• 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 .
haymarket said:
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?
Click to expand...

really!!!...Madison did not think a BOR was necessary at all, however in reaching a compromise with the anti Federalist ,he promised one would be created after the constitution was ratified, and he kept his word...and wrote the bill, , and he is the highest authority on it, and he states clearly, that the bill is declaratory and restrictive to the new federal government, so if they abuse their powers, the bill of rights would stop them from infringing on the rights of the people, and this would give the people confidence in the federal government.
 
ernst barkmann said:
well since Madison wrote the BILL OF RIGHTS i believe he is the highest authority on them.
Click to expand...

Since Madison isn't alive and could not have any power to restrict what we, as a nation does right now, then no he isn't the highest authority on them.

If 47 of 50 states (I'm using a random number above the required here, it could be any number above the required for the amount of states we would have at the time of the vote) voted on an Amendment proposed in the proper manner by Congress that took away the freedom of the press, there is nothing anyone could legally, under our Constitution, do to stop other laws from being enacted by states and/or the federal government, not even the SCOTUS. There would be a limited number of options to restore that freedom. One would be to vote out all of those who did that and vote in people who would be willing to vote for repeal of such an Amendment. The second would be a revolt to try to take back the government. If you have enough support that you think you may make a successful revolt though, then it is likely that you have enough support to overturn that Amendment anyway.
 
ernst barkmann said:
really!!!...Madison did not think a BOR was necessary at all, however in reaching a compromise with the anti Federalist ,he promised one would be created after the constitution was ratified, and he kept his word...and wrote the bill, , and he is the highest authority on it, and he states clearly, that the bill is declaratory and restrictive to the new federal government, so if they abuse their powers, the bill of rights would stop them from infringing on the rights of the people, and this would give the people confidence in the federal government.
Click to expand...

But Madison has no power to make that statement and have it be considered as law. So in the end its just his own personal musings.

When the States ratified the Amendments in the Bill of Rights, did they also ratify the Preamble to it?
 
MoSurveyor said:
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.


I've already corrected you once on this, do you need another correction?
Click to expand...

so again your saying congress can propose an amendment, pass it by 2/3 of congress and work to get it passed by states, and then alter of abolish rights, and then make laws, concerning those rights which were protected before the amendment?

wow, ..sure sounds to me, like a way around the rights of the people...which are unalienable.......Not to be separated, given away, or taken away
 
ernst barkmann said:
rights are unalienable ...........if the could be amended or repealed, then they would not be unalienable.
Click to expand...

That's a bunch of philisophical mumbo jumbo.

In the real world, in actual practice, "rights" eminate from the barrel of a gun.

You can claim to have a right to free speech, religion, to not incriminate yourself, whatever.

And you can keep on claiming that those are your rights all the way to prison, or to the torture chamber, or to the gallows.

And maybe from a philosophical perspective you'd be right.

But it wouldn't change the fact that you're a man with the right to free speech swinging from the end of a rope for speeking freely in contravention to what your government allowed.

ernst barkmann said:
I am a free man with rights! And I retain the sovereign prerogative to...
Click to expand...

Tyrannical Government said:
Fair enough Mr. barkmann. Please stand against that wall. Cigarette? Blindfold?
Click to expand...

Can the government repeal any or all of the Bill of Rights?

You're damn straight they can.

Maybe you'd still actually "have" those rights, in theory, but if the government stops recognizing them, and you can't or won't assert them, what good are they?
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
But Madison has no power to make that statement and have it be considered as law. So in the end its just his own personal musings.

When the States ratified the Amendments in the Bill of Rights, did they also ratify the Preamble to it?
Click to expand...


the preambles are the goals of our foundlings documents, and what they are trying to achieve.

the BOR is to secure the rights of the people from infringement by the federal government.......this means government has no power over them to take any kind of action concerning them.
 
soot said:
That's a bunch of philisophical mumbo jumbo.

In the real world, in actual practice, "rights" eminate from the barrel of a gun.

You can claim to have a right to free speech, religion, to not incriminate yourself, whatever.

And you can keep on claiming that those are your rights all the way to prison, or to the torture chamber, or to the gallows.

And maybe from a philosophical perspective you'd be right.

But it wouldn't change the fact that you're a man with the right to free speech swinging from the end of a rope for speeking freely in contravention to what your government allowed.
Click to expand...

Great post.

I would say that rights come from a two step process:

1- enough citizens come to demand that a certain behavior be recognized and protected by the government as a right.

2- they use their power to get the government to enshrine that behavior as a right.

Power can come in all forms - at the ballot box and with brute force.
 
ernst barkmann said:
the preambles are the goals of our foundlings documents, and what they are trying to achieve.

the BOR is to secure the rights of the people from infringement by the federal government.......this means government has no power over them to take any kind of action concerning them.
Click to expand...

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?
 
ernst barkmann said:
so again your saying congress can propose an amendment, pass it by 2/3 of congress and work to get it passed by states, and then alter of abolish rights, and then make laws, concerning those rights which were protected before the amendment?

wow, ..sure sounds to me, like a way around the rights of the people...which are unalienable.......Not to be separated, given away, or taken away
Click to expand...
Congress doesn't alter or abolish any rights in the Constitution. You keep making the same mistake over and over. The federal government does not have the power to change the Constitution. I don't know what part of that is so hard for you to understand.
 
Henrin said:
Sure, I suppose. I'm not as good as you though.
Click to expand...

Terrific!

So perhaps you can provide the answer that EB was trying very hard to avoid answering: when the bill of rights was ratified by the States, did the also ratify the Preamble to it?
 
ernst barkmann said:
the preambles are the goals of our foundlings documents, and what they are trying to achieve.

the BOR is to secure the rights of the people from infringement by the federal government.......this means the federal government has no power to make laws infringing over them to take any kind of action concerning them.
Click to expand...
There, fixed it for you. :)


And the federal government can't since it can only make a proposal, not a law. Even your own BoR Preamble says that:

"... 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."
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
Great post.

I would say that rights come from a two step process:

1- enough citizens come to demand that a certain behavior be recognized and protected by the government as a right.

2- they use their power to get the government to enshrine that behavior as a right.

Power can come in all forms - at the ballot box and with brute force.
Click to expand...

That is just a view of slavery, nothing more. Sad, really.
 
Henrin said:
That is just a view of slavery, nothing more. Sad, really.
Click to expand...

How does people uniting in common purpose to get a behavior recognized by the government as a right somehow someway equate to SLAVERY?
 
haymarket said:
How does people uniting in common purpose to get a behavior recognized by the government as a right somehow someway equate to SLAVERY?
Click to expand...
Especially when one of those actions was getting rid of legal slavery. ;)
 
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...

The Bill of Rights is part of the constitution. Every amendment is part of the constitution.
 
ernst barkmann said:
really!!!...Madison did not think a BOR was necessary at all, however in reaching a compromise with the anti Federalist ,he promised one would be created after the constitution was ratified, and he kept his word...and wrote the bill, , and he is the highest authority on it, and he states clearly, that the bill is declaratory and restrictive to the new federal government, so if they abuse their powers, the bill of rights would stop them from infringing on the rights of the people, and this would give the people confidence in the federal government.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Sarcogito said:
Yes, they can be amended. But amending the Constitution is VERY difficult, as it should be. And amending one of the first 10 would be damn near impossible. Instead those rights will be eroded through more subtle means.
Click to expand...

By that logic, those means would be unconstitutional.
 
haymarket said:
How does people uniting in common purpose to get a behavior recognized by the government as a right somehow someway equate to SLAVERY?
Click to expand...

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.
 
ernst barkmann said:
i see your letting personal bias in your statement on jefferson.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom