Talk:Constitution of Mexico

Mexico Top‑importance

	Mexico portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mexico on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MexicoWikipedia:WikiProject MexicoTemplate:WikiProject MexicoMexico articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on February 5, 2005, February 5, 2006, February 5, 2011, February 5, 2012, February 5, 2013, February 7, 2022, and February 6, 2023.

Article 1[edit]

Article 1 does not say "preferences", it says "sexual preferences" (las preferencias sexuales), I believe it was reformed and worded that way in 2001 or 2003. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.230.160.69 (talk) 17:55, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled[edit]

I find the Article 18 crises section to be very slanted. Is it possible to get a rewrite?

STRONG SUGGESTION[edit]

Hi there,

Just a warning. The source you are quoting (http://www.iwp.edu/news/newsID.267/news_detail.asp) is HIGHLY unappropiate for you. That person is using one translation of the original 1917 Constitution, but with changes made only up to 1967 (!!!). Actually, if you track his (only) two sources, one direct to an unexistent page and the other to this one: http://www.ilstu.edu/class/hist263/docs/1917const.html that at the bottom clearly states it is an OLD version of the Constitution. Many of the articles have changed completelly, others added, and some even doesn´t exist anymore. For instance, this version doesn’t include the double nationality right, the changes on naturalization, multicultural / multilingual rights etc.etc. and even still include the death penalty (!!!). In fact, it really has very little to do with the current Constitution.

So that person is using a text more than 40 years outdated, not the current one, even if he claims to make an analysis of CURRENT laws. I he is doing that on purpose or just because plain stupidity, I don't know. But the fact is that he is Vice-President of the most anti-immigrant organization in Washington. For the sake of your entry, I would erase that reference, as it really doesn't help you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajusco (talk • contribs) 17:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV dispute: Article 18 crisis[edit]

The section of this article dealing Article 18 of the Constitution does not appear to be neutral.

It is given undue prominence. No other article of the constitution gets a section of its own.
The section appears to be a partisan commentary: it is labelled as a crisis, implying that it is a crisis of the constitution, whereas it actually discusses a dispute between Mexico and one of its neighbouring countries (the USA) which arises from a judicial ruling on the interpretation of Article 18.
The section does not read as fair to each side of the dispute: in its first sentence, it describes Article 18 as "troubling", before the article is even described.
The section has an American bias, since it is considered solely from the POV of extradition to the USA, and appears not to accept that Mexico may have legitimate grounds for its stance.
The section claims concerns from the "perspective of legal scholars", but cites no legal scholars as sources (in fact, no sources at all are cited). The concerns cited appear to be those which might be expected from American prosecutors, which is a rather different matter.

I suggest that this section should be deleted pending the expansion of the article to produce a fuller description of the Mexican constitution.

If it is felt appropriate for Wikipedia to cover the extradition dispute, that might be better achived done by providing a separate (but linked) article on the extradition dispute, or in the section on international strains in the article on extradition.

BrownHairedGirl 06:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with BrownHairedGirl. Section about Art-18 needs to be rewriten or even deleted. I dont found Art-18 as troubling; I also think there is not such a crisis. It is given undue prominence. --Abögarp 17:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further research reveals that the Mexican Supreme Court has revised its position on life sentences, and that extradition is now possible. I have therefore deleted the section, since it is clearly out of date. (Sources: "Wanted Fugitive Raul Gomez Garcia Extradited to the U.S." (US Embassy in Mexico) and Mexico alters extradition rules (BBC News)). There may be merit in a future section explaining the shifting interpretations, but I suggest that this should not be given undue prominence, and should be carefully checked against the nuances of what appears to be subtly shifting jurisprudence. In the meantime, I have added a paragraph to the article on Life imprisonment briefly explaining the history of the dispute, and linked to it from brief note on Article 18 under the new heading "other articles". I hope that this accommodates all viewpoints. BrownHairedGirl 11:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which Supreme Court?[edit]

Is it just me, or is anyone else confused by which Supreme Court is being discussed in the following? "The reason Article 18 has become an object of concern for these countries, notably the United States, is that the Supreme Court ruled in October 2001 that life imprisonment constitutes cruel and unusual punishment within the meaning of Article 22, partially because it fails to allow for the possibility of rehabilitation as required by Article 18." As the United States is mentioned just before the "Supreme Court", on a quick and casual reading I did a double-take when for a second I thought that the sentence was claiming the US Supreme Court of the United States had somehow ruled to honor Mexican law :-) Why not just eliminate the re-direct and use the title of the supreme court article. Yaf 01:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Issue resolved with latest edit removing the point of confusion. Yaf

Interwiki linking to Spanish Wikisource[edit]

Spanish Wikisource has the text of the Mexican Constitution. Anybody know a simpler way of linking to there (i.e. an interwiki of a different language?) --Cumbiagermen 07:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV dispute:Entire article[edit]

The articles of the Constitution presented here are selectively presented to emphasize portions of the Constitution that are used by anti-Mexican propagandistas. Specifically, Articles 32, 33, 55 91, 95. This article should present the whole Mexican Constitution article by article, or just be a summary of the whole thing, not a presentation of what articles right-wing theocrats want people to read.Tubezone 16:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand, why is this "anti-mexican propaganda"? Most nations have similar stipulations regarding foreigners. Except for the continuous prohibition on foreign pariticipation in national political affairs, most nations have these kind of stipulations. Of course, historical context is lacking. This prohibition on foreign participation in political affairs is based on the Mexican-American war, and the French Intervention.

Aditionally, I don't understand why these articles are what "right-wing theocrats" want people to read. If "right-wing" people wanted to convince anyone that this constitution is repressive, or goes against economic freedoms, they would point out other articles of the constitution, like Articles 6, 7, 25, and 28. I've added all of the above, except 28. I will soon. I am adding them not because I want to advance an agenda, but because they are part of the constitution.

I don't agree that "all" of the articles should be shown, because many of them deal with the same issue, or are repetitive in their nature (for example, all the articles that deal with the rights of the prosecuted may be summarized in a paragraph or two). However, notable articles, like the one that makes housing a right and not a privilege (4) and the one that grants freedom of speech as if it was not an inherent right, and then limits it to morality or whatever the State determines to be "peace" (6), or the one that gives the State the right to plan and execute national development, and places "social justice" as its main value, instead of giving economic freedom to the individuals and let Mexican choose by themselves the type of development they want, its pace, direction, and has "economic freedom" as its main value (25). Those are indeed very insightful.

Finally, for the "theocrats" you menction, I've added article 24, which is very important to me, yet was lacking in this article.

Since yours is the only current objection (article 18 is gone from this page), and your objection is based on attacks, I'll remove the NPOV tag. Hari Seldon 02:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Constitution[edit]

Today's "Did you know?" article about Hurtado and the Cristero war mentions that the 1917 Constitution had an article that forbade religious processions. That article is, I assume, not in force anymore. It would be useful if there was a section discussing any changes in the Constitution since 1917.RFB 17:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC) processions[reply]

I agree. Int21h (talk) 10:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article 3[edit]

I noticed that article 3 about Church-State separation was among the longest and the most controversial, since there were disputes surrounding it that eventually led to the Cristero War. For this reason, it would maybe be appropriate that a distinct article be written about the third article of the Mexican constitution. ADM (talk) 14:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, someone did a really sloppy redaction work. For example, monastic orders were prohibited in article 5, while the article says that: Article 3 likewise outlawed monastic orders.[4] The article prohibited churches to own property and transfered all church property to the state - thus making all houses of worship state property.[5] It prohibited ministers or religious groups from aiding the poor, engaging in scientific research, and spreading their teachings.[6] It denied churches any kind of legal status and allowed local legislators to limit the number of ministers, (essentially giving the state the ability to ban religion) and banned any ministers not born in Mexico.[7] It denied ministers freedom of association, the right to vote and freedom of speech, prohibiting them and religious publications from criticising the law or government.[8]--189.217.101.160 (talk) 03:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article Title[edit]

It seems to me that the current title of this article strongly runs afoul of WP:COMMONNAME. Looking at the history, it also seems that it was moved to it's current name a year ago with no discussion. My intention is to move it back to Constitution of Mexico, as the most commonly used name in English language usage, per the article titles policy. oknazevad (talk) 16:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article 16 is very limited and reference to innacurate English translation[edit]

I've found that the English translation of the constitution is innacurate in Article 16, and the summary of Article 16 only covers a very small part of the article. Here is the origninal Spanish text of the beginning of the article.

Artículo 16. Nadie puede ser molestado en su persona, familia, domicilio, papeles o posesiones, sino en virtud de mandamiento escrito de la autoridad competente, que funde y motive la causa legal del procedimiento. Toda persona tiene derecho a la protección de sus datos personales, al acceso, rectificación y cancelación de los mismos, así como a manifestar su oposición, en los términos que fije la ley, la cual establecerá los supuestos de excepción a los principios que rijan el tratamiento de datos, por razones de seguridad nacional, disposiciones de orden público, seguridad y salud públicas o para proteger los derechos de terceros.

In the English translation, the entire second paragraph is missing. It's an important paragraph about Personal Data Protection and the rights of access, rectification, cancellation and objection.

Jfbrown42 (talk) 18:09, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV (Neutral point of view)[edit]

Mamalujo, your statement "Most sources describe the "rights" of catholics being restricted", unless you can actually cite a source for it, is not in line with Wikipedia policy. What you seem to consider "rights" could easily be considered "privileges" by other people. Neither term is acceptable here unless specified by a source, and then only if clearly marked as coming from that particular source. However, rather than merely revert, we obviously need to go for consensus.

"Rights" are what one is morally or legally entitled to have, and as a constitution refers to legal aspects, and not moral considerations, this would not to seem to be the case, unless previously held rights had actually been taken away by the new constitution. However, as you know, Wikipedia is not interested in any one Truth, that is "Articles mustn't take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it.". Regards, --Technopat (talk) 10:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom of religion is regarded as a right by the majority of people on the planet. Abusing Wikipedia policies to push your agenda that there is no such right is disgusting.174.73.5.74 (talk) 02:31, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Constitution of Mexico. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 12:58, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of articles missing[edit]

This article mostly focuses on the first 34 articles and then ignores everything about the structure of the Mexican government (articles 49-107). It needs a lot of work. Richard75 (talk) 12:35, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]