• 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 .
The Bill of Rights is part of the constitution. Every amendment is part of the constitution.

the constitution is made up of clauses as is the bill of rights, however the bill or rights clauses are restrictive clauses only, the constitution itself are not.
 
It's not a personal bias to say that Jefferson owned slaves. That's a fact.

Isn't a gun a commodity? You have the right to own a gun IF you can afford to purchase one. If you can't afford it, the government doesn't give you a gun (nor should they), whereas other rights are not dependent on income.

true, but it has not bearing on what we were discussing, it was something you just brought up.

no a gun is not a commodity, ...you dont have a right to a firearm, you have a .......right to bare one.
 
Who authored a law, what they intended, and what they might have written about it before or after its passage is to a large extent irrelevant. What matters is what the document that was voted on says. Madison's thoughts on his work are interesting from an historical perspective and may inform our interpretation of the law but that's it. The only thing that really matters is the text itself. If Madison's views are at odds with the text, Madison loses.


again..... who are the bill of rights clauses restrictive to?
 
You are implying that the government has the authority to act on the right to liberty of the people as a default position with your stance.

What "liberty of the people" are you talking about? What does that even mean?
 
I ask you again, when the States ratified the Bill of Rights to make it an official part of the US Constitution, did they also ratify the Preamble that you keep citing?

the preamble, states the goal of the bill of rights, stating that to build public confidence in the new federal government and prevent abuses of federal powers, declaratory and restrictive clause are added.

who are they declaratory and restrictive too?
 
the constitution is made up of clauses as is the bill of rights, however the bill or rights clauses are restrictive clauses only, the constitution itself are not.

EB - hope your doctor appointment went well.

Could you please now answer my question?

When the Bill of Rights was submitted to the states for ratification, did they also ratify the language of the Preamble that you cited?
 
EB - hope your doctor appointment went well.

Could you please now answer my question?

When the Bill of Rights was submitted to the states for ratification, did they also ratify the language of the Preamble that you cited?


yes... becuase it is part of the bill of rights, just as the did the preamble of the constitution, there is no separation in the document.

the whole document was read and concerned for it ratification.
 
again..... who are the bill of rights clauses restrictive to?

That's not relevant. I'm commenting on the idea that somehow the founders private writings matter more than the Constitution. They do not. The Constitution is a legal document. The Federalist Papers are not. Nor are Madison's writings.
 
yes... becuase it is part of the bill of rights, just as the did the preamble of the constitution, there is no separation in the document.

the whole document was read and concerned for it ratification.

Please provide the verifiable evidence that the Preamble to the Bill of Rights was also ratified by the necessary number of states. I searched and searched and searched and cannot locate a single piece of evidence that says it was.

Since you claim that it was ratified , please provide the verifiable evidence that it was.
 
That's not relevant. I'm commenting on the idea that somehow the founders private writings matter more than the Constitution. They do not. The Constitution is a legal document. The Federalist Papers are not. Nor are Madison's writings.

You are 100% right about that. You are also pushing a ten ton boulder up a hill and will pass me as you go by when you think you can convince some people here that the Federalist Papers are not on a par with the official constitution. But good luck to you and I hope you are more successful than I was in that attempt. :peace
 
That's not relevant. I'm commenting on the idea that somehow the founders private writings matter more than the Constitution. They do not. The Constitution is a legal document. The Federalist Papers are not. Nor are Madison's writings.

really?...so Madison writings are nothing?

let us see now, the constitution framework was created by Madison.

Madison took all the notes at the constitutional convention

Madison spoke more than any man there.

more of Madison proposals were accepted then anyone else.

Madison wrote the bill or rights.

Madison has written more pieces about the Constitution, even up until his death, and he lived the longest.

....so Madison really, does not have any real creditability when it comes to the constitution according to you.
 
Please provide the verifiable evidence that the Preamble to the Bill of Rights was also ratified by the necessary number of states. I searched and searched and searched and cannot locate a single piece of evidence that says it was.

Since you claim that it was ratified , please provide the verifiable evidence that it was.


The Bill of Rights: A Transcription

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.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.


The dates of the state ratifications were as follows:

1. New Jersey November 20, 1789
2. Maryland December 19, 1789
3. North Carolina December 22, 1789
4. South Carolina January 19, 1790
5. New Hampshire January 25, 1790
6. Delaware January 28, 1790
7. New York February 27, 1790
8. Pennsylvania March 10, 1790
9. Rhode Island June 11, 1790
10. Vermont November 3, 1791
11. Virginia December 15, 1791 ("Bill of Rights day")
12. Massachusetts March 2, 1939
13. Georgia March 24, 1939
14. Connecticut April 19, 1939
 
The Bill of Rights: A Transcription

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.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.


The dates of the state ratifications were as follows:

1. New Jersey November 20, 1789
2. Maryland December 19, 1789
3. North Carolina December 22, 1789
4. South Carolina January 19, 1790
5. New Hampshire January 25, 1790
6. Delaware January 28, 1790
7. New York February 27, 1790
8. Pennsylvania March 10, 1790
9. Rhode Island June 11, 1790
10. Vermont November 3, 1791
11. Virginia December 15, 1791 ("Bill of Rights day")
12. Massachusetts March 2, 1939
13. Georgia March 24, 1939
14. Connecticut April 19, 1939

None of that says the Preamble was ratified and made part of the Constitution. It appears that you are presenting two different things but pretending that they are one thing. Could you please provide a link so that I can see this myself?
 
None of that says the Preamble was ratified and made part of the Constitution. .

so are you going to tell me the preamble of the constitution, was not look at when the constitution was ratified.

so were going to tell me they only ratified part of the founding documents....

haymarket, your really going out on a limb!
 
so are you going to tell me the preamble of the constitution, was not look at when the constitution was ratified.

so were going to tell me they only ratified part of the founding documents....

haymarket, your really going out on a limb!

We were talking about THE PREAMBLE TO THE BILL OF RIGHTS that you referenced and quoted. NOT the PREAMBLE TO THE ACTUAL US CONSTITUTION.

Here is the question I repeatedly asked you

Please provide the verifiable evidence that the Preamble to the Bill of Rights was also ratified by the necessary number of states. I searched and searched and searched and cannot locate a single piece of evidence that says it was.

Your reply was

yes... becuase it is part of the bill of rights, just as the did the preamble of the constitution, there is no separation in the document.

the whole document was read and concerned for it ratification.

Again, the evidence you provided was not at all evidence that the Bill of Rights Preamble was ever ratified by the States.

Do you have such evidence to present?
 
really?...so Madison writings are nothing?

let us see now, the constitution framework was created by Madison.

Madison took all the notes at the constitutional convention

Madison spoke more than any man there.

more of Madison proposals were accepted then anyone else.

Madison wrote the bill or rights.

Madison has written more pieces about the Constitution, even up until his death, and he lived the longest.

....so Madison really, does not have any real creditability when it comes to the constitution according to you.

Ask yourself one simple question. We're Madison's notes and papers, were the Federalist papers part of the package of documents that were ratified? If not then they do not have the force of law it is that sample.

All of that is useful in helping to interpret the Constitution but that is all.
 
Ask yourself one simple question. We're Madison's notes and papers, were the Federalist papers part of the package of documents that were ratified? If not then they do not have the force of law it is that sample.

All of that is useful in helping to interpret the Constitution but that is all.

that is the point, that the federalist papers interpret the constitution, and they were written before the constitution was fully ratified, to educate the people on what the constitution means.

so when Madison says the federal government is supposed to be limited...its supposed to be limited.
 
We were talking about THE PREAMBLE TO THE BILL OF RIGHTS that you referenced and quoted. NOT the PREAMBLE TO THE ACTUAL US CONSTITUTION.

Here is the question I repeatedly asked you



Your reply was



Again, the evidence you provided was not at all evidence that the Bill of Rights Preamble was ever ratified by the States.

Do you have such evidence to present?


when the bill or rights was ratified , the whole document was accepted, they did not cut off the top half of the document, the whole document is in the national archives.

haymarket if you want to live denial go ahead,

as to you not ratifying the preamble, well you can continue with your silliness, again as you do from time to time.

and when you do .............i leave you to your own devices....shaking my head at the silliness of some statements. from you.
 
the constitution is made up of clauses as is the bill of rights, however the bill or rights clauses are restrictive clauses only, the constitution itself are not.

The amendments to the constitution are parts of the constitutions, by definition. You are still evading my question: where in the constitution does it limit the amendment process?
 
The amendments to the constitution are parts of the constitutions, by definition. You are still evading my question: where in the constitution does it limit the amendment process?

it does not for the constitution itself passed in 1788,........... it does for the bill of rights which are restrictive clauses..passed in 1791

"Bill of Rights" Amendments Proposal and Discussion
Articles In Addition to, and Amendment of,
The Constitution of the United States Of America 140

140 Of the twelve amendments proposed by Congress on September 25, 1789, the last ten amendments were Ratified pursuant to the Fifth Article of the Original Constitution by the legislatures of the several States on Dec 15, 1791, and became what is known today as "The Bill of Rights."

During the first session of the first Congress under the new Constitution this self-explanatory resolution was passed: -- [ Click for JPG Image.]


CONGRESS of the UNITED STATES
Begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday, the Fourth
of March, One Thousand Seven Hundred 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 exceeding the Ground of public Confidence in the Government will best insure the beneficent Ends of its Institution,

RESOLVED, by the Senate, and House of Representatives, of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, Two Thirds of both Houses concurring, That the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as Amendments to the Constitution of the United States: All, or any of, which Articles, when ratified by Three-Fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of the said Constitution, viz.

Articles in Addition to, and Amendment of, the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the Fifth Article of the original Constitution.


The above PREAMBLE was then followed by twelve proposed amendments, the first two of which failed of adoption. The first related to membership in the House of Representatives by population, and the second was against the taking effect of laws varying the compensation of senators and representatives until an election should have intervened. This second proposed amendment was resurrected in 1985 and ratified, becoming Amendment Article XXVII after ratification on May 7, 1992. Six States had ratified this proposed amendment in the two year period from 1790 to 1791, and between 1985 and 1992 an additional 33 States ratified this amendment proposal that was nearly 200 years old.

In ALL the presentations of the Bill of Rights today this most important part of the Bill Of Rights, setting forth the purpose of the Amendments, is left off. Without this Preamble we have no protection from those who would pass amendments, laws, or otherwise corrupt the Constitution.

I have taken the liberty to emphasis in red text the area I am referring to. Please join with me to correct this misconstruction of the Bill Of Rights before it becomes an accepted presentation. It is ESSENTIAL that we read and present the Constitution in it's entirety.

This MOST IMPORTANT PART of the Bill of Rights -- the PREAMBLE which tells SPECIFICALLY that the Bill of Rights was to make sure the government knew it was limited to the powers stated in the Constitution, and if it didn't, the Amendments spell out the Rights of the People the government couldn't change. Our revisionist historians ALWAYS leave this off the Constitution!!! It is imperative that the complete text be included in any study, interpretation or construction of the contents and the Limitations of government imposed by the Constitution for the United States.

It has been stated that some scholars don't think this is important. This is a fallacy.

It is IMPERATIVE for the following reason:

The first ten amendments are "declaratory and restrictive clauses". This means they supersede and restrict all previous parts of the Constitution, and restrict all subsequent amendments to the framework of the Bill of Rights amendments. The Bill of Rights amendments are a declaration in very plain language of the restrictions to the powers of government and "STATE".

There are people in this country that do not want us to know that this Preamble ever existed. For many years these words and understanding have been "omitted" from presentations of our Constitution.

Public and private schools and colleges alike have based the education of the people and their whole interpretation of the Constitution on this fraudulent omission. (Indeed, when I was searching for it, I was informed by the Dean of the Law School at UC Berkley, that the Bill of Rights amendments had no Preamble.)140

Corrupt judiciary and politicians have, through clever deception, erected interpretations and statutes that fly in the face, in direct contravention of the Bill of Rights amendments. The amendments and their declaratory and restrictive intent can be changed only by due process and the will of the people, as prescribed in the Fifth Article of the Original Constitution.

The Bill of Rights amendments, being declaratory and restrictive, are separate from all the other amendments. The Bill of Rights amendments restrict the Constitution. The Constitution restricts the powers of government and "STATE".
 
it does not for the constitution itself passed in 1788,........... it does for the bill of rights which are restrictive clauses..passed in 1791

"Bill of Rights" Amendments Proposal and Discussion
Articles In Addition to, and Amendment of,
The Constitution of the United States Of America 140

140 Of the twelve amendments proposed by Congress on September 25, 1789, the last ten amendments were Ratified pursuant to the Fifth Article of the Original Constitution by the legislatures of the several States on Dec 15, 1791, and became what is known today as "The Bill of Rights."

During the first session of the first Congress under the new Constitution this self-explanatory resolution was passed: -- [ Click for JPG Image.]


CONGRESS of the UNITED STATES
Begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday, the Fourth
of March, One Thousand Seven Hundred 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 exceeding the Ground of public Confidence in the Government will best insure the beneficent Ends of its Institution,

RESOLVED, by the Senate, and House of Representatives, of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, Two Thirds of both Houses concurring, That the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as Amendments to the Constitution of the United States: All, or any of, which Articles, when ratified by Three-Fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of the said Constitution, viz.

Articles in Addition to, and Amendment of, the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the Fifth Article of the original Constitution.


The above PREAMBLE was then followed by twelve proposed amendments, the first two of which failed of adoption. The first related to membership in the House of Representatives by population, and the second was against the taking effect of laws varying the compensation of senators and representatives until an election should have intervened. This second proposed amendment was resurrected in 1985 and ratified, becoming Amendment Article XXVII after ratification on May 7, 1992. Six States had ratified this proposed amendment in the two year period from 1790 to 1791, and between 1985 and 1992 an additional 33 States ratified this amendment proposal that was nearly 200 years old.

In ALL the presentations of the Bill of Rights today this most important part of the Bill Of Rights, setting forth the purpose of the Amendments, is left off. Without this Preamble we have no protection from those who would pass amendments, laws, or otherwise corrupt the Constitution.

I have taken the liberty to emphasis in red text the area I am referring to. Please join with me to correct this misconstruction of the Bill Of Rights before it becomes an accepted presentation. It is ESSENTIAL that we read and present the Constitution in it's entirety.

This MOST IMPORTANT PART of the Bill of Rights -- the PREAMBLE which tells SPECIFICALLY that the Bill of Rights was to make sure the government knew it was limited to the powers stated in the Constitution, and if it didn't, the Amendments spell out the Rights of the People the government couldn't change. Our revisionist historians ALWAYS leave this off the Constitution!!! It is imperative that the complete text be included in any study, interpretation or construction of the contents and the Limitations of government imposed by the Constitution for the United States.

It has been stated that some scholars don't think this is important. This is a fallacy.

It is IMPERATIVE for the following reason:

The first ten amendments are "declaratory and restrictive clauses". This means they supersede and restrict all previous parts of the Constitution, and restrict all subsequent amendments to the framework of the Bill of Rights amendments. The Bill of Rights amendments are a declaration in very plain language of the restrictions to the powers of government and "STATE".

There are people in this country that do not want us to know that this Preamble ever existed. For many years these words and understanding have been "omitted" from presentations of our Constitution.

Public and private schools and colleges alike have based the education of the people and their whole interpretation of the Constitution on this fraudulent omission. (Indeed, when I was searching for it, I was informed by the Dean of the Law School at UC Berkley, that the Bill of Rights amendments had no Preamble.)140

Corrupt judiciary and politicians have, through clever deception, erected interpretations and statutes that fly in the face, in direct contravention of the Bill of Rights amendments. The amendments and their declaratory and restrictive intent can be changed only by due process and the will of the people, as prescribed in the Fifth Article of the Original Constitution.

The Bill of Rights amendments, being declaratory and restrictive, are separate from all the other amendments. The Bill of Rights amendments restrict the Constitution. The Constitution restricts the powers of government and "STATE".

The constitution is changed every so often. So saying it passed in 1788 is incomplete.

So what you have is your interpretation of the constitution based on what you want to be true, but not on the constitution itself. How very libertarian of you...
 
The constitution is changed every so often. So saying it passed in 1788 is incomplete.

So what you have is your interpretation of the constitution based on what you want to be true, but not on the constitution itself. How very libertarian of you...

passed as in ratified in 1788, the bill of rights was created in 1789 and ratified in 1791.

dont want to live with truth, ok....to each his own.
 
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
 
passed as in ratified in 1788, the bill of rights was created in 1789 and ratified in 1791.

dont want to live with truth, ok....to each his own.

Your truths are irrelevant. Until you can present language or supreme court rulings saying otherwise, there is no limit to can potentially be the topic of an amendment. Your nutty interpretation does not so limit amendments.
 
Your truths are irrelevant. Until you can present language or supreme court rulings saying otherwise, there is no limit to can potentially be the topic of an amendment. Your nutty interpretation does not so limit amendments.

i go by what the founders say ,not the USSC
 
Back
Top Bottom