The Preamble was meaningless to Mr. Madison so I'm going to lean with his views versus yours. The BOR is not meaningless, it was intended as a limitation upon the federal government, nothing more. And until the Progressive movement got hold of it that's all it was. Interesting that you don't deny you're advocating the same stance as the early 20th century Progressives. In fact you seem proud of it. Perhaps we should get a group up to ban that 'demon alcohol' again as well.
Is an unborn child a “person,” billbears?
Indeed. However as the Constitution says nothing about it, Mr. Madison (and the Bill of Rights) states where that issue lies. Same place as death penalty cases. With the separate and sovereign states.
But, taken with the enumerated powers, and the protections clealy provided in the Bill of Rights, the Preamble is indispensable in understanding original intent.
And yet you have provided no documentation from the Framers stating the Preamble is indispensable or the existence of an invisible power no one else can see. Matter of fact, Anti-Federalist #12 discusses the argument you're trying to make and an argument the Messrs. Madison, Hamilton, and Jay did their best to alleviate (i.e. ensuring it would not happen). How far 'conservatives' have fallen. To propagate their values arguing for the very thing the Framers ensured us would not, could not, occur.
You should be proud...
You're making that up.
The BOR is not meaningless, it was intended as a limitation upon the federal government, nothing more.
Ridiculous. Why can't you even understand the simple words "Bill of RIGHTS"? While the Bill of RIGHTS most certainly limits the power of the national government, its primary purpose is obvious on its face: To protect the inalienable rights of the people.
And until the Progressive movement got hold of it that's all it was. Interesting that you don't deny you're advocating the same stance as the early 20th century Progressives. In fact you seem proud of it. Perhaps we should get a group up to ban that 'demon alcohol' again as well.
I've never mentioned those things. That's your red herring, not mine.
Indeed. However as the Constitution says nothing about it, Mr. Madison (and the Bill of Rights) states where that issue lies. Same place as death penalty cases. With the separate and sovereign states.
First, I have proved that the unborn are in the Constitution. Like nearly our entire legal and political class today, you're simply ignoring it, and pretending that the Preamble and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments somehow aren't part of the Constitition. How can you claim that an unborn child is a person, and not recognize they are protected under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments? Even the judges that decided Roe understood that.
Second, even if you were correct, which you're not, you are doing exactly what the Ninth Amendment was designed to prevent: Excluding rights simply because they are not spelled out in the document.
Ninth Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
And yet you have provided no documentation from the Framers stating the Preamble is indispensable or the existence of an invisible power no one else can see. Matter of fact, Anti-Federalist #12 discusses the argument you're trying to make and an argument the Messrs. Madison, Hamilton, and Jay did their best to alleviate (i.e. ensuring it would not happen). How far 'conservatives' have fallen. To propagate their values arguing for the very thing the Framers ensured us would not, could not, occur. You should be proud...
Brutus, no. 12
7 Feb. 1788Storing 2.9.150--51
To discover the spirit of the constitution, it is of the first importance to attend to the principal ends and designs it has in view. These are expressed in the preamble, in the following words, viz. "We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution," &c. If the end of the government is to be learned from these words, which are clearly designed to declare it, it is obvious it has in view every object which is embraced by any government. The preservation of internal peace--the due administration of justice--and to provide for the defence of the community, seems to include all the objects of government; but if they do not, they are certainly comprehended in the words, "to provide for the general welfare." If it be further considered, that this constitution, if it is ratified, will not be a compact entered into by states, in their corporate capacities, but an agreement of the people of the United States, as one great body politic, no doubt can remain, but that the great end of the constitution, if it is to be collected from the preamble, in which its end is declared, is to constitute a government which is to extend to every case for which any government is instituted, whether external or internal. The courts, therefore, will establish this as a principle in expounding the constitution, and will give every part of it such an explanation, as will give latitude to every department under it, to take cognizance of every matter, not only that affects the general and national concerns of the union, but also of such as relate to the administration of private justice, and to regulating the internal and local affairs of the different parts.
Even Brutus recognizes my point: That the Preamble was designed to declare the overall purpose of the entire document. Any other interpretation turns logic on its head. And, while Brutus' fears about the courts were most certainly well-founded, as was borne out by later history in which the courts and the Congress have abused the so-called "general welfare" clause, that abuse, that misuse and misunderstanding of the clear meaning of the Preamble, does not negate its true use, its true meaning, in the least.
Hamilton's [naive, IMO] response, in which he argues that we don't need a Bill of Rights and that the Enumerated Powers and the Preamble are sufficient:
Federalist 84
"WE, THE PEOPLE of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Here is a better recognition of popular rights, than volumes of those aphorisms which make the principal figure in several of our State bills of rights, and which would sound much better in a treatise of ethics than in a constitution of government."
You'll notice that Mr. Hamilton skipped over a large portion of it, and went straight to the most important part: ie, "to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."
"Brutus" [Robert Yates?] argued against the Preamble. Hamilton argued against a Bill of Rights. Both lost, in a sense. But, they also both won. We got both.
I'm glad we did.
By the way, "Brutus" eventually accepted the Constitution, with its Preamble, just as Hamilton accepted the Bill of Rights. Too bad you seem to be unwilling to do the same.