Can you legally Amend the Bill of Rights?

ernst barkmann said:

which is it?

Click to expand...

Both. His statement is pretty clear. They are not interpretations in and of themselves, more like opinion pieces which should be taken into consideration when interpreting them. You can't really intepret something you created. Other people interpret your creations.

Hatuey said:

Both. His statement is pretty clear. They are not interpretations in and of themselves, more like opinion pieces which should be taken into consideration when interpreting them. You can't really intepret something you created. Other people interpret your creations.

Click to expand...

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 1

James Madison, Federalist, no. 52, 354--59
James Madison, Federalist, no. 53, 359--66

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3

James Madison, Federalist, no. 54, 366--72
James Madison, Federalist, no. 55, 372--78
James Madison, Federalist, no. 56, 378--83
James Madison, Federalist, no. 57, 384--90
James Madison, Federalist, no. 58, 391--97

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 5
Article 1, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7
Article 2, Section 4
Article 3, Section 1

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist, no. 65, 439--45
Alexander Hamilton, Federalist, no. 66, 445--51

Article 1, Section 3, Clauses 1 and 2

James Madison, Federalist, no. 62, 415--22
James Madison, Federalist, no. 63, 422--31

Article 1, Section 4, Clause 1

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist, no. 59, 397--403
Alexander Hamilton, Federalist, no. 60, 403--10
Alexander Hamilton, Federalist, no. 61, 410--14

Article 1, Section 7, Clauses 2 and 3

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist, no. 69, 463--64
Alexander Hamilton, Federalist, no. 73, 494--99

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist, no. 30, 187--93
Alexander Hamilton, Federalist, no. 31, 193--98
Alexander Hamilton, Federalist, no. 34, 209--15
Alexander Hamilton, Federalist, no. 35, 215--18

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3

James Madison, Federalist, no. 42, 283--85
James Madison, Federalist, no. 42, 284--85

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4

James Madison, Federalist, no. 42, 285--87

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 5

James Madison, Federalist, no. 42, 285

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 10

James Madison, Federalist, no. 42, 280--81

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 12

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist, no. 23, 146--51
Alexander Hamilton, Federalist, no. 24, 152--57
Alexander Hamilton, Federalist, no. 25, 158--63
Alexander Hamilton, Federalist, no. 26, 164--71
Alexander Hamilton, Federalist, no. 28, 176--80

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 13

John Jay, Federalist, no. 4, 19--23
Alexander Hamilton, Federalist, no. 11, 65--73

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist, no. 29, 181--87

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist, no. 29, 181--87

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17

James Madison, Federalist, no. 43, 288--90

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18

James Madison, Federalist, no. 44, 303--5
Hamilton, Federalist, no. 33, 203--208

ernst barkmann said:

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 1

James Madison, Federalist, no. 52, 354--59
James Madison, Federalist, no. 53, 359--66

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3

James Madison, Federalist, no. 54, 366--72
James Madison, Federalist, no. 55, 372--78
James Madison, Federalist, no. 56, 378--83
James Madison, Federalist, no. 57, 384--90
James Madison, Federalist, no. 58, 391--97

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 5
Article 1, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7
Article 2, Section 4
Article 3, Section 1

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist, no. 65, 439--45
Alexander Hamilton, Federalist, no. 66, 445--51

Article 1, Section 3, Clauses 1 and 2

James Madison, Federalist, no. 62, 415--22
James Madison, Federalist, no. 63, 422--31

Article 1, Section 4, Clause 1

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist, no. 59, 397--403
Alexander Hamilton, Federalist, no. 60, 403--10
Alexander Hamilton, Federalist, no. 61, 410--14
Article 1, Section 7, Clauses 2 and 3

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist, no. 69, 463--64
Alexander Hamilton, Federalist, no. 73, 494--99

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist, no. 30, 187--93
Alexander Hamilton, Federalist, no. 31, 193--98
Alexander Hamilton, Federalist, no. 34, 209--15
Alexander Hamilton, Federalist, no. 35, 215--18

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3

James Madison, Federalist, no. 42, 283--85
James Madison, Federalist, no. 42, 284--85

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4

James Madison, Federalist, no. 42, 285--87

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 5

James Madison, Federalist, no. 42, 285

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 10

James Madison, Federalist, no. 42, 280--81

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 12

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist, no. 23, 146--51
Alexander Hamilton, Federalist, no. 24, 152--57
Alexander Hamilton, Federalist, no. 25, 158--63
Alexander Hamilton, Federalist, no. 26, 164--71
Alexander Hamilton, Federalist, no. 28, 176--80

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 13

John Jay, Federalist, no. 4, 19--23
Alexander Hamilton, Federalist, no. 11, 65--73

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist, no. 29, 181--87

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist, no. 29, 181--87

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17

James Madison, Federalist, no. 43, 288--90

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18

James Madison, Federalist, no. 44, 303--5
Hamilton, Federalist, no. 33, 203--208

Click to expand...

Good stuff, they're still nothing but the opinions of their authors on the matter. Not how they should be interpreted.

"The legitimate meaning of the Instrument must be derived from the text itself; or if a key is to be sought elsewhere, it must be not in the opinions or intentions of the Body which planned & proposed the Constitution, but in the sense attached to it by the people in their respective State Conventions where it recd. all the authority which it possesses." - James Madison

Hatuey said:

Not how they should be interpreted.

Click to expand...

so are you making the point that what the founders have to say about the constitution, and what is about, what it is.... is open to interpretation, of who sits on the court?

The Federalist Papers long have enjoyed a special reputation as an extremely important source of evidence of the original meaning of the Constitution. In 1821, in Cohens v. Virginia, Chief Justice John Marshall described the collection of essays in the following glowing terms:
It is a complete commentary on our constitution; and is appealed to by all parties in the questions to which that instrument has given birth. Its intrinsic merit entitles it to this high rank, and the part two of its authors[i.e., Hamilton and Madison] performed in framing the constitution, put it
very much in their power to explain the views with which it was framed.

ernst barkmann said:

so are you making the point that what the founders have to say about the constitution, and what is about, what it is.... is open to interpretation, of who sits on the court?

Click to expand...

there were 55 Founders who helped produce the US Constitution.

The opinion of a very small number on any issue means precious little next to the actual language of the Constitution itself.

haymarket said:

there were 55 Founders who helped produce the US Constitution.

The opinion of a very small number on any issue means precious little next to the actual language of the Constitution itself.

Click to expand...

you gave this a like, so iam going to post it again for you ..

"The legitimate meaning of the Instrument must be derived from the text itself; or if a key is to be sought elsewhere, it must be not in the opinions or intentions of the Body which planned & proposed the Constitution, but in the sense attached to it by the people in their respective State Conventions where it recd. all the authority which it possesses." - James Madison

well here is the text, again for you....since you like text.


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 (*federal) 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.

* added by me

and the text is very clear, when the bill of rights THE WHOLE DOCUMENT was ratified.

that the clauses of the bill of rights are declaratory and restrictive clauses towards the powers of the federal government.

haymarket said:

there were 55 Founders who helped produce the US Constitution.

The opinion of a very small number on any issue means precious little next to the actual language of the Constitution itself.

Click to expand...

true, but only two have rendered the most thoughts on the constitution, and they thoughts /opinions carry more weight any one outside that 55.

ernst barkmann said:

and the text is very clear, when the bill of rights THE WHOLE DOCUMENT was ratified.

that the clauses of the bill of rights are declaratory and restrictive clauses towards the powers of the federal government.

Click to expand...

There is not one shred of evidence that has been presented by you which says that anything other than the specific Amendments in the Bill of Rights were ratified by the states.

And when you say THE WHOLE DOCUMENT was ratified you should be aware that is not even true as not all the proposed Amendments in the Bill of Rights were ratified.

Bill of Rights is finally ratified — History.com This Day in History — 12/15/1791

On December 15, 1791, Virginia became the 10th of 14 states to approve 10 of the 12 amendments, thus giving the Bill of Rights the two-thirds majority of state ratification necessary to make it legal. Of the two amendments not ratified, the first concerned the population system of representation, while the second prohibited laws varying the payment of congressional members from taking effect until an election intervened. The first of these two amendments was never ratified, while the second was finally ratified more than 200 years later, in 1992.

Click to expand...

So your statement that THE WHOLE DOCUMENT was ratified is factually and historically wrong.

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/bill_of_rightss12.html

this article goes to great pains to identify each state and which part of THE WHOLE DOCUMENT that was submitted was ratified. Please take care to read it and not that there is not one mention of any ratification of any PREAMBLE to the Bill of Rights.

Again, despite being repeatedly asked, you have presented not one piece of evidence that the Preamble was ever ratifiied. Thus the Preamble has the same legal status as a piece of toilet tissue............ without the obvious utilitatian use.

Which, being transmitted to the several state legislatures, were decided upon by them, according to the following returns:--

By the State of New Hampshire.--Agreed to the whole of the said amendments, except the 2d article.

By the State of New York.--Agreed to the whole of the said amendments, except the 2d article.

By the State of Pennsylvania.--Agreed to the 3d, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, and 12th articles of the said amendments.

By the State of Delaware.--Agreed to the whole of the said amendments, except the 1st article.

By the State of Maryland.--Agreed to the whole of the said twelve amendments.

By the State of South Carolina.--Agreed to the whole said twelve amendments.

By the State of North Carolina.--Agreed to the whole of the said twelve amendments.

By the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations.--Agreed to the whole of the said twelve articles.

By the State of New Jersey.--Agreed to the whole of the said amendments, except the second article.

By the State of Virginia.--Agreed to the whole of the said twelve articles.

No returns were made by the states of Massachusetts, Connecticut, Georgia, and Kentucky.

The amendments thus proposed became a part of the Constitution, the first and second of them excepted, which were not ratified by a sufficient number of the state legislatures.

Click to expand...

Different AMENDMENTS were ratified. No Preamble was ratified as it is not an Amendment.

ernst barkmann said:

true, but only two have rendered the most thoughts on the constitution, and they thoughts /opinions carry more weight any one outside that 55.

Click to expand...

Perhaps in a historical anecdote context you might say that but since only a very small number put their thoughts down on paper - we have no way of knowing what the others believed other than the exact language given to us in the Constitution itself. And that is why the exact language always always always trumps any individual opinion of any of the 55.

The Constitution including the amendments called the bill of rights is subject to the approval and will of the people as outlined in the rules for how to change it. Should they wish to, then it can be legally changed. Rights are not absolute. They are granted by our society. They can and will change with the times.

ernst barkmann said:

so are you making the point that what the founders have to say about the constitution, and what is about, what it is.... is open to interpretation, of who sits on the court?

Click to expand...

No, I'm showing that the founders themselves said that their opinions were not supreme guidelines to how the constitution should be interpreted. The meaning behind the constitutio n is dependent on the people, not the we long ago zombie people.

haymarket said:

There is not one shred of evidence that has been presented by you which says that anything other than the specific Amendments in the Bill of Rights were ratified by the states.

And when you say THE WHOLE DOCUMENT was ratified you should be aware that is not even true as not all the proposed Amendments in the Bill of Rights were ratified.

Bill of Rights is finally ratified — History.com This Day in History — 12/15/1791



So your statement that THE WHOLE DOCUMENT was ratified is factually and historically wrong.

Bill of Rights: Proposed Amendments and Ratification

this article goes to great pains to identify each state and which part of THE WHOLE DOCUMENT that was submitted was ratified. Please take care to read it and not that there is not one mention of any ratification of any PREAMBLE to the Bill of Rights.

Again, despite being repeatedly asked, you have presented not one piece of evidence that the Preamble was ever ratifiied. Thus the Preamble has the same legal status as a piece of toilet tissue............ without the obvious utilitatian use.



Different AMENDMENTS were ratified. No Preamble was ratified as it is not an Amendment.

Click to expand...

i know you dont like the preamble, becuase it does not let you explain how government is able to get around the bill of rights, but its clear, the document in the achieves does have the preamble, which is the goal of the document itself, and it its meant to achieve, and that is to protect unalienable rights.

ernst barkmann said:

i know you dont like the preamble, becuase it does not let you explain how government is able to get around the bill of rights, but its clear, the document in the achieves does have the preamble, which is the goal of the document itself, and it its meant to achieve, and that is to protect unalienable rights.

Click to expand...

So you have no verifiable information to claim the Preamble to the BoR is part of the Constitution? That doesn't surprise me because I doubt it is.

ernst barkmann said:

i know you dont like the preamble, becuase it does not let you explain how government is able to get around the bill of rights, but its clear, the document in the achieves does have the preamble, which is the goal of the document itself, and it its meant to achieve, and that is to protect unalienable rights.

Click to expand...

What I like or do nor like is not the question. The question was did the states ratify the Preamble to the Bill of Rights. And the answer is NO they did not.

MoSurveyor said:

So you have no verifiable information to claim the Preamble to the BoR is part of the Constitution? That doesn't surprise me because I doubt it is.

Click to expand...

is the BOR with its preamble in the national achieves?.....yes....case closed

haymarket said:

What I like or do nor like is not the question. The question was did the states ratify the Preamble to the Bill of Rights. And the answer is NO they did not.

Click to expand...

the whole document was read to the state legislators, when it was presented to them, and accepted as a whole document, not just part of it.

sorry ....you cannot get around that fact.

Madison is talking about the FREEDOM OF THE PRESS, and how government NO AUTHORITY AT ALL over it becuase of the declaratory and restrictive amendments of the BILL OF RIGHTS


James Madison, Report on the Virginia Resolutions
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.

Nay, more; the construction employed to justify the Sedition Act would exhibit a phenomenon without a parallel in the political world. It would exhibit a number of respectable States, as denying, first, that any power over the press was delegated by the Constitution; as proposing, next, that an amendment to it should explicitly declare that no such power was delegated; and, finally, as concurring in an amendment actually recognizing or delegating such a power.

Is, then, the Federal Government, it will be asked, destitute of every authority for restraining the licentiousness of the press, and for shielding itself against the libellous attacks which may be made on those who administer it?

The Constitution alone can answer this question. If no such power be expressly delegated, and if it be not both necessary and proper to carry into execution an express power--above all, if it be expressly forbidden, by a declaratory amendment to the Constitution--the answer must be, that the Federal Government is destitute of all such authority.

ernst barkmann said:

the whole document was read to the state legislators, when it was presented to them, and accepted as a whole document, not just part of it.

sorry ....you cannot get around that fact.

Click to expand...

You have not presented one shred of evidence .... one line of evidence .... one iota of evidence that anything other than the ten amendments in the Bill of Rights were ratified by the States.

I really do not care if the bowel movement habits of George Washington were read to the various states along with showing them compromising pictures of Thomas Jefferson and John Adams together at a french brothel - it is irrelevant unless they were actually ratified by the states. If that did not happen - and there is not a shred of evidence that it did - the Preamble to the Bill of Rights has no more legal standing than a few sheets of Charmin and is far less useful in practical terms.

haymarket said:

You have not presented one shred of evidence .... one line of evidence .... one iota of evidence that anything other than the ten amendments in the Bill of Rights were ratified by the States.

I really do not care if the bowel movement habits of George Washington were read to the various states along with showing them compromising pictures of Thomas Jefferson and John Adams together at a french brothel - it is irrelevant unless they were actually ratified by the states. If that did not happen - and there is not a shred of evidence that it did - the Preamble to the Bill of Rights has no more legal standing than a few sheets of Charmin and is far less useful in practical terms.

Click to expand...

James Madison--

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.

James Madison--"The Constitution alone can answer this question. If no such power be expressly delegated, and if it be not both necessary and proper to carry into execution an express power--above all, if it be expressly forbidden, by a declaratory amendment to the Constitution--the answer must be, that the Federal Government is destitute of all such authority.

Madison it very clear here congress has NO AUTHORITY WHAT SO-EVER OVER THE PRESS, becuase of the declaratory and restrictive clauses of the bill of rights.

ernst barkmann said:

James madsion--"The Constitution alone can answer this question. If no such power be expressly delegated, and if it be not both necessary and proper to carry into execution an express power--above all, if it be expressly forbidden, by a declaratory amendment to the Constitution--the answer must be, that the Federal Government is destitute of all such authority.

Click to expand...

Add that to other things with less practical usage than the Charmin toilet tissue.

haymarket said:

Add that to other things with less practical usage than the Charmin toilet tissue.

Click to expand...

sorry you will not accept the fact Madison wrote the bill or rights and knows more about them then anyone, and he states most assuredly that the rights of the people cannot be repealed ,becuase congress has absolutely no authority over them.

The Resolution next in order is as follows:

"That this State having, by its Convention, which ratified the Federal Constitution, expressly declared that, among other essential rights, 'the liberty of conscience and of the press cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by any authority of the United States;' and, from its extreme anxiety to guard these rights from every possible attack of sophistry and ambition, having, with other States, recommended an amendment for that purpose, which amendment was in due time annexed to the Constitution, it would mark a reproachful inconsistency, and criminal degeneracy, if an indifference were now shown to the most palpable violation of one of the rights thus declared and secured, and to the establishment of a precedent which may be fatal to the other."

ernst barkmann said:

The Resolution next in order is as follows:

"That this State having, by its Convention, which ratified the Federal Constitution, expressly declared that, among other essential rights, 'the liberty of conscience and of the press cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by any authority of the United States;' and, from its extreme anxiety to guard these rights from every possible attack of sophistry and ambition, having, with other States, recommended an amendment for that purpose, which amendment was in due time annexed to the Constitution, it would mark a reproachful inconsistency, and criminal degeneracy, if an indifference were now shown to the most palpable violation of one of the rights thus declared and secured, and to the establishment of a precedent which may be fatal to the other."

Click to expand...

Perhaps it was an oversight and you forget to link to the source of that quotation?

haymarket said:

Perhaps it was an oversight and you forget to link to the source of that quotation?

Click to expand...

no not an oversight....i mentioned the source already...but i will again for you...James Madison, Report on the Virginia Resolutions
Jan. 1800

ernst barkmann said:

is the BOR with its preamble in the national achieves?.....yes....case closed

Click to expand...

Last time I checked, federal laws weren't the only things housed in the National Archives. If the case is closed, you lost.