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

[ludin]

Re: Preamble to Bil of Rights part of the Constitution?

It was clear from post #1.

I have him on ignore for obvious reasons. So I only read what other people post of him.
I have no reason to respond to anything he actually says.

 

[American]

Re: Preamble to Bil of Rights part of the Constitution?

I have him on ignore for obvious reasons. So I only read what other people post of him.
I have no reason to respond to anything he actually says.

He argues for the sake of itself; he never has a point, and has no real belief system. He certainly doesn't respect the Constitution.

 

[haymarket]

Re: Preamble to Bil of Rights part of the Constitution?

This is really a non issue.
In fact I guess no one here can figure out what exactly his argument is
Because he doesn't actually have an argument.

He has no point. The pre-amble has no affect on the approved amendments.

Your post is nonsensical and is what has no point other than the attack on me.

 

[jet57]

Re: Preamble to Bil of Rights part of the Constitution?

Look at the coming-out moment. :lol:

So, was the preambled ratified by the states or not?

 

[haymarket]

Re: Preamble to Bil of Rights part of the Constitution?

He argues for the sake of itself; he never has a point, and has no real belief system. He certainly doesn't respect the Constitution.

Arguing about the content of the Constitution shows a great deal of respect for it. Those who would invent their own delusional fantasies about its contents and then pretend that is reality - they are ones who pissed upon that document. Sadly, you include yourself in that deplorable company.

 

[American]

Re: Preamble to Bil of Rights part of the Constitution?

So, was the preambled ratified by the states or not?

Why don't you run along, you know less than nothing about the Constitution. :lol:

 

[American]

Re: Preamble to Bil of Rights part of the Constitution?

Arguing about the content of the Constitution shows a great deal of respect for it. Those who would invent their own delusional fantasies about its contents and then pretend that is reality - they are ones who pissed upon that document. Sadly, you include yourself in that deplorable company.

Irony meters around the world just exploded.

 

[jet57]

Re: Preamble to Bil of Rights part of the Constitution?

Why don't you run along, you know less than nothing about the Constitution. :lol:

So, you don't know.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: Preamble to Bil of Rights part of the Constitution?

Why don't you run along, you know less than nothing about the Constitution. :lol:

Jet has argued that the second amendment has to be suspended for a while and stuff banned, just to see if it works. Its his claim that the bill of rights has to go away anytime someone like Jet claims there is a crisis. In reality, its times of crisis that the Bill of Rights is mot important

 

[Gina]

Re: Preamble to Bil of Rights part of the Constitution?

Moderator's Warning:

Stop baiting and talking about each, y'all are not the topic. Be productive in the thread or you'll be escorted out. Points are possible too.

 

[Brewdog]

Re: Preamble to Bil of Rights part of the Constitution?

How do we get more points? I only have three so far. I feel like I'm not doing very well. It's like I only scored a field goal.

How many points do we need to win?

 

[Kal'Stang]

Re: Preamble to Bil of Rights part of the Constitution?

Either the Preamble to the BOR is part of the Constitution or it is not. And it is not as it was not part of the original nor was it ever ratified by the number of states.

One can argue about it - but that does NOT change that it is NOT part of the Constitution.

And what was left out is just as important as what was ratified. The fact is that the portion which you feel is so important was deemed not worthy of inclusion and was not included. To pretend two centuries later that it somehow takes on this grand importance and should be our guiding light in the interpretation of Amendments is to grant it weight the states did not grant it at the time.

That is the reality of history.

And the only thing despicable or dishonest here is folks trying to pretend you can create the delusion of it because you believe in it.

Funny how you argue for history and then ignore it when it suits you.

Bold: You have yet to prove that an introduction requires ratification.

Rest: Why would founders notes and letters on the BoR's be put into the Constitution? Why do you wish to ignore the intent for the BoR's? Why do you wish to ignore history?

 

[matchlight]

Re: Preamble to Bil of Rights part of the Constitution?

A Supreme Court case CANNOT add language to the Constitution. Only an Amendment ratified by the states can do that.

That says nothing, because a Supreme Case cannot subtract language from the Constitution, either. To do that would be to make a nullity of the language subtracted--to treat it as only surplusage--which violates one of the Court's basic principles, sometimes called canons, about how the text of laws is to be interpreted.

Your original question was whether there was authoritative evidence as to whether the Preamble to the Bill of Rights was part of the Constitution. The obvious place to look for an answer to that question is in a Supreme Court decision about it, if there is any. The more of your comments about this I read, the more I tend to think you already had made up your mind about this question before you started the thread and are not interested in the evidence.

 

[matchlight]

Re: Preamble to Bil of Rights part of the Constitution?

Yes, he managed it through the legislative process.

As an aside, drafting the amendments was a job Madison took on out of a sense of duty--but hated. He probably was even more frustrated to watch his fellow Congressmen undo a good part of what he had sweated and fretted so much to write.

 

[haymarket]

Re: Preamble to Bil of Rights part of the Constitution?

Funny how you argue for history and then ignore it when it suits you.

Bold: You have yet to prove that an introduction requires ratification.

Rest: Why would founders notes and letters on the BoR's be put into the Constitution? Why do you wish to ignore the intent for the BoR's? Why do you wish to ignore history?

Why do I need argue for anything that is NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION?

I ma NOT ignoring history - I accept it and embrace it ... and part of that history is that the Preamble to the BOR was NOT ratified by the states and is NOT included in the Constitution.

The intent is clear and I have no argument with the intent.

 

[haymarket]

Re: Preamble to Bil of Rights part of the Constitution?

That says nothing, because a Supreme Case cannot subtract language from the Constitution, either. To do that would be to make a nullity of the language subtracted--to treat it as only surplusage--which violates one of the Court's basic principles, sometimes called canons, about how the text of laws is to be interpreted.

Your original question was whether there was authoritative evidence as to whether the Preamble to the Bill of Rights was part of the Constitution. The obvious place to look for an answer to that question is in a Supreme Court decision about it, if there is any. The more of your comments about this I read, the more I tend to think you already had made up your mind about this question before you started the thread and are not interested in the evidence.

NO - the only place to look for the contents of the Constitution is the Constitution. Everything in it must be in the original as ratified by the states or in Amendments added over the years and ratified by the needed number of states.

 

[ludin]

Re: Preamble to Bil of Rights part of the Constitution?

So, was the preambled ratified by the states or not?

it doesn't have to be. The pre-amble was a high level document that gave instructions and information
as to what the amendments were. each amendment in and of itself was ratified that is all that was required.

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.

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.

what exactly is your argument so far you are stating a non-argument just like haymarket is.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Re: Preamble to Bil of Rights part of the Constitution?

Why do I need argue for anything that is NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION?

Who says its not in the Constitution? In order to prove that you have to prove that it needed to be ratified in order to be apart of the BoR's.

I ma NOT ignoring history - I accept it and embrace it ... and part of that history is that the Preamble to the BOR was NOT ratified by the states and is NOT included in the Constitution.

You are attempting to ignore history by claiming that the Preamble to the BoR's is not a part of the BoR's due to it not being ratified. You do this so that you can ignore the intent that the Founders had for the BoR's. In other words, ignore history.

The intent is clear and I have no argument with the intent.

Then why are you attempting to ignore the Preamble of the BoR's by claiming that it is not a part of the BoR's due to it "not being ratified"? Something which you have yet to prove even needed to be ratified to begin with in order to still be a part of the BoR's. Not to mention we know that the reason for this thread is so that you can establish that the Preamble is indeed not a part of the BoR's and therefore has no basis to be argued about regarding the intent of the BoR's. This being done in order to suggest that the Government has the authority to re-interpret what is in the BoR's in order to fit the times while ignoring the intent of those that made the Law.

 

[ludin]

Re: Preamble to Bil of Rights part of the Constitution?

So, was the preambled ratified by the states or not?

It shows the intent of why the bill of rights were designed.

 

[ludin]

Re: Preamble to Bil of Rights part of the Constitution?

Who says its not in the Constitution? In order to prove that you have to prove that it needed to be ratified in order to be apart of the BoR's.



You are attempting to ignore history by claiming that the Preamble to the BoR's is not a part of the BoR's due to it not being ratified. You do this so that you can ignore the intent that the Founders had for the BoR's. In other words, ignore history.



Then why are you attempting to ignore the Preamble of the BoR's by claiming that it is not a part of the BoR's due to it "not being ratified"? Something which you have yet to prove even needed to be ratified to begin with in order to still be a part of the BoR's. Not to mention we know that the reason for this thread is so that you can establish that the Preamble is indeed not a part of the BoR's and therefore has no basis to be argued about regarding the intent of the BoR's. This being done in order to suggest that the Government has the authority to re-interpret what is in the BoR's in order to fit the times while ignoring the intent of those that made the Law.

I see no reason that it would need separate ratification.

Constitution for the United States - We the People

according to this it was included fully.

 

[haymarket]

Re: Preamble to Bil of Rights part of the Constitution?

Who says its not in the Constitution? In order to prove that you have to prove that it needed to be ratified in order to be apart of the BoR's. .

That makes no sense. Article V clearly says the only way to change the Constitution is to add an Amendment. If it was not in the original Constitution and was NOT an Amendment - its not in there. There is no way around that. That is called reality. To deny reality and create you own is called delusion.

You are attempting to ignore history by claiming that the Preamble to the BoR's is not a part of the BoR's due to it not being ratified. You do this so that you can ignore the intent that the Founders had for the BoR's. In other words, ignore history.

No. That is called FACT. If it is NOT in the original Constitution and NOT in an Amendment then it is NOT in the Constitution.

You applying invented motives for me does NOT change that reality.

Then why are you attempting to ignore the Preamble of the BoR's by claiming that it is not a part of the BoR's due to it "not being ratified"? Something which you have yet to prove even needed to be ratified to begin with in order to still be a part of the BoR's. Not to mention we know that the reason for this thread is so that you can establish that the Preamble is indeed not a part of the BoR's and therefore has no basis to be argued about regarding the intent of the BoR's. This being done in order to suggest that the Government has the authority to re-interpret what is in the BoR's in order to fit the times while ignoring the intent of those that made the Law.

Nothing is being ignored. I take the Constitution extremely seriously - every word of it. And the Preamble to the BOR is not in it.

Again, you pretending to mind read and come up with motives for me is irrelevant next to the reality that it is not part of the Constitution.

 

[haymarket]

Re: Preamble to Bil of Rights part of the Constitution?

I see no reason that it would need separate ratification.

Constitution for the United States - We the People

according to this it was included fully.

It was never ratified so it is not part of the Constitution. See Article V for instructions on additions to the Constitution which must be ratified.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Re: Preamble to Bil of Rights part of the Constitution?

I see no reason that it would need separate ratification.

Constitution for the United States - We the People

according to this it was included fully.

That's the site I normally go to when I need to reference the Constitution. Good site. Even have it bookmarked.

 

[matchlight]

Re: Preamble to Bil of Rights part of the Constitution?

I take the Constitution extremely seriously - every word of it.

Yes, you've shown us many times just how seriously you take the Second Amendment.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Re: Preamble to Bil of Rights part of the Constitution?

That makes no sense. Article V clearly says the only way to change the Constitution is to add an Amendment. If it was not in the original Constitution and was NOT an Amendment - its not in there. There is no way around that. That is called reality. To deny reality and create you own is called delusion.

To add an amendment. It says nothing about introductions to amendments.

No. That is called FACT. If it is NOT in the original Constitution and NOT in an Amendment then it is NOT in the Constitution.

Prove that an introduction to the BoR's is not a part of the BoR's. But again, as I said earlier it does not matter if it is in the Constitution or not. It tells what the intent of the BoR's is about. Why do you wish to ignore that? And don't say that you're not. Your whole reason for this thread is so that you can establish a reason to ignore it in favor of re-interpreting parts of the BoR's.

You applying invented motives for me does NOT change that reality.

Invented? It's your whole schtick here at DP.

Nothing is being ignored. I take the Constitution extremely seriously - every word of it. And the Preamble to the BOR is not in it.

If you actually take it seriously then why are you arguing against the Preamble of the BoR's? Why are you attempting to make a reason to ignore it?

Again, you pretending to mind read and come up with motives for me is irrelevant next to the reality that it is not part of the Constitution.

Nope, no mind reading involved at all. Just acknowledging your past posting history where you have continuously attempted to dismiss the intent of the Founders as opinion based and therefore irrelevant.