Preamble to the Bill of Rights

[haymarket]

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

Nobody is claiming that anything was added to the Constitution which then permitted the actions you loathe by the Great Satan FDR. So your silly attempt to derail has been exposed.

Stick to the issue for heavens sake.

Do you share this "belief" of the far right libertarian faction that the Preamble to the Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution?

 

[haymarket]

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?

Of course you could not care less. That would imply you actually have some respect for sticking on topic.

THIS IS NOT A GUN THREAD. The freakin world does NOT revolve around everything coming back to guns for heavens sakes. You have a whole boatload of gun threads to pick from. This is NOT one of them.

 

[Master PO]

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:

the clauses which were ratified by the states are declaratory and restrictive clauses, the preamble to the bill of rights, is on the document in the national archives.

 

[haymarket]

the clauses which were ratified by the states are declaratory and restrictive clauses, the preamble to the bill of rights, is on the document in the national archives.

So might be tiny flecks of insect feces. But they are not part of the Constitution either.

 

[TurtleDude]

So might be tiny flecks of insect feces. But they are not part of the Constitution either.

an interesting argument there. what part of the constitution actually allows say the New Deal?

 

[haymarket]

an interesting argument there. what part of the constitution actually allows say the New Deal?

The part cited by the Supreme Court in upholding laws passed under it. Wikipedia will help get you up to speed if you are not informed on that part of American history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal

It is revealing that I will answer a direct question posed by uyou while you run and hide from mine while trying to derail a thread and take it over.

Do you share this "belief" of the far right libertarian faction that the Preamble to the Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution?

 

[head of joaquin]

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

BUZZZZ.

Try to stay on topic. The New Deal was upheld, for the most part, by the SC, which determines constitutionality. Nobody claims the New Deal was "part" of the Constitution, like Ernst is foolishly doing concerning the preamble to the bill of rights.

Focus, focus.

 

[head of joaquin]

an interesting argument there. what part of the constitution actually allows say the New Deal?

Art 3, which provides for the SC to determine the constitutionality of laws, which is what happened.

Boy, that was hard.

 

[haymarket]

BUZZZZ.

Try to stay on topic. The New Deal was upheld, for the most part, by the SC, which determines constitutionality. Nobody claims the New Deal was "part" of the Constitution, like Ernst is foolishly doing concerning the preamble to the bill of rights.

Focus, focus.

You are probably asking way too much here. :roll:

 

[head of joaquin]

Nobody is claiming that anything was added to the Constitution which then permitted the actions you loathe by the Great Satan FDR. So your silly attempt to derail has been exposed.

Stick to the issue for heavens sake.

Do you share this "belief" of the far right libertarian faction that the Preamble to the Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution?

Turtle is either attempting to distract or is distracted. It's often hard to tell which.

Meanwhile, has Ernst even attempted to answer the question of the ratification of the preamble to the BoR, because that's a lulu.

 

[head of joaquin]

You are probably asking way too much here. :roll:

Yeah, poor Turtle never got past Art 2. A common tea party defect.

 

[haymarket]

Turtle is either attempting to distract or is distracted. It's often hard to tell which.

Meanwhile, has Ernst even attempted to answer the question of the ratification of the preamble to the BoR, because that's a lulu.

The really sad thing is this sort of nonsense is symbolic of how far to the right some people have gone and it has taken them right off the deep end. Twenty or thirty years ago you NEVER heard this type of inane posturing.... but today.... thanks to the right libertarians using internet sites like Jehovah's Witnesses use doors to do their missionary work, we are all polluted by this dreck.

It just shows how marginalized some people have allowed themselves to become. Its sad.

 

[TurtleDude]

The really sad thing is this sort of nonsense is symbolic of how far to the right some people have gone and it has taken them right off the deep end. Twenty or thirty years ago you NEVER heard this type of inane posturing.... but today.... thanks to the right libertarians using internet sites like Jehovah's Witnesses use doors to do their missionary work, we are all polluted by this dreck.

It just shows how marginalized some people have allowed themselves to become. Its sad.

what is the right wing position you rail against and why does the preamble matter so much?

is it because you see it as contradicting your view that the bill of rights is a prohibition on government action rather than allowing the people to exercise government granted rights?

 

[haymarket]

what is the right wing position you rail against and why does the preamble matter so much?

is it because you see it as contradicting your view that the bill of rights is a prohibition on government action rather than allowing the people to exercise government granted rights?

You would have to ask Barkmann and the few others who labor under the delusion that the Preamble to the Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution.

 

[TurtleDude]

You would have to ask Barkmann and the few others who labor under the delusion that the Preamble to the Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution.

yeah you are right, the preamble is irrelevant. rather all the FDR created mutations accurately reflect the true intent of the founders But you don't answer my question-what was the purpose of starting this thread

 

[haymarket]

yeah you are right, the preamble is irrelevant. rather all the FDR created mutations accurately reflect the true intent of the founders But you don't answer my question-what was the purpose of starting this thread

The purpose was to see if anybody supporting the Barkmann proposition could offer verifiable evidence for the claim that the Preamble to the Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution.

And nobody has been able to.

And how about you Turtle? Is this something you subscribe to as a self professed right libertarian?

 

[TurtleDude]

The purpose was to see if anybody supporting the Barkmann proposition could offer verifiable evidence for the claim that the Preamble to the Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution.

And nobody has been able to.

And how about you Turtle? Is this something you subscribe to as a self professed right libertarian?

Again that was from the gun thread. what relevance does it have

 

[apdst]

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.

The Preamble is simply an introduction to the spirit of The Constitution. Of course it's part of The Constitution. It technically got ratified with the ratification of The Bill of Rights.

Now, what's your point?

 

[haymarket]

Again that was from the gun thread. what relevance does it have

A discussion of the content of the Constitution in the forum on the Constitution..... are you serious when you ask what relevance does it have?

This is the proper place for such.

And why are you attempting to continually derail the thread but you will not take a stand on if you believe this right wing nonsense? What are you afraid of here? Is it showing your usual allies that they are indeed without any foundation and are wrong..... or is it to spare yourself a share of the embarrassment of their defeat in taking such an extremist position?

 

[haymarket]

The Preamble is simply an introduction to the spirit of The Constitution. Of course it's part of The Constitution. It technically got ratified with the ratification of The Bill of Rights.

Now, what's your point?

The Preamble to the Constitution is indeed part of the Constitution. The Preamble to the Bill of rights - no.

But if you think otherwise and you claim otherwise and you believe otherwise then you will have no problem linking to that ratification process and documenting it with verifiable evidence. Prove to us where this "technically" happened in our history.

Lets see it.

 

[TurtleDude]

A discussion of the content of the Constitution in the forum on the Constitution..... are you serious when you ask what relevance does it have?

This is the proper place for such.

And why are you attempting to continually derail the thread but you will not take a stand on if you believe this right wing nonsense? What are you afraid of here? Is it showing your usual allies that they are indeed without any foundation and are wrong..... or is it to spare yourself a share of the embarrassment of their defeat in taking such an extremist position?

I asked what your purpose of starting this thread was and why it is important given its a footnote from another discussion, why is it important to you to "prove" that the Preamble was not part of the constitution that was ratified

 

[haymarket]

I asked what your purpose of starting this thread was and why it is important given its a footnote from another discussion, why is it important to you to "prove" that the Preamble was not part of the constitution that was ratified

And I answered you. If you do not like the answer - it is hell of a lot better than the answer you have dodged when I ask you if you subscribe to the idea that the Preamble to the Bill of Rights is part of Constitution.

 

[TurtleDude]

And I answered you. If you do not like the answer - it is hell of a lot better than the answer you have dodged when I ask you if you subscribe to the idea that the Preamble to the Bill of Rights is part of Constitution.

I said it has no relevance to anything

the fact is-the bill of rights is a prohibition on government action, not a grant of rights from the government to the supreme sovereign. You seem to think that government action may be constitutional or unconstitutional depending on its affect upon different people

that is false

 

[haymarket]

I said it has no relevance to anything

Obviously others do not share your opinion since they are intrigued by the question and are participating here.

So do you agree with Barkmann that the Preamble to the Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution?

 

[Master PO]

Obviously others do not share your opinion since they are intrigued by the question and are participating here.

So do you agree with Barkmann that the Preamble to the Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution?

post#7

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.

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


post #15

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/cha...ts_zoom_1.html

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/cha...ranscript.html


Madison's words from 1800

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/found...speechs24.html


post#19

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,

post#28


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


post#34

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,

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,