The Purpose Of The Bill Of Rights

[Rich2018]

Yes there. Starting with the Treaty of Paris through the Thirteenth Amendment. You would need to provide the evidence that the stated gave up their sovereignty other than the limited enumerated powers in the Constitution, the alternative 18th century definition of "sovereign," " federal," and "state." And throw in the Philadelphia Convention debates and the states' ratifying conventions.

Again your fail or refuse to define your interpretation of the word "sovereign".

UNless I know what you're talking about, I can't debate you any further.

 

[Tennyson]

Again your fail or refuse to define your interpretation of the word "sovereign".

UNless I know what you're talking about, I can't debate you any further.

Yes there. Starting with the Treaty of Paris through the Thirteenth Amendment. You would need to provide the evidence that the stated gave up their sovereignty other than the limited enumerated powers in the Constitution, the alternative 18th century definition of "sovereign," " federal," and "state." And throw in the Philadelphia Convention debates and the states' ratifying conventions.

 

[Rich2018]

Yes there. Starting with the Treaty of Paris through the Thirteenth Amendment. You would need to provide the evidence that the stated gave up their sovereignty other than the limited enumerated powers in the Constitution, the alternative 18th century definition of "sovereign," " federal," and "state." And throw in the Philadelphia Convention debates and the states' ratifying conventions.

Again your fail or refuse to define your interpretation of the word "sovereign".

Unless I know what you're talking about, I can't debate you any further.

 

[DebateChallenge]

Most of the Constitution are limitations placed on the government.

Whether repealing any of the first ten amendments cause a loss of personal freedom would depend on what replaced it (if anything).

Dude you're not even from the USA.

Just what would you know about the USA and how its government works?

 

[Rich2018]

Dude you're not even from the USA.

Just what would you know about the USA and how its government works?

We've already established this.


It's a lot more than you do.


You, who claimed the repeal of the 2nd amendment would spark a civil war in the USA.


This speaks volumes on your level of education.

 

[Tennyson]

Again your fail or refuse to define your interpretation of the word "sovereign".

Unless I know what you're talking about, I can't debate you any further.

When you decide to address this post rather than avoid it, let me know.

 

[alika]

"The Bill Of Rights does not grant rights rather it re-enforces rights that are granted by God or some higher power according to the beliefs of the founders of the USA."

Another way to read that is, understanding the Founders' apparent Naturist religious tendency of that time- over just dogmatic monotheism, those "Rights" are, properly, the birthright to all creatures great and small- and that human animals have the unique 'moral' framework to aspire to allowing all others to pursue a satisfying and enriching life bound toward maturing before they die. The codified laws then serve to instruct us how to pursue life, liberty and happiness without impinging on the same right in others. The Quakers or Buddhists for instance, identify God with our own higher selves- the voice we should try to listen to intently as we conduct the business of life.

That revelatory societal discription described in the Constitution is thus the most radically Progressive document in modern history. This may be the reason that the radically Right-leaning groups that would instruct America as to the "correct" interpretation of this document is met with a certain disdain? A Conservative voice (from the same root as 'conserve' or 'conservation') has been a useful 'survival' voice, in the past, to slow the risk-taking, reactionary tendencies of Progressivism. The Reactionary Right might also benefit from a coherent Conservative voice today as well...

 

[alika]

"Dude you're not even from the USA. Just what would you know about the USA and how its government works?"

Does scholarship require citizenship now? Probably many brand new immigrants who have recently gained citizenship are pretty well versed in our Constitution. Those abroad, who are well educated in comparison to our citizens today, are watching the steady decline and fall of a country that was a beacon in the night not so long ago, and are fascinated enough with this continuing degradation of American Values, and so are fully equipped to enter this discussion.

 

[longview]

Most of the Constitution are limitations placed on the government.

Whether repealing any of the first ten amendments cause a loss of personal freedom would depend on what replaced it (if anything).

Fair enough, but simply removing any one of the Bill of Rights would result in loss of personal freedom.

 

[Tennyson]

"The Bill Of Rights does not grant rights rather it re-enforces rights that are granted by God or some higher power according to the beliefs of the founders of the USA."

Another way to read that is, understanding the Founders' apparent Naturist religious tendency of that time- over just dogmatic monotheism, those "Rights" are, properly, the birthright to all creatures great and small- and that human animals have the unique 'moral' framework to aspire to allowing all others to pursue a satisfying and enriching life bound toward maturing before they die. The codified laws then serve to instruct us how to pursue life, liberty and happiness without impinging on the same right in others. The Quakers or Buddhists for instance, identify God with our own higher selves- the voice we should try to listen to intently as we conduct the business of life.

That revelatory societal discription described in the Constitution is thus the most radically Progressive document in modern history. This may be the reason that the radically Right-leaning groups that would instruct America as to the "correct" interpretation of this document is met with a certain disdain? A Conservative voice (from the same root as 'conserve' or 'conservation') has been a useful 'survival' voice, in the past, to slow the risk-taking, reactionary tendencies of Progressivism. The Reactionary Right might also benefit from a coherent Conservative voice today as well...

There is no Bill of Rights. The first ten amendments do not reinforce anything. There is no other way to look at them. The first eight amendments are absolute restrictions on the federal government and the last two are rules of construction.

 

[DebateChallenge]

We've already established this.

When did we establish this?

It's a lot more than you do.

Just what is your background in American politics?

You, who claimed the repeal of the 2nd amendment would spark a civil war in the USA.

The repeal of any of the amendments in the BOR would spark civil war.

This speaks volumes on your level of education.

I've got a college degree. What's your level of education?

 

[Rich2018]

Fair enough, but simply removing any one of the Bill of Rights would result in loss of personal freedom.

Well with regard to the 2A, many would argue that repealing it to allow for gun control would actually increase personal freedom.

Because gun control will reduce gun crime like mass shootings.

 

[Rich2018]

When did we establish this?

When I said I was from the UK ?

Do you think that might have been the time ?

IDK...but I would say it would be a likely time.
SMH

...just what is your background in American politics?

I have no background in American politics other than to study it.

I have also lived in the USA for 17 years and learned enough to know that claims of a second civil war if the 2A was ever repealed is utter nonsense.

...the repeal of any of the amendments in the BOR would spark civil war...

LOL...between you and the rest of the USA

Somehow I doubt you would "take the field".



Your posts are comical.

...I've got a college degree. What's your level of education?

And that means what ?

Millions of people have college degrees.
The great majority of people are capable of getting one given the time and money.


Having a college degree just means you have a college degree. It doesn't grant you anything else.

 

[Rich2018]

When you decide to address this post rather than avoid it, let me know.

OK I'll let you know...as soon as you explain your (clearly confused) definition of what the word "sovereign" means and your criteria for that.

Your dodges at answering it are noted.

 

[Tennyson]

OK I'll let you know...as soon as you explain your (clearly confused) definition of what the word "sovereign" means and your criteria for that.

Your dodges at answering it are noted.

When you decide to address this post rather than avoid it, let me know.

 

[Rich2018]

"Dude you're not even from the USA. Just what would you know about the USA and how its government works?"

Does scholarship require citizenship now? Probably many brand new immigrants who have recently gained citizenship are pretty well versed in our Constitution. Those abroad, who are well educated in comparison to our citizens today, are watching the steady decline and fall of a country that was a beacon in the night not so long ago, and are fascinated enough with this continuing degradation of American Values, and so are fully equipped to enter this discussion.

Ignore him, his posts are just ramblings from the far right of US politics.

They make no sense whatsoever.

 

[Rich2018]

When you decide to address this post rather than avoid it, let me know.

Again dodge noted.

As I said, I cannot debate you further until you explain your (clearly confused) definition of what the word "sovereign" means and your criteria for that.

 

[Tennyson]

Again dodge noted.

As I said, I cannot debate you further until you explain your (clearly confused) definition of what the word "sovereign" means and your criteria for that.

When you decide to address this post rather than avoid it, let me know.

 

[soylentgreen]

OK, for the last time, WE DO NOT BELIEVE GOD HAD A HAND IN WRITING OUR CONSTITUTION.

Ok,last time i will repeat as well. Not all americans do believe god had a hand in writing the bible. But enough do to be a serious problem. Again, read the op. It is not the first nor the last time someone will give these views.

I don't know any Americans who actually say that.

Really?? So therefore you have not bothered to read the op. Or you are under the delusion that only people you meet exist.

Instead of bringing up facts to support your arguments, you keep going on about American stupidity and constitution-worship.

I brought up facts which you deny exist. The main fact is the op of this thread. One you cannot deny but are doing your best to ignore.

Frankly, yes, I do know better than you about the U.S. constitution, your "arguments" so far support that. The only thing you brought up in support is an article about the New Zealand "constitution" and legal system; none of which had anything to do with its written counterpart in the United States.

Unfortunately your knowledge does you no good if you cannot follow an argument. I brought up nz because it is an example of an unwritten constitution which is the point of the discussion. Of course it has nothing to with the american constitution it merely shows that it is possible not to have a written constitution.

Now, as far as our government being corrupt, there's certainly evidence of that. I never said otherwise. Do we need a new constitution perhaps? It would help. But I doubt now would be the best time to scrap it and start afresh. The current climate is far too polarized for a constitutional convention to write something that wouldn't tear the country apart. And an unwritten constitution would merely enable Congress to be even more corrupt than it is now, and to trample on people's rights far more than it does now. Out of the frying pan and into the fire, essentially. That's actually the first thing you said that's really of any value.

There in is your problem with the constitution. The 2nd amendment often flouted as the ability to overthrow a tyranny. If the politicians are corrupt, then you have a tyranny. If they are trampling on your rights now, then when is the time to use the 2nd?

I disagree with your assertion that our constitution is about nationalism rather than governance. Can you support that with some facts? Maybe an article or something? (one that's actually about the American constitution or government this time?)

I do not have to when you give such an example yourself. Look back at your last statement. Congress is corrupt, your right are being trampled. But as long as your president keeps saying he loves america an keeps hugging flags and most importantly keeps generating hatred for minorities Then you will have a government that plays on national pride in order to circumnavigate the constitution.
Another bit of proof would be your own opening statement in this particular post. "WE", Who exactly is we? Not the person who started this thread that is for sure. But if someone does not agree then they are "them" not "we". Which , of course, is the very root of nationalism.

When you're prepared to have a conversation in which you bring up facts about the American government--not just your personal opinions about Americans--I'd be only too happy to engage. As for now, your anti-American rant, thinly disguised as a constitutional argument, is getting quite tiresome.

And of course this last statement is again proof of nationalism. If any speak out against anything american then they are are anti american. The most well used and basic argument of nationalists.

Americans put their flag waving, patriotism **** above all else. They put nationalism before good governance.

 

[Master PO]

The amendment process is inherently constitutional. No amendment could be otherwise.

the bill of rights do not grant anything, therefore repealing an amendment does not repeal a right, because its not given

 

[Howard the Duck]

the bill of rights do not grant anything, therefore repealing an amendment does not repeal a right, because its not given

You have issues with the United States Supreme Court that are too numerous in scope to interest this duck in creating a comprehensive index.

Consider natural law. If it is natural law that you should be allowed to own a gun, it is also clear that it is natural law that I should in turn be able to take your gun away from you. The bird with the biggest gun would be the only gun owner.

The minnow eats the fly and the duck eats the minnow. The Law of the Jungle baby.

That is only natural.

 

[VanceMack]

The Bill of Rights was as an addition to the foundation document meant to allay fears and concerns people had that the government would become too powerful. It was written not to grant freedoms...those were already ‘assumed’. Rather it was meant to restrict the government, or keep government as a servant of the people and not people subservient to the government.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Howard the Duck]

The Bill of Rights was as an addition to the foundation document meant to allay fears and concerns people had that the government would become too powerful. It was written not to grant freedoms...those were already ‘assumed’. Rather it was meant to restrict the government, or keep government as a servant of the people and not people subservient to the government.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You have a natural right to defend yourself with a gun. I have a natural right to not be intimidated by people with guns. Those rights are doomed to be in conflict. If you don't think so try marching in front of my house carrying your gun.

 

[Xelor]

For one of the few short yet comprehensive integrated discussions on the Bill of Rights, I suggest reading: The Bill of Rights as a Constitution

 

[JimHackerMP]

The Bill of Rights was as an addition to the foundation document meant to allay fears and concerns people had that the government would become too powerful. It was written not to grant freedoms...those were already ‘assumed’. Rather it was meant to restrict the government, or keep government as a servant of the people and not people subservient to the government.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Probably the best explanation I've heard so far.

By the way, Xelor, you have an odd definition of the word "short" LOL.

And soylent, I have read the OP. I have nothing against people who disagree with America or Americans. Everyone has the right to disagree or say they don't like something about a particular country or its people. You, however, demonstrate a vast lack of knowledge in what you've been talking about so far; that's your whole problem. To that, I have nothing to add. I've been damn silly to even have replied to your hateful, ignorant muck in the first place.