The adoption of a bill of rights was agreed upon prior to the Constitution being ratified.
I have explained this already to you.
That is very subjective and still ignores the fact that 9 states ratified the US constitution in 1787-88, BEFORE the bill of rights were added to it in 1789 by way of AMENDMENT. 
Something tells me that youâre on Monteâs dreaded âignoreâ list
But even if you arenât, playing dumb is one of the favorites in his micro toolbox, like a lot of libs. It reminds me of a great line from the old TV show Get Smart:
Maxwell Smart is questioning a KAOS spy, and sheâs denying everything. Smart says âDonât play dumb with me, sister, Iâm an expert at thatâ
2 Likes
No, it isnât subjective because those 9 ratified the Constitution WITH A4:S2:C1 and it imposed on them the obligation to continue to honor the Privileges and Immunities of their people essentially as they had been doing. Now, if a State permitted something that others did not ⌠they would not be subsequently bound to continue to permit that by the clause because in Ratification the clause represents all the Stateâs that Ratified. But for the Privileges and Immunities as they were known among all the States that Ratified, mostly as per the applicable Common Law (not some other Common Law, for there are different common laws) or Natural Law (as was still accepted) but also per their practice or necessity then those are the P&I.
As John Marshall basically told those who were among the first to try to apply the BoR to the States: it is important to argue the right part of the Law.
A4:S2:C1 expressly applies to the States. Yes, you could try to infer (the States being the creators of the federal) that the federal should honor those; but, the BoR negates that need by providing extended language that expressly applies to the federal.
The 2nd did not create anything new. It acknowledges something that existed before it and which had to exist or else there would have never been a United States. Similarly, the right preexisted the free States as well and was common among all of them throughout the AoC through Ratification ⌠therefore the clause applies.
We donât need the 2nd to have been incorporated for the similar P&I to reign,
1 Like
That still misses the point that the constitution ratified by the first nine states, did not include a bill of rights, despite the verbal assurances that that would be added at some time in the future. The very constitution voted upon by those nine states DID NOT CONTAIN THE BILL OF RIGHTS. Thatâs indisputable fact. They were added in 1789âŚas amendments to the ORIGINAL constitution. 
No I didnât. I rebutted you every time. The Bill of Rights are integral to the original Document. End of story.
No itâs not the end of the story, as long as you continue to post false statements. The constitution was written in 1787 and it was amended in 1789 when the BOR was added to it.
Real Americans love guns. Real Americans hunt and protect themselves with guns. The American gun owner was the difference between loss and victory in the Revolutionary War. Only punkass bitches want to stop the sale of guns.
Guns are not violent, people are. It starts with the idea that murdering babies in the womb is a ârightâ, and flowers into the idea that you can kill anyone.
1 Like
Trump doesnât really care about the 2nd.
The whole Document was ratified along with the Bill of Rights in 1789. It was not Amended until 1794.
So far, every post I have seen from you is an ignorant lie. Is that all you know how to do?
Thatâs still wrong, Delaware and eight other states ratified the constitution in 1787-88, without any amendments attached to it yet.
It was not ratified until 3/4 of the States have ratified it, which did not occur until 1789 at which thim the Bill of Rights was included. Why are you going on about this? It has nothing to do with the topic.
Why are you going on about it. 
It was ratified by each state, Delaware was the first. They ratified it unanimously (30-0) without any of the protections that were added to it by way of amendments two years later. You do know what the definition of amendment is right. You understand what it means to amend something.
The Bill of Rights are Amendments in name only. But they are as original as the Constitution itself. Your Google searches wonât change that fact.
False, they were NO PART OF the constitution ratified by the first 9 states in 1787-88.
The Constitution was not ratified until 3/4 of the States had voted to ratify it and that was in 1789. That is the only fact that is pertinent.
You were wondering why this is being discussed.
First you claimed falsely that the BOR was added to the constitution during the convention. Wrong, the convention took place May thru September of 1787. Then, each state took it home to debate it and ratify it. ABSENT the BOR which came in 1789. Those first nine states all ratified it within ten months, long BEFORE it was amended.
Your obsession with this is ridiculous. It doesnât matter one iota when the Bill of Rights and the Constitution were ratified. They are both the law of the land, equally. An Amendment is just as much the Constitution as the rest of it.
Well you should know what to do about that. Read a history book.