• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Can you legally Amend the Bill of Rights?

Can the Bill of Rights be legally amended with other Amendments?

  • YES - anything in the Constitution is subject to the Amendment process.

    Votes: 37 86.0%
  • NO - you cannot amend anything which changes any provision in the Bill of Rights

    Votes: 6 14.0%

  • Total voters
    43
  • Poll closed .
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

rights are unalienable ...........if the could be amended or repealed, then they would not be unalienable.



The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.


who are the clauses which makeup the bill of rights, established 2 years after the constitution declaratory and restrictive too?...the federal government!

also read the American founding fathers who state....they cannot be amended or repealed.

"[You have Rights] antecedent to all earthly governments:
Rights, that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws;
Rights, derived from the Great Legislator of the universe."

by:John Adams


Nothing is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man.

by : Thomas Jefferson
 
It is my contention that there is nothing in the Constitution which would prohibit any amendment changing the Second - or any other Amendment for that matter. Legally, it could be done.
I agree with that. As far as I know there is nothing that can't be changed or amended in the Constitution.


As I recall, one of the great arguments over the Constitution was whether the "Bill of Rights" would be part of the main body or would be added after the fact as amendments. I find the final choice an interesting fact in this discussion, don't you?
 
The idea of amending and clarifying the 2nd Amendment isn't the worst idea in the world.

"All legal permanent residents of the United States may keep and carry firearms subject to reasonable regulations protecting the safety and welfare of the general public".

See how easy that was?
 
You forget that the 2 amendment was said could not be infringed it is the only one that says it could not be infringed all the others are free game to admendment except this one .

No, the 2nd Amendment is not special. It is not above the other Amendments. It can be changed with an amendment, as can any of the others.

That said, good luck trying to do it.
 
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

rights are unalienable ...........if the could be amended or repealed, then they would not be unalienable.

All men have the same rights according to Jefferson (except of course, those that he owned). However, many governments have had some success keeping people away from their rights. They did it before 1776, and since then as well.

One could easily decide now that having a place to live is unalienable, BUT that's not in OUR Constitution.
 
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

rights are unalienable ...........if the could be amended or repealed, then they would not be unalienable.



The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.


who are the clauses which makeup the bill of rights, established 2 years after the constitution declaratory and restrictive too?...the federal government!

also read the American founding fathers who state....they cannot be amended or repealed.

"[You have Rights] antecedent to all earthly governments:
Rights, that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws;
Rights, derived from the Great Legislator of the universe."

by:John Adams


Nothing is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man.

by : Thomas Jefferson

Nothing that you quoted in your post is from the US Constitution. And because of that, the content of the US Constitution - including Article V - trumps all that stuff.
 
Nothing that you quoted in your post is from the US Constitution. And because of that, the content of the US Constitution - including Article V - trumps all that stuff.

what does unalienable rights mean?, according to you.........there are no alienable rights.

the founders state our rights come from the creator, not from government or the people themselves, which they state this in the DOI, that it is self -evident, and that rights preexist before the u.s. constitution.

one thing a person gains by reading the founders and understands what they mean in our founding documents, that rights are not granted or given at all by the bill of rights, no where will you see those words, becuase the BOR, does not do such a thing, the BOR only reaffirms rights which preexist already, therefore noting is again given or granted to the people.

since nothing is granted or given by the document, how can a document, take away something which it has not bestowed?

by your understanding rights which preexisted, are now controlled by the government because of ratification, ...since the constitution is what creates and delegates powers to the federal government.......when did government get in charge of the rights of the people?

every clause of the u.s. constitution is a clause which can be amended, as per the document, but only the BOR, are clauses which are .....declaratory and restrictive clauses, now what does those terms mean to you?....becuase they mean to me that congress has not power to change them, becuase they are aimed squarely at congress, was the BOR meant to apply to the states when it was ratified, ...no, only the federal government, and so as the statement in the preamble states, so to ground the public confidence in the new government, and to prevent an abuse of powers ,declaratory and restrictive clauses are added.

again by your logic congress has the power to create laws to go around the BOR by passing an amendment to remove or alter amendments they chose and this is clearly not the case, becuase the first one states very clearly......."congress shall make no law",..yet again with your logic, that does not stop congress and has no power too.


its clear...you do not believe in unalienable rights.

government...... is the source of all power and rights.

government....... is unlimited, and their is no power to stop them.

you also profess your smarter than jefferson and Adams on the BOR.

for someone who professes to know so much, you are failing on the basics, of our founding documents.
 
Last edited:
All men have the same rights according to Jefferson (except of course, those that he owned). However, many governments have had some success keeping people away from their rights. They did it before 1776, and since then as well.

One could easily decide now that having a place to live is unalienable, BUT that's not in OUR Constitution.

i see your letting personal bias in your statement on jefferson.

and a place to live is a commodity....goods or services cannot be a rights.........that is a basic of understanding American government.
 
The idea of amending and clarifying the 2nd Amendment isn't the worst idea in the world.

"All legal permanent residents of the United States may keep and carry firearms subject to reasonable regulations protecting the safety and welfare of the general public".

See how easy that was?

We've seen what gets passed off these days as “reasonable regulations protecting the safety and welfare of the general public” with regard to the Second Amendment. No thanks. Without exception, every such “reasonable” regulation that has been proposed, enacted, or enforced, has been so done with no regard for public safety, and every regard for ultimately undermining and removing this right completely. I'll stick with “…shall not be infringed.”
 
You forget that the 2 amendment was said could not be infringed it is the only one that says it could not be infringed all the others are free game to admendment except this one .

No, anything can be changed, but then I suppose we could do away with Congress or the President as well. Do you really believe it will ever happen?
 
The idea that the original 10, the Bill of Rights could not be amended, came from me. The reasoning is on the same vein as what ernst barkmann is using---namely that the original 10 flow as natural rights and they are not for the government to change or take away. Any free people must possess at least those rights contained in the 10 to have a basis for a measure of freedom and they serve to list what government should not do far more than they are there to restrict the rigths of citizens.

I would argue that you could amend to ADD rights but amending to remove them would lead rapidly to problems, civil uprising types of problems.

Id be a lot more curious to see what SCOTUS members would make of this idea.
 
what does unalienable rights mean?, according to you.........there are no alienable rights.

the founders state our rights come from the creator, not from government or the people themselves, which they state this in the DOI, that it is self -evident, and that rights preexist before the u.s. constitution.

one thing a person gains by reading the founders and understands what they mean in our founding documents, that rights are not granted or given at all by the bill of rights, no where will you see those words, becuase the BOR, does not do such a thing, the BOR only reaffirms rights which preexist already, therefore noting is again given or granted to the people.

since nothing is granted or given by the document, how can a document, take away something which it has not bestowed?

by your understanding rights which preexisted, are now controlled by the government because of ratification, ...since the constitution is what creates and delegates powers to the federal government.......when did government get in charge of the rights of the people?

every clause of the u.s. constitution is a clause which can be amended, as per the document, but only the BOR, are clauses which are .....declaratory and restrictive clauses, now what does those terms mean to you?....becuase they mean to me that congress has not power to change them, becuase they are aimed squarely at congress, was the BOR meant to apply to the states when it was ratified, ...no, only the federal government, and so as the statement in the preamble states, so to ground the public confidence in the new government, and to prevent an abuse of powers ,declaratory and restrictive clauses are added.

again by your logic congress has the power to create laws to go around the BOR by passing an amendment to remove or alter amendments they chose and this is clearly not the case, becuase the first one states very clearly......."congress shall make no law",..yet again with your logic, that does not stop congress and has no power too.


its clear...you do not believe in unalienable rights.

government...... is the source of all power and rights.

government....... is unlimited, and their is no power to stop them.

you also profess your smarter than jefferson and Adams on the BOR.

for someone who professes to know so much, you are failing on the basics, of our founding documents.

Actually, I believe that the PEOPLE are the source of rights - not the government as you falsely describe what you claim is my position. When enough people insist that a certain behavior is to be enshrined as a protected right, those same people exert enough influence and power to force the government to accept it and acknowledge that behavior as a protected right. It is a two step process and it can be seen over and over and over again in history in any nation where the people have a degree of power over government.

Ranting to me about American history does not change the reality that the US Constitution is the document which covers the Amendment process. Article V covers that topic and Article V places no restriction of any kind in any way shape or form on what in the Constitution can be amended.

As such the belief of persons in such things as natural rights or inalienable rights or anything else is irrelevant in answering the question as to the legal possibility of Amending the Bill of Rights.

Your argument would be an excellent one to make as part of the POLITICAL FIGHT over such a proposal should it ever arise. Your argument would be something to put before the American people and the various legislatures considering such legislation to convince them that such and Amendment should not be passed.

However, there is no legal obstacle preventing such an Amendment from being offered, considered and even ratified as an official part of the US Constitution.
 
Actually, I believe that the PEOPLE are the source of rights - not the government as you falsely describe what you claim is my position. When enough people insist that a certain behavior is to be enshrined as a protected right, those same people exert enough influence and power to force the government to accept it and acknowledge that behavior as a protected right. It is a two step process and it can be seen over and over and over again in history in any nation where the people have a degree of power over government.

Ranting to me about American history does not change the reality that the US Constitution is the document which covers the Amendment process. Article V covers that topic and Article V places no restriction of any kind in any way shape or form on what in the Constitution can be amended.

As such the belief of persons in such things as natural rights or inalienable rights or anything else is irrelevant in answering the question as to the legal possibility of Amending the Bill of Rights.

Your argument would be an excellent one to make as part of the POLITICAL FIGHT over such a proposal should it ever arise. Your argument would be something to put before the American people and the various legislatures considering such legislation to convince them that such and Amendment should not be passed.

However, there is no legal obstacle preventing such an Amendment from being offered, considered and even ratified as an official part of the US Constitution.


well you missed something...in my second line of my statement....."the founders state our rights come from the creator, not from government or the people themselves, which they state this in the DOI, that it is self -evident, and that rights preexist before the u.s. constitution.

i have dealt with you strange ideas of the constitution many times already, and they can more strange each time.

you have already dismissed the founders, and what they have to say, and you have dismissed the federalist papers, and even the words of the BOR, to fit in your one agenda.

my case is solid, becuase i dont use my words but what the founders say.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

what was the reason that the bill of rights was created?..........to protect the rights of the people from the federal government.

was the bill of rights written to prohibit the states or the people..no!.......only the federal government, and that is why the clauses in the bill of rights are declaratory and restrictive clauses.............to prevent the misconstruction or abuse of the federal government powers over the people.

The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

translation[/B] to the......The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York,
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of federal powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the new federal government Government, will best ensure the beneficent <--------------------------(doing good, /casing good) ends of its institution.


sorry, that you cannot accept the truth...........but it will set you free!
 
<snip - long and redundant>

what was the reason that the bill of rights was created?..........to protect the rights of the people from the federal government.

was the bill of rights written to prohibit the states or the people..no!.......only the federal government, and that is why the clauses in the bill of rights are declaratory and restrictive clauses.............to prevent the misconstruction or abuse of the federal government powers over the people.

<snip - long and redundant>
Which doesn't change the argument one bit. Just like any other contract, both sides must approve any changes. All the posturing down this line of attack is worthless with that simple idea, that the States must approve any change to the Constitution. The federal government cannot make changes on it's own.
 
The idea that the original 10, the Bill of Rights could not be amended, came from me. The reasoning is on the same vein as what ernst barkmann is using---namely that the original 10 flow as natural rights and they are not for the government to change or take away. Any free people must possess at least those rights contained in the 10 to have a basis for a measure of freedom and they serve to list what government should not do far more than they are there to restrict the rigths of citizens.

I would argue that you could amend to ADD rights but amending to remove them would lead rapidly to problems, civil uprising types of problems.

Id be a lot more curious to see what SCOTUS members would make of this idea.

Considering how much it takes to amend the Constitution at all though, it would not happen to begin with unless large majority of the population was for the Amendment, otherwise yes, there would be uprisings and a lot of civil unrest because that would be politicians taking a lot more power than they have. It would not end well to do it without support. But in order for the Amendment process to operate, at least a large amount of support of the population has to be there to begin with. It can be legally done and the SCOTUS has no authority to say it can't be done, since their place is to interpret the Constitution. Now, the American people have the authority and the responsibility to get it changed if it is done against the wishes/support of the majority.
 
Which doesn't change the argument one bit. Just like any other contract, both sides must approve any changes. All the posturing down this line of attack is worthless with that simple idea, that the States must approve any change to the Constitution. Congress cannot make changes on it's own.

tell me, friend.........when creating an amendment to our constitution, does not governments vote its up or down, first federal and then the states.........where are the people then?

what you describing is rights are in the hands of government only, becuase it is they who get to vote on them...........when did government get in charge of rights?

what are declaratory and restrictive clauses ........to you?........what do they mean, since you have not addressed them.
 
tell me, friend.........when creating an amendment to our constitution, does not governments vote its up or down, first federal and then the states.........where are the people then?

what you describing is rights are in the hands of government only, becuase it is they who get to vote on them...........when did government get in charge of rights?

what are declaratory and restrictive clauses ........to you?........what do they mean, since you have not addressed them.

The people are in the votes. The people are in the civil unrest that will occur if their representatives in such mass numbers as is needed for a Constitutional Amendment vote to amend the US Constitution, particularly in a way that takes away some of their rights. It is the responsibility of the people to fight back, through votes or force if this happens (depending on how and when it happens).

The government has been in charge of rights since the beginning. Whether people want to admit this or not, there really aren't any "inalienable" rights. They are rights that people choose to support for each other or "give" each other. That is all. If the vast majority of people in a country want to take away or oppress the rights of others, they will do it. This is no better proven than by slavery. Unless you believe only white men are "men", then slavery is proof that men choose to give/support the rights of other men. They are not inalienable, our Constitution simply makes it very difficult for the government or small groups of people to take the rights that are guaranteed away once recognized as actual rights. It still isn't impossible to take those rights away.
 
The people are in the votes. The people are in the civil unrest that will occur if their representatives in such mass numbers as is needed for a Constitutional Amendment vote to amend the US Constitution, particularly in a way that takes away some of their rights. It is the responsibility of the people to fight back, through votes or force if this happens (depending on how and when it happens).

The government has been in charge of rights since the beginning. Whether people want to admit this or not, there really aren't any "inalienable" rights. They are rights that people choose to support for each other or "give" each other. That is all. If the vast majority of people in a country want to take away or oppress the rights of others, they will do it. This is no better proven than by slavery. Unless you believe only white men are "men", then slavery is proof that men choose to give/support the rights of other men. They are not inalienable, our Constitution simply makes it very difficult for the government or small groups of people to take the rights that are guaranteed away once recognized as actual rights. It still isn't impossible to take those rights away.

clearly you dont support the founding principles, dont listen to the founders, and chose to see rights , as you wish to see them.


the word is unalienable......
 
tell me, friend.........when creating an amendment to our constitution, does not governments vote its up or down, first federal and then the states.........where are the people then?

what you describing is rights are in the hands of government only, becuase it is they who get to vote on them...........when did government get in charge of rights?
The people are always there, represented by those they elected, in this case at both the federal and state level.


However, you yourself said the Constitution is all about limiting the power of the FEDERAL government. Now that your line of attack has been shot down you want to move the goal posts to include the state governments as well?!? :lol:
 
clearly you dont support the founding principles, dont listen to the founders, and chose to see rights , as you wish to see them.


the word is unalienable......

I support the founding principles. I just don't think anyone can make any guarantee of "unalienable" rights. It can't be done. Even our Constitution allows for it to be done. But beyond that, as long as there is any way for someone or a small group of someones to take control of our country, then rights are not unalienable. They can be taken away. And there is always a way for a tyranny to occur, even if the chances are small of it happening.
 
The people are always there, represented by those they elected, in this case at both the federal and state level.


However, you yourself said the Constitution is all about limiting the power of the FEDERAL government. Now that your line of attack has been shot down you want to move the goal posts to include the state governments as well?!? :lol:

fantasy of yours?

i have already stated my point, and you never addressed my question to you............what do derogatory and restrictive clauses mean?
 
fantasy of yours?
You dodged my post completely, so I have no reason to answer your questions.


The federal government can't change the law by themselves. As for "where are the people" I can ask the same thing about the original signing, "Where were the people?" I'm sure your answer will be the same as mine - they're there by the elected representatives.
 
I support the founding principles. I just don't think anyone can make any guarantee of "unalienable" rights. It can't be done. Even our Constitution allows for it to be done. But beyond that, as long as there is any way for someone or a small group of someones to take control of our country, then rights are not unalienable. They can be taken away. And there is always a way for a tyranny to occur, even if the chances are small of it happening.

rights cannot be taken away , just becuase of a vote, they can be taken from you if you commit a crime........

rights are not in the hands of the people, becuase that would be a democracy and america is not a democracy at all!

http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-co...esenative-democracy-but-mixed-government.html
 
Last edited:
You dodged my post completely, so I have no reason to answer your questions.

simple fact.. you cant, and live is denial.

The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its(*federal) powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

* added by me
 
rights cannot be taken away , just becuase of a vote, they can be taken from you if you commit a crime........

rights are not in the hands of the people, becuase that would be a democracy and america is not a democracy at all!

They can be taken away by a vote of a large enough amount of people. If enough people feel that some group should not be allowed a right, such as speech or religion or guns or even due process, for whatever reason, then they can put it in the Constitution as an Amendment if they have enough support. Prohibition proves this. The right to drink alcohol should have fallen under the "rights to the people or the states" guaranteed by the Constitution. Then enough people took that right away from either the people or the state (whichever you care to say) and prohibited alcohol completely until that Amendment was repealed. During Prohibition though, the people's right to drink alcohol or the states' right to control whether the people could drink alcohol was taken away. Prohibition was not struck down by a SCOTUS decision, but rather repealed through the same process that put it into place.
 
Back
Top Bottom