• 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 .
ernst barkmann said:
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.
Click to expand...
Used car salesmen say a lot of things before selling you a car, too. You should make sure what they've said is in the agreement or you should disregard what they've said. The final contract that is signed by both parties are what holds sway in court, not what one party or the other thought they were signing.


No, I'm not trying to compare Madison to a used car salesmen but the used car example is common and well understood by most people. No one can deny the how the law works in those cases.
 
ernst barkmann said:
i go by what the founders say ,not the USSC
Click to expand...

The founders said alot of things. Many of them did not make it into law. What matters is what the founders passed into law. Please learn history and legal theory.
 
ernst barkmann said:
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.
Click to expand...

This is 100 % false., The Federalist Papers offer opinions on the constitution. They do not interpret it, they are not legally binding, and even suggesting that they represent anything more than the opinions of the author is false.

Why do those most likely to bring up the Federalist Papers the ones who are least likely to understand them?
 
ernst barkmann said:
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."
Click to expand...
Wait a minute! You just said ...
ernst barkmann said:
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.
Click to expand...
... and now you're plainly showing that "the whole document" - twelve Amendments in total - was NOT accepted and signed by the States. SO, you're back to haymarket's question:

Was the Preamble actually agreed to by the States or was that something that was just sent to the States along with twelve Amendments, two of which did not pass?


You know do when people FAX contracts the cover sheet for the FAX is not part of the contract.
 
Redress said:
This is 100 % false., The Federalist Papers offer opinions on the constitution. They do not interpret it, they are not legally binding, and even suggesting that they represent anything more than the opinions of the author is false.

Why do those most likely to bring up the Federalist Papers the ones who are least likely to understand them?
Click to expand...

Ernst was correct. Without the Federalist papers, along with the BOR, the Constitution would most likely not have been ratified...
 
redress said:
the founders said alot of things. Many of them did not make it into law. What matters is what the founders passed into law. Please learn history and legal theory.
Click to expand...

i have, but i suggest you read up on the founders, its an eye opening experience.
 
mosurveyor said:
wait a minute! You just said ... ... And now you're plainly showing that "the whole document" - twelve amendments in total - was not accepted and signed by the states. So, you're back to haymarket's question:

Was the preamble actually agreed to by the states or was that something that was just sent to the states along with twelve amendments, two of which did not pass?


You know do when people fax contracts the cover sheet for the fax is not part of the contract.
Click to expand...

you profess you know what happen, surely you know only 10 amendments were ratified in 1791
 
redress said:
this is 100 % false., the federalist papers offer opinions on the constitution. They do not interpret it, they are not legally binding, and even suggesting that they represent anything more than the opinions of the author is false.

Why do those most likely to bring up the federalist papers the ones who are least likely to understand them?
Click to expand...

really? You will find they address the issues of the constitution, and its construction.
 
MoSurveyor said:
But how many were proposed by Congress sent to the States?
Click to expand...


out of the original 12 .....10 were ratified, however 1 more of the original ...was ratified in 1992.

as to the states which ratified the bill of rights, i have already posted it already.
 
AlabamaPaul said:
Ernst was correct. Without the Federalist papers, along with the BOR, the Constitution would most likely not have been ratified...
Click to expand...

Not surprisingly, that has nothing to do with what I said. Nothing you said makes the Federalist Papers anything more than the opinions of the writers. Important opinions, sure. Historically relevant, yes. Legally of any value, no.
 
ernst barkmann said:
i have, but i suggest you read up on the founders, its an eye opening experience.
Click to expand...

I have studied history. That is why I know the federalist Papers do not have the force of law.
 
Redress said:
Not surprisingly, that has nothing to do with what I said. Nothing you said makes the Federalist Papers anything more than the opinions of the writers. Important opinions, sure. Historically relevant, yes. Legally of any value, no.
Click to expand...

Never indicated there was legal relevance only importance to the formation of the country...
 
ernst barkmann said:
really? You will find they address the issues of the constitution, and its construction.
Click to expand...

They certainly do talk about the constitution and nowhere did I say otherwise. What I said, and what you have not refuted, is that the Federalist Papers are not law, are not binding, are nothing more than the opinions of the writers.
 
AlabamaPaul said:
Never indicated there was legal relevance only importance to the formation of the country...
Click to expand...

I would never claim otherwise. They are important historical documents and a fascinating look into the minds of those who wrote them.
 
ernst barkmann said:
as to the states which ratified the bill of rights, i have already posted it already.
Click to expand...
Previously you were saying the Bill of Rights was sent as a package to the States and they ratified the entire document - including the Preamble (because "there is no separation in the document" and they didn't "cut off the top part of the document"). Since you've now shown the "Bill of Rights" was NOT a package deal at all, and that your previous reply is full of holes, the question is once more put forth:

Did the States vote on the Preamble to the Bill of Rights?
 
Last edited:
Redress said:
I have studied history. That is why I know the federalist Papers do not have the force of law.
Click to expand...

never say they did, i said they explain the problems with the articles of confederation, constitution it structure,meanings of clauses, how power to spread out, that we have a mixed constitution... not representative democracy, but republican government.
 
Redress said:
I have studied history. That is why I know the federalist Papers do not have the force of law.
Click to expand...

But are regularly consulted by SCOTUS when deciding law and constitutionality.
 
ernst barkmann said:
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.
Click to expand...

No one is disputing that the document as issued by Congress is in the National Archives. that bit of trivia is irrelevant to the greater and far more important question: when the states ratified the various amendments that comprise the Bill of Rights, did they also ratify the Preamble you cited?

You say yes but can provide no evidence of such a thing? Why is that?

I think we all know the answer and it is why you are avoiding facing reality so your assumption can be exposed as irrelevant to what the Constitution actually says.

You got nothing. But please, prove me wrong and do it with verifiable evidence and not your own self serving analysis.
 
haymarket said:
No one is disputing that the document as issued by Congress is in the National Archives. that bit of trivia is irrelevant to the greater and far more important question: when the states ratified the various amendments that comprise the Bill of Rights, did they also ratify the Preamble you cited?

You say yes but can provide no evidence of such a thing? Why is that?

I think we all know the answer and it is why you are avoiding facing reality so your assumption can be exposed as irrelevant to what the Constitution actually says.

You got nothing. But please, prove me wrong and do it with verifiable evidence and not your own self serving analysis.
Click to expand...

well i got plenty, that you would even try to go in the direction,, that hey didnt include the preamble to the bill of rights, is as i said many times, ...silly.
 
ernst barkmann said:
well i got plenty, that you would even try to go in the direction,, that hey didnt include the preamble to the bill of rights, is as i said many times, ...silly.
Click to expand...

You have presented not a single iota of evidence that the states which ratified the bill of rights also did so with the Preamble you have cited.

In view of giving you ample opportunity to do so and your refusal or outright impotence to do so, it is obvious that you have been lying about it and can prove nothing of the kind.

Your precious preamble has all the legal force of a piece of toilet tissue.
 
ernst barkmann said:
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.
Click to expand...

The Federalist Papers do not interpret the Constitution, they represent the opinions of their authors and were - if you'll recall - primarily meant to sell the Constitution to the people if New York (at least initially).

They and other contemporaneous documents can be helpful in interpreting the Constitution because in cases where there is ambiguity they may provide some enlightenment but they are not interpretations themselves.
 
Art. I, Sec. 9, clause 1: The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight.
Art. I, Sec. 9, clause 4: No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
Click to expand...

Don't see anything specific there either....
 
Gaius46 said:
The Federalist Papers do not interpret the Constitution, they represent the opinions of their authors and were - if you'll recall - primarily meant to sell the Constitution to the people if New York (at least initially).

They and other contemporaneous documents can be helpful in interpreting the Constitution because in cases where there is ambiguity they may provide some enlightenment but they are not interpretations themselves.
Click to expand...

which is it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom