Why a Bill of Rights?

If the Constitution was never meant to modify what powers the States retained, the “Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding” would have been tantamount to treason in their eyes.

You're putting the cart before the horse. The supremacy clause was in place long before the Bill of Rights. The 9th and to a lesser degree the 10th Amendments were adopted and the insistence of the Anti Federalists. Without paring back federal power, the Anti Federalistas would never played ball. The last thing these people wanted was any possibility of a new monarchy.

The founders understood both the nature of power and the nature of men.

Unfortunately, today’s “politicians” have neglected to study either, making the enumerated bill all that more important.

You're putting the cart before the horse.

Apparently, you then go on to ignore the text of the Legislation used to pass the BoR.

The First 10 Amendments to the Constitution as Ratified by the States December 15, 1791

Preamble

Congress OF THE United States begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday the Fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.:

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

What "We the People" wanted was our "Right to Keep and Bear Arms" to be protected from ANY infringement. After all, what good is an inalienable Right if your local City council can take it from you.

Hence the clever phrase, "Shall not be infringed" with zero qualifier like "Congress shall make no law"...

"The Right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

Didn't I just make this very point by referring you to District of Columbia v. Heller 128 S.Ct. 2783, 2790 (U.S.,2008)?? The Court correctly reasoned that when the 2d used the words "The right of the people," it was referring to an individual right - a right that cannot be abridged by federal power or, through the use of the supremacy clause, by any state action.

With the exception of a few other clauses, the rest of the Amendments do not use the "Right of the people" words. So whatever clauses do not include that language fail to reach state action. The framers created a federal system, where power remained divided. The "federal" was never intended to be a "central" government as the repository for all good things, because this would lead to the possibility of the rise of a monarchy.

As far as the Preamble goes, you placing far too much wieght. I refer you again to District of Columbia v. Heller 128 S.Ct. 2783, 2790 (U.S.,2008):

As Sutherland explains, the key 18th-century English case on the effect of preambles, Copeman v. Gallant, 1 P. Wms. 314, 24 Eng. Rep. 404 (1716), stated that “the preamble could not be used to restrict the effect of the words of the purview.” J. Sutherland, Statutes and Statutory Construction, 47.04 (N. Singer ed. 5th ed.1992). This rule was modified in England in an 1826 case to give more importance to the preamble, but in America “the settled principle of law is that the preamble cannot control the enacting part of the statute in cases where the enacting part is expressed in clear, unambiguous terms.” Ibid.

Thus, when the framers wrote the preamble, they knew quite well that it would be an important interpretive guide, but that it would not countermand the unambiguous language of the body of the document.

You make an argument that ignores Copeman v. Gallant, which must be assumed to be within the minds of the framers. To put the the words of the preamble first, you must first succede in establishing that any one clause is ambiguous. You argue that all of the Amendments that do not use the "The right of the people" words are ambiguous.

That being the case, you give any man or woman in a robe far more power to construe the Amendments. And we all know how that goes. So you should rethink your argument here Mr. Dead Corpse.

You argue that all of the Amendments that do not use the "The right of the people" words are ambiguous.

Not at all. But thanks for putting words in my mouth.

Rights are Rights. They either are, or aren't "inalienable".

Not at all. But thanks for putting words in my mouth.

Really? Hmmm:

The BoR was a Declaration of our Rights. Not a complete list, but protected as part of the "Supreme law of the Land" the "Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding".

It was understood that States could add further protections, but could not detract from this common pool of our Rights. These were to be off limits. From anyone...

14 posted on Wednesday, July 01, 2009 4:19:47 PM by Dead Corpse (III)

It appears that there is no room in your mouth for my words while your foot is in it.

TTFN

Those Rights aren’t ambiguous. Trying to tie my argument to some black robed Justices attempt to minimize those protections doesn’t work logically. Nor is my foot anywhere but upside your head.

Those Rights aren’t ambiguous.

I agree, they are not - and that is a good thing. But if you argue that one must resort to the Preamble to discern the meaning of the language of any clause, your argument must be that the language of the main body of the enactment is ambiguous. That is the method that the framers used to interpret a statute, when they wrote the constitution. So your plangent reference to the Preamble is self defeating.

Furthermore, very few of the rights in ther Bill of Rights unambiguously apply to state action. 2d Amendment is one that does - it states an individual right.

Trying to tie my argument to some black robed Justices attempt to minimize those protections doesn’t work logically.

Then show me the flaw in my logic. You use the Preamble to interpret the meaning of a clause - you posted it in full twice to make your point. Well if the language of any clause is not ambiguous, then why do you need to refer to the Preamble? Reference to the Preamble means that you are engaged in the process of "interpretation" because the meaning of the clause is ambiguous. So do you want to limit or increase the opportunity for the judiciary to "interpret"? Relying on the Preabble invites the Court to "interpret." So refute this argument please.

Nor is my foot anywhere but upside your head.

Nice. I wonder why it sticks when some say Conservatives are Troglodites. Maybe I should give you my address so we can settle this like men?

P.S. you never answered my questin set forth in Post 23 - why?

Why did the founders of our nation give us the Bill of Rights? The answer is easy. They knew Congress could not be trusted with our God-given rights. Think about it.

And it's done a lot of good, hasn't it?

The "Bill of Rights" was added so the federal government wouldn't bother the slaveholders. Now, thanks to them, the US Supreme Court has jurisdiction every time a high school principal edits the "f"-word out of a student newspaper.