• 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:
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...
Then why aren't there twelve amendments in the Bill of Rights?!?
 
haymarket said:
Yesterday, I heard an argument that I was not aware of. Basically the individual claimed that one could not legally amend the United States Constitution so that it changed or repealed any of the current Amendments in the first ten - the Bill of Rights.
Click to expand...

It can be amended, but it is unnecessary when you can just have the SCOTUS say whatever they want to say about it. The expansion in power of the Courts have destroyed any necessity for amending the Constitution.
 
MoSurveyor said:
Last time I checked, federal laws weren't the only things housed in the National Archives. If the case is closed, you lost.
Click to expand...

The First Congress of the United States submitted 12 amendments to the states. Numbers 3 through 12 were ratified and became the first ten amendments to the Constitution of the United States. They are known as the Bill of Rights. The original copies are located in the National Archives Building in Washington, DC. The Bill of Rights is made up of the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. The original copy is located in the United States Archive in Washington DC.
 
ernst barkmann said:
The First Congress of the United States submitted 12 amendments to the states. Numbers 3 through 12 were ratified and became the first ten amendments to the Constitution of the United States. They are known as the Bill of Rights. The original copies are located in the National Archives Building in Washington, DC. The Bill of Rights is made up of the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. The original copy is located in the United States Archive in Washington DC.
Click to expand...
Does that original copy include all 12 amendments? If not, then it obviously wasn't what was sent to the States for ratification.
 
MoSurveyor said:
Then why aren't there twelve amendments in the Bill of Rights?!?
Click to expand...

i answered this already, but will again for you, out of the original 12 ,only 10 were ratified, numbers 3 to 12, 1 and 2 were not.

however one of the two were ratified in 1992
 
ernst barkmann said:
you just said they were not in the national archives.........trying something else now?
Click to expand...
I didn't say anything about the National Archives except that other things besides US laws were stored there. Anything else dealing with the National Archives is something you've claimed.
 
ernst barkmann said:
i answered this already, but will again for you, out of the original 12 ,only 10 were ratified, numbers 3 to 12, 1 and 2 were not.

however one of the two were ratified in 1992
Click to expand...
I am well aware of that, but that didn't really answer the question, did it?


If the Bill of Rights is ONE document (as you've claimed) that was sent to the States then it follows that either all of it was ratified - meaning all twelve amendments and the Preamble - or it wasn't.

Since there are only ten Amendments in the Bill of Rights, the answer is obvious. There never was "one document" with ten Amendments that was sent to the States for ratification, therefore, the States didn't ratify the Preamble. That's the logical conclusion from the facts presented.


If you have other evidence to present then do so, but your continued resistance and lack of response seems to say you have no evidence for your claim that the Preamble was ratified by the States.
 
ernst barkmann said:
no not an oversight....i mentioned the source already...but i will again for you...James Madison, Report on the Virginia Resolutions
Jan. 1800
Click to expand...

Which is clearly NOT the US Constitution so it has no legal weight.
 
MoSurveyor said:
I am well aware of that, but that didn't really answer the question, did it?


If the Bill of Rights is ONE document (as you've claimed) that was sent to the States then it follows that either all of it was ratified - meaning all twelve amendments and the Preamble - or it wasn't.

Since there are only ten Amendments in the Bill of Rights, the answer is obvious. There never was "one document" with ten Amendments that was sent to the States for ratification, therefore, the States didn't ratify the Preamble. That's the logical conclusion from the facts presented.


If you have other evidence to present then do so, but your continued resistance and lack of response seems to say you have no evidence for your claim that the Preamble was ratified by the States.
Click to expand...

are you putting forth that the actual document was sent to all the states?
 
ernst barkmann said:
are you putting forth that the actual document was sent to all the states?
Click to expand...
I believe you're the one trying to do that, not me. You're the one that has claimed more than once that the Bill of Rights was one document submitted for ratification. It wasn't, as your own cites clearly show.


The States ratify Amendments - says so right in the Constitution! - so unless your Preamble is an Amendment, on it's face it was not ratified and, therefore, not included as part of the Constitution. You're welcome to present evidence to the contrary but none has been forthcoming so far, so I really don't expect any at all.
 
MoSurveyor said:
I believe you're the one trying to do that, not me. You're the one that has claimed more than once that the Bill of Rights was one document submitted for ratification. It wasn't, as your own cites clearly show.


The States ratify Amendments - says so right in the Constitution! - so unless your Preamble is an Amendment, on it's face it was not ratified and, therefore, not included as part of the Constitution. You're welcome to present evidence to the contrary but none has been forthcoming so far, so I really don't expect any at all.
Click to expand...

you should already know, that when the constitution and the bill or rights was created and send to the states.... copies were made and sent out, not the originals.

the all of the copies be they the constitution, or the bill of rights, included the preamble on each one, and it is included in the ratification.

both you and haymarkets arguments are very weak because you have nothing, you have made many claims, saying this is not valid that is not valid, but again your argument is plain silly.
 
ernst barkmann said:
you should already know, that when the constitution and the bill or rights was created and send to the states.... copies were made and sent out, not the originals.

the all of the copies be they the constitution, or the bill of rights, included the preamble on each one, and it is included in the ratification.

both you and haymarkets arguments are very weak because you have nothing, you have made many claims, saying this is not valid that is not valid, but again your argument is plain silly.
Click to expand...

When a person makes a claim that a particular historical event happened, it is 100% completely and totally incumbent upon that person to provide verifiable evidence of their claim.

You claimed right here that the states ratified the COMPLETE DOCUMENT. You were shown to be incorrect and wrong.

You have repeatedly claimed that the states which ratified the various Amendments making up the Bill of Rights also ratified the Preamble. But you have not presented one shred, one piece, one iota of verifiable evidence that such a thing ever happened.

What is silly is that you make claims but cannot back them up with any verifiable evidence.
 
haymarket said:
when a person makes a claim that a particular historical event happened, it is 100% completely and totally incumbent upon that person to provide verifiable evidence of their claim.

You claimed right here that the states ratified the complete document. You were shown to be incorrect and wrong.

You have repeatedly claimed that the states which ratified the various amendments making up the bill of rights also ratified the preamble. But you have not presented one shred, one piece, one iota of verifiable evidence that such a thing ever happened.

What is silly is that you make claims but cannot back them up with any verifiable evidence.
Click to expand...

no what is silly, is you have nothing and yet, you have repeatly, stated many things ,rights are not unaleiable, disavowing, the federalist papers, disavowing the founding fathers, and you will continue to do this because you know your wrong, and will not admitt it.

Are you next going to state the preamble to the constutution itself was not part of raticfication?

Both documents to the constution and the bill of rights, in the national achives,both have at the top of them, their preambles.
 
ernst barkmann said:
you should already know, that when the constitution and the bill or rights was created and send to the states.... copies were made and sent out, not the originals.

the all of the copies be they the constitution, or the bill of rights, included the preamble on each one, and it is included in the ratification.
Click to expand...
You have yet to produce any evidence of that.

If they passed only 10/12 amendments on that same document it's obvious they didn't accept the thing as a whole nor vote on it as a whole. Your entire argument has been based on the assumption that the whole document was passed - and it's a patently false assumption.


ernst barkmann said:
both you and haymarkets arguments are very weak because you have nothing, you have made many claims, saying this is not valid that is not valid, but again your argument is plain silly.
Click to expand...
It's your positive assertion that the BoR Preamble is part of US law, so it's on you to provide evidence of that claim, which you have continually failed to do. The burden of proof does not fall on us.
 
Last edited:
ernst barkmann said:
no what is silly, is you have nothing and yet, you have repeatly, stated many things ,rights are not unaleiable, disavowing, the federalist papers, disavowing the founding fathers, and you will continue to do this because you know your wrong, and will not admitt it.

Are you next going to state the preamble to the constutution itself was not part of raticfication?

Both documents to the constution and the bill of rights, in the national achives,both have at the top of them, their preambles.
Click to expand...

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.
 
haymarket said:
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.
Click to expand...

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!!!!!
 
Last edited:
MoSurveyor said:
You have yet to produce any evidence of that.

If they passed only 10/12 amendments on that same document it's obvious they didn't accept the thing as a whole nor vote on it as a whole. Your entire argument has been based on the assumption that the whole document was passed - and it's a patently false assumption.


It's your positive assertion that the BoR Preamble is part of US law, so it's on you to provide evidence of that claim, which you have continually failed to do. The burden of proof does not fall on us.
Click to expand...

MADISON'S OWN WORDS ON THE BILL OF RIGHTS:

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.
 
ernst barkmann said:
haymarkey, your grasping at straws.
Click to expand...

NO. All I am demanding that you do is show us verifiable evidence that your precious Preamble to the Bill of Rights was ratified by the states.

And you are woefully impotent to do that.
 
haymarket said:
NO. All I am demanding that you do is show us verifiable evidence that your precious Preamble to the Bill of Rights was ratified by the states.

And you are woefully impotent to do that.
Click to expand...

last time!...............from the man who wrote the bill of rights!


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.
 
ernst barkmann said:
MADISON'S OWN WORDS ON THE BILL OF RIGHTS:

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.
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter what anyone had to say before or after the fact,

the only thing that matters is
Did the States agree to it?​


You've been going on and on about what the Fed can and cannot do while I've continued to show that only the States can make a proposal become an Amendment to the Constitution and become law. When we get to the Preamble, though, you post the words of ONE man at the Fed level and expect that to be sufficient to prove your case. Where are the States in all this? What federal proposals did they pass into law? That's what you need to answer. When it comes to amending the Constitution, all Congress can do is propose changes. It takes 3/4 of the States to approve any proposed change to the Constitution in order to actually change the Constitution. By itself, the federal government can do NOTHING to change the Constitution, let alone one man at the federal level, regardless of who he is.
 
Last edited:
ernst barkmann said:
last time!...............from the man who wrote the bill of rights!


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.
Click to expand...

NO. There is only one question that you have already answered but have failed to provide the evidence for: did the necessary states ratify the Preamble to the Bill of Rights?

You have not presented any evidence that the needed number of states did so...... let alone even a single one.
 
MoSurveyor said:
It doesn't matter what anyone had to say before or after the fact,

the only thing that matters is
Did the States agree to it?​
Click to expand...

EB is playing a very dishonest game. It is clear that he can find not one shred of evidence that his previous Preamble to the Bill of Rights was ever ratified by the States.

In place of this he attempts to engage us in the equal to a street game of three card Montie.

He has no evidence that the states ratified the Preamble to the Bill of Rights.

The National Archives hold no such evidence.

State records hold no such evidence.
 
haymarket said:
EB is playing a very dishonest game. It is clear that he can find not one shred of evidence that his previous Preamble to the Bill of Rights was ever ratified by the States.

In place of this he attempts to engage us in the equal to a street game of three card Montie.

He has no evidence that the states ratified the Preamble to the Bill of Rights.

The National Archives hold no such evidence.

State records hold no such evidence.
Click to expand...

lol, you cant win, Madison has won, and now your claiming dishonestly.

now you gone even lower....case is closed!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom