Preamble to Bil of Rights part of the Constitution?[W:135]

American said:

The purpose of the amendments is common knowledge to those in the know, because they were demanded by the anti-federalists, who were against the Constitution. But the preamble clearly states the purpose of the amendments, if you didn't know already. I'm not sure there's a legal necessity for it.

Click to expand...

Zyphlin said:

He's going somewhere with it. And because of who the poster is, I went and typed "preamble to the bill of rights" and one other word into google. I'm pretty much 99% certain where he's going with this, but I'll wait and see.

To help with your misunderstanding however...

The Preamble to the Bill of Rights is not the same as the Preamble to the Constitution.

When the dozens of potential amendments got whittled down to 12 to go to the states for ratification, the resolution included a Preamble. Said preamble served the purpose of explaining the rationale behind what those 12 amendments were and what they were meant to do.

Specifically, that in order to prevent "misconstruction or abuse" of the powers presented to government by the Constitution, that a set of declaratory and restrictive clauses would be added.

For "originalists", this is important because it provides insight into the originator's intent for the various amendments. On the flip side, for "Living Document" types, it provides a hurdle they'd have to get past.

If it's "officially" part of constitution, it increases the size of that hurdle and make the Originalists argument stronger. If it's not "officially" part of the constitution, then the hurder the "living document" types have to over come shrinks, as the originalists argument becomes more of implied intent then legal intent.

As to the question in this thread, I do not believe there is/was any codified way to "ratify" a preamble, as only the individual articles were actually voted upon.

So basically it comes down to how you ultimately view the Preamble. Is the preamble attached, ala forward, to each article? And thus, if any article is ratified then it's relevant preamble is therefore also ratified? Or, does the preamble only apply to a vote on the whole document, and if the individual articles were voted upon rather than the resolution as a whole, is the preamble completely irrelevant and impossible to be ratified at that point?

I don't think there's any real case law on which way of viewing it is more "correct" (perhaps some of the better legal scholars on here would be able to speak to that).

Click to expand...

Zyphlin said:

Look at the poster, think of the first issue that comes to mind, type that and "pre-amble to the bill of rights" into google, and you'll likely find out the "real important to the discussion". It's basically a totally irrelevant bit of nonsense, EXCEPT in ONE specific constitutional argument.

Click to expand...

that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added

Click to expand...

Glen Contrarian said:

Then I don't know. But other than being a passing historical curiosity, I see no real importance to the discussion thereof, especially given that in the 200+ years since the adoption of the Bill of Rights, no real question has been raised concerning the Preamble...in which case I believe it would fall under the category of legally almost-unquestionable "common knowledge".

Click to expand...

ludin said:

Preamble to the Bill of Rights | Office of Government & Community Relations | Drexel University

The preamble was a high level document describing the individual amendments that would become the bill of rights.
It was then broken down into individual amendments. Yet the proposals were agreed to from what I have found.

However everything that I can find is that it was included as part of the ratified amendments.
I see nothing that would not include it in the ratification process.

Either way it is useless even if the pre-amble wasn't the actual amendments of that were. that is all that matters.
the pre-amble is a simple description of what the amendments would do.

again he is going no where with it unless it is to just be dishonest.

Click to expand...

Master PO said:

the preamble to the constitution and the preamble to the BOR is an introduction statement, stating what the goal of each document is.

the preamble to the bill of rights is:
The Bill of Rights

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 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.



Translation: the state governments in adopting the constitution want to prevent the federal government from abusing it powers, so declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added, , to extend public confidence in the new federal government, and will insure the new government will do good work by its institituion.

Click to expand...

the clauses of the BOR are declaratory and restrictive on federal powers to make no law concerning what is in the clauses.

Click to expand...

American said:

So you're saying that if this little phrase

isn't included legally, the Congress can interpret the amendments anyway it wants?

Click to expand...

haymarket said:

Do you have any verifiable evidence that the Preamble to the Bill of Rights was ratified by the needed number of States to make it part of the official Constitution?

Click to expand...

haymarket said:

So you have no verifiable evidence that the Preamble to the Bill of Rights was ever ratified by the needed number of states to make it an official part of the US Constitution. Thank you.



That is an opinion and NOT part of the Constitution.

Click to expand...

Zyphlin said:

A resolution was passed by the Congress, containing the Preamble and 12 Articles.

This was sent down to the states, and each article was voted on by the state legislatures.

To my knowledge, the Preamble was not voted on, nor am I aware of any bill/resolution/etc, ever, where the preamble was voted in the final stage as it's own separate entity.

Click to expand...

Zyphlin said:

Until such evidence is presented that a preamble has every been ratified and voted on separate from a bill/resolution at large, I'd be of the legal opinion that the two articles that weren't ratified were stricken, and the rest of the document remains sound. Unless there is evidence that preambles are ratified separate from the things that they are preceding and providing guidance towards, a request for evidence that the preamble was itself ratified is a demand for something that does not exist.

Click to expand...

Master PO said:

my statement already told you what the preamble is, why do you keep asking the question over and over?



its not opinion, because its clearly written, and confirmed by Madison in his 18000 report

Click to expand...

Zyphlin said:

A resolution was passed by the Congress, containing the Preamble and 12 Articles.

This was sent down to the states, and each article was voted on by the state legislatures.

To my knowledge, the Preamble was not voted on, nor am I aware of any bill/resolution/etc, ever, where the preamble was voted in the final stage as it's own separate entity.

So essentially it comes down to interpretation. The preamble was clearly meant to provide background as to the meaning of each article. So each article that was voted upon, and ratified, was tied to that preamble. However, the preamble as a unique and individual entity, was not voted on. So does a person interpret the preamble as having legal importance, as it is directly connected and relevant to all 10 articles that were passed. Or, does it have zero legal importance because they didn't separately vote on the preamble as it's own unique entity (something I'm unaware of ever happening).

Click to expand...

ocean515 said:

Yes. The passage of 10 of the 12 original Amendments. The preamble and the 12 original amendments where one document of which 10 were ratified. It's pathetic to think the Preamble wasn't ratified when 10 of the 12 Amendments following its explanation and contents were ratified.

The Anti Gun crowd needs to find another windmill to tilt at.

Click to expand...

haymarket said:

It is NOT part of the Constitution. Do you admit that?

Click to expand...

Master PO said:

the preamble in an introductory statement, and states what the goal of the document is

Click to expand...

haymarket said:

Zyphlin said:

A resolution was passed by the Congress, containing the Preamble and 12 Articles.

This was sent down to the states, and each article was voted on by the state legislatures.

To my knowledge, the Preamble was not voted on, nor am I aware of any bill/resolution/etc, ever, where the preamble was voted in the final stage as it's own separate entity.

Click to expand...

And my research confirms just what you stated there.And my research confirms just what you stated there.

Click to expand...

Zyphlin said:

Awesome. Then you're acknowledging you're asking for evidence of something that never actually occurs, and acting as if that somehow is of any kind of importance, all while ignoring the common practice relating to such things.

Click to expand...

haymarket said:

Do you have any verifiable evidence that the Preamble was ratified?

Click to expand...

ocean515 said:

Yes. I already explained it. Twisting facts into hopeful fiction is not going to work.

The anti-gun crowd was predicted and planned for 225 years ago. It must suck to know they were so predictable.

Click to expand...

Master PO said:

this is Madison's report of 1800, where he is discussing the right of speech concerning the [Sedition Act] and in doing that he explains further the preamble of the BOR and what its purpose is.

Amendment I (Speech and Press): James Madison, Report on the Virginia Resolutions

here is part of the report


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........




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.

Click to expand...