View Single Post
Old 08-31-2019, 11:35 PM
Abatis is offline
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Upper Bucks County, PA.
Posts: 322
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
Moreover, the rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights aren't unalieanable; they are expressed as limitations on governmental powers, with some limitations being more explicit than others.
Some of the provisions do recognize unalienable rights and certainly original, inherent rights that the people possessed and exercised before the Constitution was ratified. Those provisions do not establish or declare any prohibition that wasn't already a inviolate principle of the Constitution before December 15th, 1791. All those provisions "do" is redundantly tell the federal government it can not exercise powers it was never granted.

This truth was a primary argument of the Federalists against adding a bill of rights:
"I . . . affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? . . ."
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
The people who wrote and influenced the drafting and final ratification were acutely aware that Constitutions could fail, which is why it seems highly unlikely that they would take an literally textual interpretation of the Constitution seriously.
That the framers included a rigid process to amend the Constitution, to formally alter it and the ambit of federal powers, stands as a testament that they believed the Constitution must be applied as written. If they believed that the Constitution was a fluid, malleable evolving series of suggestions on how to operate the federal government, them including an amendment process was the ultimate troll . . .

Not a word about post 87, in agreement or disagreement?


Last edited by Abatis; 08-31-2019 at 11:37 PM.