User talk:SMP0328./Archive 2013

Request for external links

Dear SMP0328. I'm a new user to Wikipedia, and so am not familiar with what is meant by "external links." I provided two references to Los Angeles Times articles on an anti-slavery case the Department of labor filed in 1990. Let me know what I would need to do to help you with this request. Also, I'm not even sure how to communicate with you or find your response. But I will click on this "Sign your post" link and hope I hear back from you. Thanks. Daniel Draney (talk) 18:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No reason to remove unique fact about Second Amendment's prefatory clause

SMP0328,

In a very long article on the Second Amendment, you have removed the interesting fact that unique among the Bill of Rights, it gives a stated purpose (the militia clause) to modify its main clause. Now, I can understand those who support the Heller decision wanting to buck up the Supreme Court's recent decision that the first 13 words of the Second Amendment are entirely meaningless. But apart from this strong POV on the issue -- and remember this is an article about the Second Amendment and not the Heller decision, why would you refuse to allow a wikipedia reader to know this unique fact about the Second Amendment?

It's true. It's verifiable. It's unique. It's reliable.

If you want to put it in another section, I'm open to discussing it. Where would you like to put it? Frankly, I think it's important enough to have a section on its own. But it's been deleted twice now. And no one has ever given a reason. Your only reason given is "unnecessary." Heck, I could argue that a whole bunch of things in wikipedia are unnecessary. But how can you deny the importance of something unique in the Bill of Rights and possibly unique in the entire Constitution? Where else in the Constitution does it give a reason to accompany its powers? For example the First Amendment just says "Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion..." but never gives a reason why.

I respectfully suggest "unnecessary" is not a sufficient reason to delete something this important. Wikipedia should err on the side of inclusion. But if you truly believe it's unnecessary, I would suggest that there are several paragraphs in the article that are far more unnecessary.

I see you have a large number of awards. Congratulations. It's why I'm appealing to you personally and privately to put on your "good editor" hat and respectfully rethink your decision. GreekParadise (talk) 14:16, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't remove that reference, I just fixed it. You referred to the Second Amendment as an amendment to the Bill of Rights. That's wrong. It's an amendment to the Constitution. I removed the quoted material, because it was redundant as it is already in the Text section. SMP0328. (talk) 20:59, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's certainly part of the Bill of Rights and an amendment to the Constitution. Sounds like you don't disagree to include the sourced info that it's the only part of the Bill of Rights with a stated purpose, so I'll include it. Thanks.GreekParadise (talk) 19:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

incorporation of 2nd amendment.

I saw your revert. I made comment on the article talkGaijin42 (talk) 18:54, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neurotically Yours

Hey, I've come back to make a few minor edits to things around the wiki, and noticed a request on the Neurotically Yours talk page in the critic section requesting an image. I remember you helped me out quite a bit before, and was hoping you'd team up with me again to try to figure out a way to make this happen. Thanks! -Poodle of Doom (talk) 19:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please undo auto archiving of 14 days on Second Amendment article

It makes the discussion hard to read when I keep having to bring back old archives from the dead. OK if we leave the discussion up until consensus is reached? GreekParadise (talk) 07:01, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've set it to 21 days. That means archiving will occur for any thread that has remained unchanged for three straight weeks. SMP0328. (talk) 19:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. ThanksGreekParadise (talk) 15:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Cleanup

Hello, SMP0328.. You are invited to join WikiProject Cleanup, a WikiProject and resource for Wikipedia cleanup listings, information and discussion. To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:22, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for joining the project, and please feel free to post articles for cleanup there! Cheers, Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:12, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Second Amendment Collective-Rights History pre-Heller

Please review prior to editing or commenting further on the Second Amendment. I have posted it on the Talk Page as well, but I'm reaching out to you and all other editors personally because I sincerely believe when you review the evidence and when you search for contrary evidence, you will see I am correct about this history. I'm not claiming you personally had any statement about this, but I wanted to post the identical thing on every editors' talk page so please do not take it personally. "You" refers to anyone who disputes the reliable sources I have posted below.

The law WAS collective only prior to Heller. If I show you 3 cases and several commentaries by irrefutably accurate sources and you cannot show me a single case from 1939 to 2000 to refute it, you have to accept that history is history.

Here are some quotes from:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nra-money-helped-reshape-gun-law/2013/03/13/73d71e22-829a-11e2-b99e-6baf4ebe42df_story.html

In 1977 at a Denver hotel, Don Kates paced a conference room lecturing a small group of young scholars about the Second Amendment and tossing out ideas for law review articles. Back then, it was a pretty weird activity in pursuit of a wacky notion: that the Constitution confers an individual right to possess a firearm.
“This idea for a very long time was just laughed at,” said Nelson Lund, the Patrick Henry professor of constitutional law and the Second Amendment at George Mason University, a chair endowed by the National Rifle Association. “A lot of people thought it was preposterous and just propaganda from gun nuts.” ...
The Second Amendment states: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Before the Heller decision, the Supreme Court and lower courts had interpreted the language as “preserving the authority of the states to maintain militias,” according to a Congressional Research Service analysis.
“It was a settled question, and the overwhelming consensus, bordering on unanimity, was that the Second Amendment granted a collective right” enjoyed by the states, not individuals, Bogus said. Under this interpretation, the Constitution provides no right for an individual to possess a firearm.
Lund [Remember he's the NRA-endowed Second-Amendment professor!] agreed that there was a consensus but said it was “based on ignorance.”

OK, you don't trust the Congressional Research Service, the Library of Congress, the New York Times, the Washington Post, or the National Rifle Association-endowed professor of constitutional law and the Second Amendment? How about trusting the courts themselves? Just read these three:

- Cases v. United States, 131 F.2d 916 (1st Cir. 1942)

- United States v. Warin, 530 F.2d 103, 106 (6th Cir. 1976) (“[i]t is clear that the Second Amendment guarantees a collective rather than an individual right.”)

- Love v. Peppersack, 47 F.3d 120, 123 (4th Cir. 1995) (“the lower federal courts have uniformly held that the Second Amendment preserves a collective, rather than individual right.”)

All of them cited Miller. All of them were the law of the land. There's not a single case in all of American history in any court state or federal that found an individual right to bear arms absent service in a militia and struck down a gun law as unconstitutional prior to 2000. I will pay $100 to anyone who can find any case that says so.

Furthermore, there is not a single President prior to 2000 that stated he believed the Supreme Court conferred an individual right to bear arms under the Second Amendment absent service in a militia. Even Reagan didn't believe it. I will pay $100 to anyone who can find any President that stated this position prior to 2000.

Truth is truth. If you don't like truth, you should not be editing wikipedia. Many editors here, I know you believe otherwise. But whoever told you a lie was true was mistaken. Read my sources. Then look for reliable sources on your own. When you can't find any (and if you do, I'll give you $100), I would respectfully request that all of you withdraw your objections. If you don't, then you are clear POV-pushers and should not be editing wikipedia.

Otherwise, if the only way to remove unreliable sources in wikipedia is to put up a request for comment and/or mediation, let's do it. I'll bet my reliable sources against all of your absence of sources any day. There is nothing wrong with admitting you are wrong. People are trying to revise history and some people fall prey to it. Maybe you read something on the Internet from some ignorant blogger and believed it to be true. I respectfully request you look at the sources and come to the only accurate conclusion.

My history is backed up by EVERY judicial decision and EVERY President prior to 2000 and the Library of Congress, and the Congressional Research Service, and the NRA-endowed Professor of the Second Amendment, not to mention the NYT and the WP. And the contrary position is backed up by some sincere mistaken beliefs AND NOT A SINGLE SOURCE.

An honest and ethical wikipedia editor cannot look truth in the face and declare it untrue without a single reliable source to back it up. I will post this on the talk page of every editor who has edited or commented recently because I sincerely want all of you to review the sources before further editing or commenting.

Further sources:

http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL34446_20080411.pdf (Congressional Research Service)

http://www.loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php (Library of Congress)

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/us/06firearms.html (New York Times)

GreekParadise (talk) 16:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Second Amendment to the United States Constitution". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! CarrieVS (talk) 20:33, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

March 2013

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Please do not blog or counter blog. Use the proper format. Direct personal comments to the talk page of the user. No personal attacks. This note is about behavior not content J8079s (talk) 18:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who did I attack? SMP0328. (talk) 18:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The template is confusing, he is accusing us of WP:FORUM, not attacks. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:17, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The part that says "No personal attacks" was added by J8079s, it's not automatically part of that template. As for FORUM, he needs to say where we weren't talking about the article. I have always been talking about the article. SMP0328. (talk) 19:43, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

3 Revert Rule Violation, edit warring on Second Amendment Page

While I recognize that this is a difficult topic over at the Second Amendment page, I had hoped that the fact that the page was locked for a long time would result in editors coming to civility and not edit warring on the actual page. I note that you have broken the 3RR rule which is considered a bright red line and includes any three reverts on a page within 24 hours. Given the history of the page, I will report your actions for administrative action and given the activity on the page, a lot of edit warring appears to be going on by multiple parties, they might lock the entire page down. We really need to stick to the talk page and iron out our differences there rather than resort to edit warring. Having the main page locked or individual editors blocked does not advance the goal of gaining consensus. See WP:3RR. I will watch this page for any replies.-Justanonymous (talk) 20:47, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I deny edit warring. I will continue to edit the 2A article. I won't revert for today on that article, except for Vandalism. SMP0328. (talk) 20:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you, I brought it to an admin's attention. We'll let him judge and decide what actions to take on you, all of us, or the page. Breaking 3RR is usually a bright red line though regardless of how we try to phrase the action.-Justanonymous (talk) 20:58, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see that everybody is working towards consensus. I appreciate your willingness not to revert for today, but keep in mind that 3RR is really, really a red line, regardless of your noble intentions; so consider this a warning. I do not want to lock the article down again, but will do so if this continues. And I do not want to start dealing blocks out. Thanks for your work here on the article, btw. Lectonar (talk) 21:16, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Drive-by tags"

Hi, I noticed that you reverted some of my tags. I'm new to this and I'm a little confused as to why. Do I have to put the dispute on the talk page first? The instructions were listed the other way around. Now that I have added my dispute to the talk page, can I put the tags back on?

Thank you,

Nosfercho (talk) 18:39, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When an article is tagged, the reasons for the tagging should be on that article's talk page before or shortly after the tagging. In this case, I don't think the issues you raise involve POV. Instead they involve parts of the article that can be improved. That because there is a flaw in an article does not mean that article is biased. You make good points, but they don't involve POV. SMP0328. (talk) 19:36, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited President of the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Repository (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:16, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On not needing to mention the author of a majority S.C.o.t.U.S. decision

... that's a really good point! Do you sometimes get the sense that there are shifting standards for who takes the rap in controversial decisions? Like, why is Taney's name always mentioned in references to the Dred Scott decision, when six other judges totally agreed with him? I wonder if the relevant WikiProject has ever considered this issue. groupuscule (talk) 22:37, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In Taney's case, it's because it was his idea to make Dred Scott such a broad ruling. There were multiple ways to narrowly rule on that case. Taney thought he could resolve the issue of slavery. As history has shown, he only made thing much worse. SMP0328. (talk) 23:16, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it was JB's idea? Maybe other justices also wanted to make it a broad ruling? (Conversely, why not attribute motives to Roberts for Shelby? etc.) groupuscule (talk) 23:26, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These days consensus has to be reached for a SCOTUS decision, no matter who writes the opinion. Sounds like Wikipedia. SMP0328. (talk) 23:33, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

United States Bill of Rights

I don't know if this one is on your watchlist already, but I thought I'd give you a ping to let you know that I put United States Bill of Rights up for GA today. If you have a chance, I'd value your input, especially in the judicial interpretation section I added. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:05, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Enforcement Clause" as a proper noun

The term "Enforcement Clause" (or its lesser-used alternative "Enabling Clause"), as it refers to Section 5 of the 14th Amendment, Section 2 of the 15th Amendment, Section 2 of the 13th Amendment, etc., usually is treated as a proper noun like most constitutional clauses, even though the section that contains it contains nothing else. The Supreme Court treated the term as such throughout the entirety its opinions in City of Boerne v. Flores, Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board v. College Savings Bank, and most other enforcement cases. Also, both secondary sources cited at the end of the sentence in the 14th Amendment article also treat it as a proper noun. Thus, unless you know of a compelling reason otherwise, the article should reflect this common use of the term among courts and lawyers.

Also, while this isn't the biggest deal in the world, I have noticed that you appear to have a tendency to mark edits as minor when you are changing substantive content, such as when you removed the terms "reverse incorporation" and "Enforcement Clause" after I had just added them to the article with sources. Typically, per WP:MINOR, edits should be marked as minor when making spelling or grammar fixes, correcting obvious errors, or reverting vandalism, but not when the edit changes the substance of an article or when it's likely to lead to a content dispute.

Don't take any of this the wrong way; I appreciate your contributions, and I am happy to work with a fellow member of the legal community in developing law-related articles. There aren't enough of us on Wikipedia. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 15:43, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A common description of a class is a common noun, not a proper noun. You are a Wikipedia editor, not a Wikipedia Editor, because that is a common description of everyone who edits at Wikipedia. Section 5 is an enforcement clause, not an Enforcement Clause, because it is a common description of any provision of any law that deals with how that law is to be enforced.

Minor edits are those that are made with the reasonable belief that they will not be disputed. Usually minor edits are non-substantive. This is what I believed when I marked those edits as minor. SMP0328. (talk) 21:05, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how removing a legal doctrine's name can be considered a "non-substantive" edit, but that's neither here nor there. I am aware of the grammatical principle of which you speak, but proper nouns can, and often do, overlap with common nouns. For example, "congress" by itself is a common noun, but "Congress"--referring to the name of the federal legislature--is a proper noun. Same as here; "enforcement clause" is a common noun, but the Supreme Court itself in several of its opinions refers to Section 5 of the 14th Amendment as the "Enforcement Clause" in the proper sense (or more fully, "Enforcement Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment"), and Section 5 is also commonly referred to using the proper noun among legal scholars in their publications. Thus, this common usage of the term should be used on Wikipedia. Perhaps we could compromise with something like this: "Section 5, also known as the Enforcement Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, is ...", since that's the "full" proper name of the clause and should clear up the confusion. If you still disagree, I can bring it up on the article talk page so we can gauge the views of the other contributors. (This is of particular relevance because I'd like to really spruce up the Congressional power of enforcement article soon and would like consistence usage.) –Prototime (talk · contribs) 20:54, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've made the change you suggested. I prefer the other references to "Section 5" remain. SMP0328. (talk) 21:48, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me! Glad we worked it out. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 02:18, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent the Second Amendment article to dispute resolution

Please feel free to comment. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution GreekParadise (talk) 04:18, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've also posted a RfC. Please help resolve this.GreekParadise (talk) 04:48, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

dr

Just in case you noticed that the DRN listing of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Second Amendment to the United States Constitution was closed, please note that it has been reopened and your participation there would be very much appreciated. — Gaijin42 (talk) 18:48, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Misuse of rollback

Hi SMP0328, please review the guidelines for use of WP:ROLLBACK. It should not be used in an edit war, as it was here. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:19, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Impressive...

Hi SMP, I see that you are a Constitutionalist or at the very least someone that is interested in legal and political issues and articles on Wikipedia. I think this is wonderful and I'm glad that our paths have crossed. I look forward to interacting with you... :) --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 04:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're what I consider an expert and I value that...

~~~ has extended an olive branch of peace.

I meant what I said in my previous post to you. From my perspective and granted somewhat cursory review of your edit history, you have an impressive record of editing Constitutional and legal related articles. I have no problem or issue with deferring to your knowledge and, even in some instances, interpretation of legal precedent and Constitutional law even if I may not get the point you are trying to make with some of your comments. Case in point, here.

I applaud your recent efforts on a variety of Amendment articles, so please be careful about making inferences or accusations about Ownership when its you that has a clear and significant edit history related to Amendment articles. That said, I am a huge advocate for article Stewardship and that is what I feel that you are doing. But as much of an expert as any one person is, Wikipedia is still a group effort.

At the end of the day, I just want to see this article written as well as it can be in an encyclopaedic style and (obviously) within the WP guidelines. How can we join together to accomplish this? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 01:42, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seventh Amendment

Hey SMP, I just nominated Seventh Amendment of the US Const. for GA. If you're around and have a moment, would you glance over my recent additions and rewrites to make sure I haven't put in anything egregiously stupid? I've done my best to follow the sources that I'm working with but I have a weak grasp of civil procedure. Thanks! -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:57, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you probably saw I'm pulling out of this one for the time being; the signal-to-noise ratio there is pretty poor and I think it'd be better to spend my time elsewhere for a while. If you want to take Mark's suggestion and nominate it yourself, that's fine with me; if not, no worries. I think between the expansions you, me, and Anythingyouwant recently made to the article, it's pretty well covered, whether it has the GA blob atop it or not, and that's the important thing. I don't have any more amendment articles on my plate for the immediate future, but I hope to get through most of the remaining Bill of Rights in the coming year, so perhaps I'll see you on some of those. Enjoy the week, and your Thanksgiving! -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:45, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we can renominate the article in a couple of months. That way it will be more likely to get a fresh review. I look forward to working with you in the future. Have a Happy Thanksgiving. SMP0328. (talk) 02:25, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of discussion

Greetings. I saw that you removed a notice regarding a discussion from an article's talk page, but I don't understand why. You didn't leave an explanation in the edit summary... Was it an inappropriate request or something? Thanks, – Quadell ^(talk) 20:52, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I removed that notice because it is not relevant to the Fourth Amendment. The notice was about a discussion being conducted on the Second Amendment talk page. That discussion has nothing to do with the Fourth Amendment. SMP0328. (talk) 23:28, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for Mark Miller, but I would guess that since Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution is a GA, he was hoping that people who understand Constitutional issues could help resolve the disagreement. Regardless, it's usually considered rude to remove someone else's comments without their permission, unless those comments are abusive in some way. – Quadell ^(talk) 01:19, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He posted the same notice on other Constitutional amendment articles, so it doesn't appear to be something specific about the the 4A article. I think he was fishing for allies. SMP0328. (talk) 01:25, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't as if I can't see which ones were GA or not. I did indeed go to these articles hoping some of them were GA. I wasn't hoping they were stubs.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:33, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Preamble

Given the only citation offered is to an obscure textbook on European Constitutional Law, I just find the whole thing kind of weird and less than credible. For one thing, I should think that, if that were a prior draft of the text, that would be available online somewhere. MrArticleOne (talk) 23:26, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found this. Maybe we can add it to the article as an addition to, or a replacement of, the current source. SMP0328. (talk) 23:35, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Titles of Nobility Amendment

Hi, i provided a reliable source, its a link to an actual copy of the 1819 Revised code of the laws of Virginia, it does not get any more reliable than that... In reference to the titles of nobility amendment i tried to edit.. Would you like a proper citation with title of book, and page number?

http://famguardian.org/Subjects/LawAndGovt/LegalEthics/Missing13thAmendment-1819-laws-of-virginia.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tunafi1972 (talk • contribs) 05:01, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia's placing the amendment in its 1819 Revised Code is not the same as the State ratifying the amendment. The Revised Code was simply, but incorrectly, claiming that the amendment had become part of the Constitution. For more about TONA, download and read this article. SMP0328. (talk) 05:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the state to put it in there revised code book would only mean that the amendment was properly ratified. why else would the State of Virginia put it in there revised edition? And why else would over 23 states add it to there law books around the same time? http://www.amendment-13.org/publications.html

Furthermore that article you attached proved absolutely nothing. It did however use a couple of key words to label people from thinking anything contrary, like right-wing radicals, and dismissing it as the product of xenophobia and petty politics. Makes you wonder who wrote the article, wait was it the Marquette Law Review, Vol. 94, No. 311, 2010, BAR attorneys? That explains it, if a BAR Lawyer wrote it it must be true, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tunafi1972 (talk • contribs) 18:54, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A State's ratification must be done by that State's legislatures. A State publishing a copy of the Constitution that includes a proposed amendment does not mean that State ratified that proposed amendment. As for the "right wing" reference, I agree that it was unnecessary. Nonetheless, the math of those claiming TONA is the Thirteenth Amendment doesn't work. They claim that Virginia ratified it in 1819 and that ratification resulted in three-fourths of the States having ratified TONA. Even if Virginia ratified TONA in 1819, additional States had been admitted to the Union in the meantime. Those additional States mean that TONA was never one State away from becoming part of the Constitution. The closest TONA came to be adopted was two States. SMP0328. (talk) 20:14, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Constitution limits consideration of constitutional amendments to states already in the union and Congress provided no qualification in this or any other resolution proposing a constitutional amendment. Thus, even if a territory reached statehood before culmination of the ratification process, there was no standing for that state to participate in the process. If Congress meant for that legislative option to be available, it would have had to so stipulate.

And the state legislators did ratify the amended laws in the 1819 Revised Code, did you read any of the material i sent you?

BE it enacted by the General Assembly, That there shall be published an edition of the laws of this Commonwealth, in which shall be contained the following matters, that is to say : The Constitution of the United States and the amendments thereto."

Thats right on the first page, and i am not sure if your are aware that there was a war going on from 1812 to right before the printing of this law book, so even if it was ratified in 1811 or 1812 they could not have printed the amended laws until after the war. Even so, by 1819 even if there were new states that had formed there was no standing for that state to participate in the ratification process. So you see the amendment was properly ratified, and that can be seen by looking at the 1819 Virginia code book, or any of the other 23 plus states and there code books, all which had the titles of nobility amendment as the 13th amendment. You think 23 states in the Union got it wrong? for close to a century? Here are copies of the other 23 plus states that had the 13th amendment in there law books for over 60 plus years, Wyoming being one of them listing the 14th and 15th amendments right behind the 13th, amazing how for 60 plus years you can have a amendment to the constitution listed in your state that was never properly ratified, isnt it? http://www.amendment-13.org/publications.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tunafi1972 (talk • contribs) 03:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did read what you provided to me. Did you read what I provided you? States that are admitted to the Union during the ratification process are as much a part of the ratification process as are the other States. That has always been the rule. See Equal footing doctrine. Under your rule, the Congressional Apportionment Amendment was adopted, but the Bill of Rights was not adopted until 1939. With all due respect, what you are advocating are fringe theories. They are currently given the proper amount of weight in the TONA article. SMP0328. (talk) 04:33, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have told people in the past that wikipedia is a "Controlled" media source, just like all the other media sources out there, and you are just proving that point for me.

Equal footing is a constitutional law doctrine upon which States admitted to the United States are given the same legal rights as the preexisting states. The doctrine also prevents Congress from conditioning admission to the union on matters outside of its powers.[1] So please show me where it states that States that are admitted to the Union during the ratification process are as much a part of the ratification process as are the other States?

Do you understand what ratification Means? Did you read the definition of Ratification? Confirmation and acceptance of a previous act. Do you think by Virginia printing it in there law books in 1819 was not a clear indication of confirmation and acceptance? You think by them printing it in there amended laws in 1819 that is a Fringe theory, as you put it? You think over 23 other states putting it in there law books for almost a century, is part of a Fringe Theory?

With all due respect what you are posting back to me are Fringe theories, and what i am sending you are "Actual" publications of the law in actual books. I think you think you have some grasp on a concept that you have little or no grasp at all. You can show me all the Equal footing doctrine's or Congressional Apportionment Amendments, However that still does not change the simple fact that they have nothing to do with amendments in the process of being ratified. The Equal Footing doctrine just states that states entering the union are given the same legal rights as the preexisting states. It says nothing about ratifying amendments already in the process of being ratified.

Like I said, even if a territory reached statehood before culmination of the ratification process, there was no standing for that state to participate in the process. If Congress meant for that legislative option to be available, it would have had to so stipulate. That means they would have had to stipulate in the passing of the amendment, which no such stipulation was stated.

Do you understand?

And by the way the references you used in the titles of nobility amendment article are absolutely ridiculous.. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h Jol A. Silversmith (April 1999), "The "Missing Thirteenth Amendment": Constitutional Nonsense and Titles of Nobility", Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal 8: 577

Really? A BAR attorney that is certified in Washington D.C is your #1 source. Do you understand what the title of nobility amendment is all about? Do you understand what BAR stands for? British Accreditation Registry. Lets read the title of nobility amendment together shall we?

If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive or retain, any title of nobility or honor, or shall, without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them.[4][5] accept and retain any present, pension, office of emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince or foreign power. So what is the British Accreditation Registry? where is it domiciled? And your #1 source is a BAR Attorney? That would be like me quoting a fraudulent law, and referencing the person that wrote the law.

The fact remains this law was properly ratified as seen in the Virginia code of laws of 1819, and it was ratified by the legislators of virginai and the book was approved by the legislators for print, so i would like your "Titles of Nobility amendment page updated with this information. These are not frivolous they are actual amendments printed in actual books as i have shown you, you on the other hand have shown me nothing that states the contrary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tunafi1972 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to take a peak at this, the state of NH is putting forth a bill to recognize the original 13th amendment: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2013/HB0638.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tunafi1972 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That bill was tabled (Source). SMP0328. (talk) 22:56, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and? Does this mean that wikipedia is just another form of controlled media? Its obvious that wikipedia will never admit to there mistake and update the information on there website. I have proved to you that the 13th amendment was properly ratified. The State of NH has set forth that the 13th amendment was properly ratified, But yet wikipedia refuses to admit this fact. Wikipedia takes the side of a BAR associated traitor, over the facts of the matter. So what is your decision about updating your site? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tunafi1972 (talk • contribs) 04:53, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amdt 2

If you'd prefer something like this instead (as the second sentence), I'd be supportive: "There were several different reasons for this Amendment, and protecting militias was only one of them."Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:46, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why should that reason get special mention? SMP0328. (talk) 06:02, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because it gets special mention in the amendment itself. That's why many people mistakenly think that the amendment only protects the right of the militia to keep and bear arms, whereas SCOTUS has pointed out that the word "people" is broader than the word "militia".Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:06, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but you're wording can be easily misunderstood. Expressing one reason, even if you mention that there are others, gives the impression that the expressed reason is more important than the others. SCOTUS never said that the militia was the most important reason for the Second Amendment and so that reason should not be highlighted in the Introduction, especially in the first paragraph. SMP0328. (talk) 07:19, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Celestra has suggested some alternative wording, which I hope you'll consider. The best way to educate people is to confront the facts and explain why they should not be misunderstood. The amendment itself explicitly gives one and only one reason, and that's the militia. The lead needs to somehow acknowledge that fact, while making clear that there are other reasons too that are not explicit. Even if the militia was considered the most important reason, that doesn't mean other reasons are not fully covered and protected by the Amendment.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:32, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]