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 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?
Confused...why would it need to be ratified as no federal power or individual rights are dealt with in it?
Confused...why would it need to be ratified as no federal power or individual rights are dealt with in it?
haymarket is saying the clauses are not declaratory or restrictive at all.
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.......
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.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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
Who's making such a claim?
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
Pssst: Ernst. Try to keep up!
i love you man...your what keeps me coming back!
I love your crank theories. They keep me constantly amused.
Was the whole document ratified by the states?...yes
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?