No offense EB - but I am going to put this in all caps and make it big and bold because for some reason, you are just not answering the key question so I hope this gets your attention.
ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS PROVIDE VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE THAT THE PREAMBLE TO THE BILL OF RIGHTS WAS RATIFIED BY ENOUGH STATES TO BECOME PART OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE USA.
WHERE IS THIS PROOF?
The fact that the message was Congress was sent to the states and is preserved in the Archives IS NOT EVIDENCE that such a preamble was ratified by the states and is part of the Constitution.
haymarkey, your grasping at straws.
no unalienable rights, was your ploy, then the federalist papers have no meaning, then Madison has no meaning, and now its the preamble has not be ratified.
when someone write something they are the foremost authority on it, and Madison who wrote the bill of rights states clearly about them:
James Madison, Report on the Virginia Resolutions
Madison words below
Jan. 1800
In pursuance of the wishes thus expressed, the first Congress that assembled under the Constitution proposed certain amendments, which have since, by the necessary ratifications, been made a part of it; among which amendments is the article containing,
among other prohibitions on the Congress, an
express declaration that
they should make no law abridging the freedom of the press.
Without tracing farther the evidence on this subject, it would seem scarcely possible to doubt that
no power whatever over the press was supposed to be delegated by the Constitution, as it
originally stood, and that the amendment was intended as a
positive and absolute reservation of it.
But the
evidence is still stronger.
The proposition of amendments made by Congress is introduced in the following terms:
"The Conventions of a number of the States having, at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to
prevent misconstructions 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 insure the beneficent ends of its institutions."
Here is the most satisfactory and authentic proof<------------- that the several amendments proposed were to be considered as either declaratory or restrictive, and, whether the one or the other as corresponding
with the desire expressed by a number of the States, and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government.
Under any other construction of the amendment relating to the press, than that it declared the press to be
wholly exempt from the power of Congress, the amendment could neither be said to correspond with the
desire expressed by a number of the States, nor be calculated to extend the ground of public confidence in the Government.
this case is closed, and
MADISON WINS!!!!!