• Please keep all posts on the Rittenhouse verdict here: Rittenhouse Verdict. Note the moderator warnings in the thread. The thread will be heavily moderated with a zero tolerance policy for any baiting, flaming, trolling or other rule breaks. Stick to the topic and not the other posters. Thank you.
  • 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!

Preamble to the Bill of Rights

haymarket

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2010
Messages
120,954
Reaction score
28,528
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
When Congress sent the 12 items in the bill of rights to the states they also included a Preamble. The states ratified ten of these amendments and they are collectively known as The Bill of Rights.

Does anyone have verifiable evidence to submit that the Preamble was voted on by the needed number of states and is an official part of the Constitution of the USA and not just an interesting historical anecdote?

The key words here are VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE that the Preamble was RATIFIED by the needed number of states. I am not asking for evidence that the Preamble existed. That is not in dispute. I am NOT asking for evidence it was sent to the States. That is not in dispute. I am asking for verifiable evidence that it was ratified by the needed number of states to become part of the Constitution. That is what the central question here is.

Article V of the US Constitution


The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
 
Last edited:

Master PO

Mixed Government advocate
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
32,516
Reaction score
5,321
Location
93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
When Congress sent the 12 items in the bill of rights to the states they also included a Preamble. The states ratified ten of these amendments and they are collectively known as The Bill of Rights.

Does anyone have verifiable evidence to submit that the Preamble was voted on by the needed number of states and is an official part of the Constitution of the USA and not just an interesting historical anecdote?

The key words here are VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE that the Preamble was RATIFIED by the needed number of states. I am not asking for evidence that the Preamble existed. I am NOT asking for evidence it was sent to the States. I am asking for verifiable evidence that it was ratified by the needed number of states to become part of the Constitution.

Article V of the US Constitution


The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

haymarket is attempting to say, the the states, did not ratify the preamble of the bill of rights, that it was exclude ....that the founders discarded it in the ratification process, although you can see pics of the actual documents ratified by the states with the preamble on them.
 

haymarket

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2010
Messages
120,954
Reaction score
28,528
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
haymarket is attempting to say, the the states, did not ratify the preamble of the bill of rights, that it was exclude ....that the founders discarded it in the ratification process, although you can see pics of the actual documents ratified by the states with the preamble on them.

Haymarket is simply asking for anyone who contends that the Preamble was ratified as part of the Constitution to submit verifiable evidence of that.

Again, nobody is disputing that Congress wrote a Preamble and sent it to the States. Yes we have seen the picture of the document and it is not in dispute that it existed. But that in no way shape or from translates into ratification without state vote for the language in the Preamble. As such, it is NOT evidence that was ever ratified by the needed number of states. In fact, the picture you shave shown has the other Amendments that were NOT ratified by the States in it. Are you going to claim in using the same faulty logic that they also were ratified as part of the Bill of Rights even though we know they were not? That is just silly thinking that makes no sense.

Where is your evidence that the Preamble to the bill of rights got the needed number of states to ratify it and make it part of the Constitution?
 
Last edited:

Master PO

Mixed Government advocate
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
32,516
Reaction score
5,321
Location
93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Haymarket is simply asking for anyone who contends that the Preamble was ratified as part of the Constitution to submit verifiable evidence of that.

Again, nobody is disputing that Congress wrote a Preamble and sent it to the States. Yes we have seen the picture of the document and it is not in dispute that it existed. But that in no way shape or from translates into ratification without state vote for the language in the Preamble. As such, it is NOT evidence that was ever ratified by the needed number of states. In fact, the picture you shave shown has the other Amendments that were NOT ratified by the States in it. Are you going to claim in using the same faulty logic that they also were ratified as part of the Bill of Rights even though we know they were not? That is just silly thinking that makes no sense.

Where is your evidence that the Preamble to the bill of rights got the needed number of states to ratify it and make it part of the Constitution?


what now your changing your tune? now you want all the states vote count?..before you say they didn't vote on the preamble at all.......
 

Master PO

Mixed Government advocate
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
32,516
Reaction score
5,321
Location
93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
here are James Madison own words on the subject of rights and the preamble to the bill of rights, as the talks about the alien and sedition act, freedom of the press, and all other essential rights of the american people.

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. Under any other construction of the amendment relating to the press, than that it declared the press to be wholly exempt from the power of Congress, the amendment could neither be said to correspond with the desire expressed by a number of the States, nor be calculated to extend 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.And might it not be asked, in turn, whether it is not more probable, under all the circumstances which have been reviewed, that the authority should be withheld by the Constitution, than that it should be left to a vague and violent construction, whilst so much pains were bestowed in enumerating other powers, and so many less important powers are included in the enumeration?

"That this State having, by its Convention, which ratified the Federal Constitution, expressly declared that, among other essential rights, 'the liberty of conscience and of the press cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by any authority of the United States;' and, from its extreme anxiety to guard these rights from every possible attack of sophistry and ambition, having, with other States, recommended an amendment for that purpose, which amendment was in due time annexed to the Constitution, it would mark a reproachful inconsistency, and criminal degeneracy, if an indifference were now shown to the most palpable violation of one of the rights thus declared and secured, and to the establishment of a precedent which may be fatal to the other."

We, the delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly and now met in Convention, having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention, and being prepared, as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us, to decide thereon--DO, in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States, may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression; and that every power not granted thereby remains with them, and at their will. That, therefore,( no right of any denomination) can be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by the Congress, by the Senate or House of Representatives, acting in any capacity, by the President, or any department or officer of the United States, except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those purposes; and that, among other essential rights, the liberty of conscience and of the press cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by any authority of the United States."

Here is an express and solemn declaration by the Convention of the State, that they ratified the Constitution in the sense that no right of any denomination can be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by the Government of the United States, or any part of it, except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution; and in the sense, particularly, "that among other essential rights, the liberty of conscience and freedom of the press cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by any authority of the United States."
 
Last edited:

Dickieboy

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 11, 2011
Messages
5,878
Reaction score
1,420
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Confused...why would it need to be ratified as no federal power or individual rights are dealt with in it?
 

Master PO

Mixed Government advocate
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
32,516
Reaction score
5,321
Location
93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Confused...why would it need to be ratified as no federal power or individual rights are dealt with in it?

the preamble of the bill of right is a statement saying, that the clauses which makeup the bill of rights...which they are all clauses, are declaratory and restrictive clauses, which government, cannot exercise its powers over.

haymarket is saying the clauses are not declaratory or restrictive at all.




The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

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.
 

haymarket

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2010
Messages
120,954
Reaction score
28,528
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Confused...why would it need to be ratified as no federal power or individual rights are dealt with in it?

Good question.

If one claims that the Bill of Rights Preamble is part of the Constitution then one must show evidence that it was ratified.
 

haymarket

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2010
Messages
120,954
Reaction score
28,528
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
haymarket is saying the clauses are not declaratory or restrictive at all.

Haymarket is saying that the Bill of Rights Preamble IS NOT part of the Constitution since it was never ratified as per Article V. As such, it is little more than an interesting historical anecdote with no force of law.

what now your changing your tune? now you want all the states vote count?..before you say they didn't vote on the preamble at all.......

I have no idea what you mean by changing my tune. I have stated from the start that I have seen no verifiable evidence in any form that states gave this Preamble the needed votes to be ratified.

IF YOU HAVE VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE, PLEASE DO PRESENT IT.
 
Last edited:

American

Beer Lover Extraordinaire
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
90,925
Reaction score
29,366
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

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.
Is this what we're talking about? Why would this need to be included into the Constitution? This is nothing more than an introduction, and is NOT an amendment but only an introduction of amendments. I think haymarket just wants to argue about something.
 

American

Beer Lover Extraordinaire
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
90,925
Reaction score
29,366
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Good question.

If one claims that the Bill of Rights Preamble is part of the Constitution then one must show evidence that it was ratified.

Who's making such a claim?
 

haymarket

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2010
Messages
120,954
Reaction score
28,528
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Is this what we're talking about? Why would this need to be included into the Constitution? This is nothing more than an introduction, and is NOT an amendment but only an introduction of amendments. I think haymarket just wants to argue about something.

I am arguing with folks like Barkmann who claim the Preamble to the Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution.
 

American

Beer Lover Extraordinaire
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
90,925
Reaction score
29,366
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I am arguing with folks like Barkmann who claim the Preamble to the Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution.

Then you should have posted links with Post #1. BTW, my copy of the Constitution does not contain the Preamble, so my argument is based on that.
 

Master PO

Mixed Government advocate
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
32,516
Reaction score
5,321
Location
93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Good question.

If one claims that the Bill of Rights Preamble is part of the Constitution then one must show evidence that it was ratified.


Was the whole document ratified by the states? meaning the document in question in the national archives in d.c., does that document have the preamble on it as a stating that the clauses (10) of the bill of rights are declaratory and restrictive to federal powers.............yes!

James Madison in 1800 ---The proposition of amendments [bill of rights] 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,

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_zoom_1.html

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html


Madison's words from 1800

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_speechs24.html
 
Last edited:

haymarket

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2010
Messages
120,954
Reaction score
28,528
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Was the whole document ratified by the states?


The answer is NO. Individual amendments were ratified by the different states. Of what was submitted to them, they only ratified 10 amendments.

here is the factual history

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/usconstitution/a/The-Original-Bill-Of-Rights-Had-12-Amendments.htm

The "Bill of Rights" is actually the popular name for a joint resolution passed by the first U.S. Congress on September 25, 1789. The resolution proposed the first set of amendments to the Constitution. Then as now, the process of amending the Constitution required that the resolution be "ratified" or approved by at least three quarters the states. Unlike the 10 amendments we know and cherish today as the Bill of Rights, the resolution sent to the states for ratification in 1789 proposed 12 amendments.

When the votes of the 11 states were finally counted on December 15, 1791, only the last 10 of the 12 amendments had been ratified. Thus, the original third amendment, establishing freedom of speech, press, assembly, petition, and the right to a fair and speedy trial became today's First Amendment.
 
Last edited:

head of joaquin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
12,029
Reaction score
3,530
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Is this what we're talking about? Why would this need to be included into the Constitution? This is nothing more than an introduction, and is NOT an amendment but only an introduction of amendments. I think haymarket just wants to argue about something.

It's Ernst's crank theory that's in dispute. Don't blame haymarket. Try to keep up!
 

Master PO

Mixed Government advocate
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
32,516
Reaction score
5,321
Location
93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
The answer is NO. Individual amendments were ratified by the different states. Of what was submitted to them, they only ratified 10 amendments.

here is the factual history

The Original Bill of Rights Had 12 Amendments – How the US Bill of Rights Ended Up With 10 Amendments Instead of 12

i guess you didn't read the above post!

Was the whole document ratified by the states?...yes! meaning the document in question in the national archives in d.c., does that document have the preamble on it as a stating that the clauses (10) of the bill of rights...are THEY declaratory and restrictive to federal powers.............Yes!

the preamble to the bill of rights states is a statement on the document that all the clauses that are contained in it......are declaratory and restrictive clauses.

there were 12 declaratory and restrictive clauses..... the states ratified 10 of those declaratory and restrictive clauses which James Madison created.

by the clauses being declaratory and restrictive, the federal government has no power over them, as can be read in the preamble of the document.

rights are unalienable, if they could be changed or abolished...they would not be unalienable,

James Madison in 1800 ---The proposition of amendments [bill of rights] 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,
 

haymarket

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2010
Messages
120,954
Reaction score
28,528
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
EB

The states only ratified ten of the twelve proposed Amendments. Two were not ratified nor was the Preamble ratified .

Was the whole document ratified by the states?...yes


No it was not. The article I gave you stated that clearly and without any ambiguity.

You have presented no verifiable evidence that the Preamble was ever ratified.

What Madison or anybody else said is irrelevant to the reality that the states never ratified what you claim they did.

You are lying about our history.
 
Last edited:

head of joaquin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
12,029
Reaction score
3,530
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
You are lying about our history.

He is, and this speaks volumes about the nature of his political philosophy. He can only argue his position by distorting history. Not a very propitious stance to have to take for a political view.
 

haymarket

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2010
Messages
120,954
Reaction score
28,528
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
He is, and this speaks volumes about the nature of his political philosophy. He can only argue his position by distorting history. Not a very propitious stance to have to take for a political view.

This is a very sad commentary upon the far right swing of extremists in America who actually believe they can lie and make it up as they go along.
 
Top Bottom