[Ohioan]

Your reading additional words into the Bill of Rights does not change their function. If they had been what you say, they would not have been in the form of Amendments, but would have been incorporated into Article IV of the Constitution, or Article I, Section 10, where the protected rights and limitations on the States, respectively, are set forth.

You are simply misconstruing the function of the Amendments. Consider, if you think that the Federal Government was intended to Police the States, why you had an 11th Amendment, soon after the Bill of Rights, which specifically denied the Federal Courts the right to even entertain suits by citizens of other States against any of the States?

Whereas Congress was given specific powers to deal with the intended functions; before the 14th Amendment, Congress was not given any power to enforce what you claim was intended. The Document was much more precisely constructed than your interpretations would imply. You are simply taking ideas out of their proper context.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

[tpaine]

Your reading additional words into the Bill of Rights does not change their function.

Claiming I am "reading additional words into the Bill of Rights" and changing "their function", is ludicrous. Make a specific point, or don't bother.

If they had been what you say, they would not have been in the form of Amendments, but would have been incorporated into Article IV of the Constitution, or Article I, Section 10, where the protected rights and limitations on the States, respectively, are set forth.

Again, you make a supposed 'point' -- "If they had been what you say" -- Without saying what you think or claim I said. - Weird style of argument. Laughable, in fact.

You are simply misconstruing the function of the Amendments. Consider, if you think that the Federal Government was intended to Police the States,

Obviously, I don't "think" that. - Nor do I "misconstrue" function. Your 'arguments' are silly straw men & tar babies.

why you had an 11th Amendment, soon after the Bill of Rights, which specifically denied the Federal Courts the right to even entertain suits by citizens of other States against any of the States? Whereas Congress was given specific powers to deal with the intended functions; before the 14th Amendment, Congress was not given any power to enforce what you claim was intended. The Document was much more precisely constructed than your interpretations would imply. You are simply taking ideas out of their proper context.

This last bit above is nearly indecipherable. -- In any case, your 'debate' tactics leave me no choice but to end this exchange.

- You have abandoned reason, imo.