• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

SAF attorney: You can't pick and choose from Bill of Rights

SouthernBoy

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2007
Messages
5,837
Location
Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
imported post

Back in the 90's, I wrote a piece to the Washington Times editorial section that was selected as their Letter of the Day. It was entitled, "It's not a Buffet of Rights". I advanced the absolute premise that the Bill of Rights was a package deal. That Americans had to take them all. That they could not pick and chose the ones they liked while casting aside those with which they did not agree. All ten were to be taken and accepted in toto.

Should come as no surprise to any American.
 

rodbender

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
2,519
Location
Navasota, Texas, USA
imported post

SouthernBoy wrote:
Back in the 90's, I wrote a piece to the Washington Times editorial section that was selected as their Letter of the Day. It was entitled, "It's not a Buffet of Rights". I advanced the absolute premise that the Bill of Rights was a package deal. That Americans had to take them all. That they could not pick and chose the ones they liked while casting aside those with which they did not agree. All ten were to be taken and accepted in toto.

Should come as no surprise to any American.
Your premise is incorrect. There were actually twelve amendments presented as the "Bill of Rights" all at once. They did just as you say they weren't allowed to do. They chose ten and tossed the other twoaside. They were not even numbered. They were numbered as they were ratified. The amendment we refer to as 2Awas ratified second, hence the second amendment is so called.
 

SouthernBoy

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2007
Messages
5,837
Location
Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
imported post

rodbender wrote:
SouthernBoy wrote:
Back in the 90's, I wrote a piece to the Washington Times editorial section that was selected as their Letter of the Day. It was entitled, "It's not a Buffet of Rights". I advanced the absolute premise that the Bill of Rights was a package deal. That Americans had to take them all. That they could not pick and chose the ones they liked while casting aside those with which they did not agree. All ten were to be taken and accepted in toto.

Should come as no surprise to any American.
Your premise is incorrect. There were actually twelve amendments presented as the "Bill of Rights" all at once. They did just as you say they weren't allowed to do. They chose ten and tossed the other twoaside. They were not even numbered. They were numbered as they were ratified. The amendment we refer to as 2Awas ratified second, hence the second amendment is so called.
Yes, I am aware of that. However, I was not talking about the inception of the document. I was referring to current times.

Not only was there twelve original amendments in the Bill of Rights, but there was strong sentiment NOT to have a Bill of Rights at all. It was felt that since the Constitution already enumerated what government was allowed to do, there was not need for a Bill of Rights. The two gentlemen most responsible for the Bill of Rights were George Mason and Patrick Henry. They convinced James Madison to their cause and therefore, draft a Bill of Rights.

So my premise was and is correct in the context of the letter I submitted.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
imported post

Here you will find a copy of the "Proposed Amendments To The Constitution. There were twelve, and they were numbered, I through XII. However, this is the copy that was submitted to the state legislatures, and not the The James Madison Papers

Some very interesting returns when one searches those papers for "arms" - Source

I especially like this one, from 1826. Enjoy:

TO HENRY COLMAN. ... MAD. MSS.
Montpr, August 25, 1826.
Dr Sir I have read with pleasure the copy of your Oration on the 4th of July, obligingly sent me, and for which I beg you to accept my thanks.
With the merits which I have found in the Oration, may I be permitted to notice a passage, which tho' according with a language often held on the subject, I cannot but regard as at variance with reality.
In doing justice to the virtue and valour of the revolutionary army, you add as a signal proof of the former, their readiness in laying clown their arms at the triumphant close of the war, "when they had the liberties of their Country within their grasp."
Is it a fact that they had the liberties of their country within their grasp; that the troops then in command, even if led on by their illustrious chief, and backed by the apostates from the revolutionary cause, could have brought under the Yoke the great body of their fellow Citizens, most of them with arms in their hands, no inconsiderable part fresh from the use of them, all inspired with rage at the patricidal attempt, and not only guided by the federal head, but organized & animated by their local Governments possessing the means of appealing to their interests, as well as other motives, should such an appeal be required?
I have always believed that if General Washington had yielded to a usurping ambition, he would have found an insuperable obstacle in the incorruptibility of a sufficient portion of those under his command, and that the exalted praise due to him & them, was derived not from a forbearance to effect a revolution within their power, but from a love of liberty and of country which there was abundant reason to believe, no facility of success could have seduced. I am not less sure that General Washington would have spurned a sceptre if within his grasp, than I am that it was out of his reach, if he had secretly sighed for it. It must be recollected also that the practicability of a successful usurpation by the army cannot well be admitted, without implying a folly or pusillanimity reproachful to the American character, and without casting some shade on the vital principle of popular Government itself.
If I have taken an undue liberty in these remarks, I have a pledge in the candour of which you have given proofs, that they will be pardoned, and that they will not be deemed, inconsistent with the esteem and cordial respect, which I pray you to accept.
 

rodbender

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
2,519
Location
Navasota, Texas, USA
imported post

SouthernBoy wrote:
rodbender wrote:
SouthernBoy wrote:
Back in the 90's, I wrote a piece to the Washington Times editorial section that was selected as their Letter of the Day. It was entitled, "It's not a Buffet of Rights". I advanced the absolute premise that the Bill of Rights was (is)a package deal. That Americans had (have)to take them all. That they could not pick and chose the ones they liked while casting aside those with which they did (do)not agree. All ten were (are)to be taken and accepted in toto.

Should come as no surprise to any American.
Your premise is incorrect. There were actually twelve amendments presented as the "Bill of Rights" all at once. They did just as you say they weren't allowed to do. They chose ten and tossed the other twoaside. They were not even numbered. They were numbered as they were ratified. The amendment we refer to as 2Awas ratified second, hence the second amendment is so called.
Yes, I am aware of that. However, I was not talking about the inception of the document. I was referring to current times.

Not only was there twelve original amendments in the Bill of Rights, but there was strong sentiment NOT to have a Bill of Rights at all. It was felt that since the Constitution already enumerated what government was allowed to do, there was not need for a Bill of Rights. The two gentlemen most responsible for the Bill of Rights were George Mason and Patrick Henry. They convinced James Madison to their cause and therefore, draft a Bill of Rights.

So my premise was and is correct in the context of the letter I submitted.

If you had subtituted the words in redwith the ones in blue I would never have questioned your premise. The way I read what you wrote was that this was the dealfor the ratification of the Bill of Rights.

I stand corrected in the fact that they were numbered, but they were entered into the Constitution in the order in which they were ratified, not in order of importance.
 

SouthernBoy

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2007
Messages
5,837
Location
Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
imported post

rodbender wrote:
SouthernBoy wrote:
rodbender wrote:
SouthernBoy wrote:
Back in the 90's, I wrote a piece to the Washington Times editorial section that was selected as their Letter of the Day. It was entitled, "It's not a Buffet of Rights". I advanced the absolute premise that the Bill of Rights was (is)a package deal. That Americans had (have)to take them all. That they could not pick and chose the ones they liked while casting aside those with which they did (do)not agree. All ten were (are)to be taken and accepted in toto.

Should come as no surprise to any American.
Your premise is incorrect. There were actually twelve amendments presented as the "Bill of Rights" all at once. They did just as you say they weren't allowed to do. They chose ten and tossed the other twoaside. They were not even numbered. They were numbered as they were ratified. The amendment we refer to as 2Awas ratified second, hence the second amendment is so called.
Yes, I am aware of that. However, I was not talking about the inception of the document. I was referring to current times.

Not only was there twelve original amendments in the Bill of Rights, but there was strong sentiment NOT to have a Bill of Rights at all. It was felt that since the Constitution already enumerated what government was allowed to do, there was not need for a Bill of Rights. The two gentlemen most responsible for the Bill of Rights were George Mason and Patrick Henry. They convinced James Madison to their cause and therefore, draft a Bill of Rights.

So my premise was and is correct in the context of the letter I submitted.

If you had subtituted the words in redwith the ones in blue I would never have questioned your premise. The way I read what you wrote was that this was the dealfor the ratification of the Bill of Rights.

I stand corrected in the fact that they were numbered, but they were entered into the Constitution in the order in which they were ratified, not in order of importance.
Thank you.

You know, it's funny when talking to some people who are clearly not enamored with our founding documents in general and the Bill of Rights in particular, how they are quite comfortable with choosing rights with which they agree while voicing problems with those they do not believe are needed. The Second Amendment is a prime example.

Sanford Levinson wrote an excellent treatise at the University of Texas (Austin) Law School entitled, "The Embarrassing Second Amendment". I highly recommend this little gem to all serious gun people.. and more importantly, serious Americans.
 
Top