Are we losing our rights in the name of safety?

[ChriswUfGator]

Actually the bill of rights wasn’t part of the original constitution but added roughly five years after the constitution was adopted.  My point being, no matter how iron clad the constitution seemed to be when drafted, there is always a need for amendments for prior unjust and for future world environment changes.  This was understood by the original drafters of the constitution, thus it has Article Five, describing how future amendments are to be ratified.  While you look up the constitution, try looking up the work sarcasm as well.

The protesting women just have issue with breast and vulva size  I added the smiley so it is understood that this sentence was added for humor.

Also I never stated the constitution as being "flexible".  If it were, there would be no need for amendments would there?

The Bill of Rights was formally added in 1789 and has served us well for the past 221 years, and my point is that you'd apparently now scrap that just to feel safer in an airport? Come on. That's what I meant when I questioned your view of the constition's flexibility, if it is that flexible to allow for scrapping the bill of rights over airport security, then what's the point in having one at all?

The constitution wasn't meant to be a dinner napkin that can be torn whichever way by opposing political views, it serves as the guiding principles for the governance of this country. If someone doesn't like it, they should find a new country rather than taking rights away from others to satisfy their need for a false sense of security. I do not favor constitutional amendments for every little thing, including whatever foreign threat we happen to be facing at the time. That all can, and does, always wind up changing, and altering the constitution to account for every change defeats the point. If something violates the bill of rights, the government shouldn't do it. Period. The harm in going down that road of constantly caving in to every social whim and desire is far greater than anything bin laden has done.

[JaxNative68]

If the original late 1700’s documents were so effective today, why were amendments 11 thru 27 added?

Also I never stated 'scrapping" the constitution or bill of rights for airport security.  I like the way you change people's statements to fit your argument.  btw, airplanes weren't invented when the constitution or bill of rights were drafted and adopted and security consisted of inaccurate muzzle loaders, derringers and swords.  but I bet the original constitution creators knew jet airliners and ak-47's were around the corner.

Can you tell me what the year 2200 will be like?  I need to get my future family tree prepared.

[JaxNative68]

Actually the Constitution wasnt ratified by the states without the guarantee of the passage of the Bill of Rights, to speak accurately.

and if I remember correctly, the bill of rights wasn't intended for the states.

[ChriswUfGator]

Actually the Constitution wasnt ratified by the states without the guarantee of the passage of the Bill of Rights, to speak accurately.

and if I remember correctly, the bill of rights wasn't intended for the states.

Yes, it  most certainly was intended by the framers to apply to the states. However, there was this little disagreement thingy called the civil war that intervened, I'd think you may have heard of it, when certain states rejected federal power and decided they were free to continue slavery and secede from the union if they felt like it. Congress then went back and passed the 14th amendment, specifically incorporating the bill of rights against the states, so there was no longer any argument. Again, that amendment was brought about by slavery and the potential dissolution of the union. And you apparently want an amendment to cover airport scanners? And you really don't see the point?

[JaxNative68]

Once again you make an argument by putting words in my mouth to fit your response.  And you are wrong, the original bill of rights was not intended to apply to the states.  And you made my argument for me,  the gov't changed that due to the civil war.  Why did they change that, and why did they add additional amendments?  Once again, the world changed in a way they didn't foresee and that original document didn't stand the test of time in less than a century.  Not to mention they added three additional amendments prior to the one you speak of.  Any more words you wish to put in my mouth before I insert my own foot?

[ChriswUfGator]

Once again you make an argument by putting words in my mouth to fit your response.  And you are wrong, the original bill of rights was not intended to apply to the states.  And you made my argument for me,  the gov't changed that due to the civil war.  Why did they change that, and why did they add additional amendments?  Once again, the world changed in a way they didn't foresee and that original document didn't stand the test of time in less than a century.  Not to mention they added three additional amendments prior to the one you speak of.  Any more words you wish to put in my mouth before I insert my own foot?

Well I disagree.

George Washington had 14 handwritten copies of the Bill of Rights made, one for Congress and one for each of the original thirteen states:

http://www.usmarshals.gov/history/north_carolina_bill_of_rights.htm

Why do that if it were irrelevant? It was intended from the beginning to apply to the states, but not to override the states' own constitutions if they had granted anything more substantial than the basic rights contained in the BOR. I doubt it truly occurred to the original authors that some states would outright reject federal authority after ratification.

Also, read the original Article VI, Section 2, which states, “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

That was plainly the founders' original intent. They wrote it. The founders simply didn't anticipate state rejection after ratification. An 1833 SCOTUS opinion during the run-up to the civil war, Barron v. Baltimore, provided the stretched logic by which people have argued the constitution and BOR didn't apply to the states. However, the founders never stated that they intended to exempt the states, and indeed their own words indicate the opposite.

[JaxNative68]

It was intended as national law, while still allowing the states to govern themselves.  Each state having their own legislative body, governor and court system.

I believe we are both argueing the same point, but from different angles.  We have agreed that amendments have been made due to unforeseen circumstances or oversights of individual equality.  Our true disagreement is the original intent of the document.  There were many different versions of the constitution based on many different pre-existing governing documents of many pre-existing countries, from the British to the Romans, which in my opinion makes it very hard to distinguish original intent.  I'm going to agree to disagree about original intent.