Why were the first ten amendments to the Constitution proposed only at a later date?

[AK84]

Just to point out, the common law is based upon prohibitions, what is not expressly prohibited is allowed.

The arguement against a bill of rights has always been that the Judicail Arm might interpret the rights as being the only ones protected or that they would be unwilling to recognise new rights.

[KarlGauss]

@Northern_Piper

The second proposed amendment read:

From 1789 to 1791, only six states ratified the proposed amendment. It then languished for nearly two centuries, when it was finally ratified by the sufficient number of states in 1992, becoming the Twenty-Seventh Amendment.

This seems eminently appropriate (and could serve as a model for politicians everywhere). Why then did it meet with such opposition and take the better part of two hundred years to be confirmed?

[SCSimmons]

@Northern_Piper

From 1789 to 1791, only six states ratified the proposed amendment. It then languished for nearly two centuries, when it was finally ratified by the sufficient number of states in 1992, becoming the Twenty-Seventh Amendment.

Interesting … Did those original six states have to re-ratify as part of that process, or was their ratification from the eighteenth century still considered a done deal. “We don’t need to know what New Hampshire thinks of this–they already approved it 202 years ago.”

[Giles]

@Northern_Piper

The second proposed amendment read:

From 1789 to 1791, only six states ratified the proposed amendment. It then languished for nearly two centuries, when it was finally ratified by the sufficient number of states in 1992, becoming the Twenty-Seventh Amendment.

Which must make it the slowest piece of legislation to be enacted, from the original proposal to the completion of the process.

And that raises the question: If you’re an originalist, do you interpret in accordance with what it meant in 1789, or what it meant in 1992?

[dtilque]

@Giles

And that raises the question: If you’re an originalist, do you interpret in accordance with what it meant in 1789, or what it meant in 1992?

What would be the difference?

AIUI, the 27th Amendment is largely moot, since Congress passed a law giving themselves automatic pay raises based on the CPI. Unless they vote to cancel or defer them, that is. This law certainly seems to violate the spirit of the amendment, if not the letter.

[Northern_Piper]

@SCSimmons

Interesting … Did those original six states have to re-ratify as part of that process, or was their ratification from the eighteenth century still considered a done deal. “We don’t need to know what New Hampshire thinks of this–they already approved it 202 years ago.”

They apparently didn’t have to, but two states did re-ratify. Kentucky, because it appears that the original ratification by Kentucky didn’t immediately come to light, and North Carolina.

See in the wiki article:

Ratification Completed

Ratification Dates

[Northern_Piper]

@dtilque

AIUI, the 27th Amendment is largely moot, since Congress passed a law giving themselves automatic pay raises based on the CPI. Unless they vote to cancel or defer them, that is. This law certainly seems to violate the spirit of the amendment, if not the letter.

The cost of living increases have been upheld as consistent with the Amendment by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, as per the wiki article: Cost of Living Adjustments.

[Freddy_the_Pig]

@KarlGauss

This seems eminently appropriate (and could serve as a model for politicians everywhere). Why then did it meet with such opposition and take the better part of two hundred years to be confirmed?

Good question. If any historian has ever explicated the answer, I haven’t seen it. Details of state legislative debates in the early republic tend to be a little spotty, and historians writing from a national perspective naturally concentrate on affairs in Congress. We have a bit of a historical “black hole” here.