Talk:Commandeering

Untitled

This really needs to be expanded further or else it belongs in Wiktionary. Amalas 02:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Hence the use of a stub template. violet/riga (t) 16:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

As it was before, it was merely a dictionary definition. It looks better now and I will try to stub-sort it properly. Amalas 21:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

An article is supposed to be about a single subject

This article discusses two entirely different topics. If both are actually notable the article needs splitting in to two, with titles that distinguish. As of now, I'm unconvinced that either is more than dictionary definition. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:52, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

This article discusses two entirely different topics.

To be clear, you're referring to the US federal principle vs the more generic principle, right? I agree; the US one should be split off, and a new section written covering regular commandeering in US law. The Snopes external link has some material to start, at least covering California.

The article for the federal principle could be called something like "Commandeering (US federal law)" or "Commandeering (10th amendment)". Or on second thought, maybe it would be better to merge the content into Tenth Amendment § Commandeering

As of now, I'm unconvinced that either is more than dictionary definition.

I'm not sure why you think that, since there are some good sources provided. I just added § In Canada if that helps.

— W.andrea (talk) 13:30, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

I went ahead and tagged the sections to suggest merging: Commandeering § In the United States → Tenth Amendment § Commandeering — W.andrea (talk) 18:46, 14 July 2026 (UTC)