Right and you are a prime example of that stupidity.
Inclusion of the Bill of Rights was based on the moral concern of the founders that citizens God given rights could be abused by government. In fact the totality of the Constitution, the BOR's, the DOI and every law passed by every legislature since the founding are and were based on "moral concerns". If that causes you angst, that's a good thing but this really isn't a hard concept to grasp.
Correct definition of the Constitution and the limitations upon the federal government is defined as stupidity. Gotcha. Again, if you will, at no point will you be able to find arguments from the Framers for 'moral concerns' to be defined by law at the federal level. It just was not a consideration as they recognized it to be a right of the states. I realize this may destroy your world view and that of many other 'true conservatives' but it was just not intended.
Inclusion of the Bill of Rights was based on the moral concern of the founders that citizens God given rights could be abused by government
No, it is rather explicit. It was to define the role of the national government.
number of the States having, at the time of adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added
But in no way were they 'moral concerns'. Moral concerns would involve church attendance, marriage, theft, rape, etc. None of which was defined by the federal government (please note theft, rape, murder could plausibly be legislated by the federal government but it would only be in very specific instances under original intent)
every law passed by every legislature since the founding are and were based on "moral concerns". If that causes you angst, that's a good thing but this really isn't a hard concept to grasp.
It causes me no angst at all, although I do appreciate your wish for ill will upon me. What does cause me 'angst' are those that 'feel' morality should be defined at the federal level. Again, listen closely. I have no issue with the separate and sovereign states defining morality within their borders. This is right and correct concerning the Framers. What I have issue with is defining the same morality at the federal level, where it was never intended to be determined