Actually, since you asked my opinion so nicely, I've always thought that revising the Aritcles would have been more appropriate than forming a New Constitution. However, my statements on the Declaration that started it all stand despite your lack of comprehension of what I was talking about. The South should have been allowed to succeed as was its member States power to do so.
Secondly, it seems you have little idea about why the Bill of Rights was included and why some thought the mere addition of the Bill of Rights would create a threat to protecting liberties (and who is to say the real anti-Federalists were wrong?)
The Bill or Rights states in its pre-amble exactly why it was added. To prevent exactly the type of misconstruction that you advocate. IE; that the States have some power to abrogate Rights that clearly does not exist.
Lastly, it seems you failed to grasp the cynical agreement between Hamilton and Jefferson in regards to nationalizing the debt in exchange for the capital being in DC rather than NY.
Which has pert'near nothing to do with Rights as it relates to the topic at hand.
The Constitution has not been effective in preserving liberty because, as Patrick Henry and George Washington warned, the institutions became corrupt, mostly by Robespierre types like yourself who believe that politics can accomplish anything like 'ending Terrorism' or some other utopian end. Indeed, you even worked for the government in the same posts where you are excommunicating others for not agreeing with you.
Knock it off jackass. How many times do I need to state it that GOVERNMENT always causes these problems? That waffle heads like you, who have NO idea what your Rights really are, just keep blithely giving the local government more and more power to f%ck you in ways you'd scream bloody murder over should the Feds do the same thing.
I volunteered to serve in the military. Yes. And? What of it? Somehow you seem to connect this with some weird form of sympatico with Big Government Socialism or your pet tyrants down at the State Legislature. I fought to protect our Country and our Rights from those who would destroy us. I recieved a paycheck and training. I am drawing no other benefits from it. And? You think you can insult me by denigrating that? You can try, but you'll only make yourself look like the snivelling coward I've been calling you all along.
Fascinating. I have never read such an interpretation. The Bill of Rights places limits on the powers of the Federal Government to emphasize what the federalis could not do. Many said that the mere inclusion of the Bill of Rights would give the federalis and future generations that not only were those the only things the federalis could not do, but they were very concerned that the Judicial Branch would have too much power for interpretation.
Can you link me to the 'folks' you draw your ideas from? I would like to grab a better understanding of this point of view?
You worked for the State, therefore you are inclined to defend the state, that's all. You even claim to have fought to protect these rights but it would seem from your own post that you fought to defend an ineffectual government, no?
I am an anti-Statist and believe all taxation is theft which places me significantly to the Right of you, even at the expense of marginalizing the popularity of my world view.
Wow, reduced to calling me a coward in anonymous cyberspace? LOL
You advocate a policy that involves sending teenage girls from West Virginia to act as human bait for terrorists and you call me a coward?
What is up is down, what is down is up.
One thing is for sure, we both can't be libertarians.