• 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

D

DebateChallenge

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 30, 2017
Messages
12,099
Reaction score
3,439
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
This is the purpose of the Bill Of Rights. 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. Since its a belief I cannot prove that there is a God that grants such rights but that's what the founders believed. Anyway, that being said the purpose of the Bill Of Rights was to prohibit the government from restricting the rights it mentions and if it were to do so than the government would have too much authority. Simply put, the government does not have the authority to infringe on the rights listed in the Bill Of Rights and its not supposed to. That is why, unlike the rest of the Constitution, the Bill Of Rights or any part of it can't be repealed and is scribed in stone. To repeal or change it would give the government too much authority and would thus result in a corrupt government. That is why the Bill Of Rights has to be respected and kept the way it is. For the government to infringe on any of the rights in the Bill Of Rights in doing so the government would be crossing a line it has no right to cross.
 
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.
 
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...

While it is true that any of the Bill of Rights could be deleted with the amendment process,
any such change would likely cause a lowering of the rights of citizens, and an increase the authority of the Government.
This is because the Bill of Rights are limitation placed on the Government.
 
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...

I guess the OP-er doesn't understand what "amend"/"amendment" means.
  • Why a Bill of Rights?
    • Current preamble to the BoR

      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 insure the beneficent ends of its institution.

      RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

      ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.
      Click to expand...

    • The First Congress included a preamble to the Bill of Rights to explain why the amendments were needed. Declaring that they were a response to the demand for amendments from the state ratifying conventions, the preamble states that Congress proposed them "to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers" and to extend "the ground of public confidence in the government."
      Click to expand...


      [Unrelated: Do you remember being a kid and everyone having beautiful penmanship like that shown below? I do. I so infrequently write by hand any more that I no longer have nice looking cursive handwriting, other than my signature.]
 

Attachments

  • 14986.jpg
    14986.jpg
    92.7 KB · Views: 132
DebateChallenge said:
This is the purpose of the Bill Of Rights. 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.
Click to expand...
You seem to be mistaking the Declaration of Independence for the Bill of Rights. The DoI was a great bit of prose but the founding fathers did not literally believe god bestowed rights. If it did then the usage of the words "their creator" would allow for each individual person to choose what rights they had based upon their respective god.

The Bill of Rights was decided by logical arguments based upon certain axioms that all the framers agreed upon. They came from experience knowing what things powerful tyrants typically tried to remove in order to usurp more power and make it harder to challenge them. They recognized that they were creating a country where a majority would rule, but also recognized that the majority isn't always right. They knew they needed a way to explicitly protect certain freedoms and make them virtually impossible to destroy no matter how big a majority wanted to do it.

DebateChallenge said:
the Bill Of Rights or any part of it can't be repealed and is scribed in stone.
Click to expand...
Yes, they can. It's called an amendment.
 
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...

If we did we would be giving the government too much authority.
 
Xelor said:
I guess the OP-er doesn't understand what "amend"/"amendment" means.
Click to expand...
Oh I do, and I know that while it can apply to the rest of the Constitution it does not apply to the Bill Of Rights.
 
MrWonka said:
The Bill of Rights was decided by logical arguments based upon certain axioms that all the framers agreed upon. They came from experience knowing what things powerful tyrants typically tried to remove in order to usurp more power and make it harder to challenge them. They recognized that they were creating a country where a majority would rule, but also recognized that the majority isn't always right. They knew they needed a way to explicitly protect certain freedoms and make them virtually impossible to destroy no matter how big a majority wanted to do it.
Click to expand...
Yes, you are right on that.


MrWonka said:
Yes, they can. It's called an amendment.
Click to expand...
Than that would defeat the very purpose of the Bill Of Rights, a purpose that you yourself spelled out above.
 
DebateChallenge said:
This is the purpose of the Bill Of Rights. 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. Since its a belief I cannot prove that there is a God that grants such rights but that's what the founders believed. Anyway, that being said the purpose of the Bill Of Rights was to prohibit the government from restricting the rights it mentions and if it were to do so than the government would have too much authority. Simply put, the government does not have the authority to infringe on the rights listed in the Bill Of Rights and its not supposed to. That is why, unlike the rest of the Constitution, the Bill Of Rights or any part of it can't be repealed and is scribed in stone. To repeal or change it would give the government too much authority and would thus result in a corrupt government. That is why the Bill Of Rights has to be respected and kept the way it is. For the government to infringe on any of the rights in the Bill Of Rights in doing so the government would be crossing a line it has no right to cross.
Click to expand...

Of course it does. Anything in the bill of rights can be amended through multiple article 5 processes.
 
Howard the Duck said:
Of course it does. Anything in the bill of rights can be amended through multiple article 5 processes.
Click to expand...

To allow that would allow the government to cross a line its not supposed to cross.
 
DebateChallenge said:
That is why, unlike the rest of the Constitution, the Bill Of Rights or any part of it can't be repealed and is scribed in stone.
Click to expand...

And there america, you have your reason as to why written constitutions are bad things. Either get rid of your god an come to an intelligent understanding of how constitutions work. Or keep your god and watch as your constitution devolves into a superstitious holy script to be obeyed without question.
 
DebateChallenge said:
To allow that would allow the government to cross a line its not supposed to cross.
Click to expand...

Congress could propose amendments to it if it wanted to. The thing is, it wouldn't, because there's no way 38 states would agree with that. It's kind of a moot point, however. It might not be written in stone, but it is staying for a while, thank God.

Many states' bills of rights are longer. If things are so guaranteed by God (or in nature), why did we have to write them down?
 
Last edited:
soylentgreen said:
And there america, you have your reason as to why written constitutions are bad things. Either get rid of your god an come to an intelligent understanding of how constitutions work. Or keep your god and watch as your constitution devolves into a superstitious holy script to be obeyed without question.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Ask the leaders of the Roman Republic if you don't believe me. (I wasn't aware that New Zealand's constitution is unwritten. That sounds like a bad idea to me. MOST countries on this Earth DO have written constitutions, have you noticed that?)
 
DebateChallenge said:
To allow that would allow the government to cross a line its not supposed to cross.
Click to expand...

Then why did the founders set it up that way. Why did they not include a clause that says the BOR can not be amended
 
JimHackerMP said:
I disagree. Ask the leaders of the Roman Republic if you don't believe me. (I wasn't aware that New Zealand's constitution is unwritten. That sounds like a bad idea to me. MOST countries on this Earth DO have written constitutions, have you noticed that?)
Click to expand...

Yes, but unless your trying for a ad populum fallacy then so what?

There is a reason as to why we have an unwritten. It is the same as britain, one of the oldest democracies, also does not have a written constitution. We already have the treaty of waitangi. as britain has the magna carta. Those documents would have to be repealed before a written constitution could be created.

And i suggest the same should be done in america. Put that constitution of yours in a museum where it belongs. Keep the ideal behind it and work with an unwritten constitution.
 
Well, thank you for the suggestion, we'll keep it in mind. Fortunately, most Americans wouldn't be idiotic enough to agree with you.

If you knew a great deal more about the U.S. constitution and laws, and the history of the U.S., you wouldn't rush to such a snap judgement.
 
Also, in the UK, only THREE of the original 100+ clauses of the Magna Carta are still in force. Were you aware of that? Not much to build on is it?

About my "ad populum" fallacy by the way, there are likely good reasons why most countries do have written constitutions. Your largest neighbor has one. And, I might point out, it borrows features from ours.
 
JimHackerMP said:
It might not be written in stone, but it is staying for a while, thank God.
Click to expand...
Its staying for as long as the country is staying.

JimHackerMP said:
Many states' bills of rights are longer. If things are so guaranteed by God (or in nature), why did we have to write them down?
Click to expand...
To point out what the government's limitations are.
 
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...

The first ten amendments were not changes to the Constitution. They are only restrictions and rules of construction.
 
MrWonka said:
You seem to be mistaking the Declaration of Independence for the Bill of Rights. The DoI was a great bit of prose but the founding fathers did not literally believe god bestowed rights. If it did then the usage of the words "their creator" would allow for each individual person to choose what rights they had based upon their respective god.

The Bill of Rights was decided by logical arguments based upon certain axioms that all the framers agreed upon. They came from experience knowing what things powerful tyrants typically tried to remove in order to usurp more power and make it harder to challenge them. They recognized that they were creating a country where a majority would rule, but also recognized that the majority isn't always right. They knew they needed a way to explicitly protect certain freedoms and make them virtually impossible to destroy no matter how big a majority wanted to do it.


Yes, they can. It's called an amendment.
Click to expand...

They all believed that unalienable rights came from God. "Their Creator" referenced the Christian God of the Bible.
 
Tennyson said:
They all believed that unalienable rights came from God. "Their Creator" referenced the Christian God of the Bible.
Click to expand...

Of course they left that out of the constitution.....on purpose
 
Howard the Duck said:
Of course it does. Anything in the bill of rights can be amended through multiple article 5 processes.
Click to expand...

The Article V amendment process regarded making corrections to the Constitution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom