On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 12:46:48 -0500, Wilbur Hubbard wrote:

"Voyager255" wrote in message
news:961ab3bc-7f25-44e6-
...
On Dec 8, 4:08 pm, "KLC Lewis" wrote:
"Wilbur Hubbard" wrote in message

anews.com...



I am a proud conservative/libertarian who thinks the Constitution is
written in stone - not some living, breathing document meant to be
tossed
aside when convenient to do so.

Wilbur Hubbard

If the Constitution is written in stone, on what substrate do we find
the Amendments?

| Kudos!!!

Your ignorance is showing. Duh!

Amendments 1-10 are called the Bill of Rights. They were part of the
Constitution when it was ratified.

Wrong.

wrote in message t...
On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 12:46:48 -0500, Wilbur Hubbard wrote:

"Voyager255" wrote in message
news:961ab3bc-7f25-44e6-
...
On Dec 8, 4:08 pm, "KLC Lewis" wrote:
"Wilbur Hubbard" wrote in message

anews.com...



I am a proud conservative/libertarian who thinks the Constitution is
written in stone - not some living, breathing document meant to be
tossed
aside when convenient to do so.

Wilbur Hubbard

If the Constitution is written in stone, on what substrate do we find
the Amendments?

| Kudos!!!

Your ignorance is showing. Duh!

Amendments 1-10 are called the Bill of Rights. They were part of the
Constitution when it was ratified.

Wrong.


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.

On 9 Dec 2008 12:14:06 -0600, Dave wrote:

On Tue, 9 Dec 2008 12:46:48 -0500, "Wilbur Hubbard"
said:

Your ignorance is showing. Duh!

Amendments 1-10 are called the Bill of Rights. They were part of the
Constitution when it was ratified.

I don't think it's his ignorance that's showing, Neal. Better do a bit more
googling on the topic, because you're totally wrong.


Normal operation for Neil.

Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

"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

On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 16:46:57 -0500, Gregory Hall wrote:


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!!!!

And Neal is still wrong.

"Amendments 1-10 are called the Bill of Rights. They were part of the
Constitution when it was ratified."

The Bill of Rights was not part of the Constitution when it was ratified.

On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 16:28:35 -0600, wrote:

On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 16:46:57 -0500, Gregory Hall wrote:


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!!!!

And Neal is still wrong.

"Amendments 1-10 are called the Bill of Rights. They were part of the
Constitution when it was ratified."

The Bill of Rights was not part of the Constitution when it was ratified.


Lets see now. That's Neil AKA Wilbur AKA Gregory AKA God knows who
else. Ego is fine but too many egos are called bi-polar disorder..

Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

"Wilbur Hubbard" wrote in message
anews.com...

"Voyager255" wrote in message
...
On Dec 8, 4:08 pm, "KLC Lewis" wrote:
"Wilbur Hubbard" wrote in message

anews.com...



I am a proud conservative/libertarian who thinks the Constitution is
written in stone - not some living, breathing document meant to be
tossed
aside when convenient to do so.

Wilbur Hubbard

If the Constitution is written in stone, on what substrate do we find the
Amendments?

| Kudos!!!

Your ignorance is showing. Duh!

Amendments 1-10 are called the Bill of Rights. They were part of the
Constitution when it was ratified.

Actually, not. The Bill of Rights was introduced approximately two years
after the Constitution, and weren't ratified until December of 1791, two and
a half years after the Constitution itself had been ratified.

Amendments 11-27 were created thereafter ACCORDING TO THE RULES SET FORTH
IN THE CONSTITUTION.

The existence of amendments, in no way, indicates a living, breathing
Constitution.

Choice of terms. The existence of amendments shows that the Constitution can
be shaped to fit the times in which we are living.


Ugly, ignorant Americans. It's a disgrace! Most don't even know their own
history.

Wilbur Hubbard

"WaIIy" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 9 Dec 2008 17:37:26 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:

Choice of terms. The existence of amendments shows that the Constitution
can
be shaped to fit the times in which we are living.

That's only partly true and you know it.


"Only partly true..."? Sure. The amendment process can take a long time and
be a difficult task. Nevertheless, if the will to amend the Constitition is
there, it can be done. Since the Constitition was ratified, it has been
amended 27 times -- hardly what I would call "written in stone."

On Dec 9, 3:57*pm, "KLC Lewis" wrote:
"WaIIy" wrote in message

...

On Tue, 9 Dec 2008 17:37:26 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:

Choice of terms. The existence of amendments shows that the Constitution
can
be shaped to fit the times in which we are living.

That's only partly true and you know it.

"Only partly true..."? Sure. The amendment process can take a long time and
be a difficult task. Nevertheless, if the will to amend the Constitition is
there, it can be done. Since the Constitition was ratified, it has been
amended 27 times -- hardly what I would call "written in stone."

IIRC several of those amendments where made just after it was
ratified.
I dunno much about it i was not alive then. but my famielies sig is on
both doc's.

"Two meter troll" wrote in message
...
On Dec 9, 3:57 pm, "KLC Lewis" wrote:
"WaIIy" wrote in message

...

On Tue, 9 Dec 2008 17:37:26 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:

Choice of terms. The existence of amendments shows that the Constitution
can
be shaped to fit the times in which we are living.

That's only partly true and you know it.

"Only partly true..."? Sure. The amendment process can take a long time
and
be a difficult task. Nevertheless, if the will to amend the Constitition
is
there, it can be done. Since the Constitition was ratified, it has been
amended 27 times -- hardly what I would call "written in stone."

++IIRC several of those amendments where made just after it was
++ratified.
++I dunno much about it i was not alive then. but my famielies sig is on
++both doc's.

Two?



--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com