This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Constitution of the United States is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States Constitution, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Constitution of the United States on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United States ConstitutionWikipedia:WikiProject United States ConstitutionTemplate:WikiProject United States ConstitutionUnited States Constitution
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
This article is within the scope of National Archives project, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.National ArchivesWikipedia:WikiProject National ArchivesTemplate:WikiProject National ArchivesNational Archives
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Wikipedia
Kyle Keeler (May 24, 2024). "Wikipedia's Indian problem: settler colonial erasure of native American knowledge and history on the world's largest encyclopedia". Settler Colonial Studies. Retrieved May 26, 2024. Each of these tactics have been on display at the talk page for the 'Constitution of the United States,' which is missing a major piece of scholarly criticism: '"We the People" privileged white male landowners, excluded white women from the vote, and excluded slaves and American Indians from citizenship.' Western Shoshone historian Ned Blackhawk further explains that 'the Constitution excluded [Native people] and aided in their dispossession. … its framers worked to ensure Anglo-American supremacy over interior lands, Native peoples, and African American slaves. It became, in short, a constitution for colonialism.' Ostler has also shown that land ownership amongst the framers stemming from such dispossession strengthened their elite positions, as it 'would … ameliorate social class divisions and reinforce a common identity among free whites of racial superiority in relation both to African Americans … and Native Americans.' These points are repeated in reputable scholarship; however, they are absent from Wikipedia.
The criticism centers on what was meant by the phrase "We the people". The issue is important—profound, really—but what appears here is so simplistic and worded so poorly as to be totally worthless. The criticism warrants thorough research of scholarly sources on par with those that provided the basis for the rest of the article. As soon as the Internet Archive is back in full service, I'll tend to this, but in the meantime, if anyone would like to improve the section, please do. Allreet (talk) 03:40, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Currently the text of the 2nd to 4th sentences in this bullet point reads :"At the time it was sent to the states for ratification, an affirmative vote by ten states would have made this amendment operational. In 1791 and 1792, when Vermont and Kentucky joined the Union, the number climbed to twelve. Thus, the amendment remained one state shy of the number needed for it to become part of the Constitution." I believe there is some thext missing from this description for the term "Thus" to be appropriate. I don't have the relevant detail myself, but this might perhaps have explained that there were 9 votes for ratification when the required number was 10, and 11 at a later stage when the required had risen to 12. (Perhaps it's been accidentally deleted in a previous clean-up - unfortunately I don't know how to search through the history to see if it was ever there?) By comparison, the description in the following bullet point does include just such an explanation. I believe either the missing detail should be added (my preference) or the section reworded to omit the word "thus". JA 1961 (talk) 14:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I recently suggested that the 28th Amendment be listed as ratified. I was rudely and falsely accused of trolling. This accusation violates the first rule of this talk page, "Assume good faith." I am perfectly serious when I say that the 28th Amendment has been ratified. The American Bar Association and every major Constitutional law scholar in the U.S. says that it has been. See https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/directories/policy/annual-2024/601-annual-2024.pdf. I'm happy to discuss this with anyone who is willing to do so politely.
--Lewis Call, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus of History, Cal Poly San Luis Obispo Lewis Call (talk) 17:11, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I reposted this 4 days ago, after someone falsely accused me of trolling and deleted my original post. I have had no replies since then. This issue is quite urgent. Every day, Trump issues Executive Orders purporting to direct the federal government to engage in sex-based discrimination. Every one of these orders is unconstitutional, because they violate the 28th Amendment, which has been properly ratified and really is part of the Constitution. Wikipedia can help the people who are fighting Trump's unconstitutional orders by recognizing that the ERA is the law of the land. Please help! Lewis Call (talk) 18:17, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia awaits the relevant signature of the Archivist. We do not lead, especially with regard to contentious issues. The extension of the deadline by a simple, rather than 2/3, congressional majority, the rescission of ratification by five states before the original deadline, and the imposition of any deadline at all (which the Supreme Court allowed in Dillon v. Gloss) are three of the issues being contested. Dhtwiki (talk) 11:16, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your thoughtful reply. I respectfully suggest that the issues you mention should not prevent Wikipedia from listing the 28th Amendment as ratified. The Constitution does not provide any role for the Executive Branch in the amendment process. Therefore the National Archivist (an employee of the Executive Branch) has no authority to determine whether or not an amendment has been ratified. As Laurence Tribe and other scholars have noted, the role of the Archivist is purely ministerial. Dillon v. Gloss was a case regarding the 18th Amendment; in this case, the deadline was included in the text of the amendment itself, and therefore had the force of law. That is not the case with respect to the 28th Amendment. The Constitution does not allow states to rescind ratification; therefore the purported recissions of ratification by five states are null and void. See https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/directories/policy/annual-2024/601-annual-2024.pdf page 14. This issue is only "contentious" because then-President Trump chose not to announce ratification when Virginia became the 38th state to ratify in 2020. I look forward to continuing this conversation, and I sincerely hope that Wikipedia will do the right thing and announce to the American people that sex-based discrimination is unconstitutional. Lewis Call (talk) 16:35, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A week ago, I was told that Wikipedia must wait for the National Archivist to take action. Since then, Trump has illegally fired the Archivist. We can't afford to wait. The ratification deadline established by Congress in 1972 was a non-binding, advisory deadline. The deadline was included in the resolution proposing the amendment, not in the text of the amendment itself, and so it has no legal force. Dillon v. Gloss was a case concerning the 18th amendment, an amendment whose text did include a binding deadline, so that case is not relevant to the 28th amendment. States do not have a constitutional right to rescind their ratification of amendments. States have tried to do this several times in the past, and they have failed every time. I discuss all of these issues in detail here: https://open.substack.com/pub/lewiscall/p/equality-now?r=13gs4o&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true . This issue is quite urgent. Every day, the federal government engages in sex-based discrimination against girls, women, and transgender people. We need to say that this discrimination is unconstitutional, because it is, and because saying so will help people who are fighting against this discrimination in the courts. Please help! Lewis Call (talk) 16:43, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't urgent at all, because Wikipedia has nothing to do with any of this. Whether or not Wikipedia lists this will have zero impact on the courts. Wikipedia must follow its own policies here, which means waiting until there is general agreement in reliable sources. Also, have a look at WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS - you seem to be trying to use Wikipedia in a way that is explicitly against how the site is designed. MrOllie (talk) 16:59, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Substack link leads to a mostly blank page, and you cannot expect people to subscribe to your newsletter to read your further thoughts on this. I can see a state being foiled in trying to rescind its ratification of an article that has been admitted to the constitution, but in this case the rescissions were well before any deadline. Can you point to any legal decision where the latter case applied? Dhtwiki (talk) 13:13, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for trying to "right a great wrong." I did not know that this was against Wikipedia's policies. I do not expect anyone to subscribe to my newsletter. I just gave that link because the discussion--which includes many quotations from reliable sources, with citations--was too long to put on this Talk page. It is possible that Substack asks people who click the link if they want to subscribe; if so, that was not my intent, and I apologize for that, too. On the question of rescissions: in 1868, the U.S. Secretary of State was responsible for promulgating new amendments. By July 1868, Secretary Seward had received ratifications of the 14th amendment from three-quarters of the states, but only if he included New Jersey and Ohio, both of which had tried to rescind their ratifications. Seward asked Congress, and both Houses of Congress declared that the 14th amendment was part of the Constitution, so Seward certified it. See Kallen, Michelle, and Morgan Maloney. ""In Toto" and "Forever": Why States Cannot Rescind Ratification of Constitutional Amendments." Journal of Law & Politics, vol. 38, no. 1, 2023, p. 33-34. Lewis Call (talk) 22:28, 18 February 2025 (UTC) (edited 14:54, 19 February 2025 (UTC))[reply]
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg)
