"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 9 Dec 2008 15:06:41 -0500, "Gregory Hall"
said:

From Wiki:

"Madison proposed the Bill of Rights while ideological conflict between
Federalists and anti-Federalists, dating from the 1787 Philadelphia
Convention, threatened the overall ratification of the new national
Constitution. It largely responded to the Constitution's influential
opponents, including prominent Founding Fathers, who argued that the
Constitution should not be ratified because it failed to protect the basic
principles of human liberty. The Bill was influenced by George Mason's
1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights, the 1689 English Bill of Rights,
works of the Age of Enlightenment pertaining to natural rights, and
earlier English political documents such as Magna Carta (1215)."



In other words the Constitution would not have been ratified without the
Bill of Rights BEING INCLUDED.



I hope this helps.

Well, I see you took some of my advice and googled a bit more, Neal. Too
bad
you couldn't just step up like a man and fess up your error instead of
trying to send in another of your socks to try muddying the waters.

Unfortunately, you still aren't even close. The Constitution, sans Bill of
Rights, was ratified by the last State in 1788, and became effective in
1789. The first 10 Amendments were ratified later, and became effective in
1791


Neal, who?

But, anyways, the point is the ratification of the Bill of Rights was a
process that started at about the same time the Constitution was put forth
for ratification. It just took longer for the necessary number of states to
ratify the ten amendments. A couple of states refused to ratify the
Constitution unless and until a Bill of Rights was included for ratification
by the states. It wasn't a case of Constitution first/Bill of Rights second.
It was a concurrent affair.

Friggin' history illiterates!!!!

--
Gregory Hall