If the Founding Fathers did not define rights, then why is it called the Bill of Rights? The Bill of Rights serves to protect the natural rights of Liberty and Property. They guarantee a number of personal freedoms by limiting the power of the Gov’t.
I guess what I am trying to reconcile is, that right now, on one hand, because of the Bill of Rights, the Congress does not have the power to infringe/amend/eliminate, etc., any of those rights, like they are trying to do in the Senate/House right now. But with the Congress and enough States the Bill of Rights can be infringed/amended/eliminated, etc.
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.
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.