Difference between revisions of "US Constitution"

From Issuepedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m (category: US law)
(Undo revision 17317 by 72.189.70.240 (Talk))
 
(9 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)
Line 4: Line 4:
 
===Reference===
 
===Reference===
 
* {{wikipedia}}
 
* {{wikipedia}}
 +
* {{conservapedia}}
 +
* {{dkosopedia}}
 +
* {{sourcewatch}}
 +
* LessigWiki: [[lessigwiki:Article V Convention|Article V Convention]] - a discussion of rules for amending the Constitution
 
===Projects===
 
===Projects===
 
* [http://www.constitutioncenter.org/ National Constitution Center] in Philadelphia, PA: museum
 
* [http://www.constitutioncenter.org/ National Constitution Center] in Philadelphia, PA: museum
 
** [http://www.constitutioncenter.org/constitution/ "Interactive" Constitution"]: seems to be a bit of a misnomer, as the only interactivity is selecting which part of the constitution you want explained, but is useful in that it does have capsule summaries of the generally accepted meaning of each part of the Constitution as well as some of the significant concepts to which it refers.
 
** [http://www.constitutioncenter.org/constitution/ "Interactive" Constitution"]: seems to be a bit of a misnomer, as the only interactivity is selecting which part of the constitution you want explained, but is useful in that it does have capsule summaries of the generally accepted meaning of each part of the Constitution as well as some of the significant concepts to which it refers.
===Opinion===
+
===News===
* '''2007-05-31''' [http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/05/31/1554/ Repudiation, Not Impeachment] by Scott Ritter ([[Repudiation, Not Impeachment|analysis/discussion]]): rather than solving [[Bush's elevation of presidential power]] by impeaching him, we need to solve the broader problem of widespread claims (and belief) that the Constitution allows this sort of thing. Bush himself is just one example of a much more widespread problem.
+
* '''1988-09-12''' [http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE2DA173CF931A2575AC0A96E948260 Washington Talk: Briefing; The First Constitution]: "In the mid-16th century, five northeastern [[aboriginal American|Indian]] tribes - Mohawk, Seneca, Onondaga, Oneida and Cayugaa - formed the [[Iroquois Confederacy]], joined later by the Tuscarora tribe. They adopted a constitution, reflecting concepts of [[checks and balances]] and [[separation of powers]] that impressed such later Americans as [[George Washington|Washington]], [[Benjamin Franklin|Franklin]] and other [[US founding fathers|Founding Fathers]]." See also {{wpalt|Great Law of Peace}}, [http://www.indigenouspeople.net/iroqcon.htm full text] (English)
 +
===Filed Links===
 +
{{links.tagged}}

Latest revision as of 23:15, 22 July 2009

Overview

This article is a seed. You can help Issuepedia by watering it.

Links

Reference

Projects

  • National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, PA: museum
    • "Interactive" Constitution": seems to be a bit of a misnomer, as the only interactivity is selecting which part of the constitution you want explained, but is useful in that it does have capsule summaries of the generally accepted meaning of each part of the Constitution as well as some of the significant concepts to which it refers.

News

Filed Links

version 3

  • 2013-12-10 [L..T] Give Me Amendments or Give Me Death "Inside the secretive campaign by state legislators to pass conservative amendments in 34 states and rewrite the Constitution."
  • 2011-05-13 [L..T] Court denies right to resist illegal cop entry into home “Overturning a common law dating back to the English Magna Carta of 1215, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Hoosiers have no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes. .. In a 3-2 decision, Justice Steven David writing for the court said if a police officer wants to enter a home for any reason or no reason at all, a homeowner cannot do anything to block the officer's entry.”
  • 1988-09-16 [L..T] Originalism: The Lesser Evil "The principal theoretical defect of nonoriginalism, in my view, is its incompatibility with the very principle that legitimizes judicial review of constitutionality. Nothing in the text of the Constitution confers upon the courts the power to inquire into, rather than passively assume, the constitutionality of federal statutes."

version 2

    [refresh]