If the Founding Fathers did not define rights, then why is it called the Bill of Rights?
Sorry, Ez2BRepub, but using a word doesn't define it.
It seems to me the Founding Fathers contradicted themselves by not allowing the Congress, alone, to change them but the Congress and enough States to do so.
There's the problem! Congress claims it's merely so-called "interpreting" our rights, whereas in fact, it's radically altering them, which does, indeed, require constitutional amendments.
In my admittedly slightly less than humble opinion, we need to fire Congress en masse, send new people to Washington, D.C. to represent rather than rule us, and make it abundantly clear we expect short term limits.
I didn't say I believe any of that's actually going to happen: merely what we, the people ought to do.
Understand, I have a scientific mind and anything I say is not meant to trash anyone, or cause a fight, I just had a question about the Founders and why they set up an amendment process, when they are supposed to be rights and not changeable. I would like to have other people join the conversation to help clarify, if possible, what I had a problem reconciling, concerning the Founders, rights and the amendment process.
The first part of what you said makes no sense. Using a word does not define it?
The definition of “define” is to state or set forth the meaning of (a word, phrase, etc.).
The Founding Fathers used the word “rights” in the Bill of Rights, they did not say, The Bill of Needs, The Bill of Gov’t Control, etc.
They were clearly defining the meaning.
In the second part of your response, I am not sure if you are agreeing with me that the Founders contradicted themselves.
You are saying that Congress is altering the Bill of Rights, when they do not have the power to do so but can do so, through an amendment process.
Does that not show that the Founders contradicted themselves, as I said before?