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
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?
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.
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?
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
an interesting argument there. what part of the constitution actually allows say the New Deal?
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.
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?
You are probably asking way too much here. :roll:
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.
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.
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?
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.
Again that was from the gun thread. what relevance does it have
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?
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
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
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?
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?