• 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!

The Purpose Of The Bill Of Rights

RabidAlpaca said:
The Bill of Rights is just the first 10 changes of many we've made to the Constitution as time goes on. It's a living document and we've used amendments to change or strike out older amendments. There is no provision preventing the first 10 from being edited.
Click to expand...
what did the bill of rights change

the living document nonsense is invariably the terms those who hate the constitution use
 
Howard the Duck said:
Of COURSE, this thread is not about natural law. Nor is it about me.

Start one and I happily will discuss Locke, although I prefer Hobbes and social contract.
Click to expand...

i can only say for you to please not try to discuss subjects you have no even read about in the future
 
Howard the Duck said:
Nonsense. For example, if I could get 3/4 of the states to ratify it we could eliminate the second amendment in its entirety tomorrow.
Click to expand...

and if you grew wheels you could be a trolley car
 
Master PO said:
my point has been that the 2nd is ingrained as a right of the people, re-enforced by the USSC.

repealing the 2nd will not change that.
Click to expand...

the federal government dishonestly used the commerce clause to get around the second and the tenth
 
Master PO said:
my point has been that the 2nd is engrained as a right of the people, re-enforced by the USSC.

repealing the 2nd will not change that.
Click to expand...

Of course it would. Amendments are inherently constitutional. Read Article 5. All previous jurisprudence would simply be swept away.

Slavery, for example, was constitutional. Dred Scot was the operative case law. The 14th amendment blew all of that away.
 
Last edited:
Howard the Duck said:
Of course it would. Amendments are inherently constitutional. Read Article 5. All previous jurisprudence would simply be swept away.
Click to expand...

i did not say that.

to make it clear for you

if the 2nd were repealed, the right would continue because the USSC as already recognized it in many cases as a right of the people.

how do you un- recognize something?
 
Master PO said:
i did not say that.

to make it clear for you

if the 2nd were repealed, the right would continue because the USSC as already recognized it in many cases as a right of the people.

how do you un- recognize something?
Click to expand...

Easily. The court doesn't make law. They interpret it. I thought you said that you knew this stuff?

Any decisions based on the 18th amendment were reversed, for example, because of the 21st amendment.
 
Last edited:
Howard the Duck said:
Easily. The court doesn't make law. They interpret it. I thought you said that you knew this stuff?
Click to expand...

this shows me you don't, rights are only recognized by the constitution or the USSC.

since the founding of this nation, no right has ever been created by the u.s.congress.

2nd is not granting giving or bestowing anything on the people, the 2nd is restricting federal powers while recognizing a right of the people
 
Master PO said:
this shows me you don't, rights are only recognized by the constitution or the USSC.

since the founding of this nation, no right has ever been created by the u.s.congress.

2nd is not granting giving or bestowing anything on the people, the 2nd is restricting federal powers while recognizing a right of the people
Click to expand...

You err.

Women weren't granted the right to vote by natural law. Instead it took the 19th amendment.
 
Howard the Duck said:
Of course it would. Amendments are inherently constitutional. Read Article 5. All previous jurisprudence would simply be swept away.

Slavery, for example, was constitutional. Dred Scot was the operative case law. The 14th amendment blew all of that away.
Click to expand...

Not really. Almost all of the amendments after the twelfth would have never happened in the founding era for not following the purpose and intent of an Article V amendment.
 
Howard the Duck said:
Expound on that, please.
Click to expand...

The Constitution was written, especially Article V, under the legal maxim of dubiis, non praesumitur pro potentia: In cases of doubt, the presumption is not in favor of a power, or the presumption is always in favor of less power. This aligns with the meaning and intent of the term “amendment.” Madison addressed this with his demarcation between a “friendly alteration” and an “unfriendly alteration": a "friendly alteration” is a restriction on the federal government and an “unfriendly alteration" is an alteration that would alter the foundation and power structure of the Constitution, which is not the intent of the amendment process.

This was also evidenced with the Eleventh and Twelfth Amendments as both were proposed and ratified under the construct of the above meanings and intent of the Article V amendment process. The amendment process was created to correct technical issues that may arise.

This also aligns with the definition of the word "amendment" circa 1787.
 
Last edited:
Howard the Duck said:
You err.

Women weren't granted the right to vote by natural law. Instead it took the 19th amendment.
Click to expand...

None of the voting rights amendments conferred any rights. All the amendments did were prevent discrimination. This dates to the Fifteenth Amendment.
 
Howard the Duck said:
You err.

Women weren't granted the right to vote by natural law. Instead it took the 19th amendment.
Click to expand...

:doh this shows you do not know what you are discussing

the 19th delegates the federal government the power to write federal law to prevent discrimination in voting based on sex

the 19th is delegating a new power for the federal government
 
Master PO said:
:doh this shows you do not know what you are discussing

the 19th delegates the federal government the power to write federal law to prevent discrimination in voting based on sex

the 19th is delegating a new power for the federal government
Click to expand...

If there is an insult in every post why would anyone want to debate you?
 
Tennyson said:
The Constitution was written, especially Article V, under the legal maxim of dubiis, non praesumitur pro potentia: In cases of doubt, the presumption is not in favor of a power, or the presumption is always in favor of less power. This aligns with the meaning and intent of the term “amendment.” Madison addressed this with his demarcation between a “friendly alteration” and an “unfriendly alteration": a "friendly alteration” is a restriction on the federal government and an “unfriendly alteration" is an alteration that would alter the foundation and power structure of the Constitution, which is not the intent of the amendment process.

This was also evidenced with the Eleventh and Twelfth Amendments as both were proposed and ratified under the construct of the above meanings and intent of the Article V amendment process. The amendment process was created to correct technical issues that may arise.

This also aligns with the definition of the word "amendment" circa 1787.
Click to expand...

Thank you.
 
TurtleDude said:
what did the bill of rights change

the living document nonsense is invariably the terms those who hate the constitution use
Click to expand...

So you're saying the constitution hasn't been amended 27 times and can't be amended any more? Don't confuse what you want with reality and constitutional law.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
So you're saying the constitution hasn't been amended 27 times and can't be amended any more? Don't confuse what you want with reality and constitutional law.
Click to expand...

you apparently confuse amendments with the crap FDR did
 
TurtleDude said:
you apparently confuse amendments with the crap FDR did
Click to expand...

So you're saying there haven't been 27 amendments to the constitution? Never had an amendment strike down another amendment?

Did you study law at University of Phoenix Online? This is high school level civics, bud.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
So you're saying there haven't been 27 amendments to the constitution? Never had an amendment strike down another amendment?

Did you study law at University of Phoenix Online? This is high school level civics, bud.
Click to expand...

Amendments aren't "living constitution" bull****. "Living constitution" bull**** is what's pushed to get around the amendment process.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom