Talk:Alabama Constitution of 1901

This article is part of WikiProject Alabama, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Alabama on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlabamaWikipedia:WikiProject AlabamaTemplate:WikiProject AlabamaAlabama articles

Law Mid‑importance

	Law portal 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from Alabama Constitution of 1901 appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 3 December 2004. The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that at over 310,000 words, the Alabama Constitution is the longest constitution in the world?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2004/December.

Wikipedia

Word Count Image

I feel the image is not "unencyclopedic" as it gives a fairly good appromimation of how long the Alabama Constitution really is. KeoniPhoenix 01:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But it this way: If you get this articel a legit, free, clear (enough) pic of it on display at the state capitol, or in a coorthouse, or the original on display (Like the Federal one @ the Nacional Archives), or a pic of the convention (MAYBE), then I'll recommend it replace the current one. As it is it's the best pic for this page I can come up with or think of. 68.39.174.238 10:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Longest constitution?

The Constitution of India page also claims to be the longest constitution in the world. Which one is right?

I think that the Constitution of India is referring to national constitutions, only. I'm not positive about this, however. Since this page lists the number of words in the Alabama Constitution, we could resolve the problem if we found the number of words in the Constitution of India. — Mateo SA | talk 03:20, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)

I've done so and the results are listen on the Talk page for the Indian constitution. 68.39.174.150 19:42, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Obvious Amendments

Among the "blatantly obvious" amendments, I made a notation that Madison County's amendment to prevent municipalities from exercising extraterritorial jurisdiction was an effort to prevent a "police jurisdiction" from going beyond city boundaries -- a practice that is common in Alabama. I'll leave it to others as to whether that bullet point should be eliminated altogether.

Ahh, I didn't know that... personally, I'll consider removing that section, or maybe noting it somewhere else. Just reading the amendment with no background it seemed rather blatant. 68.39.174.238 01:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your comment, I have removed that. To someone unfamiliar with AL, that looked extremely strange. 68.39.174.238 22:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The sportsmans bill of rights is not as blatant as it seems, it was enacted to define the legal difference between hunting and fishing as a "right" and not a "privilege." It was a popular movement a few years back and several states enacted similar legislation. At the same time the state also made it illegal to interfere with the act of lawful hunting or fishing. This was response to anti-hunting protests.68.113.118.223 02:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, I remember Tennessee was doing something like that, but it was extremely broad and was prevented, or something. Come to think of it, that section is probably nothing BUT things that are nonsensical out of context. 68.39.174.238 02:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alabama Citizens for Constitutional Reform

There is a group representing both liberals and business interests that would like to re-write the Alabama constitution altogether, and this effort is supported by several of the state's newspapers, such as Mobile's Press-Register. It would greatly add to the article if someone with more knowledge of the issues surrounding a constitutional re-write would add a section.

The convention proceedings

The state legislature seems to be getting the convention journal 1901 online. While it's dry, it does have some attention-getting parts, such as an unfavorable reference to the Committee on Corporations, the old Railroad Commission, and an unbelievably stereotypical ramble by a self-described "old fogy" in support of the "white male" clause in the electoral part: http://www.legislature.state.al.us/misc/history/constitutions/1901/proceedings/1901_proceedings_vol1/day52.html 68.39.174.238 02:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV problem

The article is completely negative about the Alabama constitution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.248.123.28 (talk) 01:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's unbalanced, however the principal thing about the constitution is it's notorious size and content. I've tried to add some info that is more general and neutral, however more is needed. 76.117.247.55 (talk) 03:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV is not about finding positive as well as negative things about the constitution. It is about using sources that provide a thorough overview and description of the situation. If sources agree that the constitution is unwieldy, too lengthy, and creates a cumbersome form of government, then maybe it does. Are these aspects described in factual language and comparisons to other states? If editors find sources that point out positive aspects, then they can add them. A factual statement is not inherently negative if it is describing reality. Editors can also compare lawmakers' original intent and the world they wrote in, to the types of problems encountered by state residents today. Does the constitution enable state and county governments to accomplish their work in an efficient manner? If the constitution does not work, it is not POV to say so. Parkwells (talk) 17:27, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment 693

The article lists Amendment 693 as not existing, but the Legislate of the State of Alabama lists it in their website:

http://www.legislature.state.al.us/codeofalabama/constitution/1901/CA-570623.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.64.34.81 (talk) 01:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where do we say that? I searched but couldn't find "693" anywhere on this page. 76.117.247.55 (talk) 03:59, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Previous constitutions

Could anyone supply any information about Alabama's five previous constitutions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.216.38.68 (talk) 17:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think WikipediA has anything on them, but the State Legislature has info and copies on its site: http://www.legislature.state.al.us/misc/history/constitutions/constitutions.html 76.117.247.55 (talk) 03:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moved links

It seems that all the links to the online copy of the constitution have moved. I think I've fixed 'em all:

http://www.legislature.state.al.us/codeofalabama => http://alisondb.legislature.state.al.us/alison/codeofalabama

and

http://www.legislature.state.al.us/history/ => http://www.legislature.state.al.us/aliswww/history/

HughesJohn (talk) 15:12, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2004 proposal

The 2004 proposal was narrowly defeated by fewer than 2,000 votes,[8] due to objections by conservatives who saw it as a "plot to raise taxes."[2]

This reads like a jab at conservatives and doesn't really supply any information. If you look at the edit at

18:40, 8 February 2015‎ Parkwells (talk | contribs)‎ . . (29,047 bytes) (+709)‎ . . (→‎Discrimination: c/e) (undo)

The section was much more informative prior to the edit, and it actually provided the reason. I think it needs to be changed.

Bowerbush3 (talk) 04:24, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Constitution of Alabama. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304075730/http://www.yale.edu/yjil/files_PDFs/vol34/Krishnamurthy.pdf to http://www.yale.edu/yjil/files_PDFs/vol34/Krishnamurthy.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:42, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]