DU on the Bill of Rights

[dutch508]

jody  (1000+ posts)      Sat Jun-21-08 10:01 AM
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=226x6363
Can the Constitution be amended to eliminate the Bill of Rights?
 Advertisements [?]My question is prompted by DU thread http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph... and the related thread, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

In the first thread, some posts argue that the Constitution can be amended to repeal an inalienable right protected by the Bill of Rights.

AL, AR, KY, LA, MI, ND, OH, PA, and TX have state constitutional barriers preventing their legislatures from repealing protection of inalienable rights. Apparently that would include voting on an amendment to change the Constitution removing federal government protection of inalienable rights and thus influence ratification of such proposed amendments.

In a broader sense, the question is can the Constitution be amended to eliminate the Bill of Rights?

The preamble to the BOR states, “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.”

The BOR has been interpreted as a binding condition to the states ratifying the Constitution.

If that is true, then how can the BOR be repealed without abolishing the Constitution?

Stated like that, the issue concerns civil liberties enumerated in the first eight Amendments and un-enumerated ones protected by the Ninth Amendment.

That challenges the notion of inalienable rights that the federal government is supposed to protect minorities against the tyranny of a majority.

faygokid  (1000+ posts)       Sat Jun-21-08 10:08 AM
Response to Original message
1. Yes. The Bill of Rights are (is?) the first 10 amendments to the Constitution.
 The very definition of "amendments" contemplates their repeal. Prohibition was an amendment repealed. Every one of the amendments that make up the Bill of Rights is no different than that amendment.

jody  (1000+ posts)      Sat Jun-21-08 10:35 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. You state your opinion but do you have proof? As I asserted, IMO the BOR was a condition of
 ratifying the Constitution.

If that is true, would not repealing the BOR be tantamount to repealing the Constitution?

faygokid  (1000+ posts)       Sat Jun-21-08 10:45 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. Proof? What are you talking about?
 The Bill of Rights make up the first 10 amendments to the Constitution.

You obviously have a bug up your rear end about this, and nobody is going to convince you otherwise. I won't get into my credentials, because they don't matter, but I know what I'm talking about. Your mind is made up, but you are wrong. Nevertheless, enjoy, and next time you post, think about having a discussion, rather than conducting a lecture.

kdmorris  (1000+ posts)       Sat Jun-21-08 07:18 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. I was pointing out that the amendments are NOT 
 Edited on Sat Jun-21-08 07:19 PM by kdmorris
inalienable rights. They are CHANGES that were made to the constitution. And the Bill of Rights are just the first 10 amendments that were ratified (there were two other amendments that didn't get ratified at that time).

Prohibition is an amendment to the constitution(the 18th) which was repealed by another amendment (the 21st). As you stated, drinking alcohol is NOT an inalienable right. I read those state laws that you posted, but none of them say anything about the Bill of Rights. They speak of inalienable rights, which the constitution says is "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

The original question you raised was "what happens if a change to the constitution directly contradicts another?". The answer to that is that the Supreme Court would determine which of those contradictory laws should be followed.

The part that seems to be getting bogged down is that the Bill of Rights is NOT a list of inalienable rights. It is a list of Government granted rights that may or may not alienable. I would argue that the right to Free Speech SHOULD be an inalienable right, but it isn't necessarily. You might argue that the right to own a gun is inalienable, but it also is subject to the interpretation of a government body. As you also stated, you cannot yell "Fire" in a crowded theater, which means that there are times when your right to Free Speech can indeed be taken away.

The constitution talked about Liberty, but it was agreed at the time that this was an inalienable right if you were BORN free (which was pretty much not what was practiced, since so many Africans were born free in Africa, then kidnapped to be enslaved here). The Supreme Court upheld this law in the Dred Scott case. So, it can be seen here that what is considered inalienable is completely up to the government to decide. I agree that the government shouldn't have the authority to "take away a right", but they do it all the time.

I guess the issue is: What do you consider to be an unalienable right (and just saying "all of the bill of rights" is cheating. Is it just the Bill of Rights? Are all the amendments inalienable?)? What you and I come up with might be completely different, but what matters is what the LAW states is an inalienable right.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inalienable_rights Some reading for you, if you want.

Edited to add: Thanks for correcting the number of states. I couldn't remember if it was 2/3s or 3/4ths and was too lazy to look it up.

jody  (1000+ posts)      Sat Jun-21-08 07:28 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. Obviously I failed to state my question clearly. Nine states define the rights enumerated in the
 Edited on Sat Jun-21-08 07:34 PM by jody
Bill of Rights as inalienable rights and their state constitutions expressly forbid their legislatures from voting to abolish those inalienable rights.

Those state legislatures cannot legally, according to their state constitutions, vote to repeal a right enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

How can the Constitution be amended by 3/4 of the state legislatures voting to repeal a right enumerated in the BOR when at least nine states expressly forbid a vote to abolish those rights?

EDIT TO ADD
The Constitution uses 2/3 and 3/4 in the same passage:

"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;"

Now, why would the DUnnies be wondering if they can get rid of the Consitution and the Bill of Rights?

[Chris_]

jody  (1000+ posts)      Sat Jun-21-08 10:01 AM

Can the Constitution be amended to eliminate the Bill of Rights?

DU in a nutshell, Example #480735

[Carl]

Yet they proclaim themselves as the most enlightened and intellectual..

[jukin]

More from the constitutional scholars at the DUmp...........no thank you

[Bondai]

Now, why would the DUnnies be wondering if they can get rid of the Consitution and the Bill of Rights?

So they can make shit up as they go along...and they can get rid of that pesky old 2nd amendment..DUmbasses

[mondonico]

The part that seems to be getting bogged down is that the Bill of Rights is NOT a list of inalienable rights. It is a list of Government granted rights that may or may not alienable.

THAT's the US left in a nutshell:  rights are "government-granted."

It's also completely wrong.  The Bill of Rights is a set of RESTRICTIONS on government's ability to infringe the people's PRE-EXISTING rights.

[MrsSmith]

The part that seems to be getting bogged down is that the Bill of Rights is NOT a list of inalienable rights. It is a list of Government granted rights that may or may not alienable.

THAT's the US left in a nutshell:  rights are "government-granted."

It's also completely wrong.  The Bill of Rights is a set of RESTRICTIONS on government's ability to infringe the people's PRE-EXISTING rights.

Unfortunately, the courts keep "finding" nuances in the BOR that do exactly that.  It's no wonder that so many people don't understand the difference.

[InfamousAndy]

You have to love how smart these DUmmies think they are....

Prohibition is an amendment to the constitution(the 18th) which was repealed by another amendment (the 21st). As you stated, drinking alcohol is NOT an inalienable right. I read those state laws that you posted, but none of them say anything about the Bill of Rights. They speak of inalienable rights, which the constitution says is "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

Except that the constitution DOES NOT say 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness'.  The Declaration of Independance does.  You are no constitutional scholar if you do not know the difference between the constitution and the declaration.

[franksolich]

You have to love how smart these DUmmies think they are....

Prohibition is an amendment to the constitution(the 18th) which was repealed by another amendment (the 21st). As you stated, drinking alcohol is NOT an inalienable right. I read those state laws that you posted, but none of them say anything about the Bill of Rights. They speak of inalienable rights, which the constitution says is "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

Except that the constitution DOES NOT say 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness'.  The Declaration of Independance does.  You are no constitutional scholar if you do not know the difference between the constitution and the declaration.

For a minute there, I thought that was Pedro Picasso at that bonfire, but no, it turned out a different primitive.

By the way, I don't know about anybody else here, but it seems to me this bonfire is provoked with the ulterior motive of hoping to repeal a certain constitutional amendment.

[Mr Mannn]

You have to love how smart these DUmmies think they are....

Prohibition is an amendment to the constitution(the 18th) which was repealed by another amendment (the 21st). As you stated, drinking alcohol is NOT an inalienable right. I read those state laws that you posted, but none of them say anything about the Bill of Rights. They speak of inalienable rights, which the constitution says is "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

Except that the constitution DOES NOT say 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness'.  The Declaration of Independance does.  You are no constitutional scholar if you do not know the difference between the constitution and the declaration.

For a minute there, I thought that was Pedro Picasso at that bonfire, but no, it turned out a different primitive.

By the way, I don't know about anybody else here, but it seems to me this bonfire is provoked with the ulterior motive of hoping to repeal a certain constitutional amendment.

Read 2nd amendment. gotcha.

That may be so. But the primitives couldn't help themselves, They would wipe away all the others. They hate Christians and Jews, so Freedom of religion would have to go.
They hate all dissenting opinions, so freedom of speech and the press would have to go as well.
Counter protests? No more freedom of assembly.
And I'm sure they could find something wrong with each and every God given freedom we enjoy, so the whole thing would go.

They would use these words, under our socialist paradise such things as a bill of rights will never be needed. So we'll just remove this and you sheep will never know the difference because we only want to help you.
In Canada we hear that they are so enlightened that they don't need a Bill of Rights. Yet if you criticize gays or muslims, you are hauled before a court.

If Obama gets into office, and he has a veto proof majority, God help us.

[miskie]

without all the DUmmy doublespeak

Dummy wants to get rid of the 2nd Amendment, but also sees that too many states have laws on the books preventing removal of anything from the BoR - making the required votes to repeal/remove the 2nd Amendment impossible.

Too bad DUmmy. No soup for you.

[TheSarge]

THAT's the US left in a nutshell:  rights are "government-granted."

It's taken far longer than the Liberals ever hoped for...but we are finally seeing whole generations coming up after you and me that believe that right there 100%.

[DixieBelle]

So the DUmmies can see unassailable rights to abortion and gay marriage but miss those clearly spelled out like the Second Amend? Wow. Just wow. I guess I need a pair of "headupyourass" glasses to get that angle.