Talk:United States Bill of Rights

Former featured articleUnited States Bill of Rights 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.
Good articleUnited States Bill of Rights has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 24, 2007.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 3, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
March 3, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
March 26, 2006Featured article candidatePromoted
April 27, 2008Featured article reviewDemoted
June 30, 2011WikiProject peer reviewCollaborated
July 30, 2013Good article nomineeListed
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on November 20, 2004, December 15, 2004, December 15, 2005, December 15, 2006, December 15, 2007, December 15, 2008, December 15, 2009, December 15, 2010, December 15, 2012, December 15, 2016, and December 15, 2018.
Current status: Former featured article, current good article

Northwest Ordinance of 1787

edit

A lot of the text in the Bill of Rights resembles text in Article II of the Northwest Ordinance. It reads: "The inhabitants of the said territory shall always be entitled to the benefits of the writ of habeas corpus, and of the trial by jury; of a proportionate representation of the people in the legislature; and of judicial proceedings according to the course of the common law. All persons shall be bailable, unless for capital offenses, where the proof shall be evident or the presumption great. All fines shall be moderate; and no cruel or unusual punishments shall be inflicted. No man shall be deprived of his liberty or property, but by the judgment of his peers or the law of the land; and, should the public exigencies make it necessary, for the common preservation, to take any person's property, or to demand his particular services, full compensation shall be made for the same."

This article and this one point out that these rights appeared in the Bill of Rights only two years later. This paper seems to make the same case, though I have only read the abstract (as it's 65 pages long). So I propose listing it in the lead, along with the Virginian Declaration, the Magna Carta and the 1689 Bill of Rights. Richard75 (talk) 18:18, 2 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

I've added it, citing the second source I linked to above. Richard75 (talk) 10:38, 22 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
Have moved the Ordinance from "especially the" to "as well as" (leaving the Virginia Bill of Rights as the principal source for the concepts and not described as a duo-principal source). Randy Kryn (talk) 11:14, 22 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2020

edit

Reference in the opening section of this article to "the Magna Carta" should in fact be more simply to "Magna Carta". "The" is superfluous. Tomjoyner (talk) 05:32, 21 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

  Not done: Article is written in US English, use of definite article here is acceptable. Goldsztajn (talk) 22:33, 21 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Semi-protected edit request on 4 April 2022

edit

Missing from this page is what the National Defense Authorization Act of 2011 did to the Bill of Rights

In December 2011, Congress changed the Bill of Rights to remove habeas corpus using language in the National Defense Authorization Act of 2011. Only 13 senators, from both parties, vetoed this and on December 31, 2011 Obama signed it into law. [1] AccuracyPrevails (talk) 07:04, 4 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Not done: A law can't change the constitution, and that source is unreliable. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:04, 4 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

References

Hamilton's reaction to the Bill of Rights after they were proposed by Congress and ratified

edit

Is there a single reference that talks about Hamilton's reaction to the Bill of Rights after they were ratified and became law, or anything post-ratification where he invoked them in any way? Or even anything about his response once (his soon-to-be-former-partner) James Madison was convinced of the necessity of such a bill and Congress was well on its way to propose the amendments?

Every source I can find, and all the content current there in the relevant wiki pages, only talk about the pre-ratification part - Hamilton boasted in Federalist No. 84 essay that the Constitution was a masterpiece document the way it currently was and there was no need for a bill of rights; he was completely overruled as the other Federalists promised to add these amendments in order to assuage the Anti-Federalist concerns and help get the Constitution enacted. But is there any information on how he responded once it was clear he lost this battle? Or, once the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were in effect, any information about Hamilton mentioning them while in a government capacity as Secretary of the Treasury, or in any political discussion? Even the Alien and Sedition Acts article is missing any content that talks about them together.

The utter absence of such information and the complete silence from him is maddening - like he can never admit to anything from him and his essays being wrong. 2600:1012:A021:8AD:B9F8:AE1F:34FF:D500 (talk) 05:46, 18 August 2024 (UTC)Reply