• 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 .
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either the people or the state (whichever you care to say) and prohibited alcohol completely until that Amendment was repealed.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 Prohibition was not struck down by a SCOTUS decision, but rather repealed through the same process that put it into place.

wrong, we have a republican form of government, not a democratic form, federalist 39, with a mixed constitution federalist 40.

rights are not subject to a vote of the people, rights are unalienable, and cannot be taken from you through a vote........that is democracy, and founders hated democracy, and did not create such a form of government.
 
simple fact.. you cant, and live is denial.

<snip - redundant/repeat>
None of which changes the fact that the federal government cannot change the Constitution on it's own. If the Fed wants to change something in the Constitution the States have to approve it, just like the colonies originally approved the Constitution. Nothing is different and nothing has changed in that respect since 1776.
 
None of which changes the fact that the federal government cannot change the Constitution on it's own. If the Fed wants to change something in the Constitution the States have to approve it, just like the colonies originally approved the Constitution. Nothing is different and nothing has changed in that respect since 1776.

i said the bill of rights, which was created in 1789 two years after the constitution..cannot be changed or abolished........stated by the founding fathers.


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
 
The Republican Form of government is one in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated. individuals retain sovereign prerogatives over their private property rights (absolute ownership) of their person, labor and property.


Unlike the democratic form of government, in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the whole body of free citizens, individuals do not retain sovereign prerogatives over their private property rights (absolute ownership) of their person, labor and property.

The U.S. Constitution guarantees a republican form to the states. (See Art.4,Sec.4)
 
The entire Constitution can be amended. Every letter, every sentence.

Except for one thing:

Article V said:
Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Obviously the protections on slavery grandfathered out in 1808 but the rest of Art. V is still in effect.

No state can be deprived of equal sufferage in the Senate, even by amendment.

Course, we could always scrap the Constitution in toto and start from scratch, but that's not really "amending" it.
 
Last edited:
i said the bill of rights, which was created in 1789 two years after the constitution..cannot be changed or abolished........stated by the founding fathers.
As we've discussed more than once, it doesn't matter what the intent of some of the parties of a contract may be, all that counts is the signed document. I'm sorry you don't like this simple fact. You cannot go to the bank after you've signed a loan document and ask where your $1000 rebate is if it's not in the loan contract. It just doesn't work that way.


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.

<snip - another long, redundant and/or off-subject sermon>
That phrase alone has undergone radical changes since it was first coined. Your argument continues to fail.


Where is the consent of the governed if the governed can't change things?
 
wrong, we have a republican form of government, not a democratic form, federalist 39, with a mixed constitution federalist 40.

rights are not subject to a vote of the people, rights are unalienable, and cannot be taken from you through a vote........that is democracy, and founders hated democracy, and did not create such a form of government.

A republic means that the people vote for their representatives, and their representatives vote for laws. We are actually a constitutional republic, meaning that those representatives are restricted to a point for what they can and cannot do concerning the laws of our nation as a simple majority when the issue is constitutionally protected. But when we are talking about the Constitution and amending it, it requires more than a simple majority which is why any part of it can be changed when those conditions are met.

Yes, the Constitution, any part of it, including the Bill of Rights, can be amended as long as the Amendment goes through the proper process.
 
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.






What man does, man can undo (Usually.).
 
The Republican Form of government is one in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated. individuals retain sovereign prerogatives over their private property rights (absolute ownership) of their person, labor and property.

Unlike the democratic form of government, in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the whole body of free citizens, individuals do not retain sovereign prerogatives over their private property rights (absolute ownership) of their person, labor and property.
Cite an unbiased and reliable source that differentiates republic and democracy that way v private property rights.


The U.S. Constitution guarantees a republican form to the states. (See Art.4,Sec.4)
Which means the States have the power, too, not the federal government alone. That doesn't address a damn thing in relation to Amendments of any kind. The States have to approve any Amendment, just as I've been saying.
 
As we've discussed more than once, it doesn't matter what the intent of some of the parties of a contract may be, all that counts is the signed document. I'm sorry you don't like this simple fact. You cannot go to the bank after you've signed a loan document and ask where your $1000 rebate is if it's not in the loan contract. It just doesn't work that way.


That phrase alone has undergone radical changes since it was first coined. Your argument continues to fail.


Where is the consent of the governed if the governed can't change things?

i suggest you learn the difference between republican form of government and democratic form first.

in republican forms of government, the people can vote on many things, however they cannot vote on the rights of other people.

in democratic forms of government the people can vote on anything, even rights.........the founders did not give us democratic government...they gave us republican government...which limits direct power of the people, by spreading power out, among the people and the states, ...where democratic government concentrates powers only in the people....something the founders did not want becuase it leads to tyranny.
 
Cite an unbiased and reliable source that differentiates republic and democracy that way v private property rights.


Which means the States have the power, too, not the federal government alone. That doesn't address a damn thing in relation to Amendments of any kind. The States have to approve any Amendment, just as I've been saying.

friend, as i have suggested before.... please read the federalist papers which explain the Constitution,.

federalist 39 states clearly we have republican government, federalist 10 states we do not have democratic government, and federalist 40 states we have a mixed Constitution, where powers are divided between the states and the people.
 
Honestly, I think we already have amended at least one of the Amendments found in the Bill of Rights with the 14th Amendment. I believe that since 10th Amendment is mainly used as giving powers to the states while the 14th restricts those powers to a large degree then the 14th basically took some of the rights away from the states and gave them to the people, greatly reducing the scope of the 10th Amendment.
 
i suggest you learn the difference between republican form of government and democratic form first.
You should look in the mirror and say this. There are many forms of both republic and democracy. Your apparent interpretation is extremely narrow and bias.


in republican forms of government, the people can vote on many things, however they cannot vote on the rights of other people.
Then we've already violated the republic because most Amendments change the rights of people.



Where's your unbiased and reliable cite for your unfounded claims? Ignoring what you don't like - AGAIN??? How predictable.
 
Yesterday, I heard an argument that I was not aware of. Basically the individual claimed that one could not legally amend the United States Constitution so that it changed or repealed any of the current Amendments in the first ten - the Bill of Rights.

Here is Article V of the Constitution which has all the language from that document about the amendment process

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.


The specific part of the Constitution in question was the Second Amendment.

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.

It is my position that politically, it would be impossible to do so at this time and there simply is not any political will to do this.

Putting aside the already mentioned practical political considerations making it impossible to actually get such an amendment passed, is it legally possible to amend the Constitution changing or outright repealing anything contained within it including the Second or any other existing Amendment?




If enough Americans decide that a law needs to be changed, it will be changed.
 
A republic means that the people vote for their representatives, and their representatives vote for laws. We are actually a constitutional republic, meaning that those representatives are restricted to a point for what they can and cannot do concerning the laws of our nation as a simple majority when the issue is constitutionally protected. But when we are talking about the Constitution and amending it, it requires more than a simple majority which is why any part of it can be changed when those conditions are met.

it requires 2/3 of congress and 3/4 of the states..a lot more simple majority.


Yes, the Constitution, any part of it, including the Bill of Rights, can be amended as long as the Amendment goes through the proper process.

the bill of rights was create 2 years after the constitution, and it was to prevent the federal government from usurping the rights of the people, and you going to state that the federal government has the power to create an amendment over them.......wrong.

the clauses which makeup the bill of rights are declaratory and restrictive to the federal government.............as stated by the bill of rights.
 
I would have voted yes, but it ignores the prohibition about each state having the same number of Senators.

Poll Fail.
 
it requires 2/3 of congress and 3/4 of the states..a lot more simple majority.
That's exactly what he said, "it requires more than a simple majority which is why any part of it can be changed when those conditions are met." :roll:

Reading comprehension, try it sometime.


the bill of rights was create 2 years after the constitution, and it was to prevent the federal government from usurping the rights of the people, and you going to state that the federal government has the power to create an amendment over them.......wrong.
The federal government CANNOT "[usurp] the rights of the people". Your argument is false on it's face.
 
That's exactly what he said, "it requires more than a simple majority which is why any part of it can be changed when those conditions are met." :roll:

Reading comprehension, try it sometime.


The federal government CANNOT "[usurp] the rights of the people". Your argument is false on it's face.

ask yourself this:

"congress shall make no law" stated in the first amendment.

this means congress can take no action to overturn the first amendment

yet you are saying congress can take action and create an amendment.

i stated the constitution can be changed , the bill of rights cannot becuase they are restrictive to the federal government......and i have stated this many times,...how is it you missed it?
 
Yesterday, I heard an argument that I was not aware of. Basically the individual claimed that one could not legally amend the United States Constitution so that it changed or repealed any of the current Amendments in the first ten - the Bill of Rights.

Here is Article V of the Constitution which has all the language from that document about the amendment process

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.


The specific part of the Constitution in question was the Second Amendment.

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.

It is my position that politically, it would be impossible to do so at this time and there simply is not any political will to do this.

Putting aside the already mentioned practical political considerations making it impossible to actually get such an amendment passed, is it legally possible to amend the Constitution changing or outright repealing anything contained within it including the Second or any other existing Amendment?
So you have some kind of government advisory job and you don't even know how the constitution works.

Outstanding!
 
Honestly, I think we already have amended at least one of the Amendments found in the Bill of Rights with the 14th Amendment. I believe that since 10th Amendment is mainly used as giving powers to the states while the 14th restricts those powers to a large degree then the 14th basically took some of the rights away from the states and gave them to the people, greatly reducing the scope of the 10th Amendment.

states dont have rights......they have powers...only flesh and blood people have rights.

so no rights have been taken away under the BOR by amendments.
 
friend, as i have suggested before.... please read the federalist papers which explain the Constitution,.

federalist 39 states clearly we have republican government, federalist 10 states we do not have democratic government, and federalist 40 states we have a mixed Constitution, where powers are divided between the states and the people.

Just to make this clear for the historically ignorant: the federalist papers do not explain the constitution. They explain the author's(Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay) views and opinions of the constitution and why it should be ratified. So unless you think they held the only views and opinions on the constitution, you have to realize that they are just what they claim to be, opinion. Note also this quote from the Federalist Papers, where Hamilton talks about the Bill of Rights:

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous.
 
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.

Self evident? The term one uses when they cannot prove what they allege apparently.

The CREATOR is a self adopted belief because someone want to accept that religious belief. It or He or She cannot be proven to exist let alone sit on high and bestowing natural rights upon people like rain showers in April.

And the Dec of Ind was our birth announcement which served its purpose and was put on the shelf having done its job. A few years after it was written nobody thought much about it nor cared about it. Read Pauline Maier and learn

http://www.amazon.com/American-Scri..._B000APOCCM_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1370283190&sr=1-2

I believe one of those obvious, beyond arguing about, no doubt about it, beyond the level of proven fact, set in 100 foot thick cement, and the equal of Moses being given the Ten Commandments on the mountain was a statement about equality and rights written by a slave holder. Your self evident truths are a sick and very sad joke.

The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

My copy of the US Constitution contains the first ten amendment but strangely there is no "preamble" there for me to read. Why is that?
 
Last edited:
ask yourself this:

"congress shall make no law" stated in the first amendment.

this means congress can take make no action law to overturn the first amendment

yet you are saying congress can take action and create an amendment.

i stated the constitution can be changed , the bill of rights cannot becuase they are restrictive to the federal government......and i have stated this many times,...how is it you missed it?
Fixed the first part for you. "No action" is not the same as "no law".



I never said that. What I have said multiple times and what you keep ignoring is that Congress can not make an Amendment, all they can do is proposed one. Only the States by a 3/4 agreement (a collective agreement of 38/50 States as of 1959) can make an Amendment. Your argument and reading comprehension skills continue to fail.
 
Last edited:
So you have some kind of government advisory job and you don't even know how the constitution works.

Outstanding!

Other than your usual snide personal drive by attack on me, one cannot help but notice that you utterly were and are woefully impotent to point out one single thing I said that is factually incorrect.:doh

But attack again you will. :roll:
 
Just to make this clear for the historically ignorant: the federalist papers do not explain the constitution. They explain the author's(Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay) views and opinions of the constitution and why it should be ratified. So unless you think they held the only views and opinions on the constitution, you have to realize that they are just what they claim to be, opinion. Note also this quote from the Federalist Papers, where Hamilton talks about the Bill of Rights:


you are 100% correct with your quote...........Hamilton and Madison BOTH stated that a bill of rights was NOT needed............and why?

becuase both men stated becuase the federal government was delegated only 18 powers under the federal constitution, there was no way the federal government could infringe on rights. ...however george mason and other demanded a bill of rights, and Madison agreed and wrote them.

Madison was a federalist during the constitutional convention ,but became an anti federalists later after the alien and sedition act.

“This specification of particulars [the 18 enumerated powers of Article I, Section 8] evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd as well as useless if a general authority was intended.” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 83
 
Back
Top Bottom