Not in your lifetime, maybe never. The Constitution is a powerful force to reckon with.
Besides proving you wrong about the constitutional amendments, you want to throw that in too. 
When is the liberal overthrow of the Constitution scheduled to occur?
Your laughter doesnāt substitute for facts.
And yet the cons want to claim that Obama trashed it as the libs claim that Trump is trashing it.
All politics
Going off topic doesnāt substitute for facts either.
1 Like
At least you shut up when you got your ass kicked about the AMENDMENTS to the constitution. 
What you neglect to mention is that several states would not have ratified the Constitution without the Bill of Rights being proposed firstā¦and agreed upon first. Try reading history instead of making it up.
I suggest you obtain and read The Original Constitution-What It Actually Said and Meant by Robert G. Natelson.
Pay close attention on pages 180-182 (Third edition published by Apis Books, 2015 paperback), where it saysā¦
-
Anti-Federalists that the Constitutionās external limitations were insufficient, and proposed that the document be amended to include a bill of rights.
-
Federalists contended that a bill of rights was unnecessary, and suggested that enumerating natural rights could be dangerous.
-
Anti-Federalists rejoined that the Constitution already contained a mini-bill of rights (Article 1, Section 9) that protected a few important liberties.
-
The Federalists leaders wisely realized they had lost the debate, and that, unless they compromised, the Constitution would not be ratified. They accordingly entered into a āgentlemenās agreementā with political moderates: āVote for the Constitution, and once it is approved, we, the Federalists, will cooperate in adding a bill of rights.ā
Madisonās original plan was to insert much of the Bill of Rights into Article 1, Section 9. But some members of Congress objected. Most of the Bill consisted of external limitations on all federal authority, not merely on the powers of Congress, and contemporaneous drafting practice suggested that such amendments be placed after all enumerated powers, not merely after the powers of Congress. Accordingly, Congress proposed appending them to the end of the document.
So, you see, the Bill of Rights is part of the original Constitution by way of the gentlemenās agreement to have itā¦prior to ratification.
Get the book. You will learn from it.
3 Likes
Wrong, most states ratified BEFORE the constitution was amended and the Bill of Rights addedā¦
Wrong again! The 2nd Amendment says that THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGEDā¦meaning that the right to bear arms existed BEFORE the amendment was adopted.
You appear more uneducated every time you post.
1 Like
And what would be wrong with that, America has a very unique problem with gun violence?
Trump isnāt going to ban silencers, put your giddiness back in the bottle.
False dichotomy. Guns do not cause violence. āGun Violenceā is a completely made up term for the purpose of demonizing guns rather than addressing anything related to the causes of the violence in this country.
1 Like
If that ever happens, crossbows will be next banned.
Neither will ever happen!
But itās coming, your opposition notwithstanding.
Not in out lifetimes at least. It would first require a repeal of the 2nd Amendment and you arenāt anywhere remotely close to having that kind of support for repealing it.
No, not wrong.
A4:s2:C1 is part of the main body of the Constitution. While it does mention the several States it does not expressly mention the federal.
The BoR was added, per its own preamble, to prevent the abuse or misconstruction of the Constitution (āits powersā).
It was not intended for the BoR to address the Stateās nor was that necessary because A4:S2:C1 was already Ratified.
The 9th Amendment is essentially comparable language to A4:S2:C1. The previous 8 Amendments all relate to the P&I mentioned in A4 as well as either statements of or expansion of P&I already possessed among all the several States.
The right to bear Arms suitable for Militia service would have been and should still be covered by A4;S2:C1.
As for what is or is not a P&I, well, as I wrote that is relatively easy to demonstrate in many cases. For example Common Law marriage between one man and one woman of equal Status before the Law would be among these and States as these were expressly lawful under Common Law among all the several Stated that Ratified the Constitution which require civil licenses are in violation of the Constitution. That is a āPrivilegeā.
One of the chief āImmunitiesā associated with the estate of marriage is that associated with the marriage bed, that married couples can have sex without fear of public action against them. This immunity does not apply outside of marriage and we find that sex outside of marriage was in some places unlawful ā¦ so sex outside of marriage is not protected by A4:S2:C1 (and homosexual acts are definitely NOT protected). The convention presently used of consent does not constitutionally apply to automatically make all consensual sex outside of marriage lawful because it was not a standard that the Law uniformly used among the several States then and no amendment has been added to the Constitution to make it apply.
Yeah, thatās what I saidā¦AFTER nine states had already ratified. They are called amendments for a reason. The original document was amended.
But when talking about A4:S2:C1 which expressly applies to the several States we are talking about the unamended Constitution. Moreover, the BoR does not amend A4:S2:C1 though it might be considered complementary because it was expressly to cover the federal for similar purposes.
As for the P&I of the former and the Amendments of the latter, especially the 9th, please consider that there would have not been a multitude of possible legal standards for what were other rights retained to be addressed by the 9th ā¦ only the same P&I addressed by A4. These are one and the same.
Another point to make is that in A4 we find āPrivileges and Immunitiesā capitalized outside of ordinary grammatical use for a purpose: to clarify that a specific body of understood Privileges and immunities were mentioned and not just any arbitrary collection of privileges or immunities.
The latter āprivileges or immunitiesā is used in the 14th Amendment because the purpose of the clause is to enumerate a Power to Congress to respect in statute federal civil rights that the several States (inclusive of state actors but not including any non-state actor) may not disparage. The difference and reason for the lack of capitalization and using the āorā is that prior to Congress enacting such a statute no one could say for sure what poi would be so created, so no sense of any definitive P&I applied as it did with A4:S2:C1.
1 Like
None of that however changes the fact that 9 states ratified the US constitution WITHOUT it having the protection of or guaranteed right to the possession of arms which was added two years later to get a few stubborn states to come aboard.