an aspiration, but includes no action steps to do anything about it, and just takes up space in the overall document.
So to answer your question, one would have to examine the historical evidence of what happened when the people who adopted those "constitutions" actually tried to use them. We don't seem to have much evidence for those examples, other perhaps for the Dustur al Madinah, which may have worked for a while, but failed when the underlying society, or societies, failed to support it. Constitutions and laws are not self-enforcing. It takes people to make them work, and even the best-designed constitution can't overcome a failure of the people to make it work.
I don't understand where you get the question about "success" being linked to ancient Greek or Roman constitutions. I was merely pointing out that discussions of sound constitutional design go back a long way, for example, to Plato's Republic and Laws, to Aristotle's Politics, and to many other discussions that probably took place for other attempts to design laws for making laws, most of which, such as the Lycurgan Constitution, have not survived, and we know only through such things as the commentaries of Aristotle and Plutarch. Almost every attempt to adopt anything we could call a "constitution" has been accompanied by discussion about sound design, and attempts to discern underlying principles of design. That has been the central theme of lawgivers and political philosophers as long as there have been lawgivers and political philosophers.
However, the situation with the Roman Civil Law is somewhat more complex than you indicate. See The Civil Law, tr. & ed. S. P. Scott (1932).

--Jon Roland 17:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Something that can help understand the question of whether there are principles of sound consitutional design is to examine a smaller question, are there principles of sound design of rules of parliamentary procedure. See Robert's Rules of Order Revised. Examine RROR and ask how else the provisions could have been substantially rewritten. What would happen with different provisions, or if some were omitted? People have tried experimenting with variations. I have been involved in some of those experiments myself, and some of them work, but most do not. The houses of the U.S. Congress use a variant on them, for example. (That leaves out the related question of what should be in the by-laws of any organization -- its "constitution" -- that covers situations that RROR does not.) If you experiment enough with variations, it soon becomes clear there are underlying principles of sound design constraining the process.

--Jon Roland 18:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I also recommend reading That politics may be reduced to a Science, David Hume (1748).

--Jon Roland 18:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I would still maintain that your definition of "success" that you just gave is POV, debateable, and OR. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Those policies might apply to articles, but this is discussion, and in discussion I have the privilege to use whatever terms I choose and define those terms so that others can understand what I am saying. Let's stop these argumentative distractions and get to the central question. Is it POV to include a section on the Principles of constitutional design, on the grounds that there are no such principles, and therefore to discuss them is POV? We might disagree on what the principles are, and indeed most proponents of the concept aknowledge that it is not easy to discern what they are, but that there are such principles waiting to be discovered is a position that is supported by more than 2300 years of discourse on politics, law, and government, in which all the writings of lawgivers and political philosophers, some of which I have cited, are evidence. Where are your cites in support for the contention that such principles do not exist? --Jon Roland 21:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
No, the discussion page is not to be filled up with original research notions and concocting our own unsupported definitions. It is specifically and only for discussing concrete changes to the article, or for discussing what backing sources there are for those changes. You are instead appealing to your own private research definitions, which is OR, and this policy does apply to the talk page. If you have any published source (other than yourself) that provides your same apparently novel definition of what is a "successful" constitution and what is an "unsuccessful" constitution, that would be more useful, because then we can properly attribute it to that source's opinion of what "success" is. I still think there may be other opinions of "success" causing a neutrality issue. A lot of people at first think a talk page is a place to debate what theories we like better, but it's not - in fact, that's all quite irrelevant. It's a place to bring out sources that back up the proposed content. I would be more comfortable with your section if it read "According to so-and-so" these are the principles of sound and successful design that all come from Plato an Aristotle, etc. If you put "According to so-and-so" it is a cited, attributed POV, which is legit. But without the "according to so-and-so", it would be asserting this opinion as if it were unassailable fact. The other constitutions I listed were in force in some cases for many hundreds of years, and despite not having dug Plato, they were surprisingly efficient. So there seems to be a definite cultural bias in declaring Plato to be a necessary ingredient, and the USA's Constitution (half of which is superceded by the other half, but the superceded half is still in there as a permanent monument to the past) the finest shining pinnacle of Constitutional development ever devised. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

If all you want to agree to put the section back is to add qualifiers like "according to ..." then I will be happy to add them. in fact, I did cite sources in the section, directly and as footnotes. For example:

I could cite dozens more, but this should auffice for now. --Jon Roland 22:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

It is a distraction to the central question to focus on the definition of "success" for a constitution as key to the soundness of its design. Madison himself tended to measure "success" by how long the polity that used the constitution lasted, but a polity can end for many reasons that have nothing to do with how well its constitutions were designed. War, natural disaster, insurrection, decadence, all kinds of factors can cut it short. As we can see in current events, it only takes a small minority of terrorists to destroy any society, no matter how good a constitution it might have, or how virtuous its citizens might be. And, since it is now generally recognized that a sound constitution needs to provide for its own amendment, a heavily amended constitution may have to be considered as a line of constitutions rather than as a single one.

That having been said, one can introduce a standard of "soundness" (rather than of "success"), and offer a cite, "according to ..." for it. This does not require OR, just common sense. Most people intuitively sense what is sound or unsound about sets of rules, if not when they are being drafted, then after they have had a chance to use them for a while under a variety of scenarios. --Jon Roland 23:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

One more point on the four "constitutions" you cited. First, one has to dispute whether they really are "constitutions" in the modern sense, or the evidence of how long their polities used them. The Dustur al Madinah was really only a treaty, and it fell apart after only a few months. The Gayanashagowa is alleged to be a translation of an oral tradition, the origins and use of which are uncertain, and we need to regard it as apocryphal. The Seventeen-article constitution and the Kouroukan Fouga also involve considerable uncertainty concerning their success by any standard. The Lycurgan Constitution seems to have lasted several centuries, but since one of its provisions appears to have been that it never be committed to writing, and no one sneaked out a written copy that has survived, we don't really know how much of Spartan history can be attributed to its "constitution". Athens went though several "constitutions", only one of which is discussed by Aristotle, and there seem to have been problems with most of them. --Jon Roland 23:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

It should be obvious to any impartial observer that these are only your own cultural biases that cause you to summarily and off-handedly dismiss the African, North American, and Asian constitutions wit ha sweep oif the hand, saying that "they don't count" because only YOUR WESTERN Constitutions can possibly "count". That is exactly the direction this article does not need to go. When I first came here 2 years ago, there was a "globalize tag" on the article, because it was full of the same identical crap being spouted about how Americans are the most brilliant Constitutionalists in the world ever, and everyone else had better shut up and learn from them, blah blah blah. There was almost nothing in the article of a global nature to express what an ancient idea it really is, or to suggest that Americans (or Ancient Greeks) didn't first invent the idea. It is really only a matter of bias and peacockery that causes them to say "ours are the first, because everything before us didn't actually count, because we say so, and besides they are from the wrong continent to be coming up with ideas on their own". I think the article has come a long way and made a lot of progress since then. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not dismissing any constitutions that really were constitutions, no matter where they operated, even if for an alien civilization around a distant star. There may have been some that were very important to their polities, in their own time. The problem with these other efforts is that we don't know much if anything about them. Most of the evidence is missing. There is little to cite that is solid. I try to put anything on our website that looks like even a shaky effort in the direction of developing what we can call a "constitution", but it is POV to overreach and try to include things that might show we are "politically correct" but that don't stand up to scholarly scrutiny. You seem to be willing to invent things that didn't really exist, just to deprecate the originality or primacy of the U.S. constitutions. Now that is OR.

How about we get some others to weigh in. This is turning into an inconclusive dispute between two people. Is there a way to call attention to this dispute other than the RfC, such as email to other editors who work this article? --Jon Roland 00:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree we need others to weigh in. My advice would be to copy the rfc listing to the "politics" subbranch instead of the "sexuality and law" subbranch to attract the kind of editors who could comment on this. "Sexuality and law" probably attracts more editors who are looking to weigh in on a sexuality dispute... I am not inventing things that didn't exist "just to deprecate the originality or primacy of the US consitutions".. I know that is the POV that US schools teach, but there is more data on the four examples I linked than you seem willing to look at. Three of the four are fully reproduced in WikiSource, so finding the texts (even of the so-called "oral constitutions) shouldn't be a problem. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I posted a copy to the Politics section. I find the documents, or at least the alleged English translations, for all four. What we don't find is evidence of how or whether they were actually used. It would be easy to find something, a scrap of writing, or some old guy who likes to recite old poems, but it takes more than that to establish a historical record that it actually functioned as a constitution. As for "Seventeen-article constitution", it is not a constitution at all, as the article admits, but only a collection of moral aphorisms, hardly a prescription for the structure and procedures of government, and the powers, and duties of government officials, and rights of citizens. The Dustur al Madinah is not a constitution, but a treaty. Only the Gayanashagowa and the Kouroukan Fouga contain any elements that could earn them the designation of "constitution", and being oral, with no written records of their use, we have scant evidence to treat them as uncontaminated by contact with foreigners, or much more than footnotes. Certainly not for analysis of underlying principles of constitutional design, which might support theories of design different from those I put forth. I would love to go back in a time machine with a recorder and scanner to gather the evidence, and perhaps make records of things to be put into a time capsule I could come back and "discover" if I didn't want to disclose I had time travel capabilties, but I don't.

Sometimes the conclusion that the efforts that occurred in other nations were insignificant is not just a POV, but correct. --Jon Roland 02:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I read through all your debate and the deleted section written by Jon Roland. Afterall, I would strongly agree with Jon Roland that "the position that there are no principles seems very POV" because I can't find any firm conclusion among academics that there are no such principles and, indeed, there are scholars trying very hard to prove their existence and find them out.

On the other hand, I would think the style that Jon Roland wrote the article is also quite POV. It is because he seems to assume there are such universal principles in the article without mentioning any opposing opinion. However, although there are some scholars, as you mentioned, believe in their existence, there should be some who do not.

Thus I would find the sentence like "There are underlying principles of design that constrain all constitutions for every polity or organization, which can be illustrated by considering the example of the U.S. Constitution." very POV as it does not mention any opinion against the existence of universal principles and make readers think there is a conclusion that "there are underlying principles".

What I suggest is that we start the section by stating that there are different opinions on whether there are universal principles concerning constitutional design. Then it is followed by the opinions of scholars from both sides, e.g. "O.A. Brownson thinks that there are some universal principles which the draftsmen of a constitution follow. For example, in his last writing, he states that......".

Wikipedia should record things as it is. If there are scholars saying such and such conerning constitution, we should include it in the article. As we are NOT doing research, it is not important whether the universal principles really exist. What we need to do here is to find out the scholars from both side and include all their arguments in the section.

What do you see? Salt 04:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I would agree with Salt Yeung, and would have included a cite to the position that no such principles exist, if I could find any. It is not for lack of looking. I can claim to be familiar with the literature in the field, and there just isn't much that takes that view. Yes, there are "post-modernists" who take the general position that there aren't any general principles of anything, that everything is a matter of convention or local culture. (They tend to fall silent when asked, "Even the laws of mathematics and logic?" I suppose you could cite the character O'Brien in Orwell's 1984 for a proponent of that position, concerning the question of whether two plus two equal four: ‘Sometimes, Winston. Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once. You must try harder. It is not easy to become sane.’)

Now, I know there are legal scholars who maintain that the "original understanding" of the U.S. Constitution is indeterminate (therefore we can interpret it any way we want), but that is not the same as maintaining there are no underlying principles of design.

I suggest that if someone else feels there is significant literature supporting the contrary position, let him add it to the section. I am proposing to add what I know about. Until someone else can do that, the section should be included. Perhaps someone will find something, and we will all learn something. --Jon Roland 13:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


I have come up with four primary sources:
that utterly defy your OR "principle" that only European races are inherently smart enough to come up with a "successful" constitution. Your only response has been to brush them asides scoffingly and say "Well yes, but they don't count you see, because they aren't European origin, and to be successful, they have to be European, therefore these examples are unsucessful". This is purely CIRCULAR REASONING. Also, it is not very far removed from the old argument that "the wogs start at Calais". Anything that didn't come from Plato or John Mason has to be discredited by any means necessary, eh. Your entire viewpoint relies solely on your condescension of these other Constitutions, that you have summarily declared to not meet your (white) criteria for "successful". Therefore, I am now going to publicise this dispute in a number of other locations where the authors of those other articles can also give their opinions. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

You are misstating and misrepresenting my argument. I haven't said any of what you claim, as anyone can discover by reading what I've written above.

First, merely producing some questionable examples of documents you choose to call "constitutions", without any historical evidence of how they may have actually been used as constitutions, does not support your position that there are no principles of constitutional design. Indeed, the very principles I have advanced are exhibited in the last three of them, although the second was a treaty and not a constitution as such. That is why I put it online on our website here. (Actually, I need to change the label for it as a "constitution", and re-label it as a treaty that exhibits constitutional design.) I don't know who first attached the word "constitution" to the first, but he was adding something that no one can find in the original document or any surrounding historical evidence. Just because someone labels something a "constitution" doesn't make it one. Among the examples that do contain elements of constitutional design, there is nothing to indicate the principles of their design are in any conflict with those of modern constitutions of government, other than degree of completeness.

The history of discussion of the principles of constitutional design does not really significant disagreement over where there are such principles. It has been a process of accumulation of additional principles, with little change or deletion of previous ones. Even advocates of monarchy and fascism don't disagree that there are such principles. See for example, Filmer's Patriarcha, which did not so much dispute the ideas of the social contract as argue that monarchy by divine right was the natural constitution of government for men. The section I tried to add does not go to the differing views of whether the principles of design dictate a republican, monarchical, or other form of government. The sources cited had such a POV, or course, simply because it was political philosophers of a republican bent who did the overwhelming bulk of the investigation and writing on the issues.

As for the definition of "success" to be used, I am satisfied with including the one I provided above as a minimal standard, and not use the word "success" at all if editors think it is somehow POV in itself (which, of course, any term is to some degree).

But let's get some more to weigh in. --Jon Roland 23:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Here are some cites on the topic of "Principles of Constitutional Design":

--Jon Roland 00:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

As what I have read from your discussion, I don't see the point why we have to discuss on whether the abovementioned are 'constitution' and whether a 'successful' constitution should have a European root. We are discussing on the section 'Principles of constitutional design', aren't we? If so, we can simply neglect the debate about whether the abovementioned are contitution or not, what we should include are opinions from any scholars concerning the underlying principles of constitutional degsign.
So, please stop discussing whether they are constitution and what is a successful constitution.
In replying to Jon Roland, as I suggest before, we may start the section by stating that there are different opinions on whether there are universal principles concerning constitutional design. Then it is followed by the opinions of scholars from both sides.
I understand there may not be a lot of scholars taking the opposing side, but I would think they worth being included. Moreover, as you mentioned, different scholars tend to add new principles to the previous ones. So, maybe it is better to state clearly that which scholar has added which principle.
Lastly, to prevent being POV, I suggest include more examples from different countries rather than U.S. For example, you can try to explain how different constitutions are drafted according to the corresponding 'social constitutions'. Salt 15:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
But it is every bit as POV-pushing if you substitute the word "sound" for "successful" and say "these Constitutions are the sound ones, because they originated with Aristotle". Any opinion like that needs to be attributed to the party making it. When you come down to it, it's still just a fancy way of saying "the star bellied sneetches are the best, because they have stars upon thars". ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it is very POV if someone says "these Constitutions are the sound ones, because they originated with Aristotle". Therefore I would strongly reject including any similar content in this article. What I suggest is that we should NOT include any judgement on the 'success', 'soundness', 'goodness', 'validity', etc of a constitution in this section, and merely focus on what academics have said on the underlying principles of a constitution. If we write something like "Scholar X said in his thesis XYZ that the underlying principles of a constitution are ..........", I think we are just writing down the opinion of a scholar without making the conclusion that "There are universal underlying principles on writing a constitution".
Moreover, we should NOT use the principles proposed by Scholar X to judge the 'success' or 'soundness' of any document like Kouroukan Fouga. It is because we here do not say what Scholar X said is true but we just want to record the academic study concerning principles of constitution, so using Scholar X 's principle to make judgement would be meaningless and should be avoided.
Simply write down their opinions, without using them to make judgement. Salt 03:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • You don't need Aristotle or Plato or any European roots to form a constitution. The kouroukan fouga was definately a constitution and held the Mali Empire together for 400 years. Not all knowledge comes from Europe.

respectfully Scott Free 13:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I am willing to add the section written to summarize successive contributions to the theory of constitutional design from various authors, and citing the sources, as suggested above, if Codex Sinaiticus will agree to not just summarily yank it out again. Let's leave it it up long enough for everyone to weigh in and perhaps make suggested changes. However, all of the scholars were discussing "sound" design, and it is reasonable to introduce what their standards were. What does not work is asserting that some non-Euro-American oral tradition or document is proof there are no principles of consititutional design because they are non-Euro-American. --Jon Roland 23:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I think I'm starting to get a clear sense of what some of these unspoken "principles" (talk about a codeword) really are... It has to do with whether or not they had stars on their bellies... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The above remark by Codex Sinaiticus is not constructive or indicative of a neutral scholarly agenda. I have made a reasonable proposal and this is his answer. How do other editors feel about his role in this discussion? --Jon Roland 00:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Jon Roland, I think we are on the right track. Perhaps you may make a draft for us to comment. Concerning the problem of stardard, I don't think it is a problem if we just introduce the suggested standanrd set by scholars, but not using the standard to judge any document and say which one is a good one and which one is a bad one.

How am I supposed to submit the draft? Here in the Talk forum? I can do that. But I think it would be better to put it in the main article where it might get more attention, comment, and perhaps suggested changes. However, keep in mind that the decision of what to include and what to omit is necessarily a judgment of what is "good" and "important" enough, and it is a choice that cannot be avoided if we want to keep it short. --Jon Roland 05:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

THe important thing to remember is that you do not state anyone's opinion as if it were an uncontested truth or fact. Any opinion or POV represented has to be phrased to make clear whose opinion it is, eg. "According to so-and-so". If the additions are not neutral and conforming to WP:NPOV, I'm going to remove them again. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 12:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I think it is no doubt that we should hold the principle of NPOV strictly. But I think it is not a must to delete an article immediately when it does not entirely conform to WP:NPOV. One thing we can do is to edit the section and keep it improved. It is how wikipedia develops, right? By the way, other than that, I totally agree with what you said in the last comment. Salt 18:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I will proceed to add the section with the above standards in mind, but I intend to do so incrementally, over a period of several days, and several updates, as I have time to work on it. Please don't judge it until it stabilizes, probably after a week or two. --Jon Roland 15:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I have added a first draft of the section. I plan to next add footnotes to the cites. I will also fix some of the links. However, there is a problem with two of the authors cited. Henry Neville and James Tyrrell go to articles on the wrong individuals, creating a need for new articles and disambiguation of the names. I could use some help on how best to get those articles, for individuals who wrote about 1681, started and disambiguated. --Jon Roland 17:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I see where someone has added a section on History and Development which somewhat overlaps my section on Principles of Constitutional Design. I propose we work together to reduce the duplication. --Jon Roland 18:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Look again, that section was always in the article, just in thewrong place. Your section now appears twice, but I will remove one copy, so we can work on just one copy of the newly added section. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but you also changed the name of the section to "Principles of Modern Constitutional Design", and that is POV. The principles may not have been recognized until modern times, but, being principles, they are not bound to any time or place, and my point is that the same principles applied to all past times, and would apply even to alien civilizations, if they consisted of beings broadly similar to humans. Early forms of architecture may have been rudimentary, but that doesn't mean the principles of architectural design did not exist in early times. How about leaving my section alone, including the title, until I have finished most of my edits. --Jon Roland 18:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was a POV improvement since they are presumably the principles that all modern constitutions are based on, as opposed to earlier ones. Other than that I have so far only improved the readability by fixing a few typos. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

No, earlier constitutions were also based on those principles, insofar as they were satisfactory to the members of those polities, as evidenced by recurring and enduring patterns of use across many such. Even the early tribal governments. They may not have made very advanced use of the principles, but one of the principles is to use only what is useful among the principles. A cave is not about the principles of architecture, because it is found and used and not built, but a wigwam, igloo, or thatched hut is, even if it doesn't use or need the architectural principles that would be used in a aquaduct, domed cathedral, bridge, or modern skyscraper. If it can be built cheaply and rapidly, keeps its occupants warm and dry, and isn't prone to fall down or blow over, that is because it is conformant to principles of design. There are plenty of other ways such things could be built that would fall down or blow over, or take too long to build, or require materials that are not available. Similarly, officials of all times have made use of principles of management that apply to all times, places, and cultures, even if there are some cultural idiosyncracies. Early managers may not have made use of some principles that are used today, but that does not mean those principles did not exist then, or not be applicable if the operations to be managed had become more complex. It appears that Codex Sinaiticus has too narrow and culture-bound an understanding of what principles of design are, either in architecture, management, or government. --Jon Roland 21:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

You sound like quite an expert on these "Early tribal" constitutions you speak of, I was wondering if you could name one or two of them for our further examination, since I thought we had already done a near-exhaustive job of listing by name all the extant specimens that have been studied so far...? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that is better done in the article on Tribe, perhaps in a new section there on Governance. This section is getting a bit long. What we have on this subject is numerous anthropological studies of various tribal societies and their governments, both ancient and recent, with the best-known being those encountered in historical times, in the Americas, Africa, and other parts of the world that were still predominantly tribal in organization as recently as a century or two ago. --Jon Roland 01:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

How about, here on this talkpage, could you name one or two of the 'early tribal' constitutions you were speaking about 3 posts above here? I thought we had listed most of the known ones already and wanted to make sure we hadn't missed any... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 02:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Being "tribal" they are oral, and what we know about them are descriptions of the tribes and how they govern themselves by Western explorers and scientists. Nothing to "name" except the tribes and the writings about them. However, we do have the descriptions of early Jewish tribal governance in the Hebrew Bible, and in the writings of such historians as Tacitus, such as Germania, in which he discusses the governance of the Germanic tribes. One example of such a study is Government and Politics in Tribal Societies, by Isaac Schapera (1956). Also see:

--Jon Roland 03:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I have encountered many such studies in old books, mostly from the 19th and early 20th century, which are long since out of print, and mostly available in library collections and from antiquarian booksellers. See Antiquarian Booksellers Association of America. However, more often than not they make only passing reference to the design of governance of the tribes the author encountered, which was seldom a matter of greatest interest to them. They will often, however, refer to the "chief", the "council of elders", or the "medicine man" (shaman), confirming that design of governance for that tribe, which was so taken for granted that it was only departures from it, such as matriarchal arrangements, that elicited much comment. --Jon Roland 03:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, my first draft is fairly stable now, and ready for comment. It is now essentially the section I was on my way to writing before Codex Sinaiticus started yanking it. Any complaints? I am willing to make changes to comply with reasonable complaints, but would ask that such complaints come from more than one person. --Jon Roland 16:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Unconstitutional practices

Shouldn't there be a section about ways in which the constitution is commonly violated? I could give lots of examples, but one of the most obvious is that trying somebody for the same crime in BOTH a civil court and a criminal court violates the part about "no man should be tried for the same accusation twice".

The second ammendment, which gives the people, not just the national guard, the right to bear arms, is being dampened in many states by gun control. Exactly how constitutional gun control is happens to be debatable, but is a notable and important debate nonetheless.

If more examples are needed to add the "unconstitutional" section, I could get a lot of them. -Joshua

This sounds like it might be more relevant to a specific constitution of a specific nation. Please note that this is only an article about constitutions in general, around the whole world. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

There are some kinds of deviations from constitutional compliance that are common to written constitutions generally. that could be added, with links to national or other constitutions for specifics. Discussion of deviation from unwritten, "nonentrenched" constitutions, such as that of Great Britain, is more difficult, since the House of Commons of that country sits as a kind of ongoing constitutional convention, but could refer to the more fundamental constitutions of nature and society for a standard of sound constitutional design. That is why I added a section on constitutional design, to provide a basis for this kind of discussion.

For example, a common mode of deviation is to shift from an (explicit or implicit) presumption of nonauthority, requiring anyone attempting to exercise authority to prove that authority, to its opposite, putting the burden of proof on dissidents to prove some official lacks authority to so something. That is a common pattern we see in almost every nation. --Jon Roland 19:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Constitution vs Charter

What is the difference between constitution and charter? From the article it seems that charter is a kind of, or the same as, constitution since it says UN charter is also a constitution. If so, I suggest to move the page charter under this page. Any opinion? Salt 05:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The terms do not have universally agreed meanings. However, the United Nations charter is not a "constitution" of government as that term is understood by most political scientists today, because the United Nations is not a government. It is an ongoing diplomatic conference, and its Charter is a kind of treaty, not a constitution of government. So when the U.S. Congress voted for the U.S. to "join" the UN as a member state, it did not ratify the Charter as a treaty, with the force of law. All it did was join a diplomatic conference, one that might have some moral authority, but no legal authority, despite the attempts by many earnest people to pretend that it does. --Jon Roland 22:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Islam

Err.. the first written Constitution which binded all, including the author, was That of Muhammads. It's common western Folly and prejudice to believe the practice started in the England. --Irishpunktom\talk 16:22, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for putting that in, then. Sounds like nobody disagrees. Maybe it's more simple ignorance than folly or predjudice{| class="wikitable"

|- ! header 1 ! header 2 ! header 3 |- | row 1, cell 1 | row 1, cell 2 | |} I just hope that if someone comes up with an even earlier one than Mohammed's, it can be added correctly too. Steverapaport 19:17, 15 June 2005 (UTC)


Links to full texts

Several of the translation pages link to additional full texts of constitutions as taken up in the body of the wiki. These should be combined, translated, linked to from all pages, and moved to wikisource at some point. -- Kim Bruning 16:32, 9 December 2003 (UTC)

Well what do you know, someone has done a good job already, but moved everything to a page that wasn't clearly linked. Fixed.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kim Bruning (talk • contribs) 17:07, 9 December 2003 (UTC)

Constitution as a personal quality

Probably this is angling for a new entry-- if only I had the werewithal to write it, but constitution is also a personal quality (and a D&D stat to boot), so perhaps there ought to be a page on that sort of constitution. Because if it's in dungeons and dragons, baby, it's got to be good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.82.238.94 (talk) 05:46, 17 June 2005 (UTC)

Constitution of the universe

I think this link - Constitution of the Universe - is far too wacky to be encyclopaedic. Opinions? --Khendon 20:37, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wacky or not, it's a constitution. We shouldn't base our opinion on what goes in on whether we think it's wacky or not. The article doesn't limit constitutions to national constitutions, so the article should have links to some other kinds of constitutions as well. 66.32.136.4 20:44, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Khendon. This does not belong. I'm not sure that the constitution of a specific fraternity belongs here either. Crust 19:38, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Khendon and Crust. User:meganleah
I would largely agree with Khendon and Crust, in large part, but not entirely. The Constitution of the Universe appears to be a modern work of a poetic character that contains some material on natural law as discussed by Cicero. I would say that, absent a showing of significance of this work, it is probably excludable for insignificance. However, the material on Cicero and natural law is significant and might appropriately be included in some article somewhere. --Jon Roland 22:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

US and Japan reference

"When one compares the elaborate convention method adopted in the United States with the MacArthur inspired post war constitution foisted on Japan, this becomes evident. Arguably the legitimacy (and often the longevity) of constitutions are tied to the process by which they are initially adopted." This needs explanation or a useful link, by itself it's meaningless. Ddye 22:55, 18 February 2005 (UTC) 

   I agree with both of you.

Codified and uncodified constiutions and Australia

This article says:

A constitution contained in a single document is called a codified constitution. A constitution not contained in a single document, that has several sources is called an uncodified constitution.

and then (in the uncodified constiution section):

However, these are in law no different to any other Act of Parliament and can be changed just as easily.

But many?/most? parts of the Australian Constitution are entrenched, yet it's spread over numerous documents (the Constitution of Australia Act 1900, the Australia Act 1986, the law that say who the Queen's heir is etc.) and some parts are non-written (the Head of Government is a Prime Minister, who sits in the House of Reps and has their majority support; the Governor-General usually only acts on his advice etc.). The Constitution of Australia Act can only be changed via referendum, the Australia Act requires (IIUC) the consent of the State's Parliaments, but the G.-G. could theoretically decide to appoint a Greens Senator Prime Minister or dissolve parliament on the third Tuesday of every second month.

It's probably better to say something like '... these are in law often no different...' or something, but I'm no constitutional lawyer so I think someone else's advice may be necessary. Perhaps the difference between codified and uncodified constitutions is what's at fault. Felix the Cassowary 07:18, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

I wrote most of the original section on uncodified constitutions and semantics of constitution. I just attempted to clarify the meaning, hopefully it makes more sense now. Please ask if you have anymore questions, or have read parts of the article that aren't clear. I appreciate the fact this article's content is rather complicated and potentially confusing. Deus Ex 22:49, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It makes sense, but I'm not sure if it's accurate. Australia enjoys being halfway between Britain and America, and has a constitution that combines both traditions. Australia has entrenched aspects of its constitution that cannot be changed except with special rules (the Constitution Act for instance, which is/used to be an act of British/Imperial Parliament, can't be changed without a referendum; the Australia Acts require requests of the State Parliaments). Australia's constitution also has uncodified aspects which are, in law, no different from the agreement between me and my fellow students that I will turn up to our next group project meeting. So ours cannot be a codified constitution (because there's no single coherent and easily-understood body of rules; rather, it's spread over at least three documents and many traditions), but it cannot be an uncodified constitution (because constitutional law is different from statue law; the constitution cannot be changed on a whim). And this isn't just because a dififcult-to-change constitution has become wildly out of date, but our constitution was from the beginning not expected to align with the realities.
I think, perhaps, a subsection/paragraph-in-uncodified or something saying that Aspects of an uncodified constitution may have the properties of a codified constitution, and due to their different legal impact (and often name) these may seem to be the entire constitution. In reality, they are not. A discussion of the Australian, and probably other Commonwealthish, constitution(s) may be appropriate, too.

Well, in every situation, there is always graduation between total codification and uncodification. The US constitution is certainly codified-it would absurd to suggest it was uncodified, but some aspects of the running of govt are contained outside the constitution. See this page. Australia's constitution from what you're saying probably still fits the 'codified' definition, but has significant portions of constitutional law outside Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, which defines the powers of the govt (broadly), the running of elections, amendment like the American constitution. I'll start a paragraph explaining this, please contribute to it, as Australia is a good example of this idea. Deus Ex 09:22, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I like it in theory. I re-wrote the parts of it you were unable to proofread ;) and added a comment about considerable non-codified aspects, because I think there's orders of magnitude of difference between judicial review on the one hand and whether the head of government gains his power from elections (PM, practical) or appointment by a heritary monarch of a foreign country (G.-G., theoretical). I don't think any more than the current outline is necessary; if anyone wants to know more they should probably follow the link. Felix the Cassowary 08:32, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the additions corrections Felix the Cassowary, I get lazy sometimes and don't proofread properly :). I think the article is now adequate, it's more subtle in explaining how constitutions are interpreted, and the Australia example shows the limits of mere theory in the face of real world constitutions Deus Ex 15:00, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

One would have to read numerous documents to fully understand the U.K. constitution (and would probably also need a good knowledge of constituional conventions and history). One only needs to read one document to understand the Australian constituion, but a person reading it (like a person reading all the U.K. constitutional documents) would probably get a perverted idea of how Australia operates. What words say and how the government actually operates are two diferent things (eg. no mention of 'Prime Minister' in Australian Constitution - or U.K. for that matter), even with a written or codified constituion, unwritten things can have a great importance - something which should be mentioned. - Matthew238 02:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The situation with Australia is somewhat complicated. Australians did ratify one version of what is called its "constitution" in a referendum, but the one we find published is an act of the UK Parliament which changed much of the wording. It also created a logical conundrum, because an act of the UK Parliament can be repealed at any time, which would, logically, repeal the published "constitution". Most of the Australians I have discussed this problem with don't seem concerned about this point of logic, but they should be. I would argue that the only lawful "constitution" is the version that was ratified in referendum. But even that one has problems, because it cedes authority to a foreign monarch, not accountable to the people of Australia, to appoint a constitutional official with legal power, even if he would be ignored if he ever tried to exercise it. There is an Australian Republic Movement that is trying to adopt a new, proper constitution of government, and I have been working with them, but their understanding of the principles of constitutional design are rudimentary. (See above discussion on Principles of constitutional design.) --Jon Roland 22:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

First constitution?

Is the Constitution of Medina definitely the first constitution? See e.g. the stub Constitution of Athens, which seems to say that there was such a thing as the Athenian Constitution in classical times, which would be roughly a thousand years earlier. Possibly one can argue that the Code of Hammurabi ca. 1700 BC is a still earlier example.

Crust 19:14, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I just checked Britannica. Aristotle was the first to identify the difference between everyday laws and constitutional laws, and he was the author of the Constitution of the Athenians which you mention. So Aristotle was the first true constitutionalist. I think the Constitution of Medina was the first written, codified constitution see [1], [2]. This (reliable) source says the US constitution was the first written national constitution [3]. From looking at the Code of Hammurabi, it looks like this is not a constitution, it is code of laws. Deus Ex 23:13, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Quoting from the Solonian Constitution article: "The Solonian Constitution was the earliest Athenian constitution, created by Solon in the early 6th century BC." So that would seem to be an earlier candidate. It was written (though in verse). (I'm inclined to agree with you re the Code of Hammurabi; I'm not entirely sure what I was thinking when I included that example.)

Crust 15:12, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I aded the Medina thing, because I knew it pre-dated what was stated. I didn't know about the Solonian Constitution, thanks! --Irishpunktom\talk June 29, 2005 23:41 (UTC)
1 The "constitution of Medina" is not a constitution.
The so-called "constitution" of Medina is a treaty between a hand full of tribes. That it is a treaty is proven by the fact that the document calls itself a treaty. 5 of the 11 articles in this treaty deal with a war against Quraysh that was occuring at the time, and states that the war effort shall be shared between all parties and that the enemy is the tribe of Quraysh. The only real stipulation in this treaty about how the state is to be run is this: "Should any disagreement arise between the signatories to this treaty, then Muhammad shall settle the dispute." A constitution is system detailing how an organization is to be governed. The only system in the Medina charter is that Muhammad is sole arbitrator. Constitutionalists (such as Aristotle) put a great deal of thought into the system - they did not imagine a constitution to be a war treaty between tribes which identifies a current enemy and designates a specific man (referred to by name) as the sole arbitrator of all disagreements. That Muhammad is referred to by name, in the treaty, as the sole arbitrator of all disagreements is proof positive that this is not a constitution. Imagine if the United States Constitution stated that "George Washington shall be the President of the United States, and shall be the settler of all disgareements and disputes." What would happen after Washington died? Constitutions do not designate specific "settlers of all disputes" by name - only a treaty would do that. Aristotle defined a constitution as "the arrangement of the offices in a state." The Medina Charter does not identify any offices of state - the only office it identifies is that of Muhammad's, and that office is referred to as "prophet of Allah" in the treaty (which is not an office at all, since Muhammad proclaimed himself to be the last prophet of Allah). The Medina Charter does not set out a system of government with a a description of the arrangement of offices of state, such as a senate or an elected head of state. Muhammad was not a constitutionallist - his state rapidly expanded beyond Medina and encompassed all of the Arabanian peninsula. Yet we do not have an Islamic "constitution of Mecca," or a "constitution of Arabia" or a "constitution of the Islamic state." Why there was a "constitution" of Medina, but not a "constutition of the Islamic state?" The Islamic state rapidly expanded far beyond Medina - why, then, is there only a "constitution of Medina" and not a similar constitution during the later part of Muhammad's career? Because the "constitution" of Medina is actually a treaty between tribes that was drafted to serve a very specific historical purpose in the earlier part of Muhammad's career as a prophet/warlord. All this treaty really does is establish Muhammad as a sort of absolute governor of Medina, and it forms a war alliance against Quraysh. Once Quraysh was defeated and Mecca had fallen to the Muslims, there was no need for such a treaty and hence no such "constitution of Muhammad's state" exists at any time after the purpose of the Medina treaty was realized.
2 There were many actual constitutions long before Muhammad'
Plato taught that "our knowledge of political organization is to be acquired by studying and comparing different constitutions of States" [4]. Thus both Plato and Aristotle studied various different constitutions, which proves that constitutions existed long before Muhammad did. Someone has already mentioned the lawgiver Solon, who drafted the Constitution of Athens. We also have Cleisthenes of Athens, "who reformed the constitution of ancient Athens and set it on a democratic footing in 508 BC." Furthermore, the Roman Republic also had a constitution. We know that the Roman Republic had a full-fledged constitution and constitutional system before 132 BC, because in 132 BC, Tiberius Gracchus was executed by the Roman Senate for violating the constitution of the Roman Republic. While the Roman Republic did not have a written constitution, we must note that many historians doubt that the Medina Charter was written either - they conjecture that it was probably written much later, possibly based on the actual historical treaty between the nine tribes of Medina and Muhammad. There were, no doubt several, several written constitutions at least a thousand years before the treaty between the tribes of Medina (known as the Medina Charter) was supposedly drafted by Muhammad. The Medina Charter is certainly not the first constitution in human history, nor is it an example of an EARLY constitution, and I believe that it is not an example of a constitution at all but rather a treaty between tribes designed for a specific moment in time. --Zeno of Elea 13:26, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

The problem here is defining what is a "constitution", when the term has been used loosely for centuries. I would say that we need to qualify our classification by defining "constitution as the term is usually used today for a polity" as an enactment that prescribes the structure, procedures, powers, and duties of public officials and the rights of the people, and that contains certain minimal elements that conform to principles of sound constitutional design. By that definition, there may be constitutions of government older than those of the U.S., but the ones that have survived are incomplete and early ones that may have been well-designed have not survived to be examined. --Jon Roland 22:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem again is that that is a biased and POV, highly exclusive definition ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

So-Called World-Wide View

Whoever thinks that articles in encyclopedias regarding constitutions must represent a "world-wide view" is probably an anti-American seeking to undermine the principles of America, among which are the rule of law, individual rights, and capitalism. The freedom and prosperity that have been prevalent throughout American history have only been possible because of the unique nature of the constitution of the United States. The United States Constitution laid down rights from which no one, nor any government, can infringe upon. Thus, the constititution of the United States was a limitation on the powers of a government. The Founding Fathers were geniuses in recognizing before the collapse of the many collectivist dictatorships during the twentieth century that rights only apply to individuals. They believed in the primacy of the individual, and thus, the role of government was the protection of the rights of the individual. It is morally apprehensible for Wikipedia.org to want this article to have a "world-wide view." What do they want, an anti-American communist, socialist, or fascist viewpoint instead of the viewpoint from the only moral nation in history? Therefore, I completely condemn wikipedia.org's claim that this article needs more "world-wide" viewpoints and urge them to promote pro-American views, not the views of those who hate America.

Well, for one, the principles in the US Constitution are not entirely American. They're French and British. The idea of a written constitution certainly isn't American.--AaronS 03:37, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
The writer above has no legitimate complaint and does not understand the issue.--Dlatimer 06:10, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
I concur with AaronS and Dlatimer. As an American, I am personally very proud of my country's constitution (even if the rest of the world thinks our position on freedom of speech is crazy), but I also believe that Wikipedia is a neutral source that should not take a position on whether the American constitution is actually morally superior to others. Also, I agree that this page should continue to be listed as not representing a world-wide view until information can be infused into this page on the development of constitutional law in other regions of the world, such as East Asia and Africa. --Coolcaesar 06:56, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
So until all the information for every culture in the world is included, it will not be considered a complete world-wide view? Methinks that could take awhile... Why not just separate the article into separate pieces for each country/culture and then not worry about each article not representing the world-wide view?--Ethilien 00:51, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Not just every culture, but the view of every citizen. That may be just enough to get a proper world-wide view --Dlatimer 09:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Seriously, I don't know if we need to go that far... The development of the concept in Europe, America and Asia are already mentioned... I'm just going to expand it a little with some actual development elsewhere that may be informative... ፈቃደ 15:16, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
For someone with such a love of the U.S. Constitution, he seems to have little knowledge of it.

To say the founding fathers were geniuses is a bit obsequious, a gives little respect to ones own intelligence. To say they had a great concern for individual rights is true, if by 'the people' we mean simply the founding fathers, and not women, slaves etc. (They often didn't even show great concern for the rights of other founding fathers); and the constitution doesn't even really guarantee individual rights - it is more the application of the constitution today that does. If you look at various laws and actions of the governments of the past, they go right against what we would consider our constitutional rights today. - Matthew238 02:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

As a non-American I think it is right to give special mention to the U.S. constitution when talking about constitutions generally. It may not be the oldest, but it is, if not the oldest, then certainly one of the oldest national constitutions which continues largely in its original form. Talk about the XII Tables, the Codex Hammurabi, the tenents of Islam and the Magna Carta are all very well, but none of those documents really closely resemble the organisation of power in a modern nation state. Similarly, although it borrowed many ideas from European thinking, such as the separation of powers, it incorporated them into its national constitution before any of the European states did. The U.S. constitution also holds a unique level of interest because of the development of the U.S. nation state over the 250 years subsequent to its birth, rather than (in other countries) the adoption of a constitution by an existing developed nation state. I think it is quite natural for this article to lay more emphasis on the U.S constitution than other countries constitutions just because it illustrates a number of conceptual points very well. I'm all for pushing for a worldwide POV in articles, but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Legis 19:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Religion and Constitution

<Commenting on this phrase in History and development—Some of the more well known among these include the code of Hammurabi of Babylonia, the Hittite code, the Assyrian code, Mosaic law, and likewise the commandments of Cyrus the Great of Persia.>

The word "religion" as we use it does not exist in Biblical Hebrew. They looked upon the Bible as we do our Constitution, and took it as a given—a way of life. The Hebrew Bible was their Constitution and Legislative enactments; post-biblically, the Talmud was, and is, the equivalent of a modern Law Library.
If religion is an hypothesis designed to find peace-of-mind, as I think it is, is not our government, police department, fire department, etc., vastly important toward finding that peace-of mind?
In this millennium, world government is not possible because of the many different religions warring with each other over dogma—a front for the scarcity due the lack of a critical mass of technological advancement throughout the world.
In millennia to come, such critical mass of technological advancement will be achieved and the world united. See Spinoza Sub-title.

When modern Hebrew had to coin a word for "religion" they chose the word (daht) whose root is "knowledge."

Yesselman 20:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Modern Talmud

From Max I. Dimont's "Jews, God and History", ISBN: 0451628667, p. 368:

The founding fathers and the American people had a steadfast belief in the Hebrew Bible. The development of constitutional law through the body of decisions by the Supreme Court has acted, in a sense, like a Talmud in interpreting and clarifying the Constitution, and those decisions have come to function in American political life much as the Talmud has in Jewish life.

Yesselman 18:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


Definition

Who is Jay Armstrong? And why are we quoting from him? If we can't verify that he said A constitution is a set of rules which outline the political sphere of influence for the institutions of a state and their relationship with both the people and other institutions., then we should not include the quote in the article. --Hurricane111 19:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

New content

An IP address recently added this comment. It may be good for inclusion but needs cleanup. It's commented out in the article right now, but here it is below (if you clean it up, you can put your changes in the article and uncomment it out. —Mets501talk 22:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

(The common constitution is a set of rules and regulations that allows a company to operate effectively) The Companies Act 1993 ("the act") is the basis for a company constitution however a company may or may not have a constition strictly based on the act as stated in Section 26 . A constitution is commonly formalised by consent of partners, who make decisions affecting the constitution. The general rule is that the directors are given full capacity to operate in all activities relating to the company as stated in Section 16(1) of The Companies Act 1993(the act) this does not mean that they can create a separate constitution, at free will or that any business activities that are not within the constition cannot be undertaken. The vagueness of the constitution allows the law to adapt to modern businesses, as it would be unreasonable to expect companies to abide soley on enactments for businesses. However a Director can restrict or limit there scope of power to act s26(2) this provision can allow a business to operate effectively outside the act for example if the Quorum or required number of directors is not sufficient for changing the constitution if required or to protect the interests of others dealing with the company for example, The (Constitution confers certain powers to a company with the allowance that it operates within the constitution or charter retrictions this will be discussed later in detail) ( A constitution is commonly formalised by consent of partners,(shareholders) who make decisions affecting the constitution. The general rule is that the directors are given full capacity to operate in all activities relating to the company as stated in Section 16(1) of The Companies Act 1993(the act) this does not mean that they can create a separate constitution, at free will or that any business activities that are not within the constition cannot be undertaken. The vagueness of the constitution allows the law to adapt to modern businesses, as it would be unreasonable to expect companies to abide soley on enactments for businesses. However a Director can restrict or limit there scope of power to act

In modern constitutions, there is usually a sense of the constitution's legitimacy being derived from wide consensus, whether the constitution in question is a constitution of government or just the constitution of a private club. (The constitution of a business is derived from consent of all partners, it may be within or outside the legislation of Co. Act 1993)

Text of Constitutions

Couldn't the texts of some of those constitutions listed in the external links section be copied to WikiCommons or something. The United States constitution actually has a number of articles devoted to it on Wikipedia, with the text of various sections, combined with explanation and commentary. I was just wondering what could be done. - Matthew238 02:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

US Constitution redirect

Is there a need to have a specific redirect link at the top of the page for the US constitution ? If so, then I suggest a link instead to a page listing consitutions of all countries. There is no balanced reason why the US constitution is so special as to have a specific link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.77.165.93 (talk)

Changed.--Zleitzen 13:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I do agree with the first poster, but I can also think of a reason. Lots of editors who don't bother to read the article, and also suffer from one of the world's worst educational systems, seem to think "Constitution" only refers to the US Constitution. This kind of traffic is only going to continue, but some kind of hatnote might at least divert some of it. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Uncodified Constitution

I had made major changes (adding information on the written sources of uncodified constitutions of the UK) on the page of Constitution. "uncodified constitutions include written sources: e.g. constitutional statutes enacted by the Parliament (House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975, Northern Ireland Act 1998, Scotland Act 1998, Government of Wales Act 1998, European Communities Act 1972 and Human Rights Act 1998);" scarlett_tong 10:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the codified vs non-codified sections are long and rambling. The premise that codified constitutions come from revolutions and uncodified from "centuries of evolution" is wrong. This is explained anyway in the history section. It would make far more sense to directly explain the Westminister tradition and its export to other countries. Why is Australia given such lengthy and floppy treatment? --Dlatimer 03:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

non-constitution governments

so if this is a constitutional government what is a non-consitutional government? Chuck61007 22:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I haven't looked it up, but presumably a non-constitutional government is a de-facto government which operates without a formal constitution, such as the Taleban before they were ousted from control in Afghanistan, and the current rulers of (or those attempting to rule) Somalia. I don't know if either actually had a formal constitution or not though. Legis 09:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thanks that helped a lot! Chuck61007 18:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Better lOOKING Image of US CONSTITUTION Please

It's improved - but still, can't we get a better, clearer, image of the US Constitution??? Yours truly, --Ludvikus 15:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I will send an e-mail to the Library of Congress requesting an image to be used as fair-use. EDIT: I could not find any e-mail address on their website. --Scouto2 (talk) 14:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Radio Joke - Facade Constitutions

Although it is funny, I don't think a joke is appropriate for the main article. Could it be placed at the top of the discussion page, so we can still read it? --Dlatimer 03:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I've moved the joke to here: --Dlatimer 02:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

(Incidentally, this led to a famous Radio Yerevan joke: Someone asked Armenian Radio: What is the difference between the Constitutions of the USA and USSR? Both guarantee freedom of speech. Armenian Radio answered: In principle yes, but the Constitution of the USA also guarantees freedom after the speech).

Consitution of San Marino

Some people still seem to be under the impression that there is some fancy definition of a "Constitution", like "It must define the sovereignty of the people to qualify" or something. That's not part of it, in fact there are many Consitutions that do no such thing. A "Constitution" is simply the Supreme Law of a land, it doesn't even need to be written down to be a Constitution; it can set up any kind of governmental system, within whatever terms it chooses. There is no doubt that San Marino has a written Constitution that has been used from 1600 to the present. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I invite the reverting editor to join the discussion page rather than continuing to edit-war. One again, there is no source to dispute the validity of the Constitution of San Marino, which goes back to 1600 in its written form. Please be reasonable. Read that article again carefully, especially the very first section of the 1600 document (still in effect) certainly satisfies even the strictest of definitions of establishing a political system. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
It appears our editor who originally thinks San Marino didn't have a written Constitution before 1974, is a block-evading sockpuppeteer named User:Serafin, which means all his edits can be reverted on sight... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 02:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Cromwell

This article appears to make no mention of the two constitutions adopted in England in the 1650s, the Instrument of Government and the Humble Petition and Advice. These are the first written constitutions of any sovereign state in the modern world. It is perhaps also worth noting that the experience of Cromwellian government is probably why the British have ever since been loath to saddle themselves with any form of constitutional straight-jacket. TharkunColl 10:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Article split with nary one word of discussion?

This article has been split up and moved by a single user acting unilaterally without even a pretence of the normal courtesy of sounding out or consulting the regular editors for consensus. The fork Constitution (corporate) is only one sentence long, badly written, unsourced, and should be re-merged back to here until there is some agreement among editors. It is doubly ironic that this would be done to this particular article, where one would think the Rule of Law and Due Process would be observed above all. Til Eulenspiegel 12:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

redirect objection

yo so im reading this post on this discussion board that says there shouldn't be a helpful link at the top of the page that goes to the US constitution (even though the US constitution is almost synonymous with 'the constitution') and just wanted to say its really stupid. its like every single little thing on wikipedia that doesnt please non-americans is instantly changed and accommodated without question. i just object. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.107.97 (talk) 06:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

One of the many great things about American values is the interest in being fair and true. It is true that in every country, the word "constitution" is synonymous with the constitution of the country you are in. If you were in India, you'd perhaps think that the constitution of India is almost synonymous with 'the constitution'. With wikipedia having a policy of a neutral point of view, it is necessary to write this article from the perspective of being in no specific country. To do otherwise would be unamerican (also against the values of many other nations.) --Dlatimer (talk) 00:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Angel loves Macy?

Uh, can someone explain to me what the hell is with the first sentence? "A constitution is a system for government, often codified as a written document, that establishes the rules stating that Angel loves Macy more and principles of an autonomous political entity." Whilst I don't doubt the fact that Angel loves Macy more, is that pertinent to the topic? I don't know how to edit so I thought I'd bring it up here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.91.9.215 (talk) 08:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

First modern constitution

There is a discussion at Talk:Constitution of May 3, 1791#Primacy claim, regarding the primacy claim, with Corsican Constitution being the contender, facing off the US Constitution :) See also Talk:Corsican Constitution#First?. Comments appreciated. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Both are WP:Peacock claims IMO, since a careful reading of this article shows there were Constitutions around the world for many millennia before this. There are lots of various claims to be the first constitution using various "special" criteria as if nothing before counted, but it's actually nationalism and peacockery. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Hans Kelsen

Where is Hans Kelsen one of the most important constitutional jurists in the 20th century? Ever heard of Pure Theory of Law or Legal positivism? This article is just common law crap without any serious continental european perspective.--77.116.153.66 (talk) 00:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Spanish Constitution of 1812

This constitution has shamefully forgotten in this article. Was the 4th modern, democratic and liberal world´s constitution, before Norway´s one of 1814, which is influenced by spanish constitution. Spanish constitution of 1812 served as a model for other liberal constitutions of several South-European and Latin American nations like Portuguese Constitution of 1822, constitutions of various Italian states during Carbonari revolts, or Mexican Constitution of 1824.--Geriarto (talk) 14:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Oldest functioning written constitution?

Initial Debate

Is it the constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts or the constitution of the Most Serene Republic of San Marino? The former was adopted in 1780, whereas the latter was adopted in 1600. The article on San Marino, however, asserts that San Marino was not recognized as a state until 1815 at the Congress of Vienna. The United States declared its independence from Great Britain in 1776, but was not recognized as independent in a uniform way (e.g. France saw it as independent, while Britain did not see it as such). The British certainly did recognize the United States as independent before 1815, however; therefore, I think that it is safe to say that the Massachusetts constitution is the oldest functioning written constitution in the world. Otherwise, we would have to include any constitution written by anybody, regardless of its perceived legitimacy.--AaronS 05:26, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

In 1739, Pope Clement XII recognised San Marino's independence and for Europe in the 18th century that's all the legitimacy one needs. San Marino is as old as the hills. Wikipedia should not ignore the reasonable claims of actual nations. That the San Marino constitution is 405 years old is not in dispute. Massachusettes is not a nation and never was. Was Massachusettes ever recognised as independent? Of course not. If we use your logic, the oldest constitition could be the The Quebec Act of 1774.
The importance and endurance of the US constitution should be mentioned in the article, San Marino should be recognised for it's achievement and Massachusettes only has relevance within the United States.--Dlatimer 06:05, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Since I am not interested in an edit war, I have put the two claims side by side and use the word "may be" so no absolute claims are made. We shall see how long this lasts --Dlatimer 06:35, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
I would just add that I think it is a mistake to assume that only a recognised nation state can have a constitution. Whether or not either Massachusets or San Marino was at inception or is now an independent country shouldn't alter their respective claims to have the oldest functioning constitution. I would also have thought that the English Bill of Rights of 1688 (and, arguably the Magna Carta of 1215) was in their with a shout, although in each case they only represents part of a constitution. Legis 19:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I would just like to say that it is fair to claim that the US Constitution is the oldest still in use by any nation, as San Marino is not a nation(though it may be called a state or perhaps a country) according to the definition of nation, nor can Massachusetts be called a nation(it too is a state). While there are many states in the world, nation-states are fewer in number and generally have more diplomatic, military, and economic power than can be mustered by any non-nation state, and I'd say this makes one's constitution more significant than some small state many have never heard of or could care less about. 72.201.251.230 (talk) 06:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but San Marino is a nation. If it isn't, then what nation is it? Nice try at redefining the terms to suit your argument. And that reference is a joke - if your going use peacock references to support the oft-repeated nationalistic claim that the US invented Constitutions in the world, you could probably find several of this calibre. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 10:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Removing a valid source without justification is unacceptable. In the USA, an organization like the National Constitution Center would not be able to make such claims unless they were true, as many watchdog groups within the US who are not nationalistic would raise a great uproar. You need to provide reliable sources to prove this is incorrect, not one-sided claims of nationalism, as if the San Marino claims were not also nationalistic! - BilCat (talk) 23:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Maybe so, but their current national Constitution is also far older than the US Constitution. And the argument that "San Marino is not a nation" is simply a non-starter, since it is recognised by all other nations. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 23:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Getting angry does not change the definition of the word nation. Ironically, the nation article on wikipedia provides some good definitions. Italy would be a nation because it is comprised of most all the Italian people and historically Italian territory. Venice, Tuscany, Milan, the Papal State, Urbino, Siena, Modena, Ferarra, Savoy, Naples, etc, though once independent counties, duchies, republics, etc., were never nations as they were only a fraction of the Italian people and peninsula. Likewise, Prussia was not a nation, but Germany is. Let me clarify: San Marino's population does not have its own culture, ethnicity, language or customs, it's people are Italian! It cannot, therefore, qualify as a nation under the proper use of the term. I have no problem calling it the oldest state constitution or whatever, but honestly, the US Constitution is far more significant. Just because many erroneously use the term nation interchangeably with state or country does not mean an encyclopedia should, especially when the term is defined contradictorily in other articles. Plus, other articles already mention the US Constitution as the oldest of any nation still in use. Hating the United States doesn't make its constitution less of an accomplishment for modern nation-states. 72.201.251.230 (talk) 04:23, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but you are asserting your own original and unsourced theory that "nation" should be redefined so as to exclude San Marino, just so you can make a peacock claim. This has nothing to do with anger or hate. This has to do with keeping blatantly false claims out of the article. I am well aware that almost everyone in the USA is indoctrinated in youth to believe that they single-handedly invented Constitutions and are God's gift to the world, but honestly, that isn't wikipedia's problem, and it isn't wikipedia's job to promote nationalist lies from the mythology of any nation. Claiming that San Marino "doesn't count" because it is only a small nation is just beyond pathetic in terms of logic. (See WP:BIAS if you cannot figure out why) What source do you have that explicitly denies San Marino's right to sovereignty under its own ancient Constitution? What should settle the question, is that for some time now, San Marino has been a member of the U.N. (That stands for United NATIONS, btw.) So where exactly do you get the authority to abrogate San Marino's nationhood, anon IP? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:51, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

2nd Debate

While Massachusetts is today a US state, like every state in the US, it is a republic; and, like every founding republic, it once existed independently of the United States. Keep in mind that the current American constitution was not adopted until 1788; before then, it was the Articles of Confederation, adopted in 1781. A confederation is an association of sovereign states. Regardless, the current federation of the United States is still a compact between sovereign states: it was ratified by the states, who sent delegates elected by their respective citizens, and it can only be altered by state legislatures.

Today, states share sovereignty with the federal government. Every American is a citizen of both the United States and his or her respective state of residence. A citizen of Massachusetts cannot also be a citizen of New Hampshire. The federal government exists for limited purposes, usually related to foreign affairs; the state governments retain (key word: retain) all of the powers associated with people's everyday lives.

The Pope's word is only good in Catholic countries like Italy, France, and Spain. It hardly encompasses all of Europe -- or the world. San Marino is old, but its constitution, which was not internationally-recognized until 1815, is not.

You've got your facts wrong regarding Massachusetts, the American system of government, and American history, and this really seems like POV on your part. I'm going to fix your compromise for NPOV. --AaronS 15:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

There is a double standard in your reply. You require San Marino to be internationally recognised, establish a date for that recognistion arbitarily and claim that its constitution is not old, but you don't know how old. You refer to French recognition of the US, but dismiss French recognition of San Marino. You claim I have my facts wrong about Massachusetts and US history, but talk about Italy as though it existed prior to 1861. My argument does not rest on the soveriegty (I said nation) of Massachusetts (does 1776 mean nothing?), but about your invalid insistance on recognition. This would normally lead one to ask when was the soveriegnty of Massachusetts recognised by "all of Europe or the world"? However the answer would only be relevant if Massachusetts wrote its constitution in 1599 or earlier.
Are you from Massachusetts? Are you not writing in defence of the claims of your state? Myself, I personally unconnected with San Marino. Never been there, don't know anyone from there. So nobody is going to take your POV slur seriously. You have a case to prove. Please give some evidence that San Marino was not an independent state or republic in 1780. --Dlatimer 01:02, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
PS. I draw your attention to this map of Italy (size 1MB) showing the various kingdoms and republics as of 1494.

Let me suggest doing some search in Google Scholar etc. for academic sources. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:42, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Britannica 1911

According to Britannica 1911 In the 10th century a communal constitution was established. The republic as a rule avoided the faction fights of the middle ages, but joined the Ghibellines and was interdicted by the pope in 1247-1249. After this it was protected by the Montefeltro family, later dukes of Urbino, and the papacy, and successfully resisted the attempts of Sigismondo. Malatesta against its liberty. In 1503 it fell into the hands of Caesar Borgia, but soon regained its freedom. Other attacks failed, but civil discords in the meantime increased. Its independence was recognized in 1631 by the papacy. In 1739 Cardinal Alberoni attempted to deprive it of its independence, but this was restored ~fl 1740 and was respected by Napoleon. (I presume the later event was in 1796) --Dlatimer 04:05, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Swiss Cantons

Switzerland has a similar federal structure to the United States, however its consituent republican polities date back from the 13th and 14th centuries. If we use the logic that places Massachusetts ahead of the United States in terms of the age of its constitution, it is likely that one of the Swiss cantons has a very old still-functioning constitution. I don't know if this is true, but if older than 1600, it will be worth mentioning in the article. --Dlatimer 14:31, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry to disappoint you: the oldest still-functioning constitution is the constitution of the Canton of Geneva which entered into force on May 25, 1847. All of the older cantonal constitutions were repealed by the French when they defeated the Swiss Confederation in 1798 and founded the Helvetic Republic. The constitution of the Canton of Geneva as been amended many times and underwent major changes in 1958. If you can read German, Italian or French, please see the Historisches Lexikon der Schweiz for more information. --Idefix 19:07, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
I am not disappointed. You've saved me some time. That means that Massachusetts is the second oldest, after San Marino. I cannot think of any other possibility. --Dlatimer 02:10, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
The first Swiss constitution was declared under the name of Helvetic by Napoleon but was broken down after Napoleons fall. The actual constitution was built after the Swiss civil war 1847 based on the American two chamber system for the legislative and French directory of 1789 seven confederation presidents in the executive by the liberals.

--80.254.173.98 13:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you are mistaken. The constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts was ratified in 1780 (and is still in effect). The Canton of Geneva was 1847. The constitution of San Marino, although having roots in 1600 is not the same today. In 1739, Cardinal Giulio Alberoni, legate of Ravenna, tried to "liberate" San Marino by aiding certain rebels, contrary to the orders of Pope Clement XII, invaded the republic, imposed a new constitution, and endeavored to force the Sanmarinese to submit to the Government of the Pontifical States. In fact, San Marino has no formal written constitution today.--207.17.136.151 08:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

So San Marino got a new constitution in 1739, but lost it? Can you tell us what happened to it? --Dlatimer 03:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Claims in other articles

The following articles also have claims about the oldness of certain constitutions:

See also Corsican Constitution. Polish constitution has some interesting info in the FA article on Polish Constitution of May 3, 1791. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Polish Addition

Disappointing to see that the Polish claim of "oldest modern constitution in Europe" has been added to this page, when request to not change Constitution_of_Poland page is respected and when various issues are being reviewed. Note the cautious wording adopted re San Marino and Massechusetts. Note the complaint about a lack of world wide view. e.g. where is the oldest modern constitution in Africa, Asia? --Dlatimer 15:22, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I may be missing something here, but... what addition? What request? What's your point, exactly? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:17, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
The addition to this article is "It was the first modern constitution in Europe". The request in you made Constitution_of_Poland was "I'd like to see some sources before we change it". The point is that we're going through a process of trying to verify claims before new ones are made. Finally "first in Europe" is eurocentric. The Corsican example, which I've now seen briefly mentioned in other sources puts the claim into doubt. --Dlatimer 03:42, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Feel free to reword the claim to someting you find more NPOV. There have been no requests not to change, only request for sources (please note that article on Polish 1791 constitution gives an academic reference to a US source saying it was the first European constitution).. We need a sourced definition of 'modern constitution' to be able to judge what is and what is not (and preferably, considering W:NOR, we should simply find academic articles making all those judgements). I am quite interested in this question, as you might have noticed I wrote most of FA article on Polish constitution and the article on Corsican one. Btw, you may want to create an article about the San Marino constitution, I'd love to read more about it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:54, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
At this stage, sadly I only have enough info on the San Marino constitution for a stub. --Dlatimer 14:17, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Better stub then nothing. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 04:05, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
It wasn't me --Dlatimer 14:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree: what does "modern" mean, and why is the Polish constitution of 1791 "modern", but the French constitution of 1789 not "modern"? Goulo (talk) 04:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Connecticut Claim

This has been deleted as Virgina has a better claim. For example, this article from Britannica 1911 [5]:

the first representative assembly in North America, the Virginia House of Burgesses, a meeting of planters sent from the plantations to assist the governor in reforming and remaking the laws of the colony. In 1621 a constitution was granted whereby the London Company appointed the governor and a council, and the people were to choose annually from their counties, towns, hundreds and plantations delegates to the House of Burgesses ... in 1624 the king took the place and exercised the authority of the London Company

Actually, the Mayflower Compact trumps both.--AaronS 15:30, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
The Mayflower Compact refers to a "constitution" in the modern sense of the word, which makes me more doubtful about the Polish claim (oldest in Europe) in the article. That's why I believe we should not present this information as facts. User:dlatimer 22:27, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

It might at least be noted somewhere that The Fundamental Orders of Connecticut is the document in question. [6]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Constitution/Archive_1&oldid=1136636839"