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 articles
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 articles
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 articles
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 articles
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 articles
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 articles
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 articles
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 articles
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
[[Article Two of the United States Constitution#Clause 3: Electors|Article II, Section 1, Clause 3]] The anchor (#Clause 3: Electors) has been deleted.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors
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.
September 17 is correct, but I understand the confusion. September 13 was the date of the resolution, as stated in the header, whereas the text indicates "on the 17th of Sept....Congress assembled a constitution for the people of the United States", meaning that's when the resolution was passed and the Constitution was ratified. The language is archaic, and as the footnote indicates, the text is from the "rough" journal of the Congress, so these are more like notes than a formal document. That's one problem. Another is we shouldn't be using primary documents as sources. I'll fix everything by citing a book or some other secondary source that's much clearer. Thanks for pointing this out. Allreet (talk) 07:35, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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]
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg)
