SouthernBoy wrote:
SNIP Spot on correct.
The Constitution and the Bill of Rights were never meant to be malleable by the Founders but rather cast in stone as the supreme law of the land - in particular the Bill of Rights.
Whoa! Notsofast. Slow down just a little.
The Framers passed the constitution without a Bill of Rights. It was the howling of the Anti-federalists that got the BOR. Even Madison was not all that keen on having a BOR. "A nauseous business", I think is how he termed it in a letter to a contemporary. Basically, he set about collecting and editing lists of rights proposed by others in order to shut up the anti-constitution racket by the Anti-federalists before it actually derailed the ratification by the states.
The Anti-federalists were convinced the proposed central government would become too powerful (wonder where they got that idea?). They launched a counter campaign. They were concerned about some of the provisions in the constitution itself, and criticized the lack of a Bill of Rights. Apparently the tactic backfired. They got the Bill of Rights. People stopped worrying. And the provisions in the constitution itself to which the Anti-federalists objected were still in there.
If you want to know more, look up a book called
The Anti-federalist Papers. It is a collection of essays, I think published in newspapers, when the states were considering adopting the constitution.
Very interesting stuff in there. Many of their predictions about large, putrid government have come true.
