• 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 .
MoSurveyor said:
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 States as of 1959) can make an Amendment. Your argument and reading comprehension skills continue to fail.
Click to expand...

the first states ...congress shall make no law.......your saying congress can create an amendment to try to get around the first amendment and abolish it so they can make a law.

again....... declaratory and restrictive clauses towards the federal government.
 
ernst barkmann said:
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 not 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
Click to expand...

That is correct roughly. They felt that enumerating rights would in fact limit rights. However, you cannot use the Federalist Papers, which are opinion and opposed to a bill of rights, as a way of claiming that the Bill of Rights cannot be superseded by amendment. Clearly, based on what was put in the constitution itself, they can. Adding wild interpretations to the constitution which simply do not exist in the text not flows from that text naturally is very common, especially for libertarians, but ultimately false, as is claiming that the Federalist Papers where anything other than the opinions of 3 men.
 
ernst barkmann said:
the first states ...congress shall make no law.......your saying congress can create an amendment to try to get around the first amendment and abolish it so they can make a law.
Click to expand...
Congress can't create an Amendment, why is that so hard for you to understand when it's plainly written in the Constitution? Maybe you should quite reading the Federalist Papers and start reading what was actually signed. You seem to have missed several important points.

Only an agreement of 38/50 States can make an Amendment.
 
Last edited:
Redress said:
That is correct roughly. They felt that enumerating rights would in fact limit rights. However, you cannot use the Federalist Papers, which are opinion and opposed to a bill of rights, as a way of claiming that the Bill of Rights cannot be superseded by amendment. Clearly, based on what was put in the constitution itself, they can. Adding wild interpretations to the constitution which simply do not exist in the text not flows from that text naturally is very common, especially for libertarians, but ultimately false, as is claiming that the Federalist Papers where anything other than the opinions of 3 men.
Click to expand...

you are correct that is why we have the 9th amendment, becuase we have more rights than are enumerated.

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
 
MoSurveyor said:
Congress can't create an Amendment, why is that so hard for you to understand when it's plainly written in the Constitution? Maybe you should quite reading the Federalist Papers and start reading what was actually signed. You seem to have missed several important points.

Only an agreement of 38/50 States can make an Amendment.
Click to expand...

because the Constitution itself, that creates the federal government, has clauses which can be AMENDED.......the clauses of the bill of rights CANNOT BE AMENDED, BECAUSE THEY ARE RESTRICTIVE CLAUSES towards the federal government.
 
ernst barkmann said:
you are correct that is why we have the 9th amendment, becuase we have more rights than are enumerated.

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
Click to expand...

Show me where in the constitution is specifically states or implies that there are limits to what can be done with an amendment, and what those limits are. Stuff not in the constitution is irrelevant.
 
ernst barkmann said:
because the Constitution itself, that creates the federal government, has clauses which can be AMENDED.......the clauses of the bill of rights CANNOT BE AMENDED, BECAUSE THEY ARE RESTRICTIVE CLAUSES towards the federal government.
Click to expand...
Sorry, the Fed doesn't make Amendments. Try again, and again, and again, and again ... eventually you'll figure it out.
 
Redress said:
Show me where in the constitution is specifically states or implies that there are limits to what can be done with an amendment, and what those limits are. Stuff not in the constitution is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

the constitution was created in 1787..the bill of rights in 1789 two years later.

it sole purpose was to stop the federal government from infringing on rights, yet you and others claim the government can create an amendment and work to get around the bill or rights to infringe.......

WHO are the declaratory and restrictive clauses, aimed at?...........to prevent usurpation of rights?
 
MoSurveyor said:
Sorry, the Fed doesn't make Amendments. Try again, and again, and again, and again ... eventually you'll figure it out.
Click to expand...

How did income tax start?

There was an income tax before the 16th amendment, and it was in effect during the Civil War. Anyone making more than $800 would be charged a tax of 3% and then eventually 3-5% on income over $600. This was actually a lot of money during the Civil War. This income tax ended in 1866.The desire of Americans to pass an income tax on the rich was strong in 1909, when President William Taft proposed a 2% of big businesses know as corporations. Following this lead, Congress wrote the 16th amendment and after agreeing on the rules of the amendment about income tax, sent to the states to be voted on. Although many northern states did not like the idea of an income tax in the 16th amendment, western states strongly supported it.

For the amendment to become part of the constitution, 36 states needed to ratify (approve) it. The 36th state to approve the 16th amendment was Delaware in 1931, almost four years after the first state, Alabama, ratified the 16th amendment in
 
MoSurveyor said:
And this has to do with, what exactly?
Click to expand...


Sorry, the Fed doesn't make Amendments. Try again, and again, and again, and again ... eventually you'll figure it out.
Click to expand...

Congress wrote the 16th amendment and after agreeing on the rules of the amendment about income tax
 
ernst barkmann said:
the constitution was created in 1787..the bill of rights in 1789 two years later.

it sole purpose was to stop the federal government from infringing on rights, yet you and others claim the government can create an amendment and work to get around the bill or rights to infringe.......

WHO are the declaratory and restrictive clauses, aimed at?...........to prevent usurpation of rights?
Click to expand...


Why did you not answer my question?
 
I would like to see the 2nd amended to, "Shall not infringe and you will get shot if you try" ;)
 
Redress said:
Show me where in the constitution is specifically states or implies that there are limits to what can be done with an amendment, and what those limits are. Stuff not in the constitution is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

The poster will not be able to do this. Everything about the Amendment process is contained in Article V of the US Constitution and only that applies to the process. Nothing else.

Far too many people here have no respect for the Constitution. When it will not say what they want it to say, they have no problem jumping to other documents and even the personal observations of individuals which they attempt to foist off as being equal with the actual Constitution.

Its all there in Article V.

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.
 
ernst barkmann said:
Congress wrote the 16th amendment and after agreeing on the rules of the amendment about income tax
Click to expand...
Congress doesn't create law by writing a proposal. Until the 38/50 States approve Congress's proposal there is no Amendment.
 
Redress said:
Why did you not answer my question?
Click to expand...

the constitution does not mention the bill of rights ,becuase it did not exist, but Madison clearly stated in the bill of rights that the clauses which makeup the bill of rights are declaratory and restrictive to the federal government, barring them, from trying to alter or abolish them.
 
MoSurveyor said:
Congress doesn't create law by writing an Amendment.
Click to expand...

so your say writing an amendment is not the same thing.

so congress can create an amendment ,in other words.....take action to try to infringe on the first amendment., by creating a new amendment, to alter or abolish first amendment?
 
ernst barkmann said:
the constitution does not mention the bill of rights ,becuase it did not exist, but Madison clearly stated in the bill of rights that the clauses which makeup the bill of rights are declaratory and restrictive to the federal government, barring them, from trying to alter or abolish them.
Click to expand...

And what gives one person like Madison or any other individual the power to decree that final judgment overriding the actual language of the Constitution?

And why does my copy of the Constitution NOT contain this Preamble that you have mentioned several times now?
 
ernst barkmann said:
so your say writing an amendment is not the same thing.

so congress can create an amendment ,in other words.....take action to try to infringe on the first amendment., by creating a new amendment, to alter or abolish first amendment?
Click to expand...
If you'll notice I edited my post for clarity.


Congress can only propose changes to the Constitution, it cannot amend the Constitution. Only an agreement of 38/50 States can do that.
 
haymarket said:
And what gives one person like Madison or any other individual the power to decree that final judgment overriding the actual language of the Constitution?
Click to expand...

well since Madison wrote the BILL OF RIGHTS i believe he is the highest authority on them.
 
MoSurveyor said:
If you'll notice I edited my statement.


Congress can only propose changes to the Constitution, it cannot amend the Constitution.
Click to expand...

true.....but by proposing an amendment, they are taking action against the BOR......which are restrictive towards them.
 
ernst barkmann said:
well since Madison wrote the BILL OF RIGHTS i believe he is the highest authority on them.
Click to expand...

Madison has no authority on his own to do anything with the bill of rights or any other part of the Constitution in terms of changes, additions or anything else.

His opinion might be an interesting historical footnote - but legally changes nothing in the actual Constitution.

And why does my copy of the Constitution NOT contain this famous Preamble you keep talking about?
 
haymarket said:
And what gives one person like Madison or any other individual the power to decree that final judgment overriding the actual language of the Constitution?

And why does my copy of the Constitution NOT contain this Preamble that you have mentioned several times now?
Click to expand...

Bill of Rights Transcript Text
 
ernst barkmann said:
true.....but by proposing an amendment, they are taking action against the BOR......which are restrictive towards them.
Click to expand...
Nothing says Congress can take no action, it says "Congress shall make no law". As you've just admitted, Congress is - on it's face - not making law by proposing a change in the law. Hell, if all I have to do is propose a change then I'll propose the speed limit where I was ticketed be changed so that I wasn't speeding.


I've already corrected you once on this, do you need another correction?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom