Our founding fathers were not conservative

[bigrebnc1775]

Which explains, in part, why the States insisted on the Bill of Rights as a condition of approving the Constitution.

But the States weren't the ones insisting on the Bill of Rights you flatulent ignoramus.

The signers of the Constitution were representives of their states. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS? They were the voice of their state. So yes the states did in fact insist on the bill of rights.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The Bill of Rights: Its History and Significance

In the ratification debate, Anti-Federalists opposed to the Constitution, complained that the new system threatened liberties, and suggested that if the delegates had truly cared about protecting individual rights, they would have included provisions that accomplished that. With ratification in serious doubt, Federalists announced a willingness to take up the matter of a series of amendments, to be called the Bill of Rights, soon after ratification and the First Congress comes into session. The concession was undoubtedly necessary to secure the Constitution's hard-fought ratification. Thomas Jefferson, who did not attend the Constitutional Convention, in a December 1787 letter to Madison called the omission of a Bill of Rights a major mistake: "A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth."
The Bill of Rights: Its History and its Significance

 

[Affrayer]

The signers of the Constitution were representives of their states.

1) The signers of the Constitution were not the ones insisting on a Bill of Rights.

2) Everyone lived in one State or another, you're arguing coincidence.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS?

I understand you're a flatulent moron.

They were the voice of their state. So yes the states did in fact insist on the bill of rights.

See above as to why you are a bona fide idiot.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The signers of the Constitution were representives of their states.

1) The signers of the Constitution were not the ones insisting on a Bill of Rights.

2) Everyone lived in one State or another, you're arguing coincidence.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS?

I understand you're a flatulent moron.

They were the voice of their state. So yes the states did in fact insist on the bill of rights.

See above as to why you are a bona fide idiot.

1) The signers of the Constitution were not the ones insisting on a Bill of Rights.

How many at the Constitutional convention refused to sign the Constitution because there wasn't any individual bill of rights?

 

[Affrayer]

The Bill of Rights: Its History and Significance

Almost accurate. While you could call the "Clintonites" anti-federalists I believe a more apt description is that they were more of a successor to the Shays' Rebellionists.

Toward a More Perfect Union
1783-1788

Ironically, the greatest danger lay in the home states of the two men most intimately associated with the new plan of government. In Madison’s Virginia, a fierce contest was brewing, as powerful and influential men began to publicly denounce the Constitution. And in Alexander Hamilton’s New York, the nation’s only genuine party machine, the Clintonites, were already mounting an organized campaign of opposition.”​

Needless to say, the Shays' Rebellionists and the Clintonites have been nearly completely scrubbed from the history books.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Bill of Rights protects a certain set of rights, and consolidates the power to protect them in the hands of the federal government. Without the Bill of Rights, that power would have been left in the hands of the states, i.e., states' rights.

 

[Affrayer]

How many at the Constitutional convention refused to sign the Constitution because there wasn't any individual bill of rights?

Good point...but it makes my case of the States not being the ones who insisted on the Bill of Rights.

 

[Affrayer]

The Bill of Rights protects a certain set of rights, and consolidates the power to protect them in the hands of the federal government.

At the time of the ratification of the Constitution that was NOT the case. The Bill of Rights were limitations and nothing more. There was no proactive duty by the federal government to change state law to conform to those amendments.

Without the Bill of Rights, that power would have been left in the hands of the states, i.e., states' rights.

Which is exactly what they thought at the time.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

How many at the Constitutional convention refused to sign the Constitution because there wasn't any individual bill of rights?

Good point...but it makes my case of the States not being the ones who insisted on the Bill of Rights.

Why and how does that make your case? Why is it alwayes that response? "it makes my case" when it really doesn't.

CLUE TIME
Representives= voiced of states they represent.

 

[Poli_Sigh]

Nor were any of them followers of Christianity. But what the hay since when has the truth set anyone free in this country?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Nor were any of them followers of Christianity. But what the hay since when has the truth set anyone free in this country?

Truth? To say the above^^^^^ and mention the word truth in the same sentence is very dishonest to say the least.

 

[Affrayer]

Why and how does that make your case?

1) The members of the Constitutional Convention were state representatives, appointed by State governments.

2) The members of the Constitutional Convention all signed the Constitution before it was amended with the Bill of Rights.

Your point is "no person who represented the interests of the State governments refused to sign the Constitution because it lacked a Bill of Rights."

Which is my point that it wasn't the States that insisted on the inclusion of a Bill of rights.

Why is it alwayes that response?

Maybe it has something to do with the way you get lost in your own statements.

"it makes my case" when it really doesn't.

See above.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Why and how does that make your case?

1) The members of the Constitutional Convention were state representatives, appointed by State governments.

2) The members of the Constitutional Convention all signed the Constitution before it was amended with the Bill of Rights.

You point is "no person who represented the interests of the State governments refused to sign the Constitution because it lacked a Bill of Rights."

Which is my point that it wasn't the States that insisted on the inclusion of a Bill of rights.

Why is it alwayes that response?

Maybe it has something to do with the way you get lost in your own statements.

"it makes my case" when it really doesn't.

See above.

The members of the Constitutional Convention all signed the Constitution before it was amended with the Bill of Rights.

The following is a list of those delegates who attended the Convention but who did not sign the Constitution, and the reason they did not sign:
* Connecticut - Oliver Ellsworth (left early)

* Georgia - William Houstoun (left early), William Pierce (left early)

* Maryland - Luther Martin (left in protest), John Mercer (left in protest)

* Massachusetts - Elbridge Gerry (refused to sign), Caleb Strong (left early)

* New Jersey - William Houston (left early)

* New York - John Lansing (left in protest), Robert Yates (left in protest)

* North Carolina - William Davie (left early), Alexander Martin (left early)

* Rhode Island - sent no delegates

* Virginia - George Mason (refused to sign), James McClurg (left early), Edmund Randolph (refused to sign), George Wythe (left early)



Read more: Answers.com - Did every delegate to the Constitutional Convention sign the Constitution

 

[JakeStarkey]

39 of the 55 delegates signed the document.

The ratification, which depended on the big states (Massachusetts, Virginia, New York), made it through because the nationalists promised a bill of rights to the anti-federalists. James Madison made sure that happened in the first session of Congress.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

39 of the 55 delegates signed the document.

The ratification, which depended on the big states (Massachusetts, Virginia, New York), made it through because the nationalists promised a bill of rights to the anti-federalists. James Madison made sure that happened in the first session of Congress.

I see you read my link good boy

 

[Intense]

Your arguments are....

Superior to anything you have or will ever have to offer.

Which is why you keep crapping in your pants...

Have you no shame?

Playing with quotes to alter meaning or changing content is against Forum Rules. I'm giving you fair warning here.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Bill of Rights protects a certain set of rights, and consolidates the power to protect them in the hands of the federal government.

At the time of the ratification of the Constitution that was NOT the case. The Bill of Rights were limitations and nothing more. There was no proactive duty by the federal government to change state law to conform to those amendments.

Without the Bill of Rights, that power would have been left in the hands of the states, i.e., states' rights.

Which is exactly what they thought at the time.

The Supremacy Clause prohibits the states from passing laws that conflict with the Constitution or with federal law.

 

[JakeStarkey]

39 of the 55 delegates signed the document.

The ratification, which depended on the big states (Massachusetts, Virginia, New York), made it through because the nationalists promised a bill of rights to the anti-federalists. James Madison made sure that happened in the first session of Congress.

I see you read my link good boy

Why would I ever read what you post? I know the facts and the history. I am glad, bigreb, that you are finally beginning to study the issues.

 

[editec]

Ah yes that Bill of Rights that so many of us worship second only to the Ten Commandments.

Fat lot of good it did for the slaves, eh?

Now gee was that conservative hypocracy or liberal hypocracy?

Or does that whole question of what the floundering fathers were philosophically simply not make sense if we're applying today's lingusitic dislogic to it?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

39 of the 55 delegates signed the document.

The ratification, which depended on the big states (Massachusetts, Virginia, New York), made it through because the nationalists promised a bill of rights to the anti-federalists. James Madison made sure that happened in the first session of Congress.

I see you read my link good boy

Why would I ever read what you post? I know the facts.

because asswipe the information you posted came from the link I posted, don't act like you knew the answer.