The Bill of Rights was HUGE mistake

[Originalist]

Now I know some will take exception to that statement, but I stand by what I said. In fact, the 2nd Amendment should be the FIRST one we repeal!

Now I know what some of you are thinking, "But if we repeal the 2nd amendment that means we'd be giving up our right to bear arms!! If we repeal the 1st amendment we'd have no more freedom of speech and Congress could establish a national church!!"

Please hold that thought and consider the wisdom of one of the greatest conservative scholars of our time, Dr. Walter E. Williams.....

As we celebrate the 4th of July, let's ask the question: Did the Framers make a mistake by amending the Constitution with the Bill of Rights? Would Americans have more liberty today had there not been a Bill of Rights? You say, "Williams, what's wrong with you? America without the Bill of Rights is unthinkable!" Let's look at it.

After the 1787 Constitutional Convention, there were intense ratification debates about the proposed Constitution. Both James Madison and Alexander Hamilton expressed grave reservations about Thomas Jefferson's, George Mason's and others insistence that the Constitution be amended by the Bill of Rights. It wasn't because they had little concern with liberty guarantees. Quite to the contrary they were concerned about the loss of liberties.

Alexander Hamilton expressed his concerns in Federalist Paper No. 84, "Bills of rights . . . are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous." Hamilton asks,

Hamilton's argument was that Congress can only do what the Constitution specifically gives it authority to do. Powers not granted belong to the people and the states. Another way of putting Hamilton's concern: why have an amendment prohibiting Congress from infringing on our right to play hopscotch when the Constitution gives Congress no authority to infringe upon our hopscotch rights in the first place.

Alexander Hamilton added that a Bill of Rights would ...

Going back to our hopscotch example, those who would usurp our God-given liberties might enact a law banning our playing hide-and-seek. They'd justify their actions by claiming that nowhere in the Constitution is there a guaranteed right to play hide-and-seek. They'd say, "hopscotch yes, but hide-and-seek, no."

To mollify Alexander Hamilton's fears about how a Bill of Rights might be used as a pretext to infringe on human rights, the Framers added the Ninth Amendment. The Ninth Amendment reads:

Boiled down to its basics, the Ninth Amendment says it's impossible to list all of our God-given or natural rights. Just because a right is not listed doesn't mean it can be infringed upon or disparaged by the U.S. Congress. Applying the Ninth Amendment to our example: just because playing hopscotch is listed and hide-and-seek is not doesn't mean that we don't have a right to play hide-and-seek.

How do courts see the Ninth Amendment today? It's more than a safe bet to say that courts, as well as lawyers, treat the Ninth Amendment with the deepest of contempt. In fact, I believe, that if any appellant's lawyer argued Ninth Amendment protections on behalf of his client, he would be thrown out of court if not disbarred. That's what the Ninth Amendment has come to mean today. I believe we all have a right to privacy, but how do you think a Ninth Amendment argument claiming privacy rights would fly with information gathering agencies like the Internal Revenue Service? Try to assert your rights to privacy in dealing with the IRS and other government agencies and I'll send you cigarettes and candy while you're in jail.

Can you imagine Madelyn Murray O'hara going before the Supreme Court trying to explain how prayer in public school violated the Constitution if the "separation clause", much less the entire 1st amendment if it was not in the Constitution? No Federal court would have even heard the case.

Had there been no 2nd Amendment, there would be no way for the Supreme Court to repeal gun rights. All we are waiting for now is for SCOTUS to twist the clear meaning of the 2nd Amendment The Constitution's silence on gun ownership would have meant that it was an area left up to the States.

Gay marriage. Abortion. All up to the states where it was meant to be.

Sadly we are seeing Alexander Hamilton's concerns being justified before our very eyes.

Oh, and by the way, one of the proposed amendments to the Bill of Rights read.....

Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.

This is the exact wording of the 2nd article of the Articles of Confederation. The states that wanted this added to the Bill of Rights were told that this was not needed since the Constitution did not declare that the States were renouncing these things, but that if they were still concerned, they could rest assured that the 9th and 10th Amendments covered all of this.

Did you catch that? This is a clear admission that the States were NOT surrendering their sovereignty upon joining the Union and that the Constitution's silence on secession meant it was something entirely in the hands of the States and not the Federal Government. I stress this point especially to answer those who say, "Where in the Constitution does it say a State can secede from the Union?" The real question is, where does it say they can't?

[Esaias]

If'n Hamilton was agin it, I'ma fer it.

[Esaias]

BTW, the assault on righteousness and common sense was not and is not inspired by the BoR's wording. These people are communists, period, full stop.

Therefore, THERE IS NO DEBATE. Any debate is a trap, they use it to keep people from hanging their treasonous hind ends from the nearest light pole.

[n david]

Respectfully, I disagree. It's fanciful thinking to believe Congress would have remained silent on gun rights, ssm or other freedoms without a BoR.

"Hamilton's argument was that Congress can only do what the Constitution specifically gives it authority to do."

This is true and good in theory only. We've seen, time and again, that Congress and the President ignore what the Constitution "specifically gives" them "authority to do."

The BoR was created to make sure there was no chance of the government becoming a tryanny like England. Were there no BoR, I would submit many of our freedoms would be nonexistent.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by n david

Respectfully, I disagree. It's fanciful thinking to believe Congress would have remained silent on gun rights, ssm or other freedoms without a BoR.

"Hamilton's argument was that Congress can only do what the Constitution specifically gives it authority to do."

This is true and good in theory only. We've seen, time and again, that Congress and the President ignore what the Constitution "specifically gives" them "authority to do."

The BoR was created to make sure there was no chance of the government becoming a tryanny like England. Were there no BoR, I would submit many of our freedoms would be nonexistent.

The Bill of rights inadvertently gave the Federal Government the power to do the very thing you are referring to. It empowered the government and not the people.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Esaias

If'n Hamilton was agin it, I'ma fer it.

I normally would agree. But Hamilton was telegraphing the very way the Feds were going to use the BoR against us.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by n david

Respectfully, I disagree. It's fanciful thinking to believe Congress would have remained silent on gun rights, ssm or other freedoms without a BoR.

"Hamilton's argument was that Congress can only do what the Constitution specifically gives it authority to do."

This is true and good in theory only. We've seen, time and again, that Congress and the President ignore what the Constitution "specifically gives" them "authority to do."

The BoR was created to make sure there was no chance of the government becoming a tryanny like England. Were there no BoR, I would submit many of our freedoms would be nonexistent.

SCOTUS has used the theory.."Oh the 1st amendment says that Congress can't establish a religion. That means then that States can't have prayer before football games". We gave them something in writing to "re-interpret". I humbly ask, what in the Constitution without the BoR could the Court have possibly used to get prayer out of school?

[n david]

Article 1 Section 8

"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

I see this as something which the President, Congress and the courts would have used as an argument against citizens owning guns. And the line which ends this section is far too open-ended to believe the President, Congress or the courts wouldn't find some means to restrict liberties were it not for the BoR.

"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by n david

Article 1 Section 8

"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

I see this as something which the President, Congress and the courts would have used as an argument against citizens owning guns. And the line which ends this section is far too open-ended to believe the President, Congress or the courts wouldn't find some means to restrict liberties were it not for the BoR.

"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

There would have been no State government that would have cooperated with gun confiscation, and few soldiers.

[Esaias]

We have a BoR. We also have a hijacked federal government.

Paper doesn't stop tyranny. Never did, never will.

I love me some Patrick Henry, by the way. I personally think the Anti-Federalist Papers are far more enjoyable to read than Madison and Hamilton's screeds... but that's just the opinion of a regular contrarian type of guy...