Talk:Constitution of the United States

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Revision as of 14:02, November 29, 2010 by SPIKE (talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Sir Romartus in London found this article in sorry shape and referred it to me across the Atlantic (now see below). I agreed; the article was mostly lists, whose one-liners were rants, from right and left, against specific politicians and institutions. One of the lists was very nearly a retyping of the Bill of Rights, with twists and puns, as editors do with rock album/song titles in "bandcruft" articles before they come to VFD to be euthanized.

For the History section, I lifted the complete contents of the former article "U.S. Constitution," which now redirects here. That's why it's out of character with the rest.

The rest is a rewrite that uses virtually none of the themeless original. My style is to write funny stuff about the truth rather than pull randomness out of bodily orifices. So, although the interpretations and implications are total crap for the sake of humor, many of the underlying facts are true. When in doubt, read the Constitution yourself; it won't take long. The article is opinionated, but not partisan; both political parties regularly pee on the Constitution. I hope you like it; if not, this is a wiki, so you know what to do. (Go here.)

PS--No, the Constitution never does use the word "democracy." The Founders hated the idea, and didn't let the common man anywhere near the levers of power--state legislatures electing U.S. Senators and an Electoral College picking the President. They could not imagine that a Supreme Court decision rendered Monday would be read Tuesday morning by bus drivers and waitresses, and discussed that afternoon in the on-line Reader Response page to a newspaper. In their world, where maybe a dozen people in Boston had the wherewithal to publish pamphlets, they did not imagine commentary and satire coming from a cottage in the woods. They were right about a lot of things, but maybe their fear of democracy has been "overtaken by events." Spıke ¬ 11:48 5-Aug-10

edit Romartus asks me to work on the article

Moved here from my talk page

I came across Constitution of the United States. It's a bit listy with suspected vanity from a certain Lucas Bergman. I have only added a carte blanche joke but perhaps someone familiar with the American Constitution should repair it. I am still thinking about Pippi Longstocking repair job I have promised to do. I am trying to combine Ikea, the films of Ingmar Bergman and the Swedish TV series Wallander (based on the books) . It could be the Mother of All Cock-Up Cocktails. --LaurelsRomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 11:25, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

Oh my God. And the History is Anons and a Who's Who of Uncyclopedia's reprobates. I hereby assert ownership of this mess. Spıke ¬ 11:30 3-Aug-10
It's mostly finished; thank you for the recommendation. The article is more an essay with humor than the usual "randumbo" (a style that e|m|c recently called "preachy" when an UnNews of mine seemed headed to embarrass Obama on the Uncyclopedia home page). You are welcome to come play, either with fun turns-of-phrase (your postal-worker analogy was one of the high points of Dianalysis) or with misunderstanding of American civics of the sort that Brits are so good at.
I dropped in a few extra lines to the article. Use,abuse or ignore according to taste. Anyways, the article looks good. A companion piece to this - the British Constitution - would be easy:The Queen decides to reclaim all powers back under the 'Royal Pejorative'. --LaurelsRomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 14:39, August 4, 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! One thing I'll revert, though: I meant my various malapropisms off The Founders to be throw-away lines and not taken so seriously that they lead down new paths. Spıke ¬ 15:03 4-Aug-10
Personal tools