Preamble to the Bill of Rights

[head of joaquin]

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.

I would say it's almost beyond lying. It's a total disregard for the relevancy of facts and history, superseded by a total cognitive dependence on ideological talking points and memes. Words literally mean nothing to the tea party types. They actually use the word "socialism" to describe Obama and they actually think it's true. It's sort of like they have gone through 1984 and come out the other end: ""WAR IS PEACE," "FREEDOM IS SLAVERY," "IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH." And Eurasia has always been at war with Oceania.

They don't just say it, they think it.

 

[Captain Adverse]

The socalled "preamble" is not a part of the Constitution. It was the portion of the original Congressional Bill proposing State ratification of the Amendments and explaining the Legislative intent behind them.

While it is NOT a "part" of the Constitution, it does serve to show what the proponents expected these first 12 (11 were eventually passed btw) Amendments were meant to do, and how we should understand and interpret them.

 

[Master PO]

EB

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

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.

excuse me again, the 10 which were ratified are declaratory and restrictive clauses...are they not?.....please answer yes or no..PLEASE ANSWER YES OR NO!

the preamble of the bill of rights states that the clauses are declaratory and restrictive clauses............the preamble is part of the bill or rights, making the statement .....para-phasing it......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 a [misunderstanding] by government or to prevent the [abuse of its federal powers powers], that these declaratory and restrictive clauses will be added to the constitution, as to create public confidence in the new federal Government, will help ensure the beneficent or the [doing of good things] by this new institution.



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.

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,

 

[head of joaquin]

The socalled "preamble" is not a part of the Constitution. It was the portion of the original Congressional Bill proposing State ratification of the Amendments and explaining the Legislative intent behind them.

While it is NOT a "part" of the Constitution, it does serve to show what the proponents expected these first 12 (11 were eventually passed btw) Amendments were meant to do, and how we should understand and interpret them.

And that is certainly relevant to judicial interpretation of legislative intent. However, courts learned a long time ago, that expressions of legislative intent are often self-serving, and don't necessarily reflect what some or even the majority of those voting for the bill think. This is particularly true in this case where those the drafted the bill were not those who ratified it at the state level. We have no idea what the state conventions thought of the bill of rights with respect to this issue and for all we know they had diametrically opposing intentions.

 

[haymarket]

excuse me again, the 10 which were ratified are declaratory and restrictive clauses...are they not?.....please answer yes or no..PLEASE ANSWER YES OR NO!]

They are what they are. Period. They are what they are and they say what they say and anything more than that with your clauses and declarations and the such is just ideological spin. And because of that reality I really have no idea what you are claiming. I really really don't. I have a Masters degree for heavens sake. My major in college was PoliSci and I had a minor in history. I taught both in high school for 33 years. Now I write legislation for state government as a major part of my job.

But what you are doing is akin to a street hustler playing three card montie with a shill to help him get rich from the suckers.

Lets cut the BS - EB. Lets cut the crap.

Tell me straight out without any nonsense - is the Preamble to the Bill of Rights part of our US Constitution?

 

[haymarket]

The socalled "preamble" is not a part of the Constitution. It was the portion of the original Congressional Bill proposing State ratification of the Amendments and explaining the Legislative intent behind them.

While it is NOT a "part" of the Constitution, it does serve to show what the proponents expected these first 12 (11 were eventually passed btw) Amendments were meant to do, and how we should understand and interpret them.

I agree. And that last part is only applicable when one is engaged in making a political argument about how the Constitution may be interpreted. Then it is right and proper to bring those type of things in there as part of original intent.

But it certainly IS NOT part of the US Constitution and to pretend it is or claim it is engages one in the worst sort of lies and fraud.

 

[haymarket]

And that is certainly relevant to judicial interpretation of legislative intent. However, courts learned a long time ago, that expressions of legislative intent are often self-serving, and don't necessarily reflect what some or even the majority of those voting for the bill think. This is particularly true in this case where those the drafted the bill were not those who ratified it at the state level. We have no idea what the state conventions thought of the bill of rights with respect to this issue and for all we know they had diametrically opposing intentions.

Nor would they be the last people who wrote a law only to have it return later down the road to bite them in the ass as it turned out to be something other than they even thought it would be.

Clean up on aisle 5.

A good quarter of what we do in the legislature is cleaning up what we already tried to do previously and screwed that up the first time. Why would the Founders be any different?

 

[Captain Adverse]

I agree. And that last part is only applicable when one is engaged in making a political argument about how the Constitution may be interpreted. Then it is right and proper to bring those type of things in there as part of original intent.

But it certainly IS NOT part of the US Constitution and to pretend it is or claim it is engages one in the worst sort of lies and fraud.

In addition to my J.D., I also have a Master's in History. My Major was The American Revolutionary period, with an emphasis on the Constitution; with minors in Early Modern Britain, and The American West.

 

[Master PO]

They are what they are. Period. They are what they are and they say what they say and anything more than that with your clauses and declarations and the such is just ideological spin. And because of that reality I really have no idea what you are claiming. I really really don't. I have a Masters degree for heavens sake. My major in college was PoliSci and I had a minor in history. I taught both in high school for 33 years. Now I write legislation for state government as a major part of my job.

But what you are doing is akin to a street hustler playing three card montie with a shill to help him get rich from the suckers.

Lets cut the BS - EB. Lets cut the crap.

Tell me straight out without any nonsense - is the Preamble to the Bill of Rights part of our US Constitution?

still never got a yes or no from you if they are declaratory and restrictive clauses..........and your not going to answer it either.



the constitution itself does have a preamble, its the mission goal of what the Constitution in what its trying to achieve by its statement...

the bill of rights has a preamble which is a statement which states, that all the bill of rights amendments (which are clauses) being proposed to the new constitution are declaratory and restrictive to the new federal government so that their will be no misunderstandings, and abuses of federal powers against those clauses.

by ratifying 10 of the 12 original amendments to our constitution, adding these new declaratory and restrictive clauses, makes them declarations to government and restrictive to the federal government against any of their powers /actions ..they may try to take against those new amendments, which are the rights of the people.


James Madison himself states that the clauses of the bill of rights are declaratory and restrictive to the federal government.........so Madison says...YES they are!

again Madison's own words---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]

In addition to my J.D., I also have a Master's in History. My Major was The American Revolutionary period, with an emphasis on the Constitution; with minors in Early Modern Britain, and The American West.

Most excellent. I look forward to your knowledge. The era I always liked the best was the Gilded Age.

 

[haymarket]

still never got a yes or no from you if they are declaratory and restrictive clauses..........and your not going to answer it either.,

as I told you, I have no idea what you are talking about.

the constitution itself does have a preamble, its the mission goal of what the Constitution in what its trying to achieve by its statement...

which was ratified as part of the Constitution.

the bill of rights has a preamble which is a statement which states, that all the bill of rights amendments (which are clauses) being proposed to the new constitution are declaratory and restrictive to the new federal government so that their will be no misunderstandings, and abuses of federal powers against those clauses.

Which was NOT ratified as part of the Constitution.

James Madison himself states that the clauses of the bill of rights are declaratory and restrictive to the federal government.........so Madison says...YES they are!

again Madison's own words---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

An interesting historical anecdote. But not the force of law by any stretch.

 

[head of joaquin]

In addition to my J.D., I also have a Master's in History. My Major was The American Revolutionary period, with an emphasis on the Constitution; with minors in Early Modern Britain, and The American West.

Nice to have an educated person and a fellow lawyer discussing the Constitution.

 

[Master PO]

as I told you, I have no idea what you are talking about.

sure you do hay!, you just playing coy for me on this question i asked.....you know exactly what i am talking about, but when your in a box, and the dirt is falling in on you, its hard to get out.

which was ratified as part of the Constitution.

so when the constitution was ratified, the preamble to it was to........yes that's correct!

Which was NOT ratified as part of the Constitution.

and when the bill or rights was ratified the document with the preamble on it, it was put into the national achieves. with the constitution.

here's the link to the pic to the bill of rights, with its preamble on it , the one in the national archives.

the preamble ,its statement...that all the clauses of the bill of rights are declaratory and restrictive to federal powers.

Bill of Rights Large View

An interesting historical anecdote. But not the force of law by any stretch.

so James Madison knows nothing about the bill of rights?, which he himself wrote?..........very interesting take, however it seems not stand up under fire.

again Madison's own words---James Madison in 1800 on the clauses of the bill or rights ---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,

 

[Captain Adverse]

so James Madison knows nothing about the bill of rights?, which he himself wrote?..........very interesting take, however it seems not stand up under fire.

again Madison's own words---James Madison in 1800 on the clauses of the bill or rights ---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,

Just a point of order...James Madison did not really support the "Bill of Rights," he didn't think it was necessary. It was pressure from the Anti-Federalist's (Like Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, Richard Henry Lee to name a few) who threatened to oppose ratification of the Constitution in their states that caused Madison to pre-emptively provide Amendments he thought he could live with.

Okay, carry on.

 

[Master PO]

Just a point of order...James Madison did not really support the "Bill of Rights," he didn't think it was necessary. It was pressure from the Anti-Federalist's (Like Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, Richard Henry Lee to name a few) who threatened to oppose ratification in their states that caused Madison to pre-emptively provide Amendment's he thought he could live with.

Okay, carry on.

your are correct . Madison did not think a bills of rights was necessary at all, along with Hamilton, becuase he thought it would limit rights, and he and Hamilton believed, there was no way the government could violate the rights of the people, becuase the 18 duties of congress, did not give them any authority anywhere to do it.

but the federalist promised a bill or rights and they kept their word and Madison wrote them, and stating they were to be there as declaratory and restrictive to federal government powers.

 

[haymarket]

sure you do hay!, you just playing coy for me on this question i asked.....you know exactly what i am talking about, but when your in a box, and the dirt is falling in on you, its hard to get out.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

This is part of the right libertarian game using newspeak. If A = this and B = that and if A & B then combine then this must be that. Got it. :doh

Just talk in plain english for heavens sake.

Like far too many right libertarians, you want people to buy into your bag of crap so you can then sell them the whole outhouse and when they don't want to live there you get all indignant and state "but you agreed to the principle before"!

Will you simply provide the proof that the damn Bill of Rights Peamble was ratified by the states already or get off the damn pot? :doh:roll:

 

[haymarket]

sure you do hay!, you just playing coy for me on this question i asked.....you know exactly what i am talking about, but when your in a box, and the dirt is falling in on you, its hard to get out.







so James Madison knows nothing about the bill of rights?, which he himself wrote?..........very interesting take, however it seems not stand up under fire.

Please burn that strawman. It reeks and deserves a quick death.

 

[Master PO]

Please burn that strawman. It reeks and deserves a quick death.

I have no idea what you are talking about........sound familiar

 

[Master PO]

I have no idea what you are talking about.

This is part of the right libertarian game using newspeak. If A = this and B = that and if A & B then combine then this must be that. Got it. :doh

Just talk in plain english for heavens sake.

Like far too many right libertarians, you want people to buy into your bag of crap so you can then sell them the whole outhouse and when they don't want to live there you get all indignant and state "but you agreed to the principle before"!

Will you simply provide the proof that the damn Bill of Rights Peamble was ratified by the states already or get off the damn pot? :doh:roll:

i put my point forth very well, you will not answer any question of the clauses, becuase ,your always vague when the box starts filling in

 

[haymarket]

I have no idea what you are talking about........sound familiar

thats okay.

 

[haymarket]

i put my point forth very well, you will not answer any question of the clauses, becuase ,your always vague when the box starts filling in

I was very very precise.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

This is part of the right libertarian game using newspeak. If A = this and B = that and if A & B then combine then this must be that. Got it.

Just talk in plain english for heavens sake.

Like far too many right libertarians, you want people to buy into your bag of crap so you can then sell them the whole outhouse and when they don't want to live there you get all indignant and state "but you agreed to the principle before"! :doh

Will you simply provide the proof that the damn Bill of Rights Peamble was ratified by the states already or get off the damn pot? :roll:

 

[TurtleDude]

The FDR expansions of the commerce clause and rape of the tenth amendment was never ratified either but some people find the FDR mutations to be superior to the actual constitution

 

[TurtleDude]

I was very very precise.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

This is part of the right libertarian game using newspeak. If A = this and B = that and if A & B then combine then this must be that. Got it.

Just talk in plain english for heavens sake.

Like far too many right libertarians, you want people to buy into your bag of crap so you can then sell them the whole outhouse and when they don't want to live there you get all indignant and state "but you agreed to the principle before"! :doh

Will you simply provide the proof that the damn Bill of Rights Peamble was ratified by the states already or get off the damn pot? :roll:

as opposed to those who loathe libertarians claiming "Shall not be infringed" does not prevent "infringements"?

what is the purpose of this thread-to pretend that the government has every power you think it should whether that power was actually delegated to it or not?
or is it to pretend that government actions are constitutional or unconstitutional not based on the government action but rather how the government subjectively affects various individuals?

 

[haymarket]

as opposed to those who loathe libertarians claiming "Shall not be infringed" does not prevent "infringements"?

what is the purpose of this thread-to pretend that the government has every power you think it should whether that power was actually delegated to it or not?
or is it to pretend that government actions are constitutional or unconstitutional not based on the government action but rather how the government subjectively affects various individuals?

This is NOT A GUN THREAD. Repeat: THIS IS NOT A GUN THREAD. Do not derail this thread. You have hundreds of gun threads to pick from but THIS IS NOT ONE.

So Turtle, do you share this delusion that the Preamble to the Bill of Rights is part of the US Constitution

 

[TurtleDude]

This is NOT A GUN THREAD. Repeat: THIS IS NOT A GUN THREAD. Do not derail this thread. You have hundreds of gun threads to pick from but THIS IS NOT ONE.

So Turtle, do you share this delusion that the Preamble to the Bill of Rights is part of the US Constitution

I couldn't care less-you started this thread here based on what went on in a gun thread so why are you upset when I mention that?